This is in our own day. Nature could compensate, and even though some wild animals disappeared, and even though forests were cut down, still man's attack was within the competence of nature to defend herself and to compensate. She still had the oceans. She still had large tracts of land. The bacteria and the other microscopic agents were still relatively free to operate. Although man introduced disbalances they were not fatal either to the balance of nature or to himself. Perhaps, unfortunately, for both nature and man, when nature brought in her compensation, man fought back more. For instance, when man was sparsely scattered over the earth he probably had little trouble with infectious diseases. When he conquered nature to the extent that men could live in large populations diseases became apparent.
The microscopic life of nature asserted itself and to meet this man developed hygiene and medicine. So it was that this battle began and has continued and, perhaps, if the rate of development had been kept to what nature could cope with we should have no cause for worry but, unfortunately, in our time particularly—one might say in this century although the beginnings of the process are deep in the past—it has come to the point where man has so attacked nature that he is beating nature's defences and nature, of itself, is not able to maintain the necessary balances. Therefore, man is now threatening to destroy his own environment and the environment of life on this planet.
That sounds a very alarming statement but it is the view of certain scientists who have studied the problem. It is nothing less than this we are facing in discussing the question of pollution. The motion now before us is fundamental in that it deals with the pollution of the waters which can so upset all the balance of nature as to threaten the survival of all our balances.
Last week I mentioned a point which for the sake of completeness I shall briefly mention again. We breathe air every day: our lives and the lives of similar animals depend on breathing air. We take it for granted. We could not sit more than one minute or so in this Chamber if deprived of air; we would be dead. It is very sobering to think that the air we breathe is taking part in a great cycle: we breathe it and other natural users of oxygen use it in this available form and turn it back into the atmosphere in a non-available form as carbon dioxide or something else but nature has marvellously supplied the counterbalance for the requirements of that kind of life in plant life. Green vegetation and the algae of the sea take in the carbon dioxide, reprocess it to put oxygen back into the atmosphere and we all depend on that process. There exists a life cycle in which the oxygen we breathe takes part and it is vital for the maintenance of that oxygen and, therefore, for the maintenance of our air supply for breathing that green plants and algae in the sea carry out their function of absorbing what we have turned the oxygen into and generating from it the oxygen we require. That is the wonderful, universal process of nature.
We now find that pollution of the water in the sea may so threaten oxygen-producing organisms in it that a very significant inroad may be made on the atmosphere's oxygen supply. Couple that with the frightening thought that in our cities and towns and in many ways all over the earth we are destroying much vegetation which plays a similar part and the reality of the danger becomes apparent. Certainly, the need for control and preserving a balance is easily appreciated. That is one aspect of pollution.
I do not want to deal with the whole matter of pollution except in so far as it is relevant to pollution of water but this happens to be at the heart of the problem and must, therefore, be dealt with. The oxygen cycle is only one example of those wonderful cycles which maintain the balances of nature. There are many others. Our agricultural supplies have been much more dependent than we realised on the action of micro-organisms in the soil, of insignificant things like worms and insects and so on. Microscopic life plays its part in the waters also. They are in sensitive balance. The next problem is that what we are putting into the waters is destroying those forms of life which play a part in the balances just as the pollution in the water tends to destroy the oxygen-producing algae in the seas. Nature is again disturbed here and while we pump pollutants with which nature cannot cope into the waters we make the waters more toxie and we kill off natural agencies or destroy natural cycles that would enable nature to cope with our prodigality.
This is what we are up against. I do not wish to delay the House but without going into very much more detail we have here in the pollution of waters a threat to the whole balance of nature and the cycles that nature maintains to keep the various biological species alive and in being. If these cycles breakdown it means death to these species; if they break down completely it would mean death to living things in the very narrow skin in which life is lived in this planet. This is what we must appreciate is involved. When we appreciate the danger of it, aesthetic considerations, the ugliness of tin cans on the roadside and so on, pale into insignificance compared with the reality of the threat we face in this matter.
What is happening to the waters which are necessary for the maintenance of these life cycles? It is very easy to see broadly what is happening. While nature was well able to cope man dumped all his waste over to nature and nature was able to take care of it: it seems as if we cannot do this much longer. Where else can that waste go? Short of firing it into space in rockets—which would not seem to be economically feasible—we cannot in the long run get rid of our own pollution. What goes into the air stays with us in the biosphere and pollutes the whole cymbiosis of the planets.
What we put into the water stays there and, worse, the pollutants, whether of the air or of the waters, enter into a set of cycles that are counter to nature's life-giving cycles. Some of the gases being put into the air—for instance, carbon dioxide—tax the capacity of the plants and algae in the ocean to deal with them, to process them back to oxygen; but we put in elements that are more noxious. These are sulphur compound and lead fumes. Where do these go? Ultimately, they are washed out and enter the waters. Other waste is being put into sewers and this, in turn, goes into the waters. Even if waste is burned, the produce of the burning goes into the water.
