Picture this: Three guys go into a bar. The batender asks, “What’ll you have?”
"A beer", says the first guy. Second one says, “Whiskey” and turning
to the third guy asks, “what about you?” “Oh me, I really need a good
strong kick, one with lots of punch to it... Yep, I think this day calls for a big
one on tap! Hey bartender, how about some of your tap water!”
It was hard not to hear about the mess our water supply is in; the March AP (Associated
Press) story was picked up by almost every media outlet imaginable. Members of a “National
Investigative Team” reviewed reports and talked to over 200 officials and scientists
for a five-month period. The AP writers’ conclusions struck fear into many a thirsty
American, who was suddenly told he was drinking urine. Not any urine either, but
drug-filled urine, possibly from their neighbor up the road.
The first to feel the effects were the water filter companies, who have received many
inquiries from
consumers. Even though a less widely published story came out in 2000 after the U.S.
Geological Survey’s research, apparently few in the industry have run tests on their
products to find out if they could filter out pharmaceuticals. Those that did run checks
only tested a few drugs.
The EPA hasn’t responded either, as to this day there are still no minimum standards
detailing how many parts per million of drugs to water is tolerable. Nor does anyone know
the long-term effects on our bodies from drinking such pharmaceutical cocktails on a daily
basis. Research on fish and other animals shows many ill effects, which suggests we will
be affected as well, if only by eating the fish.
It was pointed out that this problem did not only pertain to the U.S., but recent studies
have found similar drugs in the water supplies of Canada, Asia, Australia, Europe, and
even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea. Other studies have found them in Brazil and South
Africa.
The article also made it clear that bottled water is no solution, as it can pick up the
contaminants from the tap water from which it is filtered, or the natural springs from
which it is collected. Virtually no water source is safe, since the problem has not yet
been thoroughly addressed.
Many opinions and old surveys no longer relevant are cited, but after a critical look at
the article, we aren’t enlightened much. The writers state that when it comes to
water filters, reverse osmosis models do the best job. No evidence for this is given,
however.
A little deeper investigation highlighted the problem of antibiotics. Since bacteria can
adapt to them and nullify their effectiveness, the constant exposure of antibiotics in the
water will give the many bacteria strains ample time to mount their resistance.
There are additional issues to those highlighted by the AP’s article. Besides the
overwhelming conclusion that our world has become too enamored with pharmaceuticals for
our own good, the question still should be asked: Why do most local governments prescribe
large doses of one drug equally distributed to every man, woman and child without regard
to need and without any scientific basis?
The drug is fluoride. Many readers know it as a chemical waste product of the fertilizer
industry that is problematic environmentally in regard to how to dispose of it. So the
government and the industry figured out that putting it in our drinking water would solve
the problem. For more Natural News articles on fluoride, go to: ((http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearch...) .
Many states voted to require fluoridated water, but in a few states it is up to the local
water company. Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water is an example of one group which
has actively opposed the fluoridation. They feel that the fluoride itself is bad enough
for health, but its negative effects are multiplied because fluoride compounds are
contaminated with lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and other toxins.
Not only that, but studies have shown that fluoride can pull lead from pipes and add that
to the poisonous mix coming from our taps. That might be the reason fluoride also seems to
bring copper and aluminum with it as well as the lead.
Animal studies have demonstrated evidence of fluoride’s toxic effects on brain
tissue. These include brain cell damage, reduced lipid content, impairment in anti-oxidant
defense systems, increased aluminum uptake, and the formation of beta-amyloid plaques.
These are the plaques which are indicative of Alzheimer’s Disease. Maybe this
explains why many dogs seem to prefer to drink from puddles than their own
tap-filled water dishes.
Complicating the ability to control the level of fluoride is the presence in many rivers
of “naturally
occurring fluoride”. It has been hard to find research on the source of such “natural”
fluoride, but it possibly could come from the same source as the pharmaceuticals, or from
fertilized soils along the stream banks.
It appears that, whatever the agenda of the AP for its wide dissemination of the news that
the presence of pharmaceuticals in our water supply is alarming, it would have done us all
a service if a result is that citizens become more aware of the problems with fluoride.
At least, most kinds of water filters will filter out the fluoride and chlorine in the tap
water. A more difficult problem is filtering out the other pharmaceuticals.
In-home filters come in several basic types: Reverse osmosis, carbon filters, and
distillation models. Until the levels and standards have been set, comparing the abilities
of the different types for filtering out drugs will be difficult.
The Reverse Osmosis (RO) filters have been very successful at filtering out toxins and
contaminants and possibly will work for drugs. The problem with them is that they require
good water pressure and a large volume of water, 75% of which is wasted.
Not only that, but this waste water takes in the contaminants, resulting in a much more
highly condensed brew. This water goes back down the drain and into the water supply and
the cycle repeats. The best way to deal with this might be to drain this water into a
storage tank to be used for irrigation of one’s garden or lawn or drain it directly
to an irrigation hose.
Shane Ellison, an organic chemist and author of The Hidden Truth about Cholesterol
Lowering Drugs, (www.thepeopleschemist.com)
, favors the five-stage RioFlow Reverse Osmosis filter, priced at about $169. When asked
if one could safely run the leftover water out to the garden to irrigate fruit trees or
veggies, he stated “Cellulose acts as a pretty good filter, stopping drug uptake. But
I've never tested this personally. Most plants only take up water and a bit of nitrogen...
Using the sun, they then make all the nutritional components ‘in-house’ so to
speak... It's quite miraculous when you consider it...”
