Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
09 September 2022 | Story Angela Vorster | Photo Andrè Damons
Angie Vorster
Angela Vorster is a Clinical Psychologist at the School for Clinical Medicine, University of the Free State (UFS).

Opinion article by Angela Vorster, Clinical Psychologist at the School for Clinical Medicine, University of the Free State.
Twenty-three people will die from suicide today in South Africa. Another 460 South Africans will try to end their lives today. They are from different cultural groups, different income groups, attained different levels of education, speak different languages, range in age from childhood through to elderly, have different genders and sexual orientations. These people have very little in common except that their lives all ended due to the final symptom of an illness. People who experience thoughts of ending their lives describe this mental space as feeling grey. Their thoughts tend to keep returning to the futility of being alive, what a burden they are to those around them, how nothing will ever get better and that nobody can help them. They tend to experience feelings of worthlessness, self-hatred, guilt, hopelessness, immense sadness and despair. Their suffering and emotional pain are excruciating. Nothing is enjoyable anymore. There is nothing to look forward to. Everything is difficult, boring, scary or meaningless. Inwardly they are drowning. But very often they smile, do their job and pass their exams, go on dates and vacations, make plans for the weekend and check up on their loved ones. They look happy in their photos. And when someone asks them if they are okay they say yes. Because they don’t feel like they deserve to feel better. They don’t want to be a bother. They might not call a helpline or make an appointment to see a psychologist or go to their GP for anti-depressants. Because they just don’t have the energy. It’s exhausting pretending to be fine all day. The one thought that brings relief is that they can end this pain. And one day they do. And their colleagues, friends and family are left reeling with shock and disbelief. How could this have happened? How could they have missed the signs? What should they have done differently to prevent this? 

The causes are as complex and varied

This is the purpose of World Suicide Prevention Day which takes place internationally each year on 10 September and through which the International Association for Suicide Prevention endeavours to increase awareness of suicidality, as well as to fight the stigma associated with suicide. Wanting to die can occur along with many other symptoms and disorders including, but not limited to, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, personality disorders and substance dependence or abuse disorders. The causes are as complex and varied as the manner in which suicidality may present. It is dangerous to regard only certain signs and symptoms as indicative of suicide risk, because we know that suicide can be extremely unpredictable. There is no way to tell if someone is a suicide risk based purely on their behaviour. However there are certain factors which may indicate an increased risk for self-harm. These include, but are not limited to, having previously tried to end their life, having a psychiatric illness, being seriously ill or having chronic pain or the misuse of substances. Experiencing legal, relationship, financial or academic stressors may increase suicide risk, as well as having access to lethal means to end their life along with being unable to access mental health care. 

So what can you do if you think someone may be at risk of self-harm? Say something. Talk to them. Tell them what you are worried about and give them the space to express how they feel without judgment or condemnation. Reach out to their support system and share your concerns with them. Encourage the suicidal person to make contact with a health care professional – this can be a psychologist, GP, psychiatrist, social worker, psychiatric nurse, counsellor or a suicide prevention help line. Other important members of our community who provide a great deal of assistance to suicidal people and their families include religious and spiritual leaders, teachers, support groups and employee assistance programmes. There are actually so many ways and places to receive health care and support; however the most significant barrier to making use of these resources is sustained by the stigma associated with suicide and mental illness. In our culture of toxic positivity where our photos are touched up, our statuses updated and our successes plastered on various social media platforms, the authentic act of acknowledging when we feel defeated, unhappy or like a failure has become a rarity. The more real, honest and vulnerable we can be about our ‘undesirable’ emotions and experiences, the more space we create for those around us to do the same. When we normalise not being okay at all times, we give ourselves and others permission to speak up when we need help. And this is our greatest weapon against suicide – authentic connection.

What suicide is not

We’ve explored what it may feel like to be suicidal, now let’s focus on what suicide is not. Suicide is not a moral failing. It is not because the person was weak or selfish, it is not because their family was dysfunctional or their faith not strong enough. Suicide is the final symptom of mental illness – and every single person is vulnerable to experiencing suicidal thoughts. Each one of us will be affected by suicide during the duration of our lives, either directly or indirectly. This is irrespective of how successful you are, how supportive your family is or how strong your religious convictions are. Dying by suicide is not a shame. It is not a failure. It is no different to a patient dying from any other disease. And just like any other illness there are symptoms we can look out for and treatments and medications that can assist in recovery. 

Please think before you speak about someone who died due to suicide. I guarantee that at least one person in the conversation has suffered the pain of losing someone in this way. But you probably wouldn’t even know, because stigma silences. Stigma disconnects and alienates those who need support the most. Our words have the power to shame and silence, or to empower and encourage connection, which is lifesaving. Treat each conversation as though there may be someone present who is having suicidal thoughts or is working through the loss of someone they love due to suicide. Often we want to reach out and support families affected by suicide, but don’t because we are afraid of offending, or upsetting or because we ourselves are so uncomfortable with mental illness. But all these survivors of suicide need from you is your calm, empathetic, kind presence, a safe space to express difficult and messy emotions. Without being blamed or shunned or shamed. Support suicide survivors as though a terrible illness took the life of their loved-one. Because that is exactly what happened. 

On 10 September this year I encourage you to light a candle and place it in your windowsill around 8pm wherever you are. This is in remembrance of those lost to mental illness and to show your support to those they left behind. In the words of the International Association of Suicide Prevention: “By encouraging understanding, reaching in and sharing experiences, we want to give people the confidence to take action. To prevent suicide requires us to become a beacon of light to those in pain. You can be the light.”

• If you or someone you know is at risk of self-harm please take a look at these websites and call the SADAG suicide emergency helpline.


SADAG suicide emergency helpline 0800 567 567

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