Drugs in our drinking water. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Xazy · 03-10-2008, 04:27 AM

Quote:

AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water

Sunday, March 9, 2008

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.

I know I should not be totally shocked and surprised by this, but i am. I am a big water drinker and this really raises huge concerns about everything. The real concern for me is, if this is true, how come we are so unaware about it. Following that, of course is all potential medical issues that somehow maybe related with us having these drugs inadvertently coming in to us (even in such minute quantities). We always hear how different diseases are more resilient now and harder for us to fight and getting immune to different forms of treatments, and off the top this makes me wonder if it is related to this.

JamesB · 03-10-2008, 05:28 AM

This is another example of how good (pure) science becomes molested by the media.

The drugs detected in the water supply are within what is known as the "Horwitz" limit of detection. Long story short, the levels detected are within a special region of values what in most cases exceeds 50% probability due to the concentration levels alone. I'm not sure I can simplify the explanation too much without either taking too long, or over-simplifying the idea.

At the detected levels, there is no biological activity in humans. When doses are worked out, they are done on a mass-drug to mass(equiv)-subject basis. Ie. 1mg per 1kg body-weight. The values published are well below what any toxicologist will refer to as a dosage-response curve.

I'm only worried for phytoplankton and other extremely small organisms at the lowest trophic levels of the ecosystem.

pan6467 · 03-10-2008, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

This is another example of how good (pure) science becomes molested by the media.

The drugs detected in the water supply are within what is known as the "Horwitz" limit of detection. Long story short, the levels detected are within a special region of values what in most cases exceeds 50% probability due to the concentration levels alone. I'm not sure I can simplify the explanation too much without either taking too long, or over-simplifying the idea.

At the detected levels, there is no biological activity in humans. When doses are worked out, they are done on a mass-drug to mass(equiv)-subject basis. Ie. 1mg per 1kg body-weight. The values published are well below what any toxicologist will refer to as a dosage-response curve.

I'm only worried for phytoplankton and other extremely small organisms at the lowest trophic levels of the ecosystem.

what about bacteria growing immune to the antibiotics? We lose our antibiotics and it's a whole new world again.

Fotzlid · 03-10-2008, 05:45 AM

This really doesn't suprise me too much. All that medication has to go somewhere and too much of anything usually ends up in the water supply.

Quote:

We always hear how different diseases are more resilient now and harder for us to fight and getting immune to different forms of treatments

Most of that can be attributed to over use of antibiotics in general.
Not just with people, but with farm animals as well.

Ace_O_Spades · 03-10-2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article

"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.

I wish I had something more to add to the conversation, but I've gotta run or I'll be late for work.

JamesB · 03-10-2008, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

what about bacteria growing immune to the antibiotics? We lose our antibiotics and it's a whole new world again.

This really has nothing to do with (most) antibiotics since they are VERY readily oxidized (broken down) by light, water, and most things that are not inert. For the most part, antibiotics are not resilient chemical compounds.

The original "bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics" stems from two problems:

1. over-prescribing antibiotics for non-bacterial infections
2. ignorant people NOT taking the full course of their prescription

The over-prescribing lead to stead low-level exposure of normally harmless bacteria in (and on) our bodies to antibiotics. This presents a "selective pressure" in which bacteria that are able to break-down the antibiotics before they are prevented from growing are preferentially selected -for- and all non-resistant bacteria tend to die. The now antibiotic resistant bacteria are able to "communicate" their resistance via. a few DNA swapping methods that enable other (possibly pathogenic) bacteria to be resistant to the same (in some cases family) of antibiotic. This is a 'nut-shell' version of how MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus) was evolved.

Yes. I said it - evolved

thingstodo · 03-10-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

This really has nothing to do with (most) antibiotics since they are VERY readily oxidized (broken down) by light, water, and most things that are not inert. For the most part, antibiotics are not resilient chemical compounds.

The original "bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics" stems from two problems:

1. over-prescribing antibiotics for non-bacterial infections
2. ignorant people NOT taking the full course of their prescription

I guess you are unaware of the impact from eating meat dosed with all the antibiotics. I understand from several doctors I know that this is a big contributor to the problem as well. It's in pretty much everything out there. Sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

This is another example of how good (pure) science becomes molested by the media.

The drugs detected in the water supply are within what is known as the "Horwitz" limit of detection. Long story short, the levels detected are within a special region of values what in most cases exceeds 50% probability due to the concentration levels alone. I'm not sure I can simplify the explanation too much without either taking too long, or over-simplifying the idea.

At the detected levels, there is no biological activity in humans. When doses are worked out, they are done on a mass-drug to mass(equiv)-subject basis. Ie. 1mg per 1kg body-weight. The values published are well below what any toxicologist will refer to as a dosage-response curve.

