[Pharmwaste] What's coming from your tap (WSJ article)

[Tenace, Laurie]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910526011851511.html?mod=todays_us_persona
l_journal

What's Coming 
>From Your Tap?
By ANJALI ATHAVALEY
August 19, 2008; Page D1

America's latest drinking problem isn't about alcohol.

Concerned about the cost of bottled water -- and its environmental
consequences -- many people are turning back to tap water to quench their
thirst. But as evidence mounts of contaminants in public systems, unease
about the water supply is growing.

Engineers say that U.S. water quality is among the world's best and is
regulated by some of the most stringent standards. But as detection
technology improves, utilities are finding more contaminants in water
systems. Earlier this year, media reports of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals
in water across the country drew attention from U.S. senators and
environmental groups, who are now pushing for regulation of these substances
in water systems.

Of particular concern, experts say, are endocrine-disrupting compounds --
found in birth-control pills, mood-stabilizers and other drugs -- which are
linked to birth defects in wildlife. Also alarming are antibiotics, which if
present in water systems, even in small amounts, could contribute to the rise
of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, or so-called super bugs.

Many pharmaceuticals taken by humans are excreted into urine, or are flushed
intentionally down the toilet. Even though wastewater is treated, trace
amounts of the drugs are often not eliminated. Also, drugs found in the waste
of animals treated with hormones and antibiotics can eventually end up in
groundwater.

The actual health effects of drugs in water systems are unclear. The levels
that have been detected are relatively small compared with those of other
regulated contaminants, such as mercury and benzene. A 2008 study funded by
the Denver-based Awwa Research Foundation -- a nonprofit research group that
was established by the American Water Works Association -- concluded that it
is "highly unlikely" that pharmaceuticals will pose a threat to human health.

But many medical experts argue that more studies need to be done -- and note
that the amount of drugs in the water matters less than who drinks it. Some
drugs, even in small amounts, can be especially harmful to infants, pregnant
women or those with chronic health conditions, for example.

The publicity has frightened many consumers. Laura Pfeil, 39, a stay-at-home
mother with four sons in Mason, Ohio, says it does concern her, "especially
when thinking of my children's welfare."

She says she started using bottled water at home 15 years ago when she was
pregnant with her eldest son because she thought it was safer than tap water.
Three years ago, though, her family switched to a PUR Water Filter System,
made by Procter & Gamble Co., to save money and to reduce the waste resulting
from plastic bottles. (Environmentalists also point to the energy wasted in
transporting bottled water.)

Now, says Ms. Pfeil, she has concerns about consuming trace amounts of
pharmaceuticals that the filter may not eliminate. A spokeswoman for P&G's
PUR division says it "cannot confirm the reduction of pharmaceuticals in
water with carbon filters."

Sales of PUR filters are at an all-time high, says the spokeswoman, an
indication of tap water's new popularity. U.S. consumers spent $16.8 billion
on bottled water in 2007, up 12% from the year before, according to Beverage
Digest, a trade publication. But growth has slowed over the last three years.

Drugs are only one category of contaminants found in tap water. A 2005 study
released by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based
research group, found that tap water in 42 states is contaminated with more
than 140 unregulated chemicals, including MTBE, perchlorate and industrial
solvents.

Protesting a Disinfectant

Even chemicals used to clean and disinfect drinking water are causing worry.
Citizens' groups in states such as California, New York and Vermont are
protesting the increasing use of chloramine -- a combination of chlorine and
ammonia -- to disinfect drinking water. Utilities are using chloramine
because of Environmental Protection Agency limits on chlorine byproducts.

Citizens Concerned About Chloramine in the San Francisco Bay Area, an
activist group, says that hundreds of residents have had reactions, such as
rashes and respiratory problems, to the disinfectant. Some byproducts of
chloramine can be more toxic than chlorine byproducts, says Michael Plewa, a
professor of genetics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who
has studied disinfection byproducts.

