Dechemicalisation and Subsequent Debate

If a scientific term is used and it generates debate, then either it is a new terminology or there is a problem within the context it was used. The Bible in fact states that in the latter days, knowledge shall abound according to Daniel 12:4, and it is evident in the academic space. In the Science and Math Quiz, the display of academic brilliance exhibited by a lot of the contestants is simply mind-boggling, confirming what the scriptures foretold and therefore the authenticity of the Bible as God’s word.

Since knowledge abounds now, one must be very careful in pronouncements that seek to drive home or explain certain matters under discussion, especially in public or academic settings. During the recent meeting between the President and a cross-section of the Ghanaian society to have a discussion on galamsey, the term dechemicalisation was mentioned and it generated intense debate. I said to myself, “Galamsey de asem beba.”

During the Q&A period, after various government ministries and organisations had given their presentations regarding what had been done as far as the fight against galamsey is concerned, the official responsible for environment was asked to respond to a question. The official responded that there were plans to dechemicalise the rivers that have been polluted as a result of galamsey. Hell broke loose the following day in the media space.

The term came under scrutiny on one of the popular TV programmes, during which one of the panellists questioned the appropriateness of the terminology. He explained that the reason he was worried about the use of that terminology is because it is confusing. Water itself is a chemical designated as H₂O, so if someone says dechemicalise water, is he or she talking about the separation of water into oxygen and hydrogen or what?

One of the panellists also had an issue with how nanotechnology was to be applied to the rivers to purify them. He wondered where and how the purification technology was going to be applied to bring the turbidity to normal levels. The official was then asked to clarify what she meant and to respond to the concerns raised by the other panellists. She really struggled to make sense of the terminology she was trying hard to explain, without success.

The way we are going about this galamsey fight leaves much to be desired, and academicians ought to be careful about what they say and how they say it, otherwise they will lose credibility. One plus one equals two, and so the moment you try to make it look like three, to gain some political favour or whatever the motivation may be, people will call you out.

Another official, also an academician, who made a presentation on the state of affairs regarding the quality of our water bodies, also made himself look like someone who does not know his stuff. How do you make such a presentation without mentioning the worsening situation in some areas leading to the shutting down of the Kwanyarko water works, in order to give a holistic picture? Again, you cannot do such an academic presentation without talking about the water quality, otherwise the only conclusion the audience will come to is that you are a sycophant of the government or you do not know what you are about.

Let us therefore guard our reputation and not be seen as political academicians.

God bless
NB: Change Kotoka International Airport to Kofi Baako International Airport

By Laud Kissi-Mensah

Join our WhatsApp Channel now!
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBElzjInlqHhl1aTU27