[Pharmwaste] America's latest drinking problem isn't about alcohol

Thu Aug 21 13:44:33 EDT 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910526011851511.html?mod=todays_us_pe
rsonal_journal

August 19, 2008 

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.

Getty Images  
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."

Write to Anjali Athavaley at anjali.athavaley at wsj.com1

  URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910526011851511.html

Deborah L. DeBiasi
Email:   dldebiasi at deq.virginia.gov
WEB site address:  www.deq.virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Permit Programs
Industrial Pretreatment/Toxics Management Program
PPCPs, EDCs, and Microconstituents
Mail:          P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA  23218 (NEW!)
Location:  629 E. Main Street, Richmond, VA  23219
PH:         804-698-4028
FAX:      804-698-4032