[Pharmwaste] Re: Pharmwaste Digest, Vol 120, Issue 24

Sat Oct 31 14:59:45 EDT 2015

Larry Kenemore Jr. Inventor/Consultant to Board of Directors 10092 Bianchi Way #207 Cupertino CA. 95014 (855) 873-4965 A Woman Owned/ Minority Owned Business D&B #079463523 NAICS #562920 CAGE #079463523/7AKL Larrykenemorejr at fillaboxrecycling.com
Jennifer What you said is sooooo true source collection (In home) is where the answer
is. Pharmacies are not flushing down the toilet or trash, hospitals are not
flushing down the toilet or trash, the problem is (In home) that is the source.
And you can be sure, I came up with the concept back in 2005 and have worked on
this patent since then. There is no need for more taxes, PHARMA is working
towards addressing the problem themselves, so lets let business work this out
now that the U.S. Supreme Court told them toooooooooooo.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:25 PM, < pharmwaste-request at lists.dep.state.fl.us > wrote:
Send Pharmwaste mailing list submissions to
pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl. us

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/ cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ pharmwaste
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
pharmwaste-request at lists.dep. state.fl.us

You can reach the person managing the list at
pharmwaste-owner at lists.dep. state.fl.us

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Pharmwaste digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. RE: Re: Pharmwaste Digest, Vol 120, Issue 21
(Volkman, Jennifer (MPCA))

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Volkman, Jennifer (MPCA)" <jennifer.volkman at state.mn.us>
To: "pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us" <pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us>
Cc:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:24:28 +0000
Subject: RE: [Pharmwaste] Re: Pharmwaste Digest, Vol 120, Issue 21
Right about what, exactly?

Jim missed an opportunity to point toward his disposal system for chemo wastes
that deals with the problem at the source--as it should be, and instead blamed
the treatment plant taking in water from millions of toilets. I don’t see where
she said anything about cyclophosphamide being safe. WWTPs can’t filter out/capture everything that is excreted, they
never will be able to, even with the best technology. Source reduction is the
key here and it is far more difficult to address than where to put a collection
box for unused pharms—and that took all of us on the list serve years to get in
place. No one on this list serve advocates sewering unused pharms. Your
“Fillabox” concept could not exist for pharms if we hadn’t all worked toward
separate collection vs. sewering and trashing. It is also lovely working in
waste management for 30 years begging the average Joe to consider paying more
taxes to put better water treatment systems in place. To capture that 1 drop in
a pool. No one in government wins that argument. The woman merely tried to put
the ppt concept into terms people could understand from a risk related basis.
That is also her job. The drinking water exposure doesn’t compare, for example,
to the TDCPP that we accumulate all day long from every surface that it is
imbedded with it.

Aside from that, my frustration as of late is that the numbers are always
converted for the potential impacts on humans, vs. the very real impacts that
are now occurring to aquatic species at the ppt level.

From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep. state.fl.us [mailto: pharmwaste-bounces@ lists.dep.state.fl.us ] On Behalf Of Lawernce Kenemore Jr.
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 4:17 PM
To: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl. us
Subject: [Pharmwaste] Re: Pharmwaste Digest, Vol 120, Issue 21

Larry Kenemore Jr.

Inventor/Consultant to

Board of Directors

10092 Bianchi Way #207

Cupertino CA. 95014

(855) 873-4965

A Woman Owned/

Minority Owned Business

D&B #079463523

NAICS #562920

CAGE #079463523/7AKL

Larrykenemorejr@ fillaboxrecycling.com

Jim

You are so right set them straight.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:57 PM, < pharmwaste-request at lists.dep. state.fl.us > wrote:

Send Pharmwaste mailing list submissions to
pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl. us

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/ cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ pharmwaste
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
pharmwaste-request at lists.dep. state.fl.us

You can reach the person managing the list at
pharmwaste-owner at lists.dep. state.fl.us

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Pharmwaste digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Finding clarity in water testing - testing for CECs in AZ
(Tenace, Laurie)
2. RE: Finding clarity in water testing - testing for CECs in AZ
(Jim Mullowney)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Tenace, Laurie" < Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us >
To: " pharmwaste at lists.dep. state.fl.us " < pharmwaste at lists.dep.state. fl.us >
Cc:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:17:47 +0000
Subject: [Pharmwaste] Finding clarity in water testing - testing for CECs in AZ

One million, seven hundred sixty thousand.

