Is our drinking water really safe?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_us/pharmawater_i

should we get bottled water? Also lead has been found and so many other kinds of toxins all the time.

What kind of credibility does tap water really have?

Answer 1

Here are two articles dealing with this.But still it depends on where you are ,every place is different.

i got friends in the mountains in South Africa who can drink straight from the springs (which is led into the house)

Is Bottled Water Better?

Bottled water manufacturers’ marketing campaigns capitalize on isolated instances of contaminated public drinking water supplies by encouraging the perception that their products are purer and safer than tap water. But the reality is that tap water is actually held to more stringent quality standards than bottled water, and some brands of bottled water are just tap water in disguise. What’s more, our increasing consumption of bottled water—more than 22 gallons per U.S. citizen in 2004 according to the Earth Policy Institute—fuels an unsustainable industry that takes a heavy toll on the environment.

Environmental Impact

Fossil fuel consumption. Approximately 1.5 million gallons of oil—enough to run 100,000 cars for a whole year—are used to make plastic water bottles, while transporting these bottles burns thousands more gallons of oil. In addition, the burning of oil and other fossil fuels (which are also used to generate the energy that powers the manufacturing process) emits global warming pollution into the atmosphere.

Water consumption. The growth in bottled water production has increased water extraction in areas near bottling plants, leading to water shortages that affect nearby consumers and farmers. In addition to the millions of gallons of water used in the plastic-making process, two gallons of water are wasted in the purification process for every gallon that goes into the bottles.

Waste. Only about 10 percent of water bottles are recycled, leaving the rest in landfills where it takes thousands of years for the plastic to decompose.

The Simple (and Cheaper) Solution

The next time you feel thirsty, forgo the bottle and turn to the tap. You’ll not only lower your environmental impact but also save money—bottled water can cost up to 10,000 times more per gallon than tap water. And because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for tap water are more stringent than the Food and Drug Administration’s standards for bottled water, you’ll be drinking water that is just as safe as, or safer than, bottled.

If, however, you don’t like the taste of your tap water or are unsure of its quality, you can buy a filter pitcher or install an inexpensive faucet filter to remove trace chemicals and bacteria. If you will be away from home, fill a reusable bottle from your tap and refill it along the way; travel bottles with built-in filters are also available. Finally, limit your bottled water purchases for those times when you’re traveling in countries where water quality is questionable.

Fluoride (fluor) in Water is a Health Risk ::

For more important informations about the dangers of fluor:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

Is fluoride in water really beneficial for health or does it cause other problems?

"Dear EarthTalk: Why do some people complain about fluoride in drinking water and toothpaste? I thought it was beneficial for dental health?"

-- Becky Johnston, Shoreline, WA

Communities began adding fluoride to water supplies in the early 1940s after decades of studies into why some Colorado residents were exhibiting a discoloration or "mottling" of the teeth but at the same time very low rates of actual decay.

The culprit turned out to be high concentrations of a naturally-occurring fluoride that was running off into the water from Pike's Peak after rainfalls. Research later concluded that adding small, controlled amounts of fluoride into public water supplies would act as a form of community-wide cavity prevention without causing the undesirable mottling known at the time as "Colorado stain."

Today, supporters of fluoridation cite research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showing that the very inexpensive fluoridation of drinking water has since correlated to significant reductions in incidences of tooth decay (15-40 percent) in communities across the country.

But skeptics worry we may be getting too much of a good thing. While small amounts of fluoride will prevent tooth decay, excessive amounts can lead not only to irreversible tooth discoloration (today called "fluorosis") but also to other health issues, including an increased risk of bone breakage and osteoporosis.

The problem, says Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which is opposed to fluoridation, is that the very water supplies that are treated for dental purposes are also used in the making of many common food products-from baby formula and cereal to juices, sodas, wines, beers and even fresh produce. And with most toothpastes also adding fluoride, many people are ingesting far more fluoride than they should.

The main concern for most people is the discoloration of children's second teeth once the baby teeth are gone. Besides being embarrassing, there is no cure. And some doctors worry that excessive fluoride may actually be promoting tooth decay rather than preventing it-and harming kids in other ways, particularly as they get older. FAN cites studies showing how low-to-moderate doses of fluoride can lead to eczema, reduced thyroid activity, hyperactivity, IQ deficits, premature puberty and even bone cancer.