Carbon filters are used in a variety of water filters. A few carbon filter systems,
depending on the makeup of their filtering material, have been certified for the removal
of lead, asbestos, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), cysts, and coliform. The inorganic
chemicals would not stick to the carbon, however. Another downside is that carbon filters
have to be cleaned often and/or replaced to be effective.
One maker, Aquasana, states “Pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are virtually all
Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) or Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) and are
effectively filtered out by our filters. The coconut shell granulated activated carbon
used in all of our filters is recognized by the EPA as the best available technology for
the removal of SOCs and VOCs.” They failed to mention what happens to the few
inorganic chemicals, however.
Distillation units work by steaming the water and separating out the contaminants from the
water. This type provides very clean water, but a charcoal filter needs to be
incorporated, since toxins like chlorine can both vaporize and re-condense along with the
water being cleaned. Beneficial liquid trace minerals will be lost in the distilling
process, so they will have to be added back in. Electricity is also required for these
units.
The best choice will probably be a combination of reverse osmosis filter augmented by pre-
and post-
activated carbon filters. The filter will definitely need several stages and different
kinds of filtering media. There is even a product which adds a special ceramic filter to
it and attempts to incorporate the best of all three methods. It is the kind that is used
by NASA in our space program.
Another consideration is whether or not to filter ALL the water in the residence, or just
the drinking water. Whole house systems are expensive, but shower filters are also
effective in removing chlorine and other toxins. It is even possible to find filters that
work with the tub faucet so bath water can also be chlorine-free.
In the next few months, it can be anticipated that water filter companies will be running
tests on the
abilities of their filters to remove pharmaceuticals. Water companies will be fending off
questions from consumers and preparing statements. It is doubtful that water companies and
cities will be able to improve water quality very quickly.
Since the earlier studies, small pilot programs and one-day pickups of unused drugs have
popped up in the Northeast, California, Washington, Florida, and elsewhere.
At least one state, Illinois, is now calling for a testing of water supplies for drugs.
Illinois already has a disposal program for unused drugs, in an attempt to cut down the
amount disposed of in toilets etc. The Illinois EPA has removed six 30-gallon drums of
pharmaceuticals from its pilot program so far.
In this program, recommended by the EPA, solid waste agencies in four locations collect
unused drugs from senior centers, retirement complexes, and convalescent centers in their
areas. The state EPA collects unused pharmaceuticals at its twice-yearly household
hazardous waste collection events. In addition, many hospitals, pharmacies and police
departments offer programs to collect and dispose of unwanted drugs.
Maine recently started a four-county program in which pharmaceutical buyers will take home
prepaid mailers in which they will send drug leftovers to a way station. From there, most
will be picked up for transport to incinerators. Organizers intend to eventually extend
the program statewide.
To dispose of unused drugs, the EPA suggests putting them among coffee grounds or kitty
litter in a non-permeable container such as a coffee can before bringing them to the
collection site. Some drugs should be flushed down the toilet; if so, the label should so
indicate.
Montreal plans to be the first large metropolis in the world to disinfect all its waste
water using
ozonation, a cutting-edge technology that uses high voltages of electricity to charge
oxygen molecules. This produces ozone gas which will remove bacteria, viruses, drugs and
industrial chemicals dumped into the St. Lawrence River, partly by a large number of
pharmaceutical plants. Although many cities already use ozonation, it has not been done
with this large a volume.
In other studies, ozonation with advanced oxidation processes were found effective to
reduce or eliminate the drugs in drinking water. Different pharmaceuticals require
different levels of ozone applied. Ozonation plus activated carbon filtration is best for
more of these. Though ozonation is cheap, the problem with using it alone is that the
ozone’s effect wears off quickly.
For some drugs, like antibiotics, a good alternative is membrane filtration by RO.
Nanofiltration and RO filtration were found effective in Arizona and California studies.
Other research found that pre-filtration and final RO filtration was effective. Granular
activated carbon combined with RO is even better.
Overall, it can be concluded that ozonation and AOPs (Advanced Oxidation Processes) are
promising processes for the efficient removal of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. If all
sewage treatment plants added more time for the sludge to sit, the results could be even
better, as the sludge-eating micro-organisms would have more time to do their preliminary
work.
If manufacturing companies must pay fines for releasing toxins into our environment, it is
logical that the pharmaceutical companies should fund the cleanup of drugs from our water
supply. Since the likelihood of that happening is doubtful, the consumer will bear the
responsibility for providing their own filtering systems so they can feel they are doing
the most possible to ensure the greatest health for their families.
Local governments will have to adopt programs such as that in Illinois. After all, the
problem left untreated will only get worse. Every drug that gets filtered out re-enters
the water supply by one route or another, further compounding the problem.
Researchers have made progress, though more needs to be done to find the least expensive
system that will do the necessary job of delivering water that is fit to drink. (naturalnews, 4.04.2008, Cathy Sherman (see all articles by this author)
| Key concepts: water, fluoride
and pharmaceuticals)
Resources:
((http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/ecol...)
(http://planet.wwu.edu/articles/gender-bender.html)
((http://www.mindfully.org/Water/2003/Pha...)
(http://books.google.com/books?)
((http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/...)
((http://www.care2.com/greenliving/carbon...)
(http://www.multipureco.com/appressrelease.pdf)
((http://www.mercola.com/2005/nov/17/phar...)
(http://www.aquaspace.com/)
(http://www.purefilter.net/USRO5-60-QC.asp)
Cathy Sherman is a freelance writer with a major interest in natural health and in
encouraging others to take responsibility for their health. She can be reached through www.devardoc.com.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022946.html