Acting Out Against Water Related Diseases

Categories of Water-, Sanitation, and Hygiene-related diseases

Waterborne
Caused by the ingestion of water contaminated by human or animal excreta or urine containing pathogenic bacteria or viruses; includes cholera, typhoid, amoebic and bacillary dysentery, and other diarrheal diseases.

Water-based
Caused by the parasites found in the intermediate organisms living in water; includes dracunculiasis, schoistosomiasis, and some other helminths.

Water-related
Caused by microorganisms with life cycles associated with insects that live or breed in water; includes dengue fever, lymphatic filariasis, malaria, onchocerciasis, and yellow fever.

Water Collection and Storage
Caused by contamination that occurs during or after collection,often because of poorly designed, open containers and improper hygiene and handling.

Toxin-related
Caused by toxic bacteria, such as cyanobacteria, which are linked to eutrophication of surface-water bodies; causes gastrointestinal and hepatic illnesses.

Direct Effects:

• Nearly 60% of infant mortality is linkedto infectious diseases, most of them water, sanitation, and hygiene related


• "Diarrhea, the third largest cause of morbidity and the sixth largest cause of mortality."


• "A study conducted by the Pacific Institute estimated that if no action is taken to address the lack of water, sanitation, and hygiene, as many as 135 million preventable deaths will occur by 2020."

Adverse Effects:

• The collection of water is primarily the responsibility of women and children; up to six hours a day can be delegated to meeting this need. As a result children and deprived from schools and women are not given the opportunity to work.


• It limits the ability to grow and water vegetables, depriving the people of essential nutrients needed to fight disease


• Long term affects of diarrheal diseases have been liked to malnutrition and reduced cognitive function in children.

A Shift to Household Technologies

"Lending institutions and national governments have traditionally focused on the implementation of large, centralized treatment systems. Such systems do not serve rural areas where populations are dispersed and the proportion served is less than half that in urban areas. Rapidly growing, unplanned, periurban areas are also not effectively served by centralized systems. Centralized approaches are often plagued by high capital costs, lack of proper operation, and an overreliance on treatment technologies that cannot be afforded or maintained. Given the shortfalls of centralized systems, it is apparent that a variety of options are needed, especially in developing countries, where conditions are challenging. A decentralized approach that relies on household water treatment sanitation technologies may present a viable alternative.

POU treatment (Point of Use). POU treatment offers a locally modified and managed solution in areas where centralized systems are ineffective. The critical advantage of POU treatment is that it provides a barrier to pathogen exposure immediately before consumption. Even when source water is deemed "safe," poor hygiene during collection, storage, and handling of water results in contamination. For example, reduction in diarrheal diseases is doubled when water is treated immediately before use. Therefore, for maintaining the quality of treated water with the home, safe storage is an important complent to POU. An extensive review of POU technologies concluded that "simple, acceptable, low-cost interventions at the household and community level are capable of dramatically improving the microbial quality of household stored water and reducing the attendant risks of diarrheal disease and death. In laboratory studies, POU technologies have demonstrated removal and/or inactivation of pathogens at varying rates. PUR, a flocculent/disinfectant that is sold in individual packets, is the most effective, providing >7 log removal of bacteria and > 4 log of viruses. Chlorine bleach typically achieves only 2 log removal for both bacteria and and viruses"

The article goes onto state that "health. gains from POU techniques will only be realized if treatment is effective in the communities where such technologies are used," also stating that the use of POU treatments have demonstrated a "reduction of diarrhea by 40% for PUR and solar disenfection and by up to 85% for chlorine in places such as Guatemala and India. The results suggest that "although chlorine is less effective in removing bacteria and viruses, it may lead to greater reduction in diarrhea because of economic and cultural advantages relating to low cost, ease of use and its ability to be manufactured locally." In any case, the article gives valid evidence toward a decentralized approach of a means of treating water problems in underdeveloped or slum-like conditions.

Providing individuals with a means of disinfecting their own water sources adheres both to settlement patterns as well as transportation/travel. In doing so, you are eliminating the distanced of travel faced by families in search of viable water sources and are ultimately allowing families to focus on other things besides walking for hours on end. Consequently, issues surrounding distances faced by people living in rural areas are also mediated, where other forms of aid would focus toward urban areas. The issue that arises from this form of technology is identifying how to distribute it to the individuals in need. As was stated in the article, evidence has also shown that chlorine alone can be an effective deterrent of diarrhea, even though it is not as effective in terms of a disinfectant. This is purely based on accessibility rather than viability, something not inherently surprising in an environment where means of transporation are likely sparce. The more viable choice, therefore, may be simply chlorine based products that can easily be manufactured within the area itself.

Bibliography:

Mara, D.D (2003) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for the health of developing nations. Public Health. vol. 117, no 6, 452 - 456.