the toxic truth - Greenpeace
the toxic truth - Greenpeace the toxic truth - Greenpeace
the toxic truth The dumping of this toxic waste in a developing country that was barely emerging from several years of political turmoil following an armed uprising in 2002, precipitated a political, medical and environmental crisis that stretched the government’s response capacities to the limit. On 28 August 2006, the then Ivorian President, Laurent Gbagbo, set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee to coordinate and manage the emergency response. The scale of the crisis was such that the government also made a number of appeals for international assistance. 202 On 6 September 2006, the Prime Minister at the time, Charles Konan Banny, acknowledged the gravity of the situation by announcing the collective resignation of the government. 203 The following day the President reinstated the Prime Minister, and asked him to form a new government to tackle the crisis. 204 The medical response and impacts on health “ this is the biggest health catastrophe that Côte d’Ivoire has known. ” dR JeAN deNoMAN then Deputy General Director of Health Between 20 and 23 August, medical facilities were confronted with a stream of patients exhibiting similar symptoms, but the medical staff were not yet aware that hazardous waste had been dumped at several locations around Abidjan. The Minister of Health, who was infor- med of the dumping on 23 August, designated two university hospitals (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire or CHUs) to be on alert to treat patients who may have been affected by exposure to the waste. The CHU de Treichville and CHU de Cocody were selected because of their location in relation to the first three dumpsites that were discovered (Vridi, Akouédo and Plateau-Dokui). 205 The Minister also established a committee, made up of various government officials with health-related mandates to manage the health consequences of the toxic waste. A joint press statement was issued by the Ministry for Environment and Forestry and the Ministry of Health, which was broadcast on radio and TV stations on 24 and 25 August 2006, appealing for people who had been affected to seek medical help at the CHUs at Cocody and Treichville. 206 As more dumpsites were discovered, and an increasing number of people began to arrive at medical facilities seeking treatment, the response was expanded. The Ministry of Health increased the number of designated treatment centres, and a total of 32 medical centres backed by 20 mobile medical units were made available to treat people who had been exposed to the waste. 207 The government brought in medical personnel from other parts of the country to help with the emergency response, and also involved private medical facilities in treating people who had been exposed to the waste. UN agencies and the Red Cross provided assistance, and international aid was received in the form of medicines and the help of specialists, including experts from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and experts on the environment and hazardous waste who were part of the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team. 208 The medical emergency caused by the dumping placed a huge strain on the country’s resources. By 8 September 2006, 1,000 people a day were seeking treatment at medical facilities, reporting symptoms linked to exposure to the toxic waste. This went up to 7,991 people a day at the peak of the medical emergency (around the middle of September 2006). 209 At this point, the World Health Organization (WHO) noted: “ the overwhelming numbers of people seeking medical attention because of this chemical waste are severely disrupting medical services and have resulted in shortages of 210 medicines. ” 53 Chapter 5
54 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpeAce netherlAnds Chapter 5 How many people were affected? It is difficult to get a complete picture of the number of people whose health was affected by exposure to the toxic waste. The publicly available data is largely compiled from analyzing the forms that the Ministry of Health asked all medical facilities to complete. These forms (or fiches d’enquête) required medical personnel to record the personal data and symptoms of people who had been treated at their facilities for exposure to the toxic waste. According to the National Institute for Public Hygiene (INPH), based on an analysis of survey forms, “103,116 consultations were registered between 20 August 2006 to 31 January 2007”. The vast majority of these consultations (97.6 per cent) were conducted in September and October 2006. It should also be noted that the provision for free medical treatment only continued until the end of October 2006. 211 The INPH, working with clinicians, epidemiologists, biologists and the consultants at the WHO and CDC, developed a classification system of “suspected”, “likely” and “confirmed” cases of poisoning. 212 These categories were based on whether the patient displayed the symptoms identified on a list of clinical symptoms, along with information about exposure. A number of the patients – 7.4 per cent (7,433 people) – could not be classified because there was not sufficient information about their symptoms. The INPH study therefore focused on the 93,880 patients for whom survey data existed. Of these, 46 per cent (43,492 people) were classified as confirmed cases of poisoning by toxic waste, 26 per cent (24,825 people) as likely cases of poisoning by toxic waste, and 27 per cent (25,563 people) as suspected of having been poisoned by toxic waste. 