• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pharmacuticals in the drinking water supply widespread

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
I guess living in Austin has more benefits than I realized. Not only is there South by South West and Austin City Limits, there is a lack of meds in our drinking water supply.

I guess I went overboard installing that reverse osmosis system.....but I'm still happy that I did anyway.

More story here

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.

The concentrations of the pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Utilities insist that their water is safe.

But the presence of so many prescription drugs ? and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen ? in so much drinking water is heightening concerns among scientists about the possible long-term consequences to human health.

During 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 and from Detroit to Louisville, Ky.

Austin was one of three metropolitan areas reporting that no such drugs had been detected in its water.

Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings unless pressed to do so, the AP found.

How do the drugs get into the water?

People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest 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.

Waste from animals that had been given veterinary drugs also plays a role.

Researchers do not yet understand what exact risks come with decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals. But recent studies, which have gone virtually unnoticed by the 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 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 discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems.

? Epilepsy and 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 and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.
 
Yes, it's there in 1 grain of salt in a railroad car full of sand. Being detectable doesn't mean anything, but it makes good press. We're talking parts per trillion here.
 
Parts per trillion can have a measurable effect on the body though, especially over long periods of time. Drinking the water once isn't going to hurt you, but drinking it over 10,20,50+ years absolutely can. The question that remains unanswered at this point is how it will effect people.
 
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Parts per trillion can have a measurable effect on the body though, especially over long periods of time. Drinking the water once isn't going to hurt you, but drinking it over 10,20,50+ years absolutely can. The question that remains unanswered at this point is how it will effect people.

That's under the assumption that the body accumulates these drugs which I don't believe they do.
 
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Parts per trillion can have a measurable effect on the body though, especially over long periods of time. Drinking the water once isn't going to hurt you, but drinking it over 10,20,50+ years absolutely can. The question that remains unanswered at this point is how it will effect people.

I'd be interested in seeing your data supporting your contention regarding the medications in question.
 
Sweet, now I can finally get those drugs together to sell. I'm going to set up a filtration unit at the house and grab the solute, separate it, reconstitute it into pill form, and sell on the corner. Profit!!
 
DON'T FLUSH DRUGS DOWN THE TOILET !

Especially anti-biotics. Primary and secondary wastewater treatment is a biological process which is not intended to manage pharms. Neither are tertiary treatments. The end result are strains of bacteria that are super resistent to the anti-biotics being released into the environment..
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Parts per trillion can have a measurable effect on the body though, especially over long periods of time. Drinking the water once isn't going to hurt you, but drinking it over 10,20,50+ years absolutely can. The question that remains unanswered at this point is how it will effect people.

I'd be interested in seeing your data supporting your contention regarding the medications in question.

I have no data regarding these particular medications, but your assumption that just because its a small amount of the drugs means its not a problem has no support data either.

There are lots of other toxins out there that can be found in "trace" levels, and at one point in time were thought to be no problem, but 20 years later all of a sudden cancer levels started rising in that area because we learned that while exposures at those levels was not a short-term risk at all, it was a long-term risk. This seems like one of those situations where if exposed over a long enough period of time, then yes, these could very well have an effect.

And we're not even discussing the effects on fish, which will accumulate the drugs in their bodies fairly quickly, and then when eaten it goes right into your system. This is much the problem with mercury pollution.
 
People who are worried about a *very* minute amount of flushed pharms in their water should look into permissible amounts of stuff in things like ketchup. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Parts per trillion can have a measurable effect on the body though, especially over long periods of time. Drinking the water once isn't going to hurt you, but drinking it over 10,20,50+ years absolutely can. The question that remains unanswered at this point is how it will effect people.

I'd be interested in seeing your data supporting your contention regarding the medications in question.

I have no data regarding these particular medications, but your assumption that just because its a small amount of the drugs means its not a problem has no support data either.

There are lots of other toxins out there that can be found in "trace" levels, and at one point in time were thought to be no problem, but 20 years later all of a sudden cancer levels started rising in that area because we learned that while exposures at those levels was not a short-term risk at all, it was a long-term risk. This seems like one of those situations where if exposed over a long enough period of time, then yes, these could very well have an effect.

And we're not even discussing the effects on fish, which will accumulate the drugs in their bodies fairly quickly, and then when eaten it goes right into your system. This is much the problem with mercury pollution.