Or 1,760,000.

That’s the number of 8-ounce glasses of water from Flagstaff’s Foxglenn Well a
resident would have to drink to ingest a standard dose of Prozac from trace
amounts in the well water, according to the latest testing numbers.

It’s a figure Erin Young, the city’s water resources manager, makes sure to
emphasize when explaining the latest data from the city’s efforts to test water
for a multitude of trace substances that aren’t currently regulated by state or
federal agencies. The substances are categorized as compounds of emerging
concern, or CECs, and they include things like pharmaceuticals, personal care
products and endocrine disruptors.

Young presented interim results of that testing to the Flagstaff City Council
last month.

The challenge for Young and the city is to interpret those results, verify their
accuracy and help people understand exactly what the data mean for their health
and safety.

“Since (CEC’s) are not regulated, what we’re missing is that conversation
about...even if we find them, what do they mean?” said Brad Hill, director of
the city's utilities department. “Putting these things in perspective is
something we struggle with in our industry.”

Crunching numbers

Flagstaff is one of only a handful of cities willing to test for compounds of
emerging concern, said Hill said. The city has been doing so since 2002.

The effort to sample for these substances stems in part from a federal mandate
and part from a local push to know more about the potable water coming out of
taps and the reclaimed wastewater being sprayed over local parks and ski slopes.

Young’s report to city council in September reviewed results of water testing
completed since 2013. It showed that zero to five CECs were detected at each of
seven drinking water sources across the system. The compounds that showed up
include fluoxetine, or Prozac; Acesulfame-K, a calorie-free sugar substitute;
and azithromycin, an antibiotic used to treat various types of infections.

The number of such compounds detected in reclaimed wastewater and effluent
discharged from the city’s treatment plants was approximately four to eight
times higher, ranging from 23 to 47 substances detected at each test site. The
sweetener sucralose; TDCPP, a flame retardant; amoxicillin, an antibacterial;
and iohexol, an agent used in contrast radiography, were found in the highest
concentrations.

The city also separately tested for the chemical NDMA, a potential carcinogen,
which was detected in both reclaimed wastewater and treated discharge. The
chemical results when ammonia lingering in wastewater reacts with chlorine used
as a disinfectant. That reaction creates chloramines, which can form NDMA.

Those tests are on top of EPA-mandated testing the city completes for a list of
30 contaminants the agency is considering for future regulation.

Putting numbers in perspective

Beyond the numbers themselves, key from a public health standpoint is the amount
or concentration of the substances detected in Flagstaff’s water system. Prozac,
which was detected at the city’s Foxglenn groundwater well, was measured at 24
parts per trillion. That’s the equivalent of 24 grains of salt in an
Olympic-sized pool, Young wrote in her report to the city.

Azithromycin, an antibiotic, was another compound found in Flagstaff’s drinking
water at 37 nanograms per liter, or approximately 37 parts per trillion. A
person would have to drink more than 22,864 8-ounce glasses of water to ingest
an amount of the chemical that would pose a health concern, according to data
provided by the Water Research Foundation, a nonprofit that invests research
dollars in a wide range of water issues.

In reclaimed wastewater the concentrations of CECs were much higher.

Sucralose was the substance found in the highest concentrations in Flagstaff’s
reclaimed wastewater at a maximum of 58,000 parts per trillion. A person would
have to drink more than 773 glasses of water per day of reclaimed water to
receive a dosage above the level deemed safe.