213 According to the INPH study, 82 people were hospitalized because of poisoning caused by the toxic waste, 214 of whom 31 were treated in the paediatrics department. 215 The reasons for hospitalization varied from gastrointestinal and other digestive problems, dyspnoea and other respiratory problems, neurological problems and other more severe manifestations of the symptoms noted above. 216 The longest period of hospitalization recorded was 12 days; the average was 2.5 days. 217 While the medical forms constitute an important source of data, they have several limitations. They were only created at the end of August and, in some medical facilities, only came into operation in the first week of September, 218 so there are gaps in the information about patients who were treated prior to this date. A doctor involved in the medical response told Amnesty International: “[T]he first people seeking consultation after 21 August – often the most ill, with nosebleeds and other serious symptoms – were not recorded on the fiches.” 219 The same doctor also noted that, in some instances, the survey forms were not filled in fully or at all when doctors were under pressure to see many patients or when the medical centres ran out of forms. 220 An additional problem with the data collection was that not everyone whose health was affected sought treatment at a health facility. The Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques en Côte d’Ivoire (CSRS), conducted a survey of 809 households in areas close to the dumping sites. The survey was conducted between 9 October and 28 December 2006. Out of a total of 2,013 people surveyed who presented symptoms of exposure to the waste, only 64 per cent (1,297 people) sought treatment in a health care centre. 221
- Page 3 and 4: 2 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpe
- Page 5 and 6: 4 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpe
- Page 7 and 8: 6 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpe
- Page 9 and 10: 8 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpe
- Page 11 and 12: 10 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 13 and 14: 12 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 15 and 16: 14 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 17 and 18: 16 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 19 and 20: 18 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 21 and 22: 20 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 23 and 24: 22 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 25 and 26: 24 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 27 and 28: 26 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 29 and 30: 28 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 31 and 32: 30 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 33 and 34: 32 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 35 and 36: 34 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 37 and 38: 36 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 39 and 40: 38 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 41 and 42: 40 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 43 and 44: 42 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 45 and 46: 44 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 47 and 48: 46 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 49 and 50: 48 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 51 and 52: 50 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 53: 52 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 57 and 58: 56 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 59 and 60: 58 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 61 and 62: 60 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 63 and 64: 62 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 65 and 66: 64 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 67 and 68: gon d 66 Amnesty internAtionAl And
- Page 69 and 70: 68 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 71 and 72: 70 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 73 and 74: 72 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 75 and 76: 74 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 77 and 78: 76 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 79 and 80: 78 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 81 and 82: 80 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 83 and 84: 82 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 85 and 86: 84 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 87 and 88: 86 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 89 and 90: 88 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 91 and 92: 90 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 93 and 94: 92 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 95 and 96: 94 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 97 and 98: 96 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 99 and 100: 98 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenp
- Page 101 and 102: 100 Amnesty internAtionAl And green
- Page 103 and 104: 102 Amnesty internAtionAl And green
<strong>the</strong> <strong>toxic</strong> <strong>truth</strong><br />
The dumping of this <strong>toxic</strong> waste in a developing<br />
country that was barely emerging from several<br />
years of political turmoil following an armed<br />
uprising in 2002, precipitated a political, medical<br />
and environmental crisis that stretched <strong>the</strong><br />
government’s response capacities to <strong>the</strong> limit.<br />
On 28 August 2006, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>n Ivorian President,<br />
Laurent Gbagbo, set up an Inter-Ministerial<br />
Committee to coordinate and manage <strong>the</strong><br />
emergency response. The scale of <strong>the</strong> crisis was<br />
such that <strong>the</strong> government also made a number<br />
of appeals for international assistance. 202<br />
On 6 September 2006, <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister at<br />
<strong>the</strong> time, Charles Konan Banny, acknowledged<br />
<strong>the</strong> gravity of <strong>the</strong> situation by announcing <strong>the</strong><br />
collective resignation of <strong>the</strong> government. 203<br />
The following day <strong>the</strong> President reinstated <strong>the</strong><br />
Prime Minister, and asked him to form a new<br />
government to tackle <strong>the</strong> crisis. 204<br />
The medical response<br />
and impacts on health<br />
“ this is <strong>the</strong> biggest health catastrophe that<br />
Côte d’Ivoire has known. ”<br />
dR JeAN deNoMAN<br />
<strong>the</strong>n Deputy General Director of Health<br />
Between 20 and 23 August, medical facilities<br />
were confronted with a stream of patients<br />
exhibiting similar symptoms, but <strong>the</strong> medical<br />
staff were not yet aware that hazardous waste<br />
had been dumped at several locations around<br />
Abidjan. The Minister of Health, who was infor-<br />
med of <strong>the</strong> dumping on 23 August, designated<br />
two university hospitals (Centre Hospitalier<br />
Universitaire or CHUs) to be on alert to treat<br />
patients who may have been affected by exposure<br />
to <strong>the</strong> waste. The CHU de Treichville and<br />
CHU de Cocody were selected because of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
location in relation to <strong>the</strong> first three dumpsites<br />
that were discovered (Vridi, Akouédo and<br />
Plateau-Dokui). 205 The Minister also established<br />
a committee, made up of various government<br />
officials with health-related mandates to manage<br />
<strong>the</strong> health consequences of <strong>the</strong> <strong>toxic</strong> waste.<br />
A joint press statement was issued by <strong>the</strong><br />
Ministry for Environment and Forestry and <strong>the</strong><br />
Ministry of Health, which was broadcast on<br />
radio and TV stations on 24 and 25 August<br />
2006, appealing for people who had been<br />
affected to seek medical help at <strong>the</strong> CHUs at<br />
Cocody and Treichville. 206<br />
As more dumpsites were discovered, and an<br />
increasing number of people began to arrive<br />
at medical facilities seeking treatment, <strong>the</strong><br />
response was expanded. The Ministry of<br />
Health increased <strong>the</strong> number of designated<br />
treatment centres, and a total of 32 medical<br />
centres backed by 20 mobile medical units<br />
were made available to treat people who<br />
had been exposed to <strong>the</strong> waste. 207 The<br />
government brought in medical personnel<br />
from o<strong>the</strong>r parts of <strong>the</strong> country to help with<br />
<strong>the</strong> emergency response, and also involved<br />
private medical facilities in treating people<br />
who had been exposed to <strong>the</strong> waste. UN<br />
agencies and <strong>the</strong> Red Cross provided<br />
assistance, and international aid was received<br />
in <strong>the</strong> form of medicines and <strong>the</strong> help of<br />
specialists, including experts from <strong>the</strong> US<br />
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention<br />
(CDC), and experts on <strong>the</strong> environment and<br />
hazardous waste who were part of <strong>the</strong> UN<br />
Disaster Assessment and Coordination<br />
(UNDAC) team. 208<br />
The medical emergency caused by <strong>the</strong><br />
dumping placed a huge strain on <strong>the</strong> country’s<br />
resources. By 8 September 2006, 1,000<br />
people a day were seeking treatment at<br />
medical facilities, reporting symptoms linked<br />
to exposure to <strong>the</strong> <strong>toxic</strong> waste. This went up to<br />
7,991 people a day at <strong>the</strong> peak of <strong>the</strong> medical<br />
emergency (around <strong>the</strong> middle of September<br />
2006). 209 At this point, <strong>the</strong> World Health<br />
Organization (WHO) noted:<br />
“ <strong>the</strong> overwhelming numbers of people<br />
seeking medical attention because of this<br />
chemical waste are severely disrupting medical<br />
services and have resulted in shortages of<br />
210<br />
medicines. ”<br />
53<br />
Chapter 5