The University of California, Berkeley did a study that shows the nation's top-selling weed killer disrupts the sexual development of frogs at concentrations 30 times lower than levels allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This herbicide has been in use for 40 years in some 80 countries with more then 60 million pounds of the herbicide applied last year in the United States alone.
In the mid-1970s, the EPA found pharmaceutical chemicals in water, but at that time the high concentrations of other pollutants took precedent in their priorities. In 1999, the US Geological Survey checked water samples in 30 states, finding 82 types of this class of pollutant. As the EPA points out in Origins and Fate of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in the Environment what goes around comes around or what we flush we all have to live with.
Another studyfound industrial pollution begins in the womb and measured hundreds of toxic chemicals in newborn babies. That study lead to an investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in umbilical cord blood.
Additionally, in March of 2009, it has been found that the artificial Sweetener, Splenda, does not break down easily and accumulates in the water supply, potentially harming fish and other living things.
An overview of what is added at the water treatment plant. (US)
Fluoride.
There are small amounts of fluoride in some of the food we eat and the drinks we consume. These amounts differ from one individual to another and are dependent on your location. Fluoride is naturally accruing in water all over the world.
The EPA’s current National Primary Drinking Water Standards recommend using fluoride at concentration 4.0 mg/l (milligrams per liter) The World Health Organization fluoridation recommendation is using fluoride at a concentration of 1.5 mg/l.
In a report published in March of 2006 by the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, it was stated: "Our committee concluded unanimously that E.P.A. should lower the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride.The National Research Council of Canada stated; "Fluoride is a persistent bioaccumulator, and is entering into human food-and- beverage chains in increasing amounts. Long-term ingestion, with accumulation of fluoride in animals and man, induces metabolic and biochemical changes, the significance of which has not yet been fully assessed. It cannot be assumed that such changes are of no significance to human health."
The majority of the Western developed nations do not fluoridate their water. The ongoing discussions on this question, and whether the risks of fluoridation outweigh its benefits, seems a question still in debate but a little closer to compromise.
Chlorine
One of the great public health triumphs of the twentieth century has been drinking water sanitation.
In modern society, we flush our waste into the same bodies of water from which we draw drinking water. One cheap and effective way to disinfect the water is with chlorine.
Not until 1974, was it discovered that chlorinated water has its own contaminant contributions.
Chlorine reacts with naturally occurring organic chemicals forming a group of chemicals called disinfection by-products (DBP) most commonly found in surface water drinking supplies. A number of these DBP’s have been found to be carcinogenic or mutagenic in laboratory animals.
With the countless number of studies done on the links between cancer and chlorine the most reliable findings to date may be those of meta-analyses. These are large studies that pool results of many other studies. Three such meta-analyses, in 1992, 2003 and 2004, linked long-term consumption of chlorinated water to increases in the rates of bladder cancer, particularly in men. Chloramine’s are thought to be a better alterative to chlorine but recently have been shown to corrode pipes. Those pipes and plumbing fixtures have then leached extremely high levels of lead into the water.
Because of the sheer volume of data pointing to adverse effects from chlorine and its by-products, is it really safe? What are the alternatives? What has become clear is that more research is needed.
21st century technology has provided us with some alternatives to chlorine. Ultraviolet light (UV)as one chlorine substitute has emerged in the last few years. It uses radiation in a narrow band to kill the pathogens in water. UV is an extremely effective disinfectant and is used in many countries worldwide. This technology is the rising star in water treatment, and has no real down side. It is very promising for disinfection of all types of drinking water sources at relatively low costs.
Another substitute is ozone. It is currently disinfecting drinking water in thousands of facilities in Europe.
Ozone is an extremely powerful oxidant, providing more effective disinfection than chlorine or UV.
Being unstable ozone cannot be stored and must be produced on-site, making the process more expensive than chlorination. Ozone also produces the formation of oxygenated by-products but appears to be a clear improvement over chlorine disinfection. The oxygenated by-products of ozone have not been thoroughly evaluated so we cannot rule out the possibility of other kinds of health hazards emerging.