TDCPP, the flame retardant, was found to occur in Flagstaff’s reclaimed
wastewater at a maximum level of 1400 nanograms per liter in reclaimed
wastewater. At that concentration, someone would have to drink more than 1,148
glasses of reclaimed wastewater to ingest a dangerous amount.

At this point, no one in Flagstaff is drinking reclaimed wastewater.

In all, Young wrote in her report that the trace contaminant levels found in
Flagstaff’s drinking water and reclaimed water have remained much the same as in
past years when the city has tested for them.

Need for review

Young also emphasized that the city's testing data hasn’t yet been reviewed by
the city’s CEC advisory panel, a group of doctors, private, government and
university researchers, city officials and health experts.

That’s important because some of the results don’t seem quite right. Tests that
detected fluoxetine, for example, didn’t detect sucralose, which commonly shows
up with fluoxetine, Young said. Fluoxetine levels also were much higher than
other samples collected by the Water Research Foundation. The city found 20 to
30 nanograms per liter compared with a maximum level of 0.82 nanograms per liter
listed in WRF statistics.

Young said the city’s testing lab compared Flagstaff’s results with 558 other
test results for fluoxetine, though, and found the highest level detected was
215 nanograms per liter.

“It may be that the results WRF is getting were run using a different analytical
method. Or perhaps (WRF) has a mistake in units,” Young wrote in a follow-up
email.

Determining the accuracy of the test results and the potential human health
impacts also is becoming increasingly important, and sometimes increasingly
difficult, as the sensitivity of technology improves, compounds to be detected
at smaller and smaller concentrations, Young said.

“It’s really easy to contaminate samples at parts per trillion level,” she said.

At such a small scale, there is a greater chance the devices detected false
positives, or that a sample was contaminated.

“We haven’t had somebody to look at data to see if it makes sense,” Young said.

Evaluating health risk

It’s important to remember that the compounds of emerging concern haven’t been
found to have health impacts at levels found in drinking water, said Alice
Fulmer a senior research manager with the Denver-based Water Research
Foundation. The compounds also vary seasonally and even daily, so levels found
one day may not be the same as those found a few months later, she said.

“Detecting these compounds doesn’t necessarily indicate any risk,” Fulmer said.
“Instead it’s the starting point that tells us, ‘Hey, let's start paying
attention.’”

Laurie Tenace

Environmental Specialist

Waste Reduction Section

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4555

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

850.245.8759

Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Mullowney < jmullowney at pharma-cycle.com >
To: "Tenace, Laurie" < Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us >, " pharmwaste at lists.dep.state. fl.us " < pharmwaste at lists.dep.state. fl.us >
Cc:
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:56:07 -0400
Subject: RE: [Pharmwaste] Finding clarity in water testing - testing for CECs in
AZ

It is insidious to compare the amount of water you would need to drink when it
comes to cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs. OSHA has a zero exposure limit and even
the manufacturers go to great lengths to protect the workers.

Chemicals known to cause birth defects miscarriages and cancer and are effective
on a molecule by molecule basis. We cannot compare proczak to cyclophosphamide ,
the concern is not the dose but the side effects.

These chemicals are not dose dependent, they are designed to alter the DNA of
rapidly dividing cells such as cancer cells and once that cell is altered it
splits in two as a secondary cancer.

Tell that to a two year old who has every cell rapidly dividing, or a pregnant
woman.

Two four eight, just like that shampoo commercial from the 70s .

The problem is that upto 90 % of the drug is excreted in the sweat, urine feces
and saliva contaminating the patients family and property.

Check out www.cytotoxicsafety.org if you doubt anything I am saying.

So all of you water regulatory people are on notice that the world of drugs in
the environment is not all rainbows and unicorns.

Do your job.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------

From: "Tenace, Laurie" < Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us >

Date: 10/30/2015 1:17 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl. us

Subject: [Pharmwaste] Finding clarity in water testing - testing for CECs in AZ