Life is Healthy

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Citarum River in Indonesia supplies around 30 million people with water
• Extreme pollution means many who live in villages along its banks often fall ill
• Poor sanitation compounds the problems for health of people and environment
• Asian Development Bank spending $500 million on river clean-up project

Bandung, Indonesia (CNN) -- The small village of Sukamaju on the outskirts of Bandung, West Java is nestled within mountains and rice plantations. To the naked eye, the scenery looks beautiful but on closer inspection, this ecosystem is supported by a water source that is sick and heavily polluted.

We've arrived to cover a story on the Citarum River, considered one of the most polluted rivers in Indonesia, if not the world. Around 30 million people rely on this water basin and it provides 80 percent of Jakarta's drinking water.

While this water is obviously treated for consumption in the larger town and big cities, in Sukamaju what's in the river is pumped directly to the community. The only filtration available is a towel or sock wrapped around a waterspout. The villagers use this water everyday to bathe, wash and cook.

But for drinking, they will boil it. Health experts tell us, this process will kill the bacteria but it certainly won't get rid of the heavy metals and toxic chemicals.

Near the village there are dozens of textile factories -- the main source of employment for many of the local people. They're also one of the biggest polluters of the Citarum River, spewing industrial waste directly into the waterways.

At one spot outside a plant, the water is black with pollution. Children play in it; crops are grown beside it.

A little further upstream, 10 meters before the water turns black, we meet a man who is washing plastic bags he will then sell. He says he does it here because of the strong chemicals in the water -- it helps him do his job more effectively.

We meet Nyai, a 60-year-old great grandmother who has a persistent skin infection. She has welts, lumps and dark markings all over her torso. Her daughter, grandchildren and great grandchildren all suffer the same condition, including 4-year-old Wildan.

I ask him to show me where it's itchy and he points to the spots covering his face and neck. Nyai says this skin condition only became a problem for her village after the textile factories set up in the 1980s.

Asked if she's angry about the water situation Nyai replies: "We have no choice, this is the only water we have. Everyone in this village only has this water source. If it's raining then our wells will get fresh water but if it's dry season, everyone must use this water."

But it's not just the factories, using the Citarum as a dumping ground; the community effectively use it as an open sewer. As we walk through the village, children squat over canals and defecate directly into the water. Any garbage is thrown in the waterway or dumped on the side of the riverbank.

Re-educating local communities on how to look after the Citarum is one of the main projects for the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It's investing $500 million dollars over the next 15 years to try and save the Citarum and the communities who rely on it.

The ADB will work closely with Indonesian government to rehabilitate the entire river basin, addressing the issues of pollution, sanitation, and environmental problems like deforestation, siltation and flooding. Tom Panella from the ADB is fully aware of the enormous task in front of him and his team, but he remains hopeful .

"The Citarum is very sick and needs everybody to help bring it back to a state of health so all communities reliant on it can have a good quality of life and sustainable livelihoods," he says. "It's not dead but it needs a tremendous amount of work from all of us."

Two scavengers search for plastic garbage in Citarum River, Baleendah in Bandung on Sunday. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has declared the 270 kilometer river as the world’s most polluted river. (Antara/Rezza Estily)

Related Articles:

More articles related to rivers...

One the biggest things that I have been trying to do differently is picture myself living the life I want. Free from my addictions. Enjoying life.

I have used food for long time as an antidepressant. I come from a long line of alcoholics. So I am wired like an addict. But I heard someone say that genetics only loads the gun. The environment pulls the trigger.

So if I'm wired to be an addict, and I grew up in a home with an alcoholic, and everything was about making the alcoholic happy, and children were pushed to the side--and my needs as a child were satisfied--by people who claimed that they loved me--with cookies, cakes, and ice cream, then how could I have helped what happened to me. I can understand it now, but I certainly couldn't then. Now I have to figure out a way to break the cycle.

Do I want help. Absolutely. And I get help everyday on this blog and the other blogs that I visit. I get help from people who are suffering through the same pain. We applaud each other for doing well. We tell each other to hang in there when things aren't going so well. I do have help. That's why I'm here writing this blog. And some days I don't have to ask for help--it just shows up. And that's the miracle of pouring your heart out in an open forum.

So, to everyone who stops by to say they've got my back--you are the greatest. Plese don't ever go away.

I recently bought a pair of Vibram FiveFingers Sprint (pictured). They're minimal, lightweight shoes with "toes". They're designed to mimic barefoot walking as closely as possible, while protecting the feet from punctures and abrasion. The soles are thin, flexible and offer no padding whatsoever.

