Camelford water pollution incident

On 6 July 1988 a relief tanker driver working for ISC Chemicals, a Bristol-based subsidiary of Rio Tinto Zinc, arrived at Lowermoor Water Treatment Works on Bodmin Moor and found it unmanned. Being unfamiliar with the location, he had been given a key by another driver and told simply that "once inside the gate, the aluminium sulphate tank is on the left". However, the key fitted almost every lock used by the South West Water Authority (SWWA). After twenty minutes looking for the correct tank he tried the key on a manhole cover and when it unlocked believed he had accessed the correct tank. The maximum recorded aluminium concentration was 620 milligrams per litre compared with the maximum concentration admissible at the time by the European Community of 0.2 milligrams per litre. ==Response==

For several days the water authority insisted the water was safe, and should be mixed with orange juice to disguise the taste of the as yet unknown contaminant. One customer who telephoned the authority the day after the contamination was told "there had been some acidity, but the water was perfectly safe to drink," and was no more harmful than lemon juice. On 14 July 1988 the authority sent a circular letter to all customers "asserting that the water from the treatment works was of the right alkalinity and was safe to use and drink." Within two days, the authority suspected the source of the contamination was the erroneous delivery, which was confirmed on 12 July when the driver was asked to return to the treatment works. However, it was not until ten days later on 22 July that the authority's chairman Keith Court authorised a public notice, containing the first mention of the aluminium sulphate, to be published in the sports section of a local newspaper, the Western Morning News. Stephens stated that after the site meeting where he confirmed he had delivered the chemical to the wrong tank he was told by the authority "not to mention it to anyone else". The SWWA district manager, John Lewis, said they had realised within 48 hours that aluminium sulphate was the likely cause of the contamination, but Lewis said he had been instructed by Leslie Nicks, the head of operations, not to tell the public. Douglas Cross, a consultant biologist based in Camelford, tested the water and found that it contained "not only aluminium sulphate but other noxious substances, too. As the acidic liquid travelled from the plant into people's homes, it corroded the copper pipes and their soldered joints, made of zinc and lead." The contamination was compounded by the failure of the authority to carry out the required six-monthly cleaning of the tank, which had not been cleaned for three years, leading to a build up of sludge. A month after the contamination, Michael Waring at the Department of Health (DH) wrote to every doctor in Cornwall saying that, "although he had no detailed information on what was exactly in the water or how much people might have drunk, he could assure them that no lasting ill effects would result." G. K. Matthews, a senior toxicologist at the DH, suggested a team of medical experts should be sent to the area immediately, but a month later said he had been "overruled". The National Union of Public Employees said that the procedure by which the driver had access to the site was common through the region and that they believed this was connected with reduced staffing levels and privatisation plans. They added that they were concerned about the three-week delay in reporting what had happened, and that SWWA district manager John Lewis had been "instructed at a very high level to say nothing". Lewis (not a member of the union) had been dismissed; the union said, "To single him out is unfair." ==Reports and inquiries==

In August 1988 a highly critical report by Dr John Lawrence, a senior ICI scientist and non-executive member of the water authority, blamed lax procedures. He also criticised communication failures which kept information from the public. In 1989 the LIHAG reported that there was no convincing evidence of a harmful build-up of aluminium and that there was no increase in ill health from poisoned water. A further enquiry by the same group in 1991 acknowledged the affair had caused "real suffering" in the community. When the Clayton report was released in July 1989, it caused "outrage in Camelford and wide disbelief in the scientific community." One section was later amended to read "alarming statements by pseudo-scientists" rather than "...by some scientists". In November 2000 the Environmental Law Centre prepared a petition to the European Parliament calling for a Brussels-based inquiry. The investigation was to be undertaken by the newly formed Lowermoor Subgroup (LSG) consisting of scientific and health experts and local resident representatives, chaired by Frank Woods, a professor of medicine at the University of Sheffield. Its remit was to advise on whether the incident had caused, or was expected to cause, long-term harm to human health and examine whether the existing programme of monitoring and research into the human health effects was sufficient. 2005 draft report A draft report, published on 26 January 2005, was inconclusive, saying that the long-term health effects on the population were still unknown and that there was insufficient scientific information available to determine whether the health problems being experienced were caused by the contamination. Woods called for further studies and said: "We will be putting the strongest possible case to the minister. I believe carrying out that work is important, it is not something which should be dropped and pushed aside." 2013 final report The final report was published in April 2013, and concluded that it was unlikely that the exposure to chemicals could have caused long-term health problems. Key findings of the report include: • there is no evidence that the combination of metals which occurred as a result of the incident could have caused delayed health effects • there was an increase in childhood infections in the area, but this increase occurred before the pollution incident • a study of cancer incidence and mortality showed that there was no increase in cancer incidence in the area after the pollution incident • a dermatologist investigated skin and nail problems reported by individuals affected by the incident, and reported that the problems are similar to those experienced by the general population • there is no evidence that the contaminants can cause joint or muscle pain and/or swelling, and these complaints are common in the general population • a Camelford resident who died of severe cerebral amyloid angiopathy was found to have higher than normal aluminium concentrations in the brain during an autopsy. However samples from the brain of a patient with similar neuropathology but unknown aluminium exposure found similar higher than usual concentrations. Research commissioned by the coroner compared 60 postmortem brains and found no correlation between aluminium or iron concentrations and the level of congophilic angiopathy or senile plaques ==Health effects==

