|
Jellyfish, fireworks, and the follies of the rationalisation of development zones – it’s a mad summer alright, and Prof. Victor Axiak explains why
As cracker shells rock the sky to commemorate the saints, the European Commission deems some of our beaches unfit for swimming and a menacing army of stinging jellyfish invade our shores, Victor Axiak gives a scientific antidote for the summer madness.
 Prof Victor Axiak does not mince his words in criticising the first act of summer madness – the proposed extension of development zones.
But when it comes to a report damning the authorities on the state of our beaches, Prof Victor Axiak does not join the band of Europhiles bashing the Maltese authorities. According to the European Commission’s Bathing Water Report for 2005, Malta has failed to sufficiently sample and report the water quality of 46 of the 87 bathing spots it was meant to monitor last year and of the 41 that were actually sampled, six were found not to have met European Union minimum thresholds on bathing water cleanliness.
The bathing spots which did not meet EU minimum standards were Sliema’s Exiles and Ghar id-Dud beaches, the left-hand side of St George’s Bay, the right-hand side of Xlendi Bay, the area near the Marsascala waterpolo pitch, and the beach at the bottom of Wilga Street in Paceville.
Prof Axiak, who has carried out similar tests in the past describes the report as “a farce wrapped in another farce.”
He explains that according to the EU’s directive there are five mandatory tests, which have to be performed, two of which are the most important. The most important of these tests deal with the presence of dangerous bacteria. Malta has performed these tests in all 87 beaches and all of these were found fit for bathing.
Apart from these two essentials tests the EU also order three physio-chemical tests. One of them consists in actually smelling water to check if it smells of Phenol. The second test involves shaking water in a test tube to check whether the water contains foam deriving from detergents. The third test is to visually check whether the water has ‘surface sheen’ – the rainbow coloured glaze typical of polluted waters.
“These are the tests the EU is requesting – tests which almost anyone can do. It is the bacteriological tests which are the most important, the physio-chemical tests are just finicky details.”
But unfortunately according to the professor the EU is more interested in the finicky details than in what really matters for our beaches to remain clean. “All of our 87 beaches reached the mandatory level for the bacteriological and around 85 per cent reached the most stringent levels… What really matters is to establish whether microbes are present in the water.”
Axiak also blames the media for blowing up the EU commission’s report. “Unfortunately due to our political frame of mind we are conditioned to think that everything that the EU says is good. But this is not the case.”
According to Axiak the EU’s main interest is standardisation and this means applying the same yardstick to every particular circumstance. “The worst mistake would be to rest on our laurels simply because we are fulfilling the EU’s demands.”
Axiak argues that although the European Union was unfair in lambasting Malta in its report, we have enough reasons to be concerned about the state of our beaches. Prof Axiak shows me the figures of nitrates and phosphates for 2004. Most of the figures are not even quoted because they are below the EU’s threshold mark. This means that using the EU’s yardstick we do not have an adequate way of measuring the increase or decrease of nitrates in our waters.
“Basically this means that the tests we’re doing are inadequate for our seas. We are therefore doing tests which are irrelevant to our situation... In this way we can’t monitor our seas from year to year simply because we are doing the wrong tests… what needs to be done is to adapt the EU’s demands to our needs.”
And while the EU insists on petty tests, it does not foresee tests on very serious phenomena like harmful algal blooms – microscopic plants found in polluted waters especially where drainage seeps.
“These diadem-shaped algae are invisible to the naked eye but sometimes they give some red colour to the water. These can be very harmful to people, causing diarrhoea through shellfish poisoning. They could also have more serious consequences like amnesic and paralytic shellfish poisoning. We cannot just say that we are not doing these tests simply because the EU does not ask for these.”
Although the beaches can be fit for swimming as far as bacteria are concerned, the same cannot be said of the menacing army of jellyfish, which have already stung a number of unlucky swimmers. But the jellyfish phenomenon still defies scientific explanations.
“The truth is that we don’t know enough about jellyfish,” admits Axiak. According to the professor, jellyfish are very opportunistic creatures who can adapt themselves by changing their diet. “If there is a scarcity of one type of food they turn to another, and they are extremely adaptable.”
But jellyfish blooms are not a modern phenomenon, which can be explained by pollution, as blooms have been reported for the last 300 years. The most plausible explanation according to Axiak is that jellyfish blooms can be due to unusually warm winters.
“A slight climatic variation could trigger a disproportionate effect on the number of jellyfish. What we can perhaps say with some certainty is that this phenomenon is on the increase.”
Is this increase due to the decrease in the populations of predators who eat them? “Turtles and several other species are known to eat jellyfish but it is difficult to say that these blooms are due to a decrease in population of these other species. How would you explain that these blooms used to happen 200-300 years ago?”
Although we can’t understand them yet, they surely have an impact. Apart from damaging tourism and health, jellyfish are harmful to the ecosystem. “Just look at the enormous quantities of jellyfish, sometimes you can’t even pass through a swarm of jellyfish with a small boat! This large biomass consumes available nutrients. All the food that’s going into this large biomass is food taken from other species.”
So is there any way of how to control them? The first rule is knowing your enemy. “To control them we have to understand them, to learn about them, to know them. In the Balearic Islands they are trying to control them by going out to sea scooping them with nets but this is just a superficial exercise aimed at reassuring bathers.”
In reality we are still disarmed against the stings of one of the oldest and most successful species on planet earth. “In truth there is very little we can do, even if you try to scoop them out, the jellyfish is ‘broken’ to pieces but the stinging cells remain active. Even if you touch a piece of jellyfish on the beach, you will get stung.”