The EPA says chloramine is safe in drinking water and has been used for
decades.

In the absence of federal regulation of certain chemicals in water systems,
some states have stepped in. California, for one, has set standards for
various compounds that are not regulated by the EPA, including perchlorate,
an ingredient used in rocket fuel that was spilled into groundwater during
the Cold War and has been found in many water systems. Massachusetts has set
standards for perchlorate and requires that water utilities in the state test
for MTBE, a gasoline additive.

"What you see in many states is a reaction to the lack of action at the
federal level," says Suzanne Condon, director of the Bureau of Environmental
Health at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

Tap Versus Bottled

Health concerns extend to bottled water, says Sarah Janssen, a science fellow
at the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, a nonprofit environmental
advocacy group based in New York. "A lot of bottled water is actually tap
water, so there is no assurance that what is coming from the bottle is any
safer than what is coming from the tap," she says.

In fact, experts say tap water is held to more stringent standards by the
EPA, and tested more often, than bottled water, which is regulated by the
Food and Drug Administration.

Utilities are required by law to send annual reports to their customers
detailing contaminants found in water systems and whether they exceed levels
set by the EPA. They are not required to list unregulated contaminants in
these reports.

If a contaminant exceeds the EPA's "maximum contaminant level," the report
should detail the potential health effects of the contaminant and a summary
of actions the utility is taking. If you do notice a contaminant that exceeds
EPA levels in your utility's report, consider installing a tap-water filter,
experts say.

Water that is tested by utilities is generally tested at the plant. It still
has to travel through your pipes to get to your tap, so if you have pipes
that are a couple of decades old, it may be a good idea to get the water from
your tap tested in a lab -- especially if you are pregnant, nursing or have
small children, says the NRDC's Dr. Janssen. People who get their water from
private wells should have their water tested annually.

Water filters aren't foolproof. Those that are certified by NSF International
-- a nonprofit group that tests food and water products -- can get rid of
unwanted chemicals to EPA's standards, but consumers should be aware that
trace amounts of chemicals may still be left in their water.

Carbon filters, which come in the form of a faucet mount or a pitcher, are
the most commonly used and cost about $30, says Rick Andrew, operations
manager of the drinking water treatment unit program at NSF. These can be
fairly effective in removing many contaminants, but need to be replaced about
every two months.

Other options -- such as reverse-osmosis systems, which use a semipermeable
membrane to remove contaminants, or ultraviolet light treatment, which
prevents micro-organisms from reproducing -- can be more effective, but they
cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Some consumers have found the
cost is worth it, especially if members of the family have certain health
conditions.

Last April, Elizabeth Beyer, 47, purchased a Kinetico Inc. K5 Drinking Water
Station for her father, who had a liver transplant in February. Doctors had
advised him to drink only filtered water. The system, which cost $2,100, is
meant to remove contaminants ranging from lead to chlorine sediment using
reverse-osmosis technology and two additional filters.

Ms. Beyer, who lives in Venice, Fla., says it was worth it. Her water is
clearer and crisper. "I can definitely taste the difference," she says. "You
can see the difference."

Laurie J. Tenace
Environmental Specialist
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4555
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
PH: (850) 245-8759
FAX: (850) 245-8811
Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us 

Mercury web pages:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/mercury/default.htm

Unwanted Medications web pages:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/medications/default.htm




Please Note:  Florida has a very broad public records law.  Most written
communications to or from state officials regarding state business are public
records available to the public and media upon request.  Your e-mail is
communications and may therefore be subject to public disclosure.



The Department of Environmental 

Protection values your feedback as a customer. DEP Secretary Michael W. Sole is committed to continuously assessing and 

improving the level and quality of services provided to you. Please take a few minutes to comment on the quality of 

service you received. Copy the url below to a web browser to complete the DEP 

survey: http://survey.dep.state.fl.us/?refemail=Laurie.Tenace@dep.state.fl.us Thank you in advance for completing the survey.