Short-term A diverse array of short-term health effects was reported by members of the public who either drank the contaminated water or came into contact with it while bathing. These included: • urinary complaints, • blistering and peeling of skin, • hair turning blue or green, • diarrhoea and vomiting • joint pains. Long-term A 1999 report in the British Medical Journal concluded that some victims had suffered "considerable damage" to their brain function. This contradicted the 1991 LIHAG report telling residents that their symptoms were due to anxiety. The study was led by a consultant nephrologist at John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, and was the first large-scale clinical study of the affected residents. The report stated that their symptoms were similar to those of Alzheimer's disease, which has also been linked with large quantities of aluminium accumulating in the brain. Although the study was carried out in 1991, its publication was delayed by the ongoing litigation between SWWA and the victims. Victims have reported: • fatigue, • fibromyalgia, • premature ageing, • loss of short-term memory, and • multiple chemical sensitivity. Seven months after the contamination, one victim underwent a bone biopsy which "found a ring of aluminium like the rings you see in trees" that could not have resulted from normal aluminium absorption. Carol Cross In 2006 a post-mortem inquest into the death of Carol Cross at age 58, who was exposed to the contaminated drinking water aged 44, showed that her brain contained 23 micrograms of aluminium per gram of brain, compared to the normal brain levels of 0–2 micrograms per gram. Her death was caused by a form of early-onset beta amyloid angiopathy, a cerebro-vascular disease usually associated with Alzheimer's, which could be connected to the abnormally high level of aluminium in her brain. Michael Rose, the West Somerset Coroner, said of the findings: "Further research will be needed before the significance of the elevated brain aluminium concentration in this case can be clarified. A scientific report on the case has been submitted for publication." Rose had adjourned the inquests for Cross and Neal pending further studies, but in 2008 said the Government had refused "to either finance or assist" research to test the hypothesis of a link between exposure to aluminium and congophilic amyloid angiopathy. He said this research was necessary to determine the consequences of the deceased having such a high level of aluminium. He later sought support from Somerset County Council so that the work could go ahead and once more adjourned the inquest into the death of Carol Cross, although Neal's inquest went ahead. In July 2009 Rose announced that the inquest into Cross's death would resume in November 2010. Rose said that "ongoing medical research would not be completed until late summer" 2010. He explained "This research is necessary to prove whether or not the high level of aluminium in Mrs Cross's brain causing her death through beta amyloid angiopathy (a form of cerebrovascular disease) on 19 February 2004, could be attributed to the aluminium sulphate placed in the public water supply at Lowermoor treatment works on 6 July 1988. This is the last adjournment I am able to agree and the inquest will commence on Monday 1 November 2010 at Taunton." As a result of their evidence the inquest was again adjourned to allow South West Water Authority time to seek its own expert evidence. Carol Cross's inquest was finally completed in March 2012. The coroner returned a narrative verdict recording the circumstances without attributing the cause, in which he said the water supply company, South West Water Authority had been "gambling with as many as 20,000 lives" when they failed to inform the public about the poisoning for 16 days, a delay he called unacceptable. An expert said at the inquest that the levels of aluminium in her brain were "beyond belief". Rose stated: "I found there was a deliberate policy to not advise the public of the true nature until some 16 days after the occurrence of the incident," and that "[T]he failure of the authority to visit every house after the incident to advise them to thoroughly flush their systems [w]as a serious dereliction of duty. I can say that the incident may either have contributed to or possibly caused Mrs Cross's death, but I do not have sufficient evidence to say so conclusively." ==Legal actions against South West Water Authority==

In 1991 the South West Water Authority was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £25,000 costs at Exeter Crown Court for supplying water likely to endanger public health. The authority paid at least £123,000 to settle almost 500 initial compensation claims and in 1997 a further 148 victims accepted out-of-court damages totalling almost £400,000, approved by a High Court judge sitting in Truro. The settlements ranged from £680 to £10,000. Some later claimed they were "railroaded" into accepting the out-of-court settlements after being told that their legal aid funding would be withdrawn if they continued with the lawsuit. Cross later said: "The official medical claim from the health authority was that there was no known pathway for aluminium to be absorbed into the body. I would argue that this was a misrepresentation of scientific facts, however it was accepted by the judge [and he] instructed the jury that medical damages could not be awarded. The victims therefore received negligible compensation. This alone is adequate reason for a judicial review, since it resulted in a miscarriage of justice for the victims." ==Allegations of a cover-up==

On 13 December 2007 Michael Rose announced that, in light of "a possible attempt to initially suppress the seriousness of the incident, I am asking the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall to hand me evidence gathered at the time of the original investigation," and for the chief constable to appoint a senior detective "to look into the allegations of a possible cover-up." At the time of the incident the water industry was about to be privatised by the Conservative government of the day; a letter written from a water official to Michael Howard, then Minister of State for Water and Planning, emerged which stated that a police investigation into the poisoning incident was viewed as "very distracting" and that any subsequent prosecution of South West Water would also "be totally unhelpful to privatisation... and render the whole of the water industry unattractive to the City". The Western Morning News, using a Freedom of Information Act request, uncovered a briefing note to the then Environment Minister, Nicholas Ridley, warning: "Those of the South West board with a commercial background are deeply concerned by the investigation." Tyler said "I can't think of any comparable accident or mistake anywhere in Britain, particularly one involving what was a government agency, where there was no attempt to investigate what went wrong and why." In 2001 Environment Minister Michael Meacher claimed that the Government feared what an unrestricted inquiry might find, and that "There was then a great deal of shenanigans about the terms of reference and fighting at all levels in order to limit the ambit of the committee to get the result they wanted. This inquiry was always potentially hugely damaging and hugely worrying to the establishment in terms of the way they handled the incident and clearly there are elements that want to shut it down." No named individuals were ever prosecuted. The national water industry was sold, under the Conservative government, for £3.59 billion, with the sale of South West Water Authority raising around £300 million. ==See also==