I'm only worried for phytoplankton and other extremely small organisms at the lowest trophic levels of the ecosystem.

Sorry, but I don't think this is a media frenzy. Read the article and you'll see other impacts from all this stuff out there. We're just beginning to understand what is going on because we're just beginning to look into this stuff. It builds up over time. And humans aren't getting tested yet. And I'm sure Big Brother doesn't want us to know.

Say, are you a part of Big Brother?

We're in for a world of shit as time goes on. Ask anyone you know in their late 70s and older how many people they knew when they were kids that had cancer. Even cigs weren't as bad for you back then.

I don't care how much you try to simplify this, it's happening. And unless you're qualified scientist looking at the data over time I'm just not buying your point of view. Sorry, nothing personal.

IdeoFunk · 03-10-2008, 04:47 PM

Not very surprising considering most local governments still follow the archaic practice of water fluoridation. Still, it's definitely a tad bit odd how this is being considered recent news. I'd imagine most of these substances have been present in our water supply for decades.

Regardless, think once I get a little more money I'll be switching to reverse osmosis treated water...

silent_jay · 03-10-2008, 04:50 PM

I was hoping to find a new kind of weed water or something, guess I still have to smoke it......drugs in our water, false advertising I tells you....

samcol · 03-10-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdeoFunk

Not very surprising considering most local governments still follow the archaic practice of water fluoridation. Still, it's definitely a tad bit odd how this is being considered recent news. I'd imagine most of these substances have been present in our water supply for decades.

Regardless, think once I get a little more money I'll be switching to reverse osmosis treated water...

Probably the best choice.

Willravel · 03-10-2008, 05:42 PM

Reverse osmosis gets rid of it. I've not had unfiltered water in quite some time.

Destrox · 03-10-2008, 06:22 PM

Yeah.. this is why I didnt hook up to the city water when asked.

I'll take my nicely filtered well water.

100% natural from 115 feet below the earth.

Then twice filtered.

Then water softened.

Tastes great.

samcol · 03-10-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Destrox

Yeah.. this is why I didnt hook up to the city water when asked.

I'll take my nicely filtered well water.

100% natural from 115 feet below the earth.

Then twice filtered.

Then water softened.

Tastes great.

I lived in the country for years. When I finally moved the the city the water made me puke. It tastes so chemical.

Baraka_Guru · 03-10-2008, 06:58 PM

This is something they will need to figure out. I don't think this is an entirely new problem, but this case is widespread, indeed. Education is key.

For the record, I'm comfortable drinking Toronto tap water.

Ustwo · 03-10-2008, 07:08 PM

_A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water.

Ironic...

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.

QFT

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

This is another example of how good (pure) science becomes molested by the media.

The drugs detected in the water supply are within what is known as the "Horwitz" limit of detection. Long story short, the levels detected are within a special region of values what in most cases exceeds 50% probability due to the concentration levels alone. I'm not sure I can simplify the explanation too much without either taking too long, or over-simplifying the idea.

At the detected levels, there is no biological activity in humans. When doses are worked out, they are done on a mass-drug to mass(equiv)-subject basis. Ie. 1mg per 1kg body-weight. The values published are well below what any toxicologist will refer to as a dosage-response curve.

I'm only worried for phytoplankton and other extremely small organisms at the lowest trophic levels of the ecosystem.

Thanks for posting this. It reminds of of the arsenic in the water scare BS from early 2001.

SSJTWIZTA · 03-11-2008, 04:03 AM

you know, this thread gives me a great idea!

::Grabs vial of LSD and runs to well::

no but seriously. Even if its not enough to harm you, its still quite disturbing.
Im glad i dont live in the city, for once.

Destrox · 03-11-2008, 04:22 AM

You also have to think about the amount of shit that we breath in daily, drink even in well water, eat in our foods.

Everything we do, I'm sure there are minute amounts of things that we wish we'd never know about.

The media is most definitely blowing this out of proportion (What dont they use as fear tactics?) and it could just be like germs. A little here and there helps make us stronger.

JamesB · 03-11-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thingstodo

I guess you are unaware of the impact from eating meat dosed with all the antibiotics. I understand from several doctors I know that this is a big contributor to the problem as well. It's in pretty much everything out there. Sad.

No I am completely aware of the effects thank you very much. The -whole- human superbug problem played out exactly as I just posted above. If you do not believe me, then by all means do your own research. And for what its worth, there are a -ton- of misinformed (or otherwise) doctors out there who forgot the science that got them to where they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thingstodo

Sorry, but I don't think this is a media frenzy. Read the article and you'll see other impacts from all this stuff out there. We're just beginning to understand what is going on because we're just beginning to look into this stuff. It builds up over time. And humans aren't getting tested yet. And I'm sure Big Brother doesn't want us to know.

