Here are some of the key test results obtained by the AP:What Exactly Is In My Drinking Water?
- Officials in Philadelphia said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city's watersheds.
- Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.
- Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.
- A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water.
- The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.
- Three medications, including an antibiotic, were found in drinking water supplied to Tucson, Ariz.
The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.
Ok, Drinking Water Is Bad. I Can Switch To Bottled Water, Right?
No. Bottled water is drinking water suspended in a wasteful plastic shell. Like municipalities, water bottlers don't test for pharmaceuticals. Home filtration systems are equally useless against drugs.
Um, Ok. There Is No Escape. Am I Safe?
Eh, maybe. Scientists aren't exactly sure, but the research isn't encouraging. Pharmaceuticals, unlike general pollutants, are specifically designed to futz with the human body. "...recent studies—which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public—have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife." 'Alarming effects' means that cancers grow faster, kidney cells stop regenerating, and heart cells become cranky and inflamed.
This Sucks. What Is The Government Doing?
Ah yes, the government. Maybe they can offer an encouraging and meaningful response? Let's turn for reassurance to Benjamin Grumbles, the EPA's assistant administrator for water:
"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously."@#$%!
AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water [ABC]
(Photo: Getty)
@aphex242: Good point. I took growth hormone for two years due to short stature (I wasn't just being vain - I was actually tested and they found that my pituitary was not producing HGH properly). I was 102 pounds when I started out and didn't have any problems. Fast forward a few short years later and I had gained about 90 pounds and I have a TON of hormonal problems now - elevated testosterone levels (I am female), polycystic ovary syndrome, multiple cysts throughout my body (brain, ovarian, and breast), etc.
]]>Also, @Dervish: what do you think your kidneys are for?
]]>I can't work out an emphatic way to roll my eyes through the computer screen so it can be seen, but rest assured, I'm trying.
]]>Well that must explain why I never really get any pains, infections, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness or heart problems!
]]>@hwyengr: I'm not any kind of a doctor, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think the reason the limits for heavy metals (lead, arsenic, mercury, etc.) are so low is because they build up in the body and aren't evacuated...through various means.
I'm not saying that all the pharmaceuticals they're identifying ARE evacuated, but a good deal of them likely are since they identify human waste as one of the sources of water contamination.
]]>The Scare-Hedge cycle is very rhythmic in this article. A few quotes, in order of appearance:
SCARE1: "A vast array of pharmaceuticals...have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans."
HEDGE1: "To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose"
SCARE2: "Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings..."
HEDGE2: "And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals,...
SCARE3: "...recent studies have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife."
RE: Scare3: of HOW LOW of levels...are they comparable to those found in the study? The lack of comparison during a 5-MONTH study seems either incompetent or the results would inconveniently nullify the scare.
The article has several more scares and hedges throughout.
The goals of the Hedged Scare article are the same big three as most leftist media:
1) Scare as much as possible
2) Increase readership
3) Make more government look like the best alternative
Can I get an Amen?
]]>Seriously, you can't say it's dangerous, but you can't say it's safe either, especially over long term exposure. What really needs to be addressed is the paradigm of "the solution to pollution is dilution".
]]>So, while I think there should be an education effort to tell people to not dump their meds in the sink or toilet, I don't think there's much that reasonable people should do. The reporting on this seems a tad sensationalistic.
]]>I wasn't that concerned with this at first, thinking that the concentrations were pretty low. But then I found out that the maximum allowable lead concentration in water is 15 ppb. That's pretty low, too. And lead isn't a synthesized material.
]]>.
]]>Thats all fine and swell, but can they tell me if peanut oil was used in my chinese food?
]]>@greensmurf: No, viruses and cold germs (which are themselves viruses) are resistant to antibiotics because they are viruses and not bacteria. Wow.
]]>Could it be that the drugs which are the most poorly absorbed are the ones which end up at highest levels in the water supply? Wouldn't they then be equally poorly absorbed from water?
Considering that long-term build up requires fat-solubility, what would you expect to happen with these compounds?
Could we maybe give the people whose job it is to study this stuff a chance to work out what the risk really is before going all "OMG THINK OF TEH CHILDREN!!1!"
]]>No wonder virus and cold germs are becoming resistant to anti-bodies its because we are ingesting the antiboiotics every day.
I wouldnt complain much if they started putting Xanax in the water at least people would be less prone to start shit and be more mellow.
OMG reminds me of the movie serenity and we all know what happened to the people on that planet.
every product we 'man-make' creates some kind of 'waste'. electrical, elemental and biological. herding animals, burning fuels, building homes. human kind has been altering the planet since day one, and it will only become more evident. now genetic cloning and mutation takes this all to deeper level.
"best part is"... there is really no way to prevent things like this. this is the kind of long term consequences that we 'never thought about', nor 'could have thought' of when this stuff was being made.
just like the attack of the monster movie radioactive ants, they always say "we had no idea this would happen".
interesting to see that man-made chemistry can exist that long.
