1 in 3 of Punjab's groundwater samples contains uranium beyond safe limits, Rajya Sabha told
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Punjab has long struggled with groundwater contamination, often linked to industrial discharge, agricultural runoff, and poorly managed waste disposal systems. Such pollutants can cause severe health complications ranging from chronic illnesses to irreversible organ damage.
In a written reply to MP Swati Maliwal in the Rajya Sabha on July 28, the Union ministry of state for jal shakti reported that 32.6% of groundwater samples tested in Punjab exceeded the permissible uranium limit of 0.03 mg/L—the highest contamination rate recorded among all tested parameters.
In comparison, 10.7% of samples in Delhi crossed the same threshold.
Elevated uranium levels in drinking water are known to cause kidney damage and other long-term health issues.
Out of 908 samples analysed in Punjab, 296 contained uranium beyond the permissible limit. In addition, 13.8% of samples had fluoride levels above the safe limit of 1.5 mg/L, linked to ailments such as arthritis, infertility, hypertension, neurotoxicity, and a higher risk of skeletal cancer.
Long-term exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and lungs.
Out of 922 samples, 12.6% exceeded the nitrate limit of 45 mg/L, 4.8% were contaminated with arsenic beyond the 0.01 mg/L threshold, while 6.7% of samples showed electrical conductivity above 3000 µS/cm at 25°C, indicating high salinity levels in groundwater.
These alarming findings come even as Punjab was declared 'Har Ghar Jal' in April 2023, with the state reporting functional household tap water connections (FHTCs) for all 34.27 lakh rural households across 11,977 villages.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
According to the ministry, under the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) guidelines, states and Union territories are required to take corrective action in cases of major water quality contamination. This includes alerting the health department for mitigation and initiating both short-term and long-term measures, particularly in cases involving uranium, arsenic, fluoride, or bacteriological contamination.
Punjab govt has informed the Centre that remedial steps are initiated whenever contamination beyond permissible limits is detected—starting with immediate relief measures and followed by sustainable, long-term solutions.
The Centre has also advised all states, including Punjab, to plan and implement piped water supply schemes based on alternative safe sources for villages facing water quality issues. Under JJM, 10% of total fund allocation is weighted towards populations residing in chemically contaminated habitations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Soldier's refusal of surgery can't cost him disability pension: Punjab and Haryana high court
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that if Army decides that a soldier's choice to forgo surgery doesn't affect his disability rating, the authorities cannot later use that refusal to deny him a disability pension. A division bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari passed this order while dismissing a petition filed by the central govt, which had challenged a Feb 13, 2023, order of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Chandigarh to grant disability pension to a retired soldier, Havildar Banta Singh. Counsel for central govt challenged the order on the limited ground that the Release Medical Board (RMB) felt that the disability suffered by the soldier could be cured through a surgical procedure, but he had refused to consent to it. Once that be so, AFT is not justified in granting relief, the Centre contended. Opposing the Centre's plea, the former Armyman's counsel informed the court that a circular had been issued on April 16, 2019, by the Director General of Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS), clearly outlining the risk involved in the spinal surgery required. Hence, holding that the ex-Armyman's refusal to undergo such a procedure shouldn't be held against him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Family Adopted A New 'Dog', But When The Vet Sees It He Calls The Police Undo The counsel also referred to the rules that say, "If the refusal to undergo an operation is reasonable, full disability normally admissible may be granted. Refusal to undergo an operation may be held reasonable when, in the opinion of medical authorities, it is improbable that such an operation would cure the disability or reduce its percentage, or if such an operation may be severe and dangerous to life. Surgeries performed for spinal disorders have the probability to cure the disability. " After hearing the pleas, HC upheld the AFT order. "Once the competent authority of the Army itself has taken the view that refusal to undergo spine surgery would not be a ground to reduce the percentage of disability, we do not find any good ground for the petitioners to assail the order passed by AFT," observed the judges while disposing of the plea.
The Hindu
13 hours ago
- The Hindu
Closure of Jan Aushadi Kendras: Karnataka's Health Minister justifies move, says it is to ensure free medicines
Justifying Karnataka's move to close Jan Aushadi Kendras on the premises of government-run hospitals, Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao wrote to Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda on Tuesday stating that the move was intended to ensure free and assured supply of essential medicines to patients. Responding to the Union Health Minister's letter to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on the issue, Mr. Rao has said the intention to close the kendras only on the premises of government hospitals is to reduce the out-of-pocket expenditure for patients. 'The decision was taken to prevent doctors from directing patients to purchase medicines from these commercial outlets, thereby ensuring they are not denied free medicines available at the hospitals,' he said in the letter. Karnataka ranks among the top States in terms of the number of operational Jan Aushadi Kendras, with over 1,417 currently functioning. Of these, only 184 are located on the premises of government hospitals under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, while the rest operate independently outside government hospital campuses. Free supply Stating that the Karnataka government is committed to the free supply of all essential medicines, as listed in the Essential Medicines List (EML), across public healthcare institutions, Mr. Rao's letter said: 'To streamline public healthcare delivery and eliminate the risk of patients being denied medicines at government facilities, the State government has directed that prescriptions by government doctors be limited to medicines available within the hospital supply.' 'Medicines are regularly provided to government hospitals through Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited (KSMSCL). Hospitals have also been allocated sufficient funds and have standing instructions to purchase medicines locally in case of any shortage. This effort is aimed at ensuring universal access to essential medicines for patients visiting government hospitals — entirely free of cost,' Mr. Rao said in the letter. Asserting that the decision does not restrict the operation of Jan Aushadhi Kendras outside government hospital premises, Mr. Rao said citizens are free to access them as per their choice. 'This move is primarily aimed at benefiting poor and marginalised patients who rely heavily on government hospitals for healthcare,' the Minister said in the letter. Subsidised rate Highlighting the affordability of medicines sold under the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP), Mr. Rao noted that the scheme offers medicines at prices 50% to 80% lower than branded alternatives. PMBJP is implemented by the Pharma and Medical Bureau of India (PMBI), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Mr. Rao urged Mr. Nadda to direct PMBI to supply medicines to Karnataka's Health Department at the same rates offered to Jan Aushadi Kendras. 'This will go a long way in supporting the State's free drug supply initiative,' he added.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Indian Express
Abortion law faces heat in HC over mental health clause
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Union government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a 57-year-old Hisar resident challenging the legal provision that allows abortions based on presumed mental health injury without requiring evaluation by a psychiatrist. Deepak Kumar, the petitioner, has sought a declaration that a key clause under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, particularly Section 3(2) and Explanation 1, is unconstitutional. He argues that the provision violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by allowing gynaecologists to terminate pregnancies on mental health grounds, even though they are not qualified to assess psychological conditions. He has also asked the court to rule that abortions should only be allowed when the life of the woman or the fetus is in immediate danger, not in cases of failed contraception or presumed mental anguish. The PIL, filed through advocates Dr Pankaj Nanhera, Sanchar Anand, Nitin Verma, and Yogesh Vashista, came up for hearing before the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, which issued notice to the Union government and fixed the next hearing for September 16. Section 3(2) of the MTP Act allows a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy if it risks the woman's life or may cause 'grave injury' to her physical or mental health. For pregnancies up to 20 weeks, the opinion of one doctor is sufficient; between 20 and 24 weeks, two doctors must concur for certain categories of women. Explanation 1 to this section presumes that if a pregnancy results from the failure of contraceptive methods, the resulting mental anguish is automatically considered a grave mental health injury, making abortion legally permissible. The PIL argues that: • Gynaecologists are not trained to assess mental health and should not be given the power to presume psychological harm. • Only psychiatrists can evaluate whether a woman is experiencing mental anguish severe enough to justify an abortion. • The automatic presumption that contraceptive failure causes grave mental injury is arbitrary and may lead to misuse of the law. • The law lacks clear definitions of what qualifies as 'grave injury' to mental health, giving doctors unchecked discretion. The petitioner contends that these provisions enable abortions in situations that fall outside the core intent of the MTP Act, and that such broad presumptions may undermine fetal rights and open doors to female feticide. Among other reliefs, Deepak Kumar has requested the court to: • Declare Section 3(2) and its Explanation 1 unconstitutional. • Clarify that 'grave injury' to mental health should not include distress caused by unintended pregnancies due to failed contraception. • Limit the scope of legal abortions to life-threatening situations for the woman or fetus. The court has admitted the petition and listed it for further hearing on September 16.
