Log In | Register
152 Comments
PrintImages 
(showing 1 of 12 photos)
(showing 1 of 12 photos)advertisement
A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.
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. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.
But the presence of so many prescription drugs — and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen — in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health.
In the course of a five-month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas — from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit to Louisville, Ky.
Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public "doesn't know how to interpret the information" and might be unduly alarmed.
How do the drugs get into the water?
People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.
And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies — which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public — have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.
"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Members of the AP National Investigative Team reviewed hundreds of scientific reports, analyzed federal drinking water databases, visited environmental study sites and treatment plants and interviewed more than 230 officials, academics and scientists. They also surveyed the nation's 50 largest cities and a dozen other major water providers, as well as smaller community water providers in all 50 states.
Here are some of the key test results obtained by the AP:
_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.
The federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water. Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested. Among the 34 that haven't: Houston, Chicago, Miami, Baltimore, Phoenix, Boston and New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.
Some providers screen only for one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.
The AP's investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation's water supply, also are contaminated. Tests were conducted in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major providers surveyed by the AP, and pharmaceuticals were detected in 28.
Yet officials in six of those 28 metropolitan areas said they did not go on to test their drinking water — Fairfax, Va.; Montgomery County in Maryland; Omaha, Neb.; Oklahoma City; Santa Clara, Calif., and New York City.
The New York state health department and the USGS tested the source of the city's water, upstate. They found trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti-convulsants, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer.
City water officials declined repeated requests for an interview. In a statement, they insisted that "New York City's drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system" — regulations that do not address trace pharmaceuticals.
In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told the AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but the AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise. For example, water department officials in New Orleans said their water had not been tested for pharmaceuticals, but a Tulane University researcher and his students have published a study that found the pain reliever naproxen, the sex hormone estrone and the anti-cholesterol drug byproduct clofibric acid in treated drinking water.
Of the 28 major metropolitan areas where tests were performed on drinking water supplies, only Albuquerque; Austin, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Va.; said tests were negative. The drinking water in Dallas has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post-9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug.
The AP also contacted 52 small water providers — one in each state, and two each in Missouri and Texas — that serve communities with populations around 25,000. All but one said their drinking water had not been screened for pharmaceuticals; officials in Emporia, Kan., refused to answer AP's questions, also citing post-9/11 issues.
Rural consumers who draw water from their own wells aren't in the clear either, experts say.
The Stroud Water Research Center, in Avondale, Pa., has measured water samples from New York City's upstate watershed for caffeine, a common contaminant that scientists often look for as a possible signal for the presence of other pharmaceuticals. Though more caffeine was detected at suburban sites, researcher Anthony Aufdenkampe was struck by the relatively high levels even in less populated areas.
He suspects it escapes from failed septic tanks, maybe with other drugs. "Septic systems are essentially small treatment plants that are essentially unmanaged and therefore tend to fail," Aufdenkampe said.
Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.
Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe — even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.
For example, in Canada, a study of 20 Ontario drinking water treatment plants by a national research institute found nine different drugs in water samples. Japanese health officials in December called for human health impact studies after detecting prescription drugs in drinking water at seven different sites.
In the United States, the problem isn't confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40 percent of the nation's water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.
Perhaps it's because Americans have been taking drugs — and flushing them unmetabolized or unused — in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.
"People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that's not the case," said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.
Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.
One technology, reverse osmosis, removes virtually all pharmaceutical contaminants but is very expensive for large-scale use and leaves several gallons of polluted water for every one that is made drinkable.
Another issue: There's evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.
Human waste isn't the only source of contamination. Cattle, for example, are given ear implants that provide a slow release of trenbolone, an anabolic steroid used by some bodybuilders, which causes cattle to bulk up. But not all the trenbolone circulating in a steer is metabolized. A German study showed 10 percent of the steroid passed right through the animals.
Water sampled downstream of a Nebraska feedlot had steroid levels four times as high as the water taken upstream. Male fathead minnows living in that downstream area had low testosterone levels and small heads.
Other veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, and even obesity — sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.
Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no. "Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby — director of environmental technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. — said: "There's no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they're at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms."
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.
Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life — such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.
Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They say, though, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.
"It brings a question to people's minds that if the fish were affected ... might there be a potential problem for humans?" EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson told the AP. "It could be that the fish are just exquisitely sensitive because of their physiology or something. We haven't gotten far enough along."
With limited research funds, said Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a greater emphasis should be put on studying the effects of drugs in water.
"I think it's a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health," said Snyder. "They need to just accept that these things are everywhere — every chemical and pharmaceutical could be there. It's time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental."
To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to "detect and quantify pharmaceuticals" in wastewater. "We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations," he said. "We're going to be able to learn a lot more."
While Grumbles said the EPA had analyzed 287 pharmaceuticals for possible inclusion on a draft list of candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, he said only one, nitroglycerin, was on the list. Nitroglycerin can be used as a drug for heart problems, but the key reason it's being considered is its widespread use in making explosives.
So much is unknown. Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans. Confidence about human safety is based largely on studies that poison lab animals with much higher amounts.
There's growing concern in the scientific community, meanwhile, that certain drugs — or combinations of drugs — may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day.
Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.
Many concerns about chronic low-level exposure focus on certain drug classes: chemotherapy that can act as a powerful poison; hormones that can hamper reproduction or development; medicines for depression and epilepsy that can damage the brain or change behavior; antibiotics that can allow human germs to mutate into more dangerous forms; pain relievers and blood-pressure diuretics.
For several decades, federal environmental officials and nonprofit watchdog environmental groups have focused on regulated contaminants — pesticides, lead, PCBs — which are present in higher concentrations and clearly pose a health risk.
However, some experts say medications may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body.
"These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That's what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects," says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs.
And while drugs are tested to be safe for humans, the timeframe is usually over a matter of months, not a lifetime. Pharmaceuticals also can produce side effects and interact with other drugs at normal medical doses. That's why — aside from therapeutic doses of fluoride injected into potable water supplies — pharmaceuticals are prescribed to people who need them, not delivered to everyone in their drinking water.
"We know we are being exposed to other people's drugs through our drinking water, and that can't be good," says Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany.
____
The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at) ap.org
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
102 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Jeff Donn, Martha Mendoza 's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Earth News, Greenpeace, HealthVine, Michael Moore's Army, Nutrition
- Regions: United States , Switzerland , Japan , Canada , Australia
- Public Discussion (152)
- Public Discussion (0)
- Earth News
- Greenpeace
- HealthVine
- Michael Moore's Army
- Nutrition
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
117
84
42
14
{"commentId":1558221,"authorDomain":"paradiso108"}
I feel hopeless after reading this article. It's weird. Maybe it's my water?
{"commentId":1558221,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"paradiso108"}
- 17 votes
#1 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 1:21 PM EDT{"commentId":1558897,"authorDomain":"Prilj"}
Boston hasn't been checked? O_O
On a different topic, does anybody else find it funny that a guy that works for the E.P.A. is named "Grumble?" :)
{"commentId":1558897,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Prilj"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":1559151,"authorDomain":"DanLS"}
No... the water where you live should have an anti-depressant effect ... unless the anti-biotics are conflicting with them ... but then you'd have the mood stabilizers ... and when mixed with the additional stimulants, you should be feeling fine.
{"commentId":1559151,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"DanLS"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":1560319,"authorDomain":"Jerry611"}
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. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.
So, by the disclaimer embedded in the article itself....this is a non issue.
{"commentId":1560319,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Jerry611"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1561051,"authorDomain":"cyregray"}
So, by the disclaimer embedded in the article itself....this is a non issue.
That would be wishful thinking. The point made in the article itself is:
Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.
Many concerns about chronic low-level exposure focus on certain drug classes: chemotherapy that can act as a powerful poison; hormones that can hamper reproduction or development; medicines for depression and epilepsy that can damage the brain or change behavior; antibiotics that can allow human germs to mutate into more dangerous forms; pain relievers and blood-pressure diuretics.
The truth is we don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion about whether this is a health concern or not. Dismissing it out of hand would be naive and potentially life threatening.
{"commentId":1561051,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cyregray"}
- 11 votes
{"commentId":1561148,"authorDomain":"Spaman"}
The truth is we don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion about whether this is a health concern or not.
Not so sure on that ... there are more and more ways for people to get sick these days - to develop allergies.. to feel depressed or under the weather - Sick water could be the cause.... Hard to prove unless you take them off their current supply and totally purify their water..
Dismissing it out of hand would be naive and potentially life threatening.
VERY true
{"commentId":1561148,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Spaman"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":1558269,"authorDomain":"mbrown"}
Well, crap. Now folks will be spending even more money on bottled water, and they may even be right to do it.
{"commentId":1558269,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"mbrown"}
- 5 votes
#2 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 1:42 PM EDT{"commentId":1558734,"authorDomain":"Arcturas"}
Except that most of that bottled water comes from the tap.
{"commentId":1558734,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Arcturas"}
- 13 votes
{"commentId":1558775,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
And is bottled in plastic. Mmmmm, phthalates, petrochemicals, and organochlorides.
{"commentId":1558775,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 19 votes
{"commentId":1558849,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
And, from the article:
Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.
{"commentId":1558849,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 12 votes
{"commentId":1561578,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
Spring water does not come from taps. Aquafina and Dasani do. They are purified with reverse osmosis though, which I'm sure removes some degree of contamination, but I don't know how much.
{"commentId":1561578,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1561643,"authorDomain":"nearing"}
Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure.
Distillation is not filtration. The water is boiled, the water vapor rises and is captured, as it cools it becomes liquid again. The contaminants (ie. chemicals) are left at the bottom of the boiler. Lather rinse, repeat.
The water I drink is 99.999% pure water from a counter top distiller. Who knows what makes up that .001% but I can guarantee that my water is MUCH cleaner than tap water. And no plastics.
Well worth the $300 I spent 7 years ago.
{"commentId":1561643,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"nearing"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1561776,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
Distilling water removes all naturally occurring minerals as well.
{"commentId":1561776,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1561795,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
The thing to worry about with distilation is if there is a chemical that has a boiling point lower then water you are concentrating it during the process. It also removes the minerals found in natural water that your body needs.
The drinking of purified water has been both advocated and discouraged for health reasons. Purified water lacks minerals and ions, such as calcium, which are normally found in potable (drinking) water, and which have important biological functions such as in nervous system homeostasis. Some percentage of our daily consumption of these minerals and ions come from our drinking water. The lack of naturally-occurring minerals in distilled water has raised some concerns. The Journal of General Internal Medicine[2] published a study on the mineral contents of different waters available in the US. The study concluded, "drinking water sources available to North Americans may contain high levels of Calcium, Magnesium, and Sodium and may provide clinically important portions of the recommended dietary intake of these minerals," and further encouraged individuals to "check the mineral content of their drinking water, whether tap or bottled, and choose water most appropriate for their needs." Since distilled water is devoid of minerals, supplemental mineral intake through diet is needed to maintain proper health.
It is often observed that consumption of "hard" water, or water that has some minerals, is associated with beneficial cardiovascular effects. As noted in the American Journal of Epidemiology, consumption of hard drinking water is negatively correlated with atherosclerotic heart disease.[3] Since distilled water is free of minerals, it will not have these potential benefits.
{"commentId":1561795,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1561821,"authorDomain":"nearing"}
Pure water doesn't have any 'naturally-occuring' minerals in it.
2 atoms of Hydrogen plus 1 of Oxygen, that's it.
You get your essential minerals from foods.
{"commentId":1561821,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"nearing"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1561829,"authorDomain":"nearing"}
The thing to worry about with distilation is if there is a chemical that has a boiling point lower then water you are concentrating it during the process.
Yes, that's how it falls to the bottom of the boiler to be discarded. You are left with PURE WATER.
It also removes the minerals found in natural water that your body needs.
see #3.8
You guys have bought the hype surrounding distilled water. It is pure water. No need for any other ingredient.
{"commentId":1561829,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"nearing"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1562221,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
You have defined water in such a way as it never occurs in nature. That's why I said naturally occurring above, as opposed to 'pure'. Everywhere in nature - ocean, streams, lakes, etc. water occurs with minerals dissolved in it. It is a given that bad minerals like mercury should be removed from water. Beneficial minerals like calcium, potassium, and potentially fluoride are much less certain. You could be getting from 2 to 8% of your daily intake of calcium from water depending on the hardness. Distilled water is never going to be pure water when you drink it either, absorbing some of the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere very readily, making it a (very) weak carbonic acid by the time you drink it.
What hype have I bought into?
{"commentId":1562221,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1562254,"authorDomain":"nearing"}
Brian, what is your point? Are you saying that pure water is not better for you than water with contaminants in it?
All the minerals your body needs, you get from the foods you eat. To hydrate your body, drink H2O.
{"commentId":1562254,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"nearing"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1562677,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
There is not much research in this area either way. Some "contaminants" are bad, some are good.
I don't know why you need to ask my point, I had a one sentence comment that was very concise: Distilling water removes all naturally occurring minerals as well.
{"commentId":1562677,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1562964,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Some "contaminants" are bad, some are good.
Something else to consider: a good many bacteria are actually "friendly" and helpful (if only my girlfriend would accept that).
I've heard folks say that distilled water can actually leach nutrients from the body. Just something I've heard (and it wasn't from a doctor or a nutritionist). Still, I'd say that distilled water is better to drink than severely polluted water.
{"commentId":1562964,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1563040,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
a good many bacteria are actually "friendly" and helpful (if only my girlfriend would accept that).
Can't help you with that. I'm still trying to convince my wife that cold air helps keep the skin tight and as we age that's important.
{"commentId":1563040,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1563057,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
I'm still trying to convince my wife that cold air helps keep the skin tight
Funny. Sometimes, I miss the East Coast winters.
I like to end my showers with cold water. For me, it's better than coffee. My co-worker saw something about the benefits of cold-water immersion following athletic training. Apparently, it speeds recovery.
{"commentId":1563057,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1563238,"authorDomain":"seward"}
I always wash my face and neck in cold water, Summer or Winter. I have been told that I have good skin tone for my age. I tell them just wash in cold water, and use little or no make-up.
{"commentId":1563238,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"seward"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1563763,"authorDomain":"nearing"}
I've heard folks say that distilled water can actually leach nutrients from the body
Old wives tale.
I am in medicine, no such thing as leaching nutrients from the body.
But they did used to use leeches for blood-letting before they knew what the heck they were doing.
{"commentId":1563763,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"nearing"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1563839,"authorDomain":"DanLS"}
I've heard folks say that distilled water can actually leach nutrients from the body
Old wives tale.
I am in medicine, no such thing as leaching nutrients from the body.
It would make more sense if the word "leach" was changed to "dilute"
{"commentId":1563839,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"DanLS"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1565239,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Thanks for straightening that out for me nearing and Dan.
{"commentId":1565239,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1558362,"authorDomain":"harshpaul"}
So we now know the problem, is there a viable solution that can be put into place to improve the supply system?
{"commentId":1558362,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"harshpaul"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 2:13 PM EDT{"commentId":1558900,"authorDomain":"Prilj"}
How about if doctors stop prescribing meds for every patient that walks through the door? :)
{"commentId":1558900,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Prilj"}
- 20 votes
{"commentId":1560329,"authorDomain":"Jerry611"}
There is nothing wrong with the supply system. As stated in the article:
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. Also, utilities insist their water is safe
Unless of course you want to calculate the enormous amount of resources and energy we waste to make the billions of PLASTIC bottles we put the water in.
And the huge environmental problem we're creating when we throw away all those billions of PLASTIC bottles.
I think the solution to the problem is to drink tap water ! . I'm 68 and in good health, never drank a drop of bottled water and I never will ........ don't know where the water came from ...don't know who had their hands on the bottle.
But I DO know one thing .....they don't stand next to a mountain stream and dip the water out. The water in the bottle was put in there from a TAP!
{"commentId":1560329,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Jerry611"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1560342,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
Jerry, just because bottled water is bad on every level (I totally agree on that!) doesn't mean that tap water must be good (as the utilities "insist"). If there is a problem with the tap water - and the AP investigation suggests that there is at minimum a need to double-check preliminary test results - we'd better know about it and we'd better change it.
You may be 68, mostly clear of the recent surge in medicated water, but there are kids out there growing up on this stuff. Public utilities were better back in the day (despite the fluoridation scam). And as I mention in a comment downstream, there's the matter of Epigenetics. The genetic heritage of our grandchildren may be linked to what we consume today. (As in politics, so with genetics).
Seems that what we expose ourselves to now affects the genetic makeup of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Lisa Melton: There's more to heredity than genes
Nova Documentary on Epigenetics: The Ghost in Your Genes
Epigenetics adds a whole new layer to genes beyond the DNA. It proposes a control system of 'switches' that turn genes on or off -- and suggests that things people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches and cause heritable effects in humans.
{"commentId":1560342,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":1560430,"authorDomain":"Spaman"}
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. Also, utilities insist their water is safe
This is something I can't accept .... our bodies react to tiny amounts of stimulus all the time ... so I can't accept the word of the people providing this service that all is totally OK
There are so many allergies these days.... and problems with ADHD ..etc etc ... The one common factor surely is the water
We really have to be very sure that what we put into our bodies as food or liquid has not been contaminated at all, in any way............... The news on this makes me wonder how much better life could be for all without these awful chemicals getting into our bloodstreams - albeit in small quantities
{"commentId":1560430,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Spaman"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1560786,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
I would take all the "official" tolerance levels with a grain of salt since most substances have scant testing and absence of evidence is their best defense. One huge source of the pharma contaminants is agriculture, factory farms dose the water supplies of the livestock since the cramped quarters and handling methods are a prime breeding ground for illness and then there are the pharma crops, foods like rice and corn producing drugs in undisclosed fields and pollen blowing who knows where.
Congress sold out the regulatory agencies and the Monsanto model of pumping petrochemicals and drugs into the eco system has been at full tilt since Poppy Bush and Quayle set the policy and Clinton did the impossible and gave it a solid foothold.
Hillary brags about experience but no one looks at the Clinon agribusiness ties and the explosion of contaminated food and drug treatments from Bush I to now. While all the focused chatter is on Red & Blue America, we're already a black and blue population, sick and dying from toxic corporate policy to create a Roundup Ready Nation where everything you swallow is pure %$#@ or comes with a fee. The Clinton-Bush Poison Ivy privatizing team success!!
{"commentId":1560786,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 11 votes
{"commentId":1561592,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
The combined effects of multiple drugs are NOT studied before the drugs are approved. Adverse reactions are reported and eventually some warnings are issued. It is an unknown and unknowable risk to be exposed to a variety of drugs at once, they could have extremely synergystic effects. They could even be the very ones that are not prescribed together because they are a known danger when combined.
{"commentId":1561592,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":1561825,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Very true Brian, we have a form of roulette where he altering substances are allowed to combine in vast combinations and conditions never predicted much less tested. Possible unknowns are limitless.
{"commentId":1561825,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1564559,"authorDomain":"jumpstone"}
X-Men was just a movie?
The combined effects of multiple drugs are NOT studied before the drugs are approved
Brian, this is true as far as we know. I see a great movie thriller based on the premise that studies were done and a specific effect was desired.
{"commentId":1564559,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"jumpstone"}
{"commentId":1558456,"authorDomain":"nearing"}
One of the reasons I have distilled my own drinking water for years now.
{"commentId":1558456,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"nearing"}
- 7 votes
#4 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 2:39 PM EDT{"commentId":1558551,"authorDomain":"TNTalk"}
every time someone wants to make a case for our wonderful safe American water system, we find out how wonderful it isn't.
{"commentId":1558551,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"TNTalk"}
- 5 votes
#5 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 3:11 PM EDT{"commentId":1558688,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
Holy F***. Quick, privatize the whole system so the corps can provide clean water for those who can afford it - those working for corporations.
{"commentId":1558688,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 9 votes
#6 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 3:56 PM EDT{"commentId":1559347,"authorDomain":"fayfamily7"}
gosh, I don't know, I think maybe the government can surely fix this. They can fix everything. All sarcasm aside, this is rather scary information. It doesn't look as if as of now there is any viable filtration system to fix this. So what do we drink?
{"commentId":1559347,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"fayfamily7"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1559678,"authorDomain":"LeanderWapshot"}
{"commentId":1560300,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
Corporations do most certainly not operate more safely (perhaps more efficient, yes, but we know from history that "efficiency" ain't exactly a mark of honor) since corporate products have been responsible for, oh, I don't know, unsafe pharma, cigarettes, unsafe cars (Nader had to fix that one), fluoride in the water (with government complicity), rotten meat (@!$%# in the meat, in fact), agent orange, pesticides, industrial wastes, and on and on and on...
Government used to work for the people much more effectively in the past. It (still) runs a fairly kick ass postal system; it put a man on the moon; millions of people can depend on their social security checks arriving; it built the nation's parks and highway system. It used to be able to handle municipal water systems. That was before the citizenry devolved into world class zoned-out apathetics and bloated consumerists. People dropped out of participating in local and state government - politics in general - stopped actively holding their representatives to account, staying on top of the issues, being able to discuss them intelligently. The country took its eye off the ball, with no small help from the corporate entertainment and indulgence complex.
It is not a matter of "government fixing it for us" - it is a matter of the strength and degree of our (the public's) input and our oversight. How much are we willing to get off our ass and participate in our own governance again? Voting once and awhile ain't going to cut it.
{"commentId":1560300,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":1560315,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
Furthermore, if I may, one of the key reasons Government has been an increasingly corrupt cesspool of incompetence is, alongside the aforementioned citizen neglect, the Revolving Door phenomena whereby the corporate plutocracy and politicians routinely swap desks to a) deregulate government protections and oversight; re-legislate in favor of big business, and b) enter or go back to the private sector to enjoy the profitable fruits of said deregulation and biz-friendly legislation. Corporate control over our elections and politicians, combined with the bewildered apathy of the public = government FUBAR. We like to blame the government for our ills when in truth it is we and our addiction to the corporate matrix that are to blame.
{"commentId":1560315,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":1560944,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
To solve the problem we need nothing more than to remove the corporate policy layer from the top of the regulatory agencies and clean Congress of the real sellouts. The bulk of employees at the existing agencies are dedicated to doing the right thing. It's the lobbying lawyers at the top and the "bipartisan" boards that give no voice to the true public interest.
Just look at the situation with the gmo foods for an example of how great the effort is to shut out a whole segment of consumers who have concerns that differ from Federal policy. There's more than just me, whole Nations are at odds with the shut up and swallow what we profit from policy and the Presidential debates and the media act as if we haven't earned the right to have two minutes of air time addressing the subject when we've got hours of Lindsey and Brittany's every hiccup.
If we treated chemical waste like a threat to life we hype terrorism is, you'd see Exxon going into those overflowing pockets and folks like the Koch's cleaning up waste not cash.
from DoJ...Koch Industries is also a major polluter. During the 1990s, its faulty pipelines were responsible for more than 300 oil spills in five states, prompting a landmark penalty of $35 million from the Environmental Protection Agency. In Minnesota, it was fined an additional $8 million for discharging oil into streams. During the months leading up to the 2000 presidential elections, the company faced even more liability, in the form of a 97-count federal indictment charging it with concealing illegal releases of 91 metric tons of benzene, a known carcinogen, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Koch faced fines of up to $352 million, plus possible jail time for company executives. After George W. Bush became president, Justice Department dropped 88 of the charges...days before the trial, John Ashcroft settled for a plea bargain, in which Koch pled guilty to falsifying documents. All major charges were dropped, and Koch and Ashcroft settled the lawsuit for a fraction of that amount.
Koch had contributed $800,000 to the Bush election campaign and other Republican candidates.
In February 2005, the Hill reported, "Top White House official Matt Schlapp is joining the Washington office of oil-and-gas conglomerate Koch Industries, the latest example of high-level administration and congressional staffers making post-election leaps to the lobbying world." Schlapp had headed the White House's Office of Political Affairs. At Koch, Schlapp will be the executive director of federal affairs, directing Washington lobbying.
Homeland Security in action, secure to make a buck at any cost to the public when you pay to play.
{"commentId":1560944,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":1562171,"authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
Yikes, Pamela, the information you dig up is amazing. I don't know how you stand dealing with that aspect of reality day after day. I am impressed, and commend you for your diligence and fortitude.
{"commentId":1562171,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1563678,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Lol, my kiddies will probably swear something pushed me off my rocker long ago, we can blame that!
{"commentId":1563678,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1558745,"authorDomain":"Spaman"}
Amazing report - thanks for bring that one up ..... Holy Moses Batman I'm a walking drugs cocktail
{"commentId":1558745,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Spaman"}
- 6 votes
#7 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 4:16 PM EDT{"commentId":1558781,"authorDomain":"bigmomma"}
Does anyone else feel like it's hopeless? Maybe we all should be drinking vodka.....
{"commentId":1558781,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"bigmomma"}
- 13 votes
#8 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 4:33 PM EDT{"commentId":1558790,"authorDomain":"mbrown"}
I prefer bourbon - think I'll get some right now . . .
{"commentId":1558790,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"mbrown"}
- 10 votes
{"commentId":1558904,"authorDomain":"Prilj"}
I'm a Jack Daniels man, myself. :)
{"commentId":1558904,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Prilj"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":1559988,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}
Better drink that straight up -- the ice could have meds in them... ;^)
Tho I think I will have mine with an olive, thanks.
{"commentId":1559988,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1560721,"authorDomain":"seward"}
An organic olive, I trust? lol.
{"commentId":1560721,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"seward"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1562179,"authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
the ice could have meds in them
Yeah, they should add that info to the commercials on what to be aware of when you travel to the "developed" world.
{"commentId":1562179,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1563016,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
If *chlorine* can make the meds in the water more dangerous, imagine what alcohol could do. Definitely drink the liquor straight-up!
{"commentId":1563016,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1566881,"authorDomain":"cyregray"}
As long as we're alive - there's Hope.
:-)
{"commentId":1566881,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cyregray"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1558796,"authorDomain":"darkside"}
Well done, AP. This was a solid bit of investigation and research.
{"commentId":1558796,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"darkside"}
- 17 votes
#9 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 4:40 PM EDT{"commentId":1558829,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
AP's really on the unholy water kick...
AP Exclusive: US troops may have become sick in Iraq from contaminated water
I suppose KBR, with that performance, will now top the bidding for contracts to privatize America's water supplies. Maybe under a democrat administration, bidding will be expanded from no-bid and sole-source to 2 or 3 suitors.
{"commentId":1558829,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 9 votes
{"commentId":1561104,"authorDomain":"cyregray"}
Ya I had to wonder what the agenda was behind this investigation into water. The AP, being mainstream media at it's most egregious, doesn't push 'news' without a tacit wink & nod from the PTB.
{"commentId":1561104,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cyregray"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1561859,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Maybe at some point the issues become personal, your family and friends, your own parents and kids are at risk and you do the right thing finally because others who blocked it now see skin in the game. Maybe we just come to a point where truth may be a selling point to get audience and avoid the public humiliation a good Newsvine stomping brings for the fantasy spin. *smirk*
{"commentId":1561859,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1558873,"authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
Ah, that's why the rich say "Who needs Medicare, just drink the tap water":-) Excellent article, AP.
{"commentId":1558873,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
- 7 votes
#10 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 5:19 PM EDT{"commentId":1561797,"authorDomain":"mrhomer4"}
Gladbutterfly,I agree with you 100%.Now the PH. will refer to the Pharmaceutical Balance! Mark
{"commentId":1561797,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"mrhomer4"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1562194,"authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
the Pharmaceutical Balance
Heh, heh, yes. You get a computer printout from your tap as you run your drinking water, to see how the balance is proportioned today. "Heavy on the antidepressants, today, eh? Well, I guess I don't have to take any ProZac today."
{"commentId":1562194,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1559039,"authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
The big question is how can we get americans to start paying for these drugs they are stealing through their tap.. these are patented drugs, and you cant just drink them for free and without a perscription. You had better start brushing your teeth in coke, or we may have to sue you.. signed corporate america
{"commentId":1559039,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
- 17 votes
#11 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 6:37 PM EDT{"commentId":1561869,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Touche Joules, the fee income indeed!
{"commentId":1561869,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1564575,"authorDomain":"jumpstone"}
Keep it down!! Since you brought it up, if I see a "User Fee" or "Special Use Tax" on my water bill, I'm blaming you.
{"commentId":1564575,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"jumpstone"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1559107,"authorDomain":"micah94"}
We're all doomed.
{"commentId":1559107,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"micah94"}
- 2 votes
#12 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 6:58 PM EDT{"commentId":1559118,"authorDomain":"mysteryone57"}
They keep harping about recycyling.... Am I peeing awaying half of my bipolar meds?????? Oh my god!!! and they are soooo expensive. Should I try to recover?? Ewweee!!!
{"commentId":1559118,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"mysteryone57"}
- 4 votes
#13 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 7:03 PM EDT{"commentId":1559167,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
There's evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.
This is one of the reasons we use UV light to sterlize the well water at the park I manage. We are 5 miles and up hill from the nearest village so unless they find phams in rain water I'm not too worried about me, just the rest of the world.
We hear about bird flu or some other desease that may become an epidemic. Now there's this proof about what is in the water. As this goes on over time the germs and viruses in the wild will build up a tolerance before they even infect a species where they may mutate in to one that starts the next pandemic.
{"commentId":1559167,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 5 votes
#14 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 7:18 PM EDT{"commentId":1561881,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
That's why I ride the nyc subway, at some point I've got to develop immunity to everything. :~)
{"commentId":1561881,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1562207,"authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
Wow, I hadn't thought of that angle, good grief, Steve (*she says, taking another sip of her water and grimacing*).
{"commentId":1562207,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1562708,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
Pamela has the agribusiness and a the poison ivy league to keep her occupied. I have pandemics.
Sort of a weird hobby. :-)
I tell people that I never worry about most things because the worry will kill me faster. I could tell you a really bad story about the well at my old house but it's getting on dinner time and I just can't do that to you folks.
Been drinking water (twitch) all my (blink) life and it's never (twitch) been bad for me.
{"commentId":1562708,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1563713,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Well it hasn't crossed the line big pharma has to share at dinnertime, manners and consideration are unharmed, that's fantastic for starters, twitches and blinks included. :~)
{"commentId":1563713,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1559234,"authorDomain":"seward"}
The truth is, none of us know what we are eating or drinking, these days. Worrying.
{"commentId":1559234,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"seward"}
- 4 votes
#15 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 7:45 PM EDT{"commentId":1561908,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
More than worrying it is angering for me that the public is willfully excluded. Some of us know quite a lot about what is where in the food supply but we are missing consumer protection in government and attacks on true watchdog groups. We go back to local food, Local Harvest is a good US based source.
{"commentId":1561908,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1562215,"authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
Local. That's what I'm doing this year. There is a farm nearby that grows organic produce and you can buy a "share" of the crop, then go and pick up (or have delivered) your share each week. I can't wait for the first greens to arrive, Yummy. It'll be awhile yet, since we're still 30 cm under snow around here, but I can dream.
{"commentId":1562215,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1563725,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
It will be here faster than you know and it will be fabulous for you and the farm. You suddenly have the menu thrust on you by a bumper crop of something, you can preserve, it's awesomely rewarding and you feel so good from the whole food experience and healthy as heck.
{"commentId":1563725,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1559252,"authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
The best way to attack this problem is to question the recycling of so called waste water for drinking. It's obvious the system to clean that water is not adequate.
In other words, maybe its just NOT a good idea for humans to drink water recycled from human feces and urine.
{"commentId":1559252,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"jazzman646"}
- 6 votes
#16 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 7:54 PM EDT{"commentId":1559294,"authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
jazzman
maybe its just NOT a good idea for humans to drink water recycled from human feces and urine.
Actually, there are some folk who swear that their own urine anyway is like medicine. Good for the kidneys.
Regarding the other stuff. Republicans have been happily swallowing it for years and it doesn't appear to have caused as much brain damage as one might think. So...
Then there's the whole question of the "farmer's blow..."
====
{"commentId":1559294,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1561604,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
Many municipalities in water starved areas have no choice but to do this. Besides, it's all a matter of how many degrees of separation. The water cycle goes everywhere. Today's pee is next year's glacial ice. There's no escaping it. Anyone whose reservoir system is fed by rivers is guaranteed to be getting upstream pee in the reservoir.
{"commentId":1561604,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1559264,"authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water.
Well that must explain Nancy Pelosi's mustache...? No?
====
{"commentId":1559264,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"greenpagan"}
- 10 votes
#17 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 7:58 PM EDT{"commentId":1559287,"authorDomain":"silkmesh"}
I expect this will frighten us to the day we die? this is the 100,000 scare this year, lol I am waiting for the one about to much lettuce can kill you, or deadly carrots. Oh well I expect I will live to recieve my old age pension before the 2012 magnetic pole switch. lol.
{"commentId":1559287,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"silkmesh"}
- 8 votes
#18 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 8:05 PM EDT{"commentId":1559307,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
The job of the MSN is to scare us so we buy more papers or watch more tv to find out how we can save ourselves.
You can eat all the lettice you want but you have to watch out for the bones.
And according to the latest news from Pravda the poles will switch in 2009 & again in 2013. You really need to remember the correct date or you'll be in for a wicked surprise. lol
BTW the carrots are good but you have to watch out for Bunnicula
{"commentId":1559307,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1559467,"authorDomain":"barry-rutherford"}
I wonder if a home water filter has the capacity to remove these potential toxins...
{"commentId":1559467,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"barry-rutherford"}
- 2 votes
#19 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 8:59 PM EDT{"commentId":1559492,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
A reverse osmosis filter would work. You can just filter the drinking water and nothing else. My sister has salt in her low flow well. They got the seller to install a reverse osmosis filter for just the drinking water and that is fine. The downside is that everything has a salt build up and it eats the metal drain pipes.
{"commentId":1559492,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1561664,"authorDomain":"nearing"}
RO is expensive and you have to fool around with cleaning the membranes.
Get a distiller! see #3.5
{"commentId":1561664,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"nearing"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1561809,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
You have to clean the membranes on a distiller too. RO for just the drinking water of a household is not that expensive.
See #3.7 for why I'd prefer not to use a distiller
{"commentId":1561809,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
{"commentId":1561841,"authorDomain":"nearing"}
You have to clean the membranes on a distiller too. RO for just the drinking water of a household is not that expensive.
See #3.7 for why I'd prefer not to use a distiller
There are no membranes on a distiller.
See #3.8 and 3.9 on why you are wrong.
{"commentId":1561841,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"nearing"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1559667,"authorDomain":"jyuma"}
I wonder if anyone has ever failed a "drug test" because of this problem?