I've always been a barefoot walker, because our feet evolved to be nude (or close to it). Besides feeling amazing, walking barefoot allows the body to express proper biomechanics. My feet have become tougher over time, but I still can't handle a rough trail barefoot.

When I first put the FiveFingers on, my initial thought was "these don't feel as much like being barefoot as I wish they did". Simply having something between your skin and the ground makes your feet much less sensitive. But I got used to them quickly, eventually using them for my parkour training.

I had a few converstions with my parkour instructor Rafe Kelley, during which I realized I had to re-teach myself how to walk and run correctly. Rafe is well-versed in natural human movement due to his background in MovNat, gymnastics, martial arts, strength training, parkour and anthropology. Modern shoes allow us to walk and run in a way that our bodies did not evolve to tolerate. The padding in shoes allows us to take large steps, in which we overshoot our center of gravity and contact the ground in a jarring manner. It also allows us to strike with our heels when we run, which is not comfortable when you're barefoot.

I took the FiveFingers on a 13-mile hike in the Alpine Lakes wilderness with a few friends last weekend. The Pacific Northwest has to be one of the most beautiful places in the world. I was expecting to use the shoes for a few miles and then swap them for my lightweight hiking shoes (Inov8 Flyroc trail runners). The beginning of the trail was really rocky and I thought I was going to have to take them off in the first few hundred yards. Surprisingly, my feet adapted, and although the trail stayed rocky, it became fairly comfortable by the time we had walked a mile.

I found myself thinking about Rafe's advice, and taking smaller steps that strike closer to my center of gravity. Although my strides were shorter, I had no trouble keeping up, and in fact going up the hills was remarkably easy. We gained 3,000 feet of elevation but I never got winded. I had to pay close attention to foot placement, which kept me from looking around much but was actually kind of fun.

After a few miles, I switched to my hiking shoes, with the idea that I should switch before my feet really started to hurt, rather than after. I immediately noticed that going up hills was harder, especially on my calves. My feet felt more cumbersome as well.

Here's me foraging for mushrooms on the trail. This is Laetiporus sulphureus, also known as "chicken of the woods". It's widely eaten in this area. However, my mushroom guide All That the Rain Primises, and More, had this to say about it:

"If you eat and enjoy this moushroom, always cook it thoroughly and do not serve it to lawyers, landlords, employers, policemen, pit bull owners, or others whose good will you cherish!"

I didn't take my chances. If you're going to pick wild mushrooms, make sure you know what you're doing and carry a regional identification guide. "I recognize them from China/Russia/Europe" kills several people a year in the Pacific Northwest. If you're experienced, this area is a mushroom bonanza. I can't set foot outside without stepping on a king bolete (porcini, cep) in the fall.

I ended up switching back to the FiveFingers for the majority of the hike, about 9 miles of it. The soles of my feet were a bit sore by the end (due to stepping on sharp rocks for miles), but my joints and muscles felt remarkably good! I had no joint pain or muscle tightness. I also felt pretty energetic. This was a big surprise, since I haven't done much hiking this year. The next day, my calves were sore, but that was it.

All in all, I really like the FiveFingers. I can wear them in places that require shoes, yet remain nearly barefoot. One potential drawback is the price-to-durability ratio. They cost me $80 and I don't expect them to last a year. That being said, I'm putting a brutal beating on them. Parkour training destroys shoes. The rubber seems to be excellent quality (which you'd expect from Vibram), but it's thin and it has cuts in it for flexibility and grip, which will lower its lifespan. The upper is simply a piece of stretchy fabric that tears easily. I'm willing to deal with the durability issues because the advantages outweigh them [update- several FiveFingers wearers have commented that they actually last a surprisingly long time. See comments].

Europe once teemed with large mammals, including species of elephant, lion, tiger, bear, moose and bison.

America was also home to a number of huge and unusual animals: mammoths, dire wolves, lions, giant sloths and others.

The same goes for Australia, where giant kangaroos, huge wombats and marsupial 'lions' once roamed.

What do these extinctions have in common? They all occurred around when humans arrived. The idea that humans caused them is hotly debated, because they also sometimes coincided with climactic and vegetation changes. However, I believe the fact that these extinctions occurred on several different continents about when humans arrived points to an anthropogenic explanation.

A recent archaeological study from the island of Tasmania off the coast of Australia supports the idea that humans were behind the Australian extinctions. Many large animals went extinct around the time when humans arrived in Australia, but that time also coincided with a change in climate. What the new study shows is that the same large animals survived for another 5,000 years in Tasmania... until humans arrived there from the mainland. Then they promptly went extinct. That time period didn't correspond to a major climate change, so it's hard to explain it away.