So if this is not a media frenzy, why the sudden mass exposure of data that are years old? This information has been circulated in the scientific literature for many years now yet there has been almost no reaction - until recently. We haven't just now 'stumbled' onto this as you suggest - lol.

We have studied the effects of low-level hormone exposure in humans for -years- now. We know many of the effects, both beneficial and harmful. Similarly, science has been studying the effect of low-level exposure to many other drugs in our food and water, but these studies have not enjoyed the same duration of study as the hormone studies.

Bioactive drugs do not remain in the body either in their pure form, or as metabolites for very long (few exceptions, but they are engineered that way). So this 'build up' argument it false at this level. What you -may- be tying to explain is something called bioaccumulation. This is certainly a problem, as I glossed over in my first post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thingstodo

Say, are you a part of Big Brother?

Ok, this pretty much indicates that any intelligent reply to your post is in vain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thingstodo

We're in for a world of shit as time goes on. Ask anyone you know in their late 70s and older how many people they knew when they were kids that had cancer. Even cigs weren't as bad for you back then.

People were dying of "natural causes" back then at a much higher frequency. Now just imagine medicine was able to properly recognize less 'visible' forms of cancer and could have properly attributed these deaths to cancer?

Yes, I believe that we are in a more cancer-prone environment now more than ever .. but cancer has -always- existed in biology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thingstodo

I don't care how much you try to simplify this, it's happening. And unless you're qualified scientist looking at the data over time I'm just not buying your point of view. Sorry, nothing personal.

I have a combined honors degree in Biology and Biotechnology specializing in functional microbial biochemistry. I am currently working towards a master's degree in bioorganic chemistry with a focus on enzyme product based active-site characterization in eukaryotes using cryptoregiostereochemistry.

I happen to have read many hundreds of scientific papers on environmental microbiology and chemistry. How much more informed / "qualified" do I need to be?

No offense taken. What's your background aside from paranoia?

Manuel Hong · 03-11-2008, 08:09 AM

I have been aware of this for a few years. I read about it in a book by Stephen Harrod Buhner (also a man of many scientific degrees) called The Lost Language of Plants Interestingly, plants have complex immune systems that are affected by chemical changes in the parts per billion range. Most of the life on our planet are affected by such "minute" chemical alterations. We do not live here on this planet alone. If there is a blip over here in the single-celled neighborhood, then guess what? It will affect us too. We live in a loop. The drug residue pissed out by your next door neighbor on chemotherapy is not the extent of the pharmaceuticals that land in our environment. A much larger amount of toxins are produced as a by-product of the manufacturing process and released into the environment.
Any continued attempt to brush aside the damage we are doing to ourselves and our world at this point seem grimly laughable to me.
In the end, our choices as CONSUMERS dictates our future.
over and out, good buddy.

thingstodo · 03-13-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

I happen to have read many hundreds of scientific papers on environmental microbiology and chemistry. How much more informed / "qualified" do I need to be?

No offense taken. What's your background aside from paranoia?

No offence intended! Didn't mean to come across that way. I just don't understand complacency.

I'm sure all those papers are 100% accurate. Personally, I wouldn't trust that stuff with my life - been through too many filters and there's far too much money in the balance. Kind of like all the research grants at colleges that are funded by the pharm companies. There's a real system of checks and balances!

My background is as an informed consumer who reads a great deal from many sources including medical journals and the like and who has many business associates and friends that understand this stuff. And I'm a realist.

Thanks for pegging me as paranoid. I'm sure that's my prevailing problem. Good luck with your strategy - you have to go with whatever works for you.

JamesB · 03-13-2008, 11:45 AM

I wouldn't say that I am indifferent - though I can see how my posts may suggest this. I am very much concerned for the microbiota (ie. all the small things you never see) since they are as I said before, the first 'trophic' level on the food chain.

My intent when posting was to remind people of the 'real' science behind the buzz.

I am not terribly worried about the human effects of -barely- detectable compounds in our water. I am worried about the microbiota instead.

thingstodo · 03-15-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesB

I wouldn't say that I am indifferent - though I can see how my posts may suggest this. I am very much concerned for the microbiota (ie. all the small things you never see) since they are as I said before, the first 'trophic' level on the food chain.

My intent when posting was to remind people of the 'real' science behind the buzz.

I am not terribly worried about the human effects of -barely- detectable compounds in our water. I am worried about the microbiota instead.

That's cool.

I'm very careful how I live, how I impact the envirnment and what consume. I eat organic, am part of a local farmer food coop, stay away from hign fructose corn syrup, hygrogenated oils refined sugar and white flower, use plastics in a very minimal way, recycle, don't take pills to cure every ill that comes along - that sort of thing. Even drive a hybrid. I hate what we are doing to the world in a lot of cases.