{"commentId":1559667,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"jyuma"}
- 4 votes
#20 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 10:04 PM EDT{"commentId":1561612,"authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
I remember about a year ago, scientists tested the river water near Rome for cocaine residue to estimate the number of people using in the city. I was rather fascinated by that, imagining some kind of huge filter separating out all the coke or heroin for resale back to the city.
{"commentId":1561612,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"wbrianwhite"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1562237,"authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
Hey, there's the next generation of excuses. Pee in a cup, and bring along some of your drinking water in a cup too.
{"commentId":1562237,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"inghar2004"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1559798,"authorDomain":"makinart"}
It is commonly known how dangerous many drugs are to humans. Watch their commercials! Also for anyone sensitive to drugs and other toxins, this could a tailspin for their organs and overall health. It is a way to keep the population vulnerable to more health issues. Also did you notice that no one mentioned the water pollution around manufacturing plants, hospitals, and related businesses?
Good article on legal drugs. What about all the illegal drugs going into our water??? Hmmm...
Add these results with all the other pollutants in our environment and we have a coctail for disaster.
Have a nice day...Mary
{"commentId":1559798,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"makinart"}
- 5 votes
#21 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 10:50 PM EDT{"commentId":1559866,"authorDomain":"twiz"}
I wonder if people in areas with high amounts of antidepressants in the water are less likely to be prescribed those antidepressants.
{"commentId":1559866,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"twiz"}
- 5 votes
#22 - Sun Mar 9, 2008 11:18 PM EDT{"commentId":1560316,"authorDomain":"Jerry611"}
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. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.
So, by the disclaimer embedded in the article itself....this is a non issue.
{"commentId":1560316,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Jerry611"}
#23 - Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:50 AM EDT{"commentId":1560328,"authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
Also embedded in the article:
And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies -- which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public -- have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.
"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Tiny concentrations sound harmless, but the human species needs a lot - a very lot of water - to survive over the 70 or 80 years we are alive. Stuff adds up, and that's the stuff we are made of.
And then there is a thing called "epigenetics". Seems that what we expose ourselves to now affects the genetic makeup of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Lisa Melton: There's more to heredity than genes
Nova Documentary on Epigenetics: The Ghost in Your Genes
Epigenetics adds a whole new layer to genes beyond the DNA. It proposes a control system of 'switches' that turn genes on or off -- and suggests that things people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches and cause heritable effects in humans.
{"commentId":1560328,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"gaspantspress"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1561935,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
It is a very complex frontier we have just the scantest knowledge of, one more reason the genetically altered foods need to be tested for health effects and effects from the antibiotic and viral promoters.
{"commentId":1561935,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1560637,"authorDomain":"mpellerin5108"}
This may be a wake-up call for "drug-users", prescription or illegal. Our pill happy society is not so happy as depressive disorders outrank all other disabling diseases. Being from health care with a whole family full of nurses and CFOs from hospitals, the truth is the same pill users keep recycling through the hospitals. A group of people on the same pill regimes, a group of malcontents who will do anything to keep their pills alive. There are medicines that assist disease, but all these anti-anxiety regimes are not good substitutes for people relating to their problems by priortizing their lives in a wholesome manner. The insatiable wants in our society are driving people to the end of their ropes and self-reliance is at an all time low.
Not to minimize the structure of our society - economics being more valuable than human life. However, each person can decide for themselves how much they want to feed the system or to be as free of the system as possible by moderating their lifestyles so they are manageable.
We live in a bi-polar society where drama and sensationlism and common sense battle for center stage. It is unnatural and unrealistic to think that all life has to be warm and cozy all the time - it is in the valley that we are forced to learn.
If our drinking water starts to reflect our lack of courage and dependence upon an easy way out, shame on us!! The only thing you can blame on the government is its lack of regulation for the pharmaceutcal companies and the doctors who push these artificial life-enhancements.
{"commentId":1560637,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"mpellerin5108"}
- 7 votes
#24 - Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:05 AM EDT{"commentId":1560666,"authorDomain":"Spaman"}
Excellent Mona
{"commentId":1560666,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"Spaman"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1560747,"authorDomain":"seward"}
Great comment, Mona. People have become too dependant on "drugs", both legal and illegal. The Doctors recieve "back-handers" from Drug Companies to "push" those companies latest products onto a, mostly, unsuspecting public.
{"commentId":1560747,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"seward"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1560984,"authorDomain":"onearthmagazine"}
It's the hormones that worry me -- even at tiny quantities they can have profound effect on biological processes.
OnEarth Magazine broke this story a couple years ago. Sadly, newsvine won't yet let me enter links ... go to onearth dot org and search the podcasts, though, and you'll find a great one entitled "Drugging the Waters: A Conversation with Elizabeth Royte."
{"commentId":1560984,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"onearthmagazine"}
- 4 votes
#25 - Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:56 AM EDT{"commentId":1560998,"authorDomain":"cobbs"}
You'll be able to link in time. For now let me assist with a link to your story
{"commentId":1560998,"threadId":"231936","contentId":"1354263","authorDomain":"cobbs"}
- 4 votes
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"231936","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