]]>I'm not worried, Uncle Sam is very concerned, seriously!
]]>I also direct my comments to crackpots who think that a bit of pharmaceuticals in the water supply isn't so bad, that it isn't a crucial public health problem demanding a response from a sane population.
]]>Oh wait, you say average life expectancy is longer now than it's ever been? How could that possibly be true with all of these hazards waiting to strike us down at any minute.
More scare-mongering reporting from your liberal friends in the media who know you won't read what they say unless they scare the cr@p out of you!
]]>@klusta: LOL! me too. *hides*
]]>That movie has one of the greatest throwaway jokes of all time by the way.
General "Buck" Turgidson: Hmm... Strangelove? What kind of a name is that? That ain't no Kraut name is it, Stainesey?
Mr. Staines: He changed it when he became a citizen. Used to be Merkwürdigeliebe.
(Merkwürdigeliebe being the direct translation of Strangelove.)
]]>The reality is that our water treatment facilities aren't up to part period. They also let pieces of plastic which manufacturers put in body scrubs etc float directly out to sea. Think about it, people are manufacturing things that when used as described pollute the world's oceans. Manufacturers are faster than our government is and there are no laws to make sure the two keep up to speed.
]]>Researchers have long been wondering why asthma, for example, is way, way up in children over the past decade and a half or so.
They may have their answer now.
Bottom line: This stuff isn't good for you. There can be (and probably are) unintended side effects in the population. This is new, and hasn't been studied that fully. In the same way even trace amounts of lead are bad for the body, trace amounts of these drugs can and will have an effect, not only on people but on all kinds of species, like the minnows listed in the article.
This could have some pretty serious long-term effects. I'm surprised, frankly, that I even have to bother to say all of this, but a lot of the comments made me want to.
]]>Poison in the water!
Poison in the air (the dust from your laser printer)!
Dangerous radiation from your cell phone!!
Only your faithful Republican™ can save you!
(Film at 11).
]]>From tfa:
"Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation."
]]>2) "*all* pharmaceuticals have been tested by the FDA at concentrations *far* above what we could possible consume through our drinking water."
-- so? The FDA doesn't test long term exposure. More importantly, I don't have blind faith in any agency anymore. I never thought I'd be at a point where I don't trust the pet food or children's toys on store shelves.
3) "The mass media in general are very poor reporters of anything related to science."
-- yup. we do. that doesn't make this story wrong.
In general, pieces like this aren't the problem (with an occasional hugely embarrassing exception). A story like this is carefully reported and edited. It's usually the quickie "day turn" stories that bastardize scientific findings. Every story written for a general audience contains some level of abstraction and generalization. That's fine, appropriate, and necessary. It's when doing so involves glossing over important caveats and nuances that you see problems -- watch your typical tv news health story if you want an example. While noting that all I know is what I read in the story, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
]]>@Landru: I read the article you linked and then did some further research. Some people with AF have no symptoms, so it is possible that some younger people have always had AF and never sought medical attention because they had no symptoms or the symptoms were not bothersome enough to prompt them to seek medical attention.
]]>At least in the case of the latter, a huge study was done showing that proximity to power lines was uncorrelated with any health outcomes.
]]>Now if only the pharmaceutical companies don't get the idea to sue the department of public works for violating their drug patents.
]]>I share none of your pleasant feelings about AP. I couldn't agree with nonzenz and grrrrr more. The mass media in general are very poor reporters of anything related to science.
]]>Just sayin'...
]]>As long as a corporation can create a nutritional liquid in a lab, sell for a nicely high price, why try to have clean water? I mean, aren't we all full of chemicals already? For that matter, why any restriction on air pollution -- let the companies spew whatever they want into the air, the market will sort it out. It is a free country, for companies to do what they want.
Until a mass population of people in this country develop some values that don't worship $$$$ over all else, we will rapidly move towards a society where "only 85% contaminated" is a mark of purity.
]]>As a doctor, democrat, and erstwhile hypochondriac I would suggest it drinks more water.
]]>Rich in irony, though, is the fact that Berkey promotes giving you a free nalgene bottle with every purchase. Because once your water is ridiculously clean, you'll want to add in some Bisphenol A as soon as possible.
]]>Aside from frogs, feminization of fish has been observed near waste water treatment plant effluent.
]]>Reverse osmosis might take out the drugs-- might- but nothing else short of distillation as mentioned above- then it wouldnt taste too great.
These small doses of drugs have been indicted in the feminization of frogs in the wild... we are next... frogs and such are generally good indicators of what is happening in the water. So we should all be needing artificial insemination pretty soon...
EPA doesn't regulate this area at all in terms of drugs in the water... just an fyi. How could they? They come mainly from consumers, not businesses.
]]>It's also got me thinking about checking this out in my town -- you want to see some scarmongering? Just wait till we run the promo for that story! (just kidding. mostly.)