The only reliable precaution is simply not to jump in the water when a jellyfish is in sight. “If you see that there are jellyfish, you just shouldn’t jump in the water. A jellyfish can have tentacles reaching between 5-10 metres. So by the time you see a jellyfish five metres away from you, its tentacles could be just about to sting you.”
But summer is not just about fun at sea. For many the village festa is the most important event in the year. A report just published by the Archdiocese’s Environment Commission, chaired by Prof Axiak, says that some fireworks explosions have surpassed all acceptable limits, sometimes peaking at 130 decibels, louder than the sounds emitted by a Boeing 747 Jumbo during take-off.
According to the study, cracker shells (murtali tal-beraq) are four times more powerful than colour shells (murtali tal-kulur) and nearly twice as powerful as maroons (bombi) and the opening barrage (bombi tas-salut). The commission is calling for regulations that would set limits on the different kinds of shells that can be let off at particular hours, as well as the noise levels permissible.
So why not just ban the cracker shells and let everyone enjoy the rest? Axiak disagrees with such an approach.
“I can understand that excesses annoy people and the first reaction would perhaps be, ‘ok, let’s ban everything’, but I think it is this that we should avoid.”
What Axiak is proposing is that each feast should have a limited quota of cracker shells. Yet the results of the study on the sound levels emanated from eight feasts in 2005 are alarming. Although most of the sounds generated by fireworks fall below the level, which can be harmful to a person’s health, below the 100-decibel mark which is akin to the noise of jack hammer, there were cases which exceeded the 110, 115 and 120-decibel mark.
According to Axiak there is no clear safe decibel limit. “It very much depends on the person involved. If the person has been exposed for a long time to loud noises there is the risk that the damage is higher – as it’s accumulative.” No decibel limit is set in local legal notices – or even in most regulations abroad.
But there are a few countries that have a safe threshold limit and Axiak thinks that it would be a good idea to do likewise. “Whether the limit should be 110, 115 or 120 is still a matter of discussion but it is important to set a limit.”
The present regulations on fireworks already stipulate the maximum size of the petard. In most cases it is the size of the petard, which determines the amount of noise it emits.
“But it is impossible for the police to go around Malta and Gozo with their inch-tape to measure each and every petard. Therefore, it makes more sense if you have a reader to check the sound from the receiving end. It is easier to determine who is exceeding the acceptable limits in this way. That is one of the recommendations we are proposing.”
But what sort of harm can result from exposure to high noise levels? “When the ear is exposed to a loud noise which peaks slowly, the ear can adapt to protect itself before the climax is reached. On the other hand in the case of a ‘sudden impact noise’ like that of a shell cracker, the damage can be greater even if the impact is sudden, brief and unexpected. As a result some cells in the ear die out and the damage is permanent as these cells cannot be regenerated”.
What is clear is that when someone is exposed suddenly to 120 decibels of noise there is a risk that cells start to die out, and hearing is impaired.
Still, despite his criticism, Axiak has a high opinion of the amateur chemists who deal with the deadly chemicals. “Frankly speaking they live to make fireworks. We met someone who was asked to leave Malta in order to work in making sound effects at Hollywood. He turned down this well-paid job out of love for the festa.”
According to Axiak it is not the producers who cause most problems but the fanatics who hang around them as the festa approaches. “The producers are not happy with excesses and they are at the forefront to demand greater controls on abuse. I think the problem is not coming from the genuine lovers of fireworks. The problem lies with those people who hang around these producers when the feast is approaching. These are the people one can control least… most of the unnecessary rivalry comes from them.”
But despite the good intentions of the producers, does it make sense to trust the dangerous cocktail of chemicals in the hands of amateurs? According to Axiak the 50 people, the so-called mustaccuni tal-mestier, do not need lessons on this as they are the people who are most irritated by the excesses and are aware on the need of technical preparation.
The report itself states that they are handling up to 200 tonnes of chemicals, which can be hazardous.
“They themselves are often amongst the first to acknowledge that they need in-house training and courses on how to improve their methods. But one has to understand that this is artisan work at its best, it is not just a technical job… It is quite common that some producers do not reveal all their ingredients. Still it is a fact that the more amateurish the approach the greater the risk that people get killed or injured.”
Malta’s accident rate speaks for itself. “It is calculated that in Malta we have around 14 accidents for every 1 million persons. Estonia, Greece and Ireland have only 1-2 incidents per million inhabitant.” And according to Axiak this is linked to the greater incidence of incidents related to fireworks.
The summer has commenced with the government pressing on to include more lands in the development zones.
The church commission chaired by Victor Axiak has expressed its concern over the government’s proposal to alter the development boundaries, saying such an exercise would be detrimental to the country’s environmental and natural resources. The government rebutted saying that the church commission was not offering solutions to the existent anomalies, which resulted from the sale of church-owned lands before 1988.
Axiak is aware of the anomalies and injustices mentioned by the government but insist that the commission had also come up with solutions. Offering lands within zones, which are committed for development, could redress these anomalies. He also refers to the country stock of vacant properties. “Do we really have to issue permits for building on ‘virgin’ land?” asks Axiak.
“You can have problems like a couple who bought a plot of land but have no building permit… that’s a problem, but how many such cases do we have? Can’t we find solutions for these couples? Can’t we offer something which is already available? To solve injustices we shouldn’t cause more damage to the environment.”
He also adds that the commission was addressing their concern to everyone including ecclesiastical authorities.
But is the commission not part of the Church? “Whenever the Environmental Commission always gives a draft of an opinion paper to the Curia and the pastoral secretariat before it is published, they analyse it and they send their opinion and then we publish it. Yes we can say that the opinion expressed there is the opinion of the Church.”
But he also adds that since the Commission started working in 2003, the Church never censored them.
Additional reporting,
Gilbert Calleja
|