On the other side of the debate, concerns have risen that our increased reliance on non-fluoridated bottled water instead of tap water may be leading to increases in tooth decay (some bottled waters have added fluoride). However, speaking in a May 2002 UPI Science News article, John W. Stamm, dean of the School of Dentistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a spokesperson for the American Dental Association, said, "It's very important to realize that there are many sources for body fluids ...The fact that one may be consuming variable amounts of bottled water seems to me to be insufficient reason to be concerned about a fluoride deficient diet."

Avoiding fluoride is difficult for those whose local water is fluoridated. And the only filters that can strain fluoride out of water are expensive ones that employ reverse osmosis, activated alumina or distillation. Switching to unfluoridated toothpaste -- many varieties are available from natural health retailers -- is one way to cut down on fluoride intake, especially for those who swallow toothpaste when they are brushing.

Answer 2

i dont think so, in oc they are using reclaimed water for tap

Answer 3

The article has some problems.  First, two of the writers are known for sensational writing styles that promote their careers, as well as their employers.  Second, they infer that all the water tested came from sources where wastewater was discharged upstream.  I've worked in the US water industry for over 30 years and these types of stories surface every so often.  This so called "news" is not new at all.

About 5 years ago there were frogs found in Minnesota that had only one or no rear legs.  The investigators found trace amounts of pharmaceuticals, and other contaminants, in the water.  When they broke the story they said it was the pharmaceuticals that had caused the malformed fogs.  Well this lead to other investigations and more malformed aquatic organisms were found and the finger was pointed at pharmaceuticals again.

The problem with all this reporting is that these are not scientist writing but journalists.   The article cited that a s*x hormone was detected in San Francisco’s water.  I worked for the SF Water Dept. for more than 10 years and we knew that it had been detected by our own studies.  We also knew that it did not come from a wastewater discharge into the source water because there are none.  So where did it come from?  It was probably byproduct of treatment processes because it could not be found in the source waters.  Is it a public health threat?  That has not been determined yet.  Is the water in the US safe?  It is safer than the drinking water almost anywhere in the world.  Is it safer than bottled water?  Bottled water has fewer regulations to insure quality than tap water.  Several years ago Perrier had to recall their product because it was discovered to be contaminated.

Finally the writers did not do scientific research, or have scientific research done.  They did a records search.  They selected from that record search the information they thought would be most sensational and presented it in a fashion to arouse the most fear.

Answer 4

it depends where the tap water is. if u live in china with its polluted streets ur better off drinking bottled water from australia.

Answer 5

Bottled water has absolutely no credibility.    It often is just tap water in a bottle at 10,000 times the price.

Answer 6

Water for one is not microbe-free yet this may not necessarily mean that it is not safe. Remember that nothing is germ-free except those that are well-processed( by this i mean that all contaminants were removed). Different people can tolerate an specific amount of microbes and other contaminants. Drinking tap water would be unsafe for you if you cannot tolerate this contaminants in fact several diseases may arise from this. About the lead content, please be reminded that we are exposed to lead by using cosmetic products. in fact many researches focused on this. Though bottled water may be suitable for those individuals who can't combat this substances the likes of people suffering from diseases related to immunity.

Answer 7

Is my drinking water really safe?

Even newer homes may face lead, arsenic contamination

                 When I purified three quarts of tap water by distilling it, I got one pitcher of clean water and a residue of gray gunk. Naturally I wanted to know what I had saved my family from ingesting. Harmless mineral salts, my local water authority assured me.

If you tried the same experiment, your results would probably be similar. Despite the occasional sensational news story about drinking water contamination–the current one concerns the high lead level in Washington D.C.'s water–American water utilities produce safe drinking water. But, and there is a big but here, the water can become contaminated between the time it leaves a water treatment plant and comes out of your faucet. You may also have contamination issues if your drinking water source is a private well, increasingly a possibility as suburban development and new home building move farther out into rural areas. Ben Grumbles, chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Water Program, estimated that 15 percent or more of new houses now rely on private wells for their drinking water.