I'm not trying to bust on you, but trying to give a sense of perspective.

First your use of the word "toxin". Medications aren't toxins however they may be TOXIC in certain circumstances. There is a very important difference here.

Let's talk about mercury which you bring up. Estimates show that up to 7500 tons are released into the environment from all sources annually. That's a staggering amount. Let's have a look at that.

First, mercury compounds are so poisonous that minute quantities of methyl mercury kill. The amount in the environment is so enormous that the production of these pharmaceuticals is minute by comparison. Yet the amount of it needed to cause harm long term is far far higher than the levels of medications found in water. In other words the drugs would have to vastly more harmful than mercury compounds, yet people can and do consume them daily for many many years without harm.

Further, mercuric compounds DO pass up the food chain as do PCBs and many stable compounds. People have been investigating the concentration of medications in fish, and there is no good data to support that they are persistent in the environment to move upwards in the food chain, at least non that have been able to find.

The best claim is for estrogenic compounds causing problems, however there isn't much estrogen per se in the enviroment, however there are a great deal of natural and artificial estrogenic substances who's effects would cause the minute quantity of theraputic estrogens to be lost as noise in the background.

These are far more troubling, toxic and abundant things in the environment than the result of people peeing their meds out.

What we are dealing with is that someone has discovered that there are drugs at or near the level of detection and some are making wild statements without substance. There are far more real environmental problems out there.

 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: K1052
Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?

Jack, is that you?

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
 
... deja-vu from OT...

Anyway, yea... what people are missing in this "yet another crisis brought to you by our busy body media" is that the only reason there are meds in the water is that people are peeing them out. Nobody seems concerned that they are brushing their teeth in the stale asparagus and onion scented pee some guy took 3 weeks ago... They are worried about that one part per trillion of estrogen or boner medicine that made it's way into the water supply.

I figure drinking water from the tap is sort of like eating sausage, it's best not to know what's in there - though if someone invents a tap that dispenses delicious Usinger's Thuringer sausage I'm there.
 
Me thinks loving thoughts of my well, which, btw, tests damn clean ftw!
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: K1052
Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?

Jack, is that you?

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

I do not avoid women, Mandrake... but I do.. deny them my essence.
 
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
DON'T FLUSH DRUGS DOWN THE TOILET !

Especially anti-biotics. Primary and secondary wastewater treatment is a biological process which is not intended to manage pharms. Neither are tertiary treatments. The end result are strains of bacteria that are super resistent to the anti-biotics being released into the environment..

I don't know of mass amounts of people flushing expensive drugs down the toilet.

If you read the article you would have read that people piss the drugs out.

So are you suggesting we ban pissing?
 
Having antibiotics in the water could make people tolerant to normal antibiotics and could cause antibiotic resistant disease. Might be wise to ask people not to throw medications directly into the toilet. However, throwing them into the landfill may be just as bad if the landfill is seeping into the water table.

A simple public service anouncement might help.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
Having antibiotics in the water could make people tolerant to normal antibiotics and could cause antibiotic resistant disease. Might be wise to ask people not to throw medications directly into the toilet. However, throwing them into the landfill may be just as bad if the landfill is seeping into the water table.

A simple public service anouncement might help.

Now that's NOT a fear.

First, people don't become resistant to antibiotic. It's the bacteria which do. The process by which that occurs isn't exposure to minute level of antibiotics.

There is a level at which bacteria begin to die when exposed to a substance. Let's say you have a sample of a billion exposed to a low but effective concentration of penicillin. Note "effective" means deadly.

Do they all die at the same rate? No, they don't. What happens is that some bacteria have the inherent ability to resist the drug. Let's say you kill all of them off except the most resistant 1 percent. Let them reproduce, and do the experiment over. You will find the rate of death decreases, and at some point there will be organisms which are completely immune to penicillin.

The key here is to understand what happened. It's not exposure to penicillin that caused the problem, but that penicillin selected out by very Darwinian means those organisms best able to cope with a different environment. The strongest survived.

In other words, if the level of substance wasn't sufficient to kill them to begin with, it would be impossible to influence the characteristics of the bacteria at all. It isn't penicillin per se, but fact that they died to begin with that provided the opportunity for some of them to survive and reproduce.

The levels of antibiotics in question are magnitudes of order too low for that effect.
 
Back
Top