The other day I noticed a heap of rubbish burning near the city. Obviously, it had been saturated with oil so that it would burn. There was a mess of pollution going into the atmosphere from that fire. Of course, all such pollution comes back again and, ultimately, goes into the oceans. For practical purposes, the oceans in the past may have provided a sink of unlimited capacity but even in terms of tonnage, the pollution entering the oceans now is significant but, more than that, the subtle small percentage chemicals that make the difference to life are getting into the ocean in significant quantities and polluting it.
What are the pollutants that we must worry about in respect of the waters? First there are the inorganic poisons, mainly lead, sulphur and mercury. These do not go to the bottom of the sea. Recently some fish were barred from the market because they were found to be contaminated with an unacceptable level of mercury, a poison that can act in very small quantities. The threat from lead poisoning is the same.
Then there are the products from agriculture. In the past farmers and fishermen constituted the link between nature and the sophisticated man in the cities. The farmer produced food in a natural way for the community. In so doing he utilised nature's processes. He used natural fertilisers and the natural bacteria of the soil. The fisherman did not interfere with nature. The amount of fish he took from the oceans and the rivers was not enough to upset the balances and the fish were healthy. Now, however, even the farmer and the fisherman, the very last links of humanity with nature, have found themselves in conflict with nature. The farmer is using artificial manures. Of course, he achieves good results in terms of production. These fertilisers are being pressed on him by industry, but he must use them in concentrations that are threatening the microscopic balance of life in the soil he tills and which are polluting waters and threatening certain forms of life. The farmer, too, is using pesticides that are designed to kill: DDT and chlorinated hydrocarbons of all sorts are being used. Their primary effect is the killing of insects but we do not know yet the extent to which that is significant in influencing nature's balances. Whatever may be the question in that respect, there is no question as to the effect of DDT when it gets into the ocean. Already there is significant pollution of the ocean as a result of that manmade compound, a compound that nature did not develop. The damage is being done by compounds that are being developed against nature. Significant levels of this poison have been found in animal and plant life as far away as the Antarctic Ocean.
The fisherman is now using powered boats and contributing inevitably, with the modern mechanical boat, to oil and other pollutants of the waters. Regarding pesticides, it has been proved that bird life in agricultural countries is being affected seriously, probably because of dressings for seeds. However, we are not concerned here on this Bill with the preservation of bird life, so I shall get back to the question of the waters. Sewage in concentrated loads is being channelled into the sea. Animal sewage in reasonable proportions could be dealt with by nature. Nature has provided bacteria and other chemical and biological agencies for dealing with sewage. The problem in connection with sewage, as in the case of fertilisers, is the high concentration at which it is being put in at local points. Animal sewage pollutes local waters more so than the ocean as a whole because of this concentration. It is not only animal sewage that is being channelled into the waters from households but there are also the detergents and other items that are sold in the supermarket for the convenience of the housewife. Also, industrial waste of all kinds is being channelled in together with sewage. There is also the problem of plastics —something that was not in nature's scheme—and there is the all-pervasive problem of oil.
The pollution that results from oil is more serious than merely a question of dirt in the water. The incident regarding the Torrey Canyon caused much anxiety and there is much talk of the pollution of the seas by commercial oil. Oil covers the surface of the water and that is significant in that it covers the natural biological reactions in the surface layers of the sea which are essential, but the trouble concerning oil is that it goes further than that. Oil happens to be a perfect absorbent for many of the other poisons that we are putting into the waters. It is a very fine vehicle for distributing these poisons over the oceans and also of keeping them in the areas where life is threatened.
The last element I wish to deal with is nuclear waste. There is radioactive waste, highly toxic industrial refuse, chemical warfare gases, and waste from munitions. Anything that people want to get rid of is dumped into the sea. How can mankind cope with this problem? Since man has brought this problem upon himself there is the necessity for using his inventive genius and technology to process this dangerous waste which he has created and which he finds Mother Nature can no longer handle for him. This is not only a social problem but an economic one also. It will involve the whole earth. It cannot be solved in any particular area. There is very little we can do even about the purity of our territorial waters. We can try to keep our beaches clean. The areas around our own shores must be kept clean. We must allow as little pollution as possible into the sea.
As was said last week, we are still in a fortunate position in regard to our water supply as compared with others. Now is the time to take precautions and to exercise strict control. We must be careful of what is allowed into our rivers, streams and lakes. By doing so we will keep our own environment clean. We will preserve life in our own area. We will also help mankind. Such a programme will require monetary assistance. Many economic forces are acting in the other direction. While we have still much unpolluted water, we have all seen the warning signs in the River Liffey, the River Blackwater and some of our lakes. Deputy Sir A. Esmonde and Deputy Carter spoke about these problems. There is the problem of silage and of the discharge from piggeries, to say nothing of the local government problems of waste and of the effects of detergents of one kind or another. We must define the problem in practical terms and decide how to cope with it.
Again I should like to stress that this is not just a local problem. It is not a problem of convenience or aesthetics. It is a problem which we ourselves have created in our own particular way. It is part of a problem which involves the survival of ourselves as well as the survival of the rest of mankind.
