Can drinking water cause illness or even cancer?This is a featured page

Zoe Note:
It is my opinion that cancer
can be linked to drinking and cooking
with
improperly
filtered
&
unfiltered
TAP WATER.
Even your choice
in bottled water demands
discernment but its a heck of
a lot better than the
improperly
filtered
even
unfiltered
TAP
if you read the label.
Do you know how many
fill baby bottles & cook with
improperly
filtered
even unfiltered
tap water?

Live Forever
&
Be Blessed
Zoe
_____________
Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water

AP
Posted: 2008-03-10 06:49:46
Filed Under: Health News, Nation News, Science News
(March 9) - 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.


Matt Rourke, AP
What's in the Water?
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
Most Toxic
Cities in U.S.
1 of 10
Last year, Environmental Data Resources ranked America's most toxic cities, defined by the amount of man-made chemical in each area's soil. Click through the photos to see the top 10.
10. Cincinnati | Contaminated Sites: 22,992
Leaking storage tanks: 1,719 | Corrective action reports: 44

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.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-03-09 18:50:12
Bottled Water
Pure Drink or Pure Hype? Top of Report


Chapter 5

MISLEADING BOTTLED WATER LABELING AND MARKETING

In 1995, FDA issued "standards of identity" -- essentially labeling rules, in response to a petition from the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA). [230] These rules were widely acclaimed as a breakthrough that would prohibit misleading claims by unscrupulous water bottlers. While the rules do prohibit some of the most egregiously deceptive labeling practices by bottlers, they have by no means eliminated the problem.

Some Bottled Water Labels Remain Misleading to Consumers

The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, found in a 1992 study that deceptive bottled water labeling was a widespread practice, with state authorities exasperated about FDA inaction in the face of frequent statements and vignettes indicating or implying that the bottled water was far purer than tap water or came from specific sources or had purity levels that may not have been justified. [231]
Many of these practices continue. For example, FDA rules allow bottlers to call their product "spring water" -- which seems to carry cachet with consumers as being especially natural and pure -- even though it may be brought to the surface using a pumped well, and even though it may be treated with chemicals. FDA merely requires that the geologic formation that is tapped by the well must come to the surface somewhere, sometimes, to allow the water pumped to the surface in a well to be called spring water. [232] Among the more interesting labels we have run across:
  • "Spring water" (with mountains and a lake on the label) actually from an industrial parking lot next to a hazardous waste site, ruled not misleading. A well located in the middle of an industrial warehouse facility and next to a state-designated industrial waste site in Millis, Massachusetts, produced this water, contaminated with industrial solvents including trichloroethylene at levels above EPA and FDA standards. The label gracing at least one of the many brands that used this water depicted a beautiful mountain in a reflection off a lake and was called "spring water." In response to a request from the state of Massachusetts, FDA opined that this label was acceptable so long as the water does come to the surface sometimes (it sometimes does in an unpaved area near the parking lot), and as long as "there is no claim to the effect that the location pictured in the vignette is the actual spring, we would not consider the label vignette to be in violation of our requirements." [233] Apparently, after public disclosure of the true source of the water and contamination problems, this well is no longer being used for bottled water.

  • "Alasika™ - Alaska Premium Glacier Drinking Water: Pure Glacier Water From The Last Unpolluted Frontier, Bacteria Free" apparently from a public water supply. This water actually came from "Public Water System #111241" (a public water system in Juneau, Alaska), according to documents in Washington State files. The bottler evidently was told that when it reordered its labels, it had to state that the water is "from a municipal source" or "from a community water system," in keeping with FDA rules; the phrase "pure glacier water" was, per documents in state files, "considered false and misleading." The bottler was required to drop the "bacteria free" claim, as this was "considered synonymous with sterile and false." This water no longer claims to be "glacier water" or "bacteria free." However, NRDC has found several other brands sold as "glacier" water even though they apparently come from groundwater nowhere near any current glacier.[234]

  • Vals Water "Known to Generations in France for its Purity and Agreeable Contribution to Health...Reputed to Help Restore Energy, Vitality, and Combat Fatigue." While the IBWA voluntary code prohibits health claims, some bottlers still make such claims.

In addition to these instances of bottled water labels, far more common -- in fact exceptionally widespread -- is the use of descriptive terminology that suggests bottled water is extraordinarily pure and uncontaminated. As an example, our review of the labels and Web site vignettes and advertising of about 50 IBWA members found the following terms used:
  • "Pure" -- eight bottlers.
  • "Purest" or "Purity" -- three bottlers.
  • "Pristine" -- five bottlers.
  • "Glacial" -- two bottlers.
  • "Natural" or "Prepared by Nature" -- eight bottlers.
  • "Naturally Purified" or "Naturally Occurring" -- three bottlers.
  • "Premium" -- five bottlers.
  • "Mountain Water" -- seven bottlers.
  • "Clean" -- two bottlers.
  • "Good Health" or "Healthy" -- two bottlers
  • "For Health Conscious" -- two bottlers

Thus, representations about bottled water purity, premium and natural sources, and healthfulness remain extremely widespread. The FDA rules seem to have little effect on bottlers' claims of water purity and cleanliness.