Given this, prudence dictates that you get your drinking water tested at a drinking water certified laboratory. If you have city water, your testing will not have to be as comprehensive because your local water authority is required to test the water it treats and publish the results in its "Annual Report on Drinking Water." The EPA requires every water authority to test for nearly 100 substances; many water utilities monitor additional ones as well (mine monitors a total of 280). These results must be posted by July 1 of the following year (the 2003 test must be posted by July 1, 2004).

If you ask a lab to test for all the substances that might be in your water, or even the 100 that the EPA requires, the cost will be exorbitant, running to several thousand dollars. Rather going the whole nine yards, you should ask a lab to test for the substances that would most likely be there. Which ones are those? Richard Maas, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of North Carolina at Ashville and a leading authority on water treatment issues, said that 95 percent of the worrisome contaminants fall into five broad categories.

Of the five categories, Maas said the most serious–more than the other four put together–is lead because even in small amounts it can cause permanent neurological damage in children.

Lead is rare in source water, but it can get into your tap water in several ways and most of them are older house problems. Lead can leach out of the lead pipes that are common in the distribution network in older cities. Lead can also leach out of a lead service line from your house to the street, your brass water meter, which can be made with lead, lead solder joints in copper plumbing lines (commonly done until 1988), or in your chrome-plated brass water faucets (these were made with as much as 30 percent lead until 1988 and as much as 8 percent lead until 1998). A new house on a private well would not have this problem, but lead can be an issue if you are building in an urban area or tearing down part of an old house and building on top of it, for example adding a second story.

Maas, who has researched the lead issue for years, said that about 85 percent of the time, the lead test comes up negative. Of the 15 percent of homeowners who do have a problem, 85 percent of them (13 percent of the original group) can solve it by letting the water run for one minute before using it. Only 15 percent of the second group (2 percent of the original group) need to install a filter mechanism to remove the lead. But, Maas noted, the convenience factor–most people are too impatient to let the tap run for a full minute every time they turn it on–leads most homeowners to get a filter.

The second most serious contaminant to drinking water in America, in Maas' estimation, is arsenic, a naturally occurring element that can contaminate ground water. If the drinking water in your new house will come from a well–either your own or the utility's–you should get it tested for arsenic, he said.

Arsenic is well known as a poison when given in large doses. In the past few years, however, scientists have discovered arsenic is also a very powerful human carcinogen when ingested in very small doses over a long period of time. It's about 200 times more carcinogenic for a person than it is for a mouse or a rat, Maas said. For this reason, the EPA has lowered the allowable amount of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb, but many researchers, including Maas, think the standard should be lower because of arsenic's extreme cancer causing potential.Maas said that 1 ppb was reasonable, but most labs cannot detect arsenic at levels lower than about 5 ppb.

Some areas of the country including parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Michigan, are known to have arsenic in ground water, but as this element is relatively common, anyone who gets their tap water from a ground water source should test for it, Maas urged.

The third contaminant on Maas's list is drinking water by-products (DPBs), which are created when a disinfection agent such as chlorine reacts with a small amount of organic matter in the water. Since all drinking water contains some organic matter–for example, "fish pee and decaying leaves," Maas said–the presence of DPBs is ubiquitous in municipal drinking water. The most common one is chloroform. Though the risk is very small, DBPs are carcinogenic, Maas said.

Changing the disinfection agent from chlorine to one that produces very little DPBs can have unintended consequences, however. When the Washington, D.C., water authority switched from chlorine to chloramine four years ago, the chemistry of the water changed and became more acidic. This in turn, engineers believe, caused lead in the lead distribution pipes to leach out into the water and reach excessively high levels. In Washington, the chloramines also caused lead to leach out of service lines, water meters, plumbing with lead solder and brass faucets that contain lead.

The simplest and most cost-effective way to remove chloroform and any other DPBs that might be in your drinking water is to fill a pitcher of water and let it sit for four or five hours, while the DPBs evaporate out of it, Maas said.

The fourth contaminant on Maas' list is toxic chemicals that are discharged into rivers and lakes by manufacturers in industrial areas. Though individually each manufacturer may meet EPA's discharge requirement, collectively it can be "a lot of stuff," Maas said. Industrial chemicals can also affect ground water, in some cases over a very wide area. When MBTE, an additive to gasoline, leaks out of an underground storage tank, "it can flow for miles," Maas said.