It's a harsh reality that our big brains and remarkable adaptability give us the power to be exceptionally destructive to the environment. We're good at finding the most productive niches available, and exploiting them until they implode. Jared Diamond wrote an excellent book on the subject called Collapse, which details how nearly every major civilization collapse throughout history was caused at least in part by environmental damage. It's been a hallmark of human history since the beginning.

I don't think it will take much to convince you that the trend has accelerated in modern times. Ocean life, our major source of nutrient-rich wild food, has already been severely depleted. The current extinction rate is estimated to be over 1,000 times the baseline, pre-modern level, and rising.

Humans have always been top-level predators. We kill and eat nutrient-dense prey that is often much larger than we are. But today, the extinction of such walking meat lockers has caused us to eat down the food chain. We're turning to jellyfish and sea cucumbers and... gasp... lobsters!

While it's true that we've probably always eaten things like shellfish and insects, I find it disturbing that we've depleted the oceans to the point where we can no longer sustainably eat formerly abundant carnivorous fish like tuna. We need to make a concerted effort to preserve these species because extinction is permanent.

I don't want to live in a future where the only thing on the menu is bacteria patties, the other other other other white meat.

While I was waiting for the bus one morning, I decided I'd count cars to see how many were single-occupancy vs. two or more. I came up with a ratio of roughly 20 single-occupancy vehicles for every multiple-occupancy vehicle. The multiple-occupancy vehicles were most often work trucks, containing plumbers or construction workers going to a job.

People have to get to work. Maybe they don't have public transit where they are, or maybe they just don't feel like sitting next to smelly commuters, but for whatever reason, here in the U.S. they drive their cars.

The average American weighs about 180 lbs. Due to our love affair with SUVs, the average American car weighs over 2 tons and climbing. That means every time a person drives a single-occupancy vehicle to work, they aren't just expending the energy it takes to move 180 lbs 15 miles. They're also lugging around a hulking two-ton chunk of steel and plastic. The passenger of the average single-occupancy vehicle is only about 1/24 (4%) of the mass that's being moved to and from work. That's ridiculous!

Of course, we make up for the big weight of our cars with big engines so they can go vroom. That adds up to a lot of gasoline burned, for no clear benefit. In other words, most of us could easily be driving vehicles that perform the exact same function but burn 1/3 the gasoline. I'm not talking about space-age technology here; these vehicles are already on the market.

Why do we commute so inefficiently when better options surround us? I think there are several reasons. First of all, gasoline is dirt cheap. We have no incentive to be efficient beyond our own consciences. Even with the recent price jumps, gasoline doesn't cost much more than it ever has, if you adjust for inflation. In Europe, where high taxes mean gasoline can cost four times as much as in the US, vehicles are lighter and more efficient.

Secondly, we've always been a very car-centric society. Cars appeal to our desire for independence, power and control. A large, powerful car is a status symbol in the US. We've inherited these attitudes from previous generations and we're just beginning to question them. Are there healthier and less wasteful ways of getting to work?

There are, and many of them are very simple. The first and simplest is a carpool. If we put two average Americans in our two-ton car, all of a sudden the people are 1/12 the weight of the vehicle. With four people, the number jumps to 1/6. We've just made our vehicle almost four times as fuel efficient, per passenger! 1,000 lbs per person is still a lot of weight to be lugging around though, so let's look at some other options.

If you are on the market for a new car, fuel-efficient models abound. The new hybrid cars by Toyota and Honda are twice as efficient as their non-hybrid brethren, and not much more expensive. Some people truly need SUVs for their business, but I have good news for them too: there are now hybrid SUVs as well. That's right ladies and gentlemen, they're the most efficient gas guzzlers on the market.

Public transportation is another great option where it's available. Buses are big and heavy but they can accommodate many people.

Now let's get into the really efficient vehicles. Motorcycles and scooters weigh from 250-500 pounds, meaning that a passenger would be from 1/2 to 1/4 the total weight of the vehicle. Now we're beginning to make some sense. Certain scooters can go over 100 miles per gallon of gasoline.

An even better option is to use vehicles that don't burn gasoline at all. A bicycle weighs about 20-30 pounds, making the passenger about 9/10 of the total vehicle weight. That weight ratio might change as the average American loses some weight however. Even if you factor in the extra food you eat when you cycle regularly, it's still terribly efficient. Best of all, bikes allow us to get exercise and feel the sun for a while.

The title for the most fuel-efficient and low-tech vehicle around goes to feet. When using a pair of these, the passenger is 100% of the weight of the vehicle. You can walk until you wear them out and you still won't have burned a single molecule of gasoline. Now that's efficient.