Bottled Water Marketing is Often False or Misleading

Bottled water marketing seeks to emphasize the supposed purity of bottled water, in many cases contrasting "pure" and "protected" bottled water with "inconsistent" or unpredictable tap water quality. In the words of a leading industry consultant, "Water bottlers are selling a market perception that water is 'pure and good for you'...." [235]
This effort to create a "market perception" of purity is an advertising mandate for the industry, notwithstanding the fact that just because water comes from a bottle does not mean that it is any purer than tap water, as we have seen in previous chapters. Among the common industry claims about bottled water that are of questionable veracity or that are clearly incorrect are:
  • Bottled water contains "no" chlorine or harmful chemicals. This claim is boldly featured on IBWA fact sheets and its Web site. [236] It clearly is false, as previous chapters have shown.

  • Bottled water is always high quality, whereas tap water is of inconsistent quality. IBWA often points out that "unfortunately, tap water can be inconsistent -- sometimes it might be okay and other times it is not." On the other hand, IBWA says, "quality is in every container of bottled water. It's consistent and it is inspected and monitored by governmental and private laboratories." [237] What IBWA neglects to point out, however, is that in many cases bottled water does contain contaminants, that most tap water is required to be monitored more often than bottled water (and testing must be done by government-certified labs, which is not the case for bottled water), and that about one fourth or more of the bottled water sold in the United States is derived from the same tap water IBWA says is of inconsistent quality.

  • No waterborne illness has been traced to bottled water. IBWA claims that "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), bottled water has never been responsible for an outbreak of waterborne illness." [238] In fact, as discussed in the Technical Report (print report only) and Appendix B, there have been waterborne-disease outbreaks traced to bottled water. For example, a bottled water-related cholera outbreak in U.S. territory in the Pacific was written up in 1996 in CDC's flagship journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, and other outbreaks traced to bottled water in Portugal and elsewhere have been documented. [239]

  • Cryptosporidium cannot get into bottled water. The IBWA's fact sheets and Web site make the repeated claim that FDA rules "ensure that surface water contaminants such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia are not present" in bottled water derived from groundwater, and that all IBWA members using municipal water "reprocess this water [and] employ methods such as reverse osmosis, deionization, distillation, and filtration," implying this eliminates any risk. IBWA also implies that bottled water is safe for the immunocompromised. [240] There is no evidence that bottled water is truly immune from Cryptosporidium or Giardia unless it is fully protected and treated with EPA-CDC recognized best available technologies, and much bottled water does not receive this treatment. Indeed, internal industry communications highlight that IBWA is well aware that some bottlers do not use these treatment technologies. [241]

  • Imported bottled water must meet all U.S. rules. IBWA states that "any bottled water sold in the United States must meet all of the same regulations as domestically produced water." [242] But what is not mentioned is that FDA's Good Manufacturing Practices, source approval, and source-water-testing requirements apply at the source or bottling facility and are impossible for FDA to enforce when such facilities are outside of the United States. FDA does not conduct any foreign inspections of bottlers, so the degree to which foreign bottlers comply with these FDA rules is not known. What is clear, however, is that these FDA rules do not apply equally to foreign bottlers.

Although these claims may not be the most exaggerated of those made by the industry, they are troubling in that all of them are made by the leading industry trade association.
Also of concern is a major IBWA public relations campaign intended to persuade the public to drink more bottled water. The campaign, funded by IBWA members, is aimed to be "a comprehensive campaign to educate third-party groups and the media about the safety and quality of bottled water." The campaign includes slick advertising and fact sheets. Also central are briefings of the media, nonprofit health organizations, and groups representing the immunocompromised and retired persons. The campaign has also taken other steps, such as the sponsorship of an American Dietetic Association meeting. Mailings have been made to thousands of advocacy groups, members of the media, environmental and health groups. Several news stories have been placed, and expanded briefings in more cities were planned.
Thus, in a well-orchestrated effort, the bottled water industry has made major inroads into the public psyche, reinforcing perceptions about the purity of bottled water. While this clearly is within the industry's rights, it is important that bottlers not overstate their case or mislead the public into believing that bottled water is safer or better protected than is the case.




ZoeGurl
ZoeGurl 		Latest page update: made by ZoeGurl , Mar 10 2008, 9:39 AM EDT (about this update About This Update ZoeGurl Edited by ZoeGurl

9 words added
1 word deleted

view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)

There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.