I also know how many things happen a little bit over time and then one day surprise us with how they've added up. What hurts on a microbial level today moves up the chain of life and eventually has an impact on us. That might have something to do with all the 2nd and 3rd grader girls all of a sudden coming nto pruberty years before their time. We need to figure those things out.

I suspect we're on the same page.

tisonlyi · 03-20-2008, 01:12 AM

And here, gentlemen, we have found the vector by which the Communists are polluting our pure, precious bodily fluids, so superior in nature to anything they possess.

03-10-2008, 05:28 AM	#2 (permalink)
JamesB Insane Location: Ottawa	This is another example of how good (pure) science becomes molested by the media. The drugs detected in the water supply are within what is known as the "Horwitz" limit of detection. Long story short, the levels detected are within a special region of values what in most cases exceeds 50% probability due to the concentration levels alone. I'm not sure I can simplify the explanation too much without either taking too long, or over-simplifying the idea. At the detected levels, there is no biological activity in humans. When doses are worked out, they are done on a mass-drug to mass(equiv)-subject basis. Ie. 1mg per 1kg body-weight. The values published are well below what any toxicologist will refer to as a dosage-response curve. I'm only worried for phytoplankton and other extremely small organisms at the lowest trophic levels of the ecosystem. __________________ -- apt-get install spare_time --

03-10-2008, 04:50 PM	#9 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	I was hoping to find a new kind of weed water or something, guess I still have to smoke it......drugs in our water, false advertising I tells you.... __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

03-10-2008, 06:22 PM	#12 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	Yeah.. this is why I didnt hook up to the city water when asked. I'll take my nicely filtered well water. 100% natural from 115 feet below the earth. Then twice filtered. Then water softened. Tastes great. __________________ You bore me.... next.

03-10-2008, 06:58 PM	#14 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	This is something they will need to figure out. I don't think this is an entirely new problem, but this case is widespread, indeed. Education is key. For the record, I'm comfortable drinking Toronto tap water. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-11-2008, 04:03 AM	#16 (permalink)
SSJTWIZTA Master Thief. Master Criminal. Masturbator. Location: Windiwana	you know, this thread gives me a great idea! ::Grabs vial of LSD and runs to well:: no but seriously. Even if its not enough to harm you, its still quite disturbing. Im glad i dont live in the city, for once. __________________ First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for me And there was no one left to speak out for me. -Pastor Martin Niemoller

03-10-2008, 04:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
IdeoFunk Crazy Location: to	Not very surprising considering most local governments still follow the archaic practice of water fluoridation. Still, it's definitely a tad bit odd how this is being considered recent news. I'd imagine most of these substances have been present in our water supply for decades. Regardless, think once I get a little more money I'll be switching to reverse osmosis treated water...

03-10-2008, 05:42 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Reverse osmosis gets rid of it. I've not had unfiltered water in quite some time.

03-11-2008, 04:22 AM	#17 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	You also have to think about the amount of shit that we breath in daily, drink even in well water, eat in our foods. Everything we do, I'm sure there are minute amounts of things that we wish we'd never know about. The media is most definitely blowing this out of proportion (What dont they use as fear tactics?) and it could just be like germs. A little here and there helps make us stronger. __________________ You bore me.... next.

03-11-2008, 08:09 AM	#19 (permalink)
Manuel Hong Addict Location: Land of the puny, wimpy states	I have been aware of this for a few years. I read about it in a book by Stephen Harrod Buhner (also a man of many scientific degrees) called The Lost Language of Plants Interestingly, plants have complex immune systems that are affected by chemical changes in the parts per billion range. Most of the life on our planet are affected by such "minute" chemical alterations. We do not live here on this planet alone. If there is a blip over here in the single-celled neighborhood, then guess what? It will affect us too. We live in a loop. The drug residue pissed out by your next door neighbor on chemotherapy is not the extent of the pharmaceuticals that land in our environment. A much larger amount of toxins are produced as a by-product of the manufacturing process and released into the environment. Any continued attempt to brush aside the damage we are doing to ourselves and our world at this point seem grimly laughable to me. In the end, our choices as CONSUMERS dictates our future. over and out, good buddy. __________________ Believe nothing, even if I tell it to you, unless it meets with your own good common sense and experience. - Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

03-13-2008, 11:45 AM	#21 (permalink)
JamesB Insane Location: Ottawa	I wouldn't say that I am indifferent - though I can see how my posts may suggest this. I am very much concerned for the microbiota (ie. all the small things you never see) since they are as I said before, the first 'trophic' level on the food chain. My intent when posting was to remind people of the 'real' science behind the buzz. I am not terribly worried about the human effects of -barely- detectable compounds in our water. I am worried about the microbiota instead. __________________ -- apt-get install spare_time --

03-20-2008, 01:12 AM	#23 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	And here, gentlemen, we have found the vector by which the Communists are polluting our pure, precious bodily fluids, so superior in nature to anything they possess. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--