Links
- US water information system web interface
- Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Water Nov 2008
References
Meta-analysis of studies on individual consumption of chlorinated drinking water and bladder cancer
C M Villanueva, F Fernández, N Malats, J O Grimalt and M Kogevinas
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2003;57;166-173
doi:10.1136/jech.57.3.166
Lead in the Water Mapping gets a handle on disinfectant's danger
Science News. Washington: Dec 2, 2006. Vol. 170, Iss. 23; pg. 357, 1 pgs
ISSN: 00368423
Is Our Water Safe To Drink? A Guide to Drinking Water Hazards and Health Risks
J. Gordon Millichap, M.D.
ISBN-10: 087857297X
The Water We Drink Water Quality and Its Effects on Health
Joshua I. Barzilay, M.D. Winkler G. Weinberg, M.D. J. William Eley, M.D., M.P.H
ISBN-10: 0813526736
FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies
International Standard Book Number 0-309-65799-7 (PDF)
National Research Council of Canada: NRC Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality
Environmental Fluoride 1977 by Dyson Rose & John R. Marier
National Research Council of Canada
NRCC NO. 16081 ISSN 0316-0114
The Effective Use Of Fluorides In Public Health
Sheila Jones, Brian A. Burt, Poul Erik Petersen, & Michael A. Lennon, Sept. 2005,
vol.83, no.9, p.670-676. ISSN 0042-9686..
The Sierra Club Guide to Safe Drinking Water
May 7, 1996
ISBN-10: 087156355X
The association of drinking water source and chlorination by-products with cancer incidence among postmenopausal women in Iowa: a prospective cohort study.
T J Doyle, W Zheng, J R Cerhan, C P Hong, T A Sellers, L H Kushi, and A R Folsom
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, American Journal of Public Health July 1997, Vol. 87, No. 7
Drinking water chlorination and cancer – a historical cohort study in Finland.
Cancer Causes and Control Volume 8, Number 2 / March, 1997
ISSN0957-5243 (Print) 1573-7225 (Online)
Case-control study of bladder cancer and chlorination by-products in treated water (Ontario, Canada) Cancer Causes and Control Volume 7, Number 6 / November, 1996
ISSN0957-5243 (Print) 1573-7225 (Online)
Water Chlorination and Birth Defects.
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 55(3):134-135, March 2000.
Magnus, Per; Jaakkola, Jouni J. K.; Skrondal, Anders; Alexander, Jan; Becher, Georg; Krogh, Truls; Dybing, Erik
Chlorination of Drinking Water and Cancer Mortality in Taiwan
Authors: Yang C-Y.1; Chiu H-F.2; Cheng M-F.3; Tsai S-S.3
Source: Environmental Research, Volume 78, Number 1, July 1998, pp. 1-6(6)
Chlorination, chlorination by-products, and cancer: a meta-analysis
Morris, RD, Audet, AM, Angelillo, IF, Chalmers, TC, Mosteller, F
Am J Public Health 1992 82: 955-963
Role of chlorine and chloramine in corrosion of lead-bearing plumbing materials
Edwards, M.; Dudi, A.
Journal of the American Water Works Association. Vol. 96, no. 8. Aug. 2004
Science News –June 29, 2005
Chloramines again linked to lead in drinking water
(http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/jun/science/rr_chloramines.html)
Evidence that Monochloramine Disinfectant Could Lead to Elevated Pb Levels in Drinking Water
Jay A. Switzer, Vishnu V. Rajasekharan, Sansanee Boonsalee, Elizabeth A. Kulp, and Eric W. Bohannan
Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2006; 40(10) pp 3384 - 3387; (Article) DOI: 10.1021/es052411r
Effect Of Ultraviolet Disinfection Of Drinking Water On The Viability Of Cryptosporidium Parvum Oocysts
M. J. Lorenzo-Lorenzo, M. E . Ares-Mazas, I . Villacorta-Martinez de Maturana, and D . Duran-Oreiro
Laboratorio de Parasitologia, Facultad de Farmacia. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, La Coruna, Spain
J Parasitol, . 79(I ) . 1993, p 67-70. American Society of Parasitologists 1993
Civil Engineering 1995 . In Martinez, California, a new UV treatment system has saved
the sanitary district about $100,000 per year in operating costs compared to the chlorinebased
system it replaced (Billings 1996).
Ultraviolet light water disinfection Linden 1998, Valenti 1997.
Linden, Karl G., and Jeannie L. Darby. 1998. Ultraviolet disinfection of marginal effluents: Determining ultraviolet absorbance and subsequent estimation of ultraviolet intensity. Water Environment Research, Vol. 70, No. 2: 221.
Advantages of UV technology over chlorine gas disinfection
The use of UV irradiation technology to disinfect wastewater has increased tremendously during the last 10 years (Loge et al. 1996a). “Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection compares favorably in terms of
efficiency and cost-effectiveness with traditional chlorination dechlorination systems for treating wastewater effluent” (American Society of Civil Engineers 1995).
Advanced technologies in water and wastewater treatment.
H. Zhou and Daniel W. Smith
Can. J. Civ. Eng./Rev. can. génie civ. 28(S1): 49-66 (2001)
Consumer reports February 1996