The last contaminant on Maas' list is microbiological pathogens–cysts that cause cryptosporidium and giardia. These can contaminate surface water sources such as rivers and lakes, and the disinfection agents in the local water treatment plant do not always kill them. The cysts can cause a disease outbreak, but Maas characterized this possibility as a "pretty rare event." Giardia can be treated with antibiotics, but there is no drug treatment for cryptosporidium. With healthy individuals, the fever and diarrhea quickly pass, but it is a concern for individuals with compromised immune systems, infants and the elderly.

Should you discover, after getting your water tested, that one or more of these contaminants is in sufficient amount to warrant a filter, you'll have to do some additional research to find the right one–different filters remove different substances and there's no "one size fits all."

Web site information on drinking water:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov

The National Sanitation Foundation, an organization that certifies drinking water filtration systems, www.nsf.org

The Natural Resources Defense Fund, www.ndrc.org

Answer 8

I also live in Virginia and have been wondering how safe the water is around here.  There was an article in Yahoo that wasn't very assuring, it talked about how Fairfax hasn't tested its water and also about contamination in the DC water.  

AP probe finds drugs in drinking water

A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and s*x hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.

To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.

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

In the course of 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, from Detroit to Louisville, Ky.

Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public "doesn't know how to interpret the information" and might be unduly alarmed.

How do the drugs get into the water?

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

And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies — which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general 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 H. 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 there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city's watersheds.

_Anti-epileptic and anti-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 s*x hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water.

_The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.

_Three medications, including an antibiotic, were found in drinking water supplied to Tucson, Ariz.

The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.

The federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water. Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested. Among the 34 that haven't: Houston, Chicago, Miami, Baltimore, Phoenix, Boston and New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.

Some providers screen only for one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.

The AP's investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation's water supply, also are contaminated. Tests were conducted in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major providers surveyed by the AP, and pharmaceuticals were detected in 28.

Yet officials in six of those 28 metropolitan areas said they did not go on to test their drinking water — Fairfax, Va.; Montgomery County in Maryland; Omaha, Neb.; Oklahoma City; Santa Clara, Calif., and New York City.

The New York state health department and the USGS tested the source of the city's water, upstate. They found trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti-convulsants, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer.

City water officials declined repeated requests for an interview. In a statement, they insisted that "New York City's drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system" — regulations that do not address trace pharmaceuticals.

In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told the AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but the AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise. For example, water department officials in New Orleans said their water had not been tested for pharmaceuticals, but a Tulane University researcher and his students have published a study that found the pain reliever naproxen, the s*x hormone estrone and the anti-cholesterol drug byproduct clofibric acid in treated drinking water.

Of the 28 major metropolitan areas where tests were performed on drinking water supplies, only Albuquerque; Austin, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Va.; said tests were negative. The drinking water in Dallas has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post-9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug.

The AP also contacted 52 small water providers — one in each state, and two each in Missouri and Texas — that serve communities with populations around 25,000. All but one said their drinking water had not been screened for pharmaceuticals; officials in Emporia, Kan., refused to answer AP's questions, also citing post-9/11 issues.

Rural consumers who draw water from their own wells aren't in the clear either, experts say.

The Stroud Water Research Center, in Avondale, Pa., has measured water samples from New York City's upstate watershed for caffeine, a common contaminant that scientists often look for as a possible signal for the presence of other pharmaceuticals. Though more caffeine was detected at suburban sites, researcher Anthony Aufdenkampe was struck by the relatively high levels even in less populated areas.

He suspects it escapes from failed septic tanks, maybe with other drugs. "Septic systems are essentially small treatment plants that are essentially unmanaged and therefore tend to fail," Aufdenkampe said.

Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.

Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe — even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.

For example, in Canada, a study of 20 Ontario drinking water treatment plants by a national research institute found nine different drugs in water samples. Japanese health officials in December called for human health impact studies after detecting prescription drugs in drinking water at seven different sites.

In the United States, the problem isn't confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40 percent of the nation's water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.

Perhaps it's because Americans have been taking drugs — and flushing them unmetabolized or unused — in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.

"People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that's not the case," said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.

Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.

One technology, reverse osmosis, removes virtually all pharmaceutical contamina

Answer 9

nope better get that moon ready for ppl quick