Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Something's In the Water. Literally.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 11:02 PM
Original message
Something's In the Water. Literally.
One day we're all going to have three eyes and six ears. :scared:



from Democracy Now!:



AMY GOODMAN: Saturday was World Water Day, and the United Nations estimates close to 1.5 billion people around the world do not have access to clean drinking water. What about here in the United States?

Anti-epileptics were found in the drinking water of Southern California; a sex hormone was found in San Francisco’s water; three medications and an antibiotic were found in the water supply of Tucson, Arizona; and a mood stabilizer was found in the water of New Jersey. And that’s just to name a few.

The Associated Press has conducted an extensive investigation into the drinking water in at least twenty-four major American cities across the country, which contain trace amounts of a wide array of pharmaceuticals. The amounts might be small, but scientists are worried about the long-term health and environmental consequences of their presence in the water supplies of some forty-one million Americans.

The five-month investigation of sixty-two metropolitan areas and fifty-one smaller cities found that many drinking water suppliers, including bottled water companies, do not even test for the presence of drugs in the water. The utilities that do test for drugs often don’t tell customers about the trace amounts of medications in their water.

Jeff Donn is a National Writer for the Associated Press and one of the reporters who led this investigation. He joins us now from Boston.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jeff.


JEFF DONN: Thanks a lot, Amy. Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Why don’t you start off, why you conducted this extensive five-month investigation? What tipped you off?

JEFF DONN: We were aware that there was some research, mostly in specialized technical journals, scientific journals, suggesting that there was this group of emerging contaminants, and one of the contaminants of most concern were pharmaceuticals in very low amounts. They’ve only been able to measure these kinds of pharmaceuticals well in the last ten years or so.

And we also were wondering—I’m a former medical writer—we were also wondering about pharmaceuticals in particular as a contaminant, because as opposed to traditional contaminants that you find in the water, pharmaceuticals are actually designed to interact with your body. So we wondered if that would pose special concerns and special problems.

AMY GOODMAN: So, how did you conduct the investigation? How did you find out what’s in the water supply?

JEFF DONN: Essentially, we did two things. We checked scientific research, surveys that have been done already that they appeared in a variety of scientific journals. And then we did our own survey, and that’s what you were referring to earlier in your introduction. We surveyed sixty-two large water utilities. Those are the people who bring drinking water to your homes and businesses. We also called fifty-one, fifty-two other smaller utilities, utilities in smaller cities, and we essentially asked them: What’s been detected in your water? What kind of pharmaceuticals have been detected? And how do you treat your water? And does it cleanse your water of these pharmaceuticals?

AMY GOODMAN: So, who tests, and who doesn’t? It seems like it broke into three categories: some test and know, some cities; some simply don’t test for drugs; and some do test and don’t reveal it.

JEFF DONN: That’s right. About roughly half do test. And that was somewhat of a surprise. That really wasn’t known before, because, like I said a moment ago, these pharmaceuticals in the water are contaminants that people weren’t very well aware of and that have barely been reported on at all for the general public. It turns out that about half of the utilities either have tested themselves or are aware that someone else has tested. The USGS and other agencies, health departments also do some testing. And the vast majority that tested did find some pharmaceuticals in their water in these very low, trace amounts. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/24/anti_epileptics_sex_hormones_mood_stabilizers



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-02-08 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. It is worth paying attention too, but the media is not reporting it very well
Edited on Wed Apr-02-08 11:56 PM by JoeIsOneOfUs
Any sort of toxicology depends on
* concentration of the substance in the air, water, food, whatever
* exposure (how much of the substance you consume/breathe/etc.)
* health effect of that dose.

We can barely measure the first on some of these. The second is estimated. The third is unknown or extrapolated from lab animal studies.

Many of these chemicals are at ppb (ug/L), ppt (ng/L) levels - hard to even detect on analytical equipment. Granted, some of them have health effects at very small concentrations/doses too. But for some of these, you'd have to be drinking many gallons of water each day to get a dose likely to have any impact. Also, for some substances our bodies already produce, we may excrete far more of the compounds naturally than due to pharmaceuticals - so it's hard to tease apart the effects of just sewage from pharmaceuticals.

The BIG unknown is the additive effects of all of these (e.g., what happens when you get exposed to tiny amounts of many endocrine disruptors).

But while we wait on more data, regulation, and treatment options, please don't flush or trash your old drugs - try to find a local disposal program, e.g., at your pharmacy.

More info on EPA site: http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/

edit to add - I realize the impact on aquatic species may be much worse than on humans, and that worries me more than human exposure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thx for the EPA link....
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. Auh, what a bunch of whining, tinfoil, liberal hogwash!
:sarcasm:

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. Slaves to Water
Another commodity we will be forced to buy in order to protect our health.

I'm glad I own a bit of the same aquifer that Poland Spring uses as a source for their water supply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynnertic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
5. someone please tell me about distilling water
I know that filtration pitchers aren't an ideal solution - first, I think your average Brita pitcher is made of a type of plastic that leeches pthalates. I wrote to ask, didn't get a response. Secondly, the filter doesn't get rid of much more than gunk from your pipes.

I have a friend who puts tap water into a distiller and then drinks it. It's a countertop appliance that makes steam and then condensation drips into a pitcher.

I haven't been rude enough to inspect the equipment, and I don't know how the thing is cleaned. Our water is hard and my kettle for instance has to be descaled on a regular basis.

So does anyone have experience with a distiller? Does it really purify water? Does it work with brakkish water? Is it worth the effort?

Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
danimich1 Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. We have a reverse osmosis system
It's under our kitchen sink and has it's own tap. We've also connected it to the ice maker. I don't know if it's as good as a distiller, but it was easy to find at Sears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Reverse Osmosis is more economical than distillation.
I worked at a university that went to RO in the 70's. I asked the facilities manager about the quality of the water and it turned out to be just as good if not better since volatile compounds can distill over but are rejected in the RO process.

It takes a lot less energy to produce a given quantity of RO processed water vs distillation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Brita pitcher info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Coop. Extension and non-profit publications on distillation and hard water

Distillation works by boiling the water, then condensing the steam. The idea is that any particulates (tiny solid bits) and most of the ions (dissolved charged compounds like sodium, calcium, magnesium, iron, nitrates, etc.) will be left behind because they can't go into a gas.

Here's a longer article.
http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1493/build/g1493.pdf

For hard water in general, here are some publications:

http://www.watersystemscouncil.org/VAiWebDocs/WSCDocs/1683274HARDNESS.PDF

http://www.agwt.org/info/pdfs/hardwatersolutions.pdf

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ip/ip7/ip7.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
8. If it is in the water, it gets into the food too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. It's our new prescription drug plan!
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. LOL ...drink up
:toast: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I work for workers Donating Member (551 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. Hmmm, I suggest we nuke the Russians.
First one in with the inevitable Dr. Strangelove joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC