USA - A Deeper Look At Drugs In Our Tap Water
A Deeper Look At Drugs In Our Tap Water
Friday, April 04, 2008 by: Cathy Sherman
It was hard not to hear about the mess our water supply is in; the March AP (Associated Press) story was picked up by almost every media outlet imaginable. Members of a "National Investigative Team" reviewed reports and talked to over 200 officials and scientists for a five-month period. The AP writers' conclusions struck fear into many a thirsty American, who was suddenly told he was drinking urine. Not any urine either, but drug-filled urine, possibly from their neighbor up the road.
The first to feel the effects were the water filter companies, who have received many inquiries from
consumers. Even though a less widely published story came out in 2000 after the U.S. Geological Survey's research, apparently few in the industry have run tests on their products to find out if they could filter out pharmaceuticals. Those that did run checks only tested a few drugs.
The EPA hasn't responded either, as to this day there are still no minimum standards detailing how many parts per million of drugs to water is tolerable. Nor does anyone know the long-term effects on our bodies from drinking such pharmaceutical cocktails on a daily basis. Research on fish and other animals shows many ill effects, which suggests we will be affected as well, if only by eating the fish.
It was pointed out that this problem did not only pertain to the U.S., but recent studies have found similar drugs in the water supplies of Canada, Asia, Australia, Europe, and even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea. Other studies have found them in Brazil and South Africa.
The article also made it clear that bottled water is no solution, as it can pick up the contaminants from the tap water from which it is filtered, or the natural springs from which it is collected. Virtually no water source is safe, since the problem has not yet been thoroughly addressed.
Many opinions and old surveys no longer relevant are cited, but after a critical look at the article, we aren't enlightened much. The writers state that when it comes to water filters, reverse osmosis models do the best job. No evidence for this is given, however.
A little deeper investigation highlighted the problem of antibiotics. Since bacteria can adapt to them and nullify their effectiveness, the constant exposure of antibiotics in the water will give the many bacteria strains ample time to mount their resistance.
There are additional issues to those highlighted by the AP's article. Besides the overwhelming conclusion that our world has become too enamored with pharmaceuticals for our own good, the question still should be asked: Why do most local governments prescribe large doses of one drug equally distributed to every man, woman and child without regard to need and without any scientific basis?
The drug is fluoride. Many readers know it as a chemical waste product of the fertilizer industry that is problematic environmentally in regard to how to dispose of it. So the government and the industry figured out that putting it in our drinking water would solve the problem. For more Natural News articles on fluoride, go to: ((http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearch...) .
Many states voted to require fluoridated water, but in a few states it is up to the local water company. Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water is an example of one group which has actively opposed the fluoridation. They feel that the fluoride itself is bad enough for health, but its negative effects are multiplied because fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and other toxins.
Not only that, but studies have shown that fluoride can pull lead from pipes and add that to the poisonous mix coming from our taps. That might be the reason fluoride also seems to bring copper and aluminum with it as well as the lead.
Animal studies have demonstrated evidence of fluoride's toxic effects on brain tissue. These include brain cell damage, reduced lipid content, impairment in anti-oxidant defense systems, increased aluminum uptake, and the formation of beta-amyloid plaques. These are the plaques which are indicative of Alzheimer's Disease. Maybe this explains why many dogs seem to prefer to drink from puddles than their own tap-filled water dishes.
Complicating the ability to control the level of fluoride is the presence in many rivers of "naturally
occurring fluoride". It has been hard to find research on the source of such "natural" fluoride, but it possibly could come from the same source as the pharmaceuticals, or from fertilized soils along the stream banks.
It appears that, whatever the agenda of the AP for its wide dissemination of the news that the presence of pharmaceuticals in our water supply is alarming, it would have done us all a service if a result is that citizens become more aware of the problems with fluoride.
At least, most kinds of water filters will filter out the fluoride and chlorine in the tap water. A more difficult problem is filtering out the other pharmaceuticals.
Friday, April 04, 2008 by: Cathy Sherman
It was hard not to hear about the mess our water supply is in; the March AP (Associated Press) story was picked up by almost every media outlet imaginable. Members of a "National Investigative Team" reviewed reports and talked to over 200 officials and scientists for a five-month period. The AP writers' conclusions struck fear into many a thirsty American, who was suddenly told he was drinking urine. Not any urine either, but drug-filled urine, possibly from their neighbor up the road.
The first to feel the effects were the water filter companies, who have received many inquiries from
consumers. Even though a less widely published story came out in 2000 after the U.S. Geological Survey's research, apparently few in the industry have run tests on their products to find out if they could filter out pharmaceuticals. Those that did run checks only tested a few drugs.
The EPA hasn't responded either, as to this day there are still no minimum standards detailing how many parts per million of drugs to water is tolerable. Nor does anyone know the long-term effects on our bodies from drinking such pharmaceutical cocktails on a daily basis. Research on fish and other animals shows many ill effects, which suggests we will be affected as well, if only by eating the fish.
It was pointed out that this problem did not only pertain to the U.S., but recent studies have found similar drugs in the water supplies of Canada, Asia, Australia, Europe, and even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea. Other studies have found them in Brazil and South Africa.
The article also made it clear that bottled water is no solution, as it can pick up the contaminants from the tap water from which it is filtered, or the natural springs from which it is collected. Virtually no water source is safe, since the problem has not yet been thoroughly addressed.
Many opinions and old surveys no longer relevant are cited, but after a critical look at the article, we aren't enlightened much. The writers state that when it comes to water filters, reverse osmosis models do the best job. No evidence for this is given, however.
A little deeper investigation highlighted the problem of antibiotics. Since bacteria can adapt to them and nullify their effectiveness, the constant exposure of antibiotics in the water will give the many bacteria strains ample time to mount their resistance.
There are additional issues to those highlighted by the AP's article. Besides the overwhelming conclusion that our world has become too enamored with pharmaceuticals for our own good, the question still should be asked: Why do most local governments prescribe large doses of one drug equally distributed to every man, woman and child without regard to need and without any scientific basis?
The drug is fluoride. Many readers know it as a chemical waste product of the fertilizer industry that is problematic environmentally in regard to how to dispose of it. So the government and the industry figured out that putting it in our drinking water would solve the problem. For more Natural News articles on fluoride, go to: ((http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearch...) .
Many states voted to require fluoridated water, but in a few states it is up to the local water company. Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water is an example of one group which has actively opposed the fluoridation. They feel that the fluoride itself is bad enough for health, but its negative effects are multiplied because fluoride compounds are contaminated with lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and other toxins.
Not only that, but studies have shown that fluoride can pull lead from pipes and add that to the poisonous mix coming from our taps. That might be the reason fluoride also seems to bring copper and aluminum with it as well as the lead.
Animal studies have demonstrated evidence of fluoride's toxic effects on brain tissue. These include brain cell damage, reduced lipid content, impairment in anti-oxidant defense systems, increased aluminum uptake, and the formation of beta-amyloid plaques. These are the plaques which are indicative of Alzheimer's Disease. Maybe this explains why many dogs seem to prefer to drink from puddles than their own tap-filled water dishes.
Complicating the ability to control the level of fluoride is the presence in many rivers of "naturally
occurring fluoride". It has been hard to find research on the source of such "natural" fluoride, but it possibly could come from the same source as the pharmaceuticals, or from fertilized soils along the stream banks.
It appears that, whatever the agenda of the AP for its wide dissemination of the news that the presence of pharmaceuticals in our water supply is alarming, it would have done us all a service if a result is that citizens become more aware of the problems with fluoride.
At least, most kinds of water filters will filter out the fluoride and chlorine in the tap water. A more difficult problem is filtering out the other pharmaceuticals.
posted by Bill at
9:59 AM
1 Comments:
Good post but getting fluoride out of tap water is NOT something "most kinds of filters" will get out. Most kinds of filters like pour through pitchers and faucet snap-ons use carbon only and it cannot remove metals or fluoride without special additives. Even reverse osmosis is only partially effective. If you really want to get out fluoride and all the other nasty contaminants like drugs in water, you need a comprehensive solution.
We decided the system we had didn't do a very good job after closely reading the fine print on the filters and decided to upgrade. We chose the PWS™ BEV Series system from Pure Water Systems, Inc.
Their system combines the very same technologies as a laboratory system but is scaled down for residential use. If you want your water filter system to protect you from ALL, not just a portion, of the contaminants being found in your drinking water, you should check out this company.
As someone trained in engineering and chemisty, I agree with Pure Water Systems claims that only a multi-phase approach is going to protect from all classes of contamination. Most systems will leave you vulnerable to specific pollutants, but that might be what shows up in the next test of your water supply. Better to have dealt with the problem properly rather than by applying a band-aid approach.
By
Anonymous, at 14 April, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home