@smarty: the "9/11 security" line is used ALL THE TIME by agencies of all types to avoid giving the public information that should be public. It's routinely bullshit. It's used to avoid embarrassment, frustrate efforts to hold government accountable to the people, or, most frequently, as an excuse by lazy public employees from actually doing work. Because it would take so much effort to find that report in the files, photocopy it, and send me a copy.
]]>/Carey Crackpot scores a direct hit.
]]>Brita type filters do almost nothing...try a berkey.. [berkeystore.com] they take out EVERYTHING
]]>I knew it would come to this:
"Ask your doctor if Tap Water is right for you!"
]]>Learn how to cite sources. You journalists may remember something about that from an entry-level college class. I learned how to do that in high school! Most government reports are available online, and even if they aren't, people who have the scientific know-how such as I would like to ascertain whether you are telling us something useful or just looking for some advertisement money.
For all of you who are scared, you are in more danger whenever an aircraft with a radar flies overhead, when you stand next to a microwave, or even when you are prescribed most sorts of pills --one in a million chance of dangerous side effects in many of them!
burgundyyears, I think we would be better off if Art Bell replaced the AP entirely. Then we wouldn't have anyone thinking that "science" news is credible.
]]>I'm just sayin'
]]>BTW, did you know our water is contaminated with 100% full-strength dihyrogen monoxide and the EPA is doing nothing about it? Go here to learn the awful truth: [www.dhmo.org]
]]>Someone else did have a good point that showers use drinking water, so who knows what the F is in that stuff.
]]>Conspiracy theorists know that tinfoil has been contaminated too so they don't wear tinfoil hats anymore. Now they duct tape to their heads organically grown rocks rich in metallic ore.
]]>"ALERT! ALERT! DRUGS IN TAP WATER! RUN AROUND WITH HANDS IN AIR!"
What I didn't read: How this matters. No talk whatsoever of any impact on human health. Even the EPA - who we might think to look to for advice on this - says
"It brings a question to people's minds that if the fish were affected ... might there be a potential problem for humans?"
Uh....what does 9/11 have to do with pharmaceuticals in the water today? Any 9/11 tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists want to explain?
]]>Is there ANYTHING we don't have to be scared of anymore? Jeez.
]]>If the chemicals are stable enough to survive your digestive tract, waste water treatment, nature, water filtration etc.... I doubt boiling it will save you.
]]>Is there anyone in our government -- like, ANYONE AT ALL -- that attempts to figure these things out and solve them BEFORE they become a "growing concern" that they can "take very seriously"?!
]]>Once you go down that road, you turn into Ted Kaczynski living in a shack in Idaho.
]]>@thesuperpet: The bottle itself is more of a threat than the tap water. (And it's not much of a threat.)
]]>Note to self: stop making my daughter's bottles with tap water.
]]>Now if we could only combine all those marvelous chemicals into a new "vitamin water." We could have 41 million sexed up, mellowed out, non-convulsing, virus free Americans. If this happened in Russia, they would throw a parade.
]]>Ah, this is why I read the comments. Very nice.
]]>Okay, I can't help it -- that made me snicker a bit. :P
]]>man chlorine kills all that stuff, and plus the antibiotics help kill the e-coli in the water
]]>Worse than that, they lead to antibiotic-tolerant super-bacteria.
]]>Maybe this is why tap water usually wins in blind taste tests.
]]>Stupid typo
]]>@nonzenze: Exactly. And yet, nobody seems to be overly concerned about cocaine on the currency because there's just not enough there to have any effect on the human body whatsoever.
The AP gets an F-. Come back when you have an article with documented facts.
PS: And if you're worried about incredibly minute traces of substances in the water, don't even ask about what's in the air or how much electromagnetic radiation you're absorbing by standing next to that laser printer.
]]>Boil water first, then filter it and boil again, cool it and drink it. I think its the only way. Now I am going to buy filters. Also get a shower filter for the body. Makes more sense.
]]>Another case of sensationalist journalism combined with the inability of reasonable people to apply common sense.
]]>I heard this is the crux of Hillary's plan to provide afforable prescription drugs to all Americans.
]]>We have a water distiller, a big water dispenser in the fridge and reusable water bottles. That is the only water we drink.
Supposedly the main problem in our water is farm chemical runoff and manure. So they dump tons of chlorine in it.
We bought the distiller off of Amazon for about $100. Thinking about buying a larger one.
]]>thanks EPA!
]]>If they could get my birth control pills in the water, I'd save a fortune in pharmaceutical copays.....
No need to buy your xanax and oxy off the street, just boil your tap water down and enjoy concentrated doses without hydroencephalitis (sp?)
]]>This is terrible and hopefully there is someway to fix this. Antibiotics arent meant to be taken constantly and if they are in the water supply it would lead to them being useless. They tend to destroy the immune system as well.
]]>