Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
24 August 2021 | Story Rulanzen Martin | Photo Flickr (GovernmentZA)
Minister Lindiwe Zulu said the ethos of social sciences should serve as a blueprint for academics to foster a better understanding of social development.

While most of the discussion about the recent violent protests and looting focuses on the political impact and economic ramifications, a group of social science academics met with the Minister of Social Development, Lindiwe Zulu, for a virtual colloquium on 18 August 2021 to assess the entrenched societal ills that preceded these acts of violence. 

During the colloquium hosted jointly by the Department of Social Work at the University of the Free State (UFS) and the Zola Skweyiya African Social Policy Innovation (ZSASPI) at the University of Cape Town (UCT), there were tangible engagements and presentations on how to deliver implementable solutions that social scientists could utilise when attempting to address the notion of violence during protests in South Africa. Some of the solutions are based on active citizenship – getting communities to contribute to the national development agenda, and an understanding of the provisioned right to protest and the responsibilities thereof. 

Other speakers included Dr Mpumelelo Ncube, Academic Head of the Department of Social Work at the UFS; Prof Chitja Twala, Vice-Dean, UFS Faculty of the Humanities; and Prof Ndangwa Noyoo, Director of the Zola Skweyiya African Social Policy Innovation. The panel also featured Dr Motlalepula Nathane-Taulela from the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), Dr Grey Magaiza, Lecturer in Sociology at the UFS, and Dr Thabisa Matsea from the University of Venda (Univen). Presentations ranged from the right to protest with responsibility, active citizenry, political intolerance and inequality, unemployment, and poverty.

Social Sciences best to deal with underlying issues
 
In her keynote address, the Minister of Social Development, Lindiwe Zulu, stressed that social scientists are the best equipped to address social development issues. “We need to understand the deeper state of the people, and the humanities and social sciences should redefine their role,” she said.

In the wake of the looting and riots in July 2021, it is important for the Ministry of Social Development to understand and to look deeper into the impact and effect that COVID-19 had on the psyche of people in South Africa. Minister Zulu said her department wants to intensify the psychosocial support to communities and that she hoped the colloquium would look for “African solutions for our unique African problem”.  

She also cautioned that many youngsters were involved in these violent protests and reminded the youth about their role within the broader society – “to be educated in order to prepare, lead, and build a prosperous South Africa and African continent”.   

     Watch a recording of colloquium here:       


Colloquium much-needed space for critical discussion 

“This is the kind of platform we need to use in order to inform but also to try and guide our communities in terms of our research findings,” Prof Twala said in his opening remarks.  Dr Ncube reiterated Prof Twala’s sentiment by saying, “As academics, we had to ask ourselves what the role of social workers is in the broader society and what could be the role of social sciences in addressing these questions of violence in protest, using our intellectual muscle to bring about tangible change.”   

Protesting comes with inherent responsibility 

Section 17 of the Constitution of South Africa makes provision for protesting, but with these rights, there are also some responsibilities on the part of the protesting community. “This right has gotten backlash – particularly from academia – on how the protest culture has turned violent,” Dr Ncube said.  He also said that South Africa has been dubbed the world capital of protest, because in “some cases we had a protest every second day”. 

This colloquium served as an inaugural step in facilitating important discussions on a national level. 

Listen to a recording of the colloquium here


News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept