Tap Water Health Safety Concerns - Is Your Tap Water Safe?
Order Now And Receive FREE SHIPPING Plus 60 Day 100% Satisfaction Guarantee!
An examination of 65 of the 3,000 largest utilities found that cities such as Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, Providence; R.I., and Portland, Maine., are "manipulating the results of tests used to detect lead in water, violating federal law and putting millions of Americans at risk," The Washington Post reported. More than 250 major cities currently exceed the EPA's lead standards, and many of them have been deceptive, or even fraudulent, in their reporting of the problems.
"Each day, millions of Americans turn on their taps and get water that exceeds the legal limits for dangerous contaminants."
USA Today-Special Report, "How Safe Is Your Water?""Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is as much as 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine."
U.S. Council of Environmental Quality"We have known for a long time that chloramines can trigger, rather than cause asthma.
Ralph Riley, Head of the National Pool Water Treatment Advisory Group"Each day in America, about 30 cases of rectal cancer may be associated with THMs (chlorination by products) in drinking water."
Natural Resources Defense Council"U.S. drinking water contains more than 2,100 toxic chemicals that can cause cancer."
Ralph Nader Research Group"Drinking water plants are old and out of date, and water supplies are increasingly threatened and contaminated by chemicals and micro-organisms."
Natural Resources Defense Council"The way we guarantee safe drinking water is broken and needs to be fixed."
Carol Browner, U.S. EPA Chief"The risk of disease associated with public drinking water has passed from the theoretical to the real."
Dr. David Ozonoff, Boston University School of Public Health"More than 45 million Americans drank water supplied by systems where the unregulated and potentially deadly contaminant Cryptosporidium was found in their raw or treated water."
Natural Resources Defense Council"Drinking water in the U.S. is among the top four public health risks posed by environmental problems."
Former EPA Administrator William K. Reilly"Residues of 39 pesticides and their degradation products have been detected in the groundwater of 34 states."
National Academy of Sciences"Thirty-five percent of the reported gastrointestinal illnesses among tap water drinkers were water related and preventable."
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"There's no telling precisely how many Americans get sick each year from drinking bad water... I would say that the cases we learn about are the tip of the iceberg."
Deborah Levy, Waterborne Disease Expert, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"Weed killers were found in tap water of 28 out of 29 cities tested. The results of these tests reveal widespread contamination of tap water with many different pesticides at levels that present serious health risks. We estimate that 45,000 infants in these 29 cities drank infant formula reconstituted with tap water contaminated with multiple weed killers."
Environmental Working Group Report, "Weed Killers by the Glass""Each year in the U.S., lead in drinking water contributes to 480,000 cases of learning disorders in children and 560,000 cases of hypertension in adult males."
U.S. EPA Report Summary."Lead is the number-one environmental health threat to our children."
U.S. EPA"The one thing we know for sure about toxins in our drinking water, is that the more we look, the more we find."
Jacquelyn Warren, Natural Resources Defense CouncilAnd the list goes on and on!
The fact is that today in our industrialized society we use over 75,000 toxic chemicals, and over 1000 new ones are developed each year. We have learned the hard way that any chemical we use will eventually wind up in the water we drink. There is no "new water," the planet just keeps reusing and recycling the same water over and over. Our water treatment plants are not designed to remove these synthetic chemicals, and as a result we find traces of health-threatening contaminants in most of our public water supplies.
Seventy years ago, before we had this multitude of chemical compounds in our environment, 1 in 50 people could expect to get cancer in his or her life time. Today, 1 in 3 Americans,1 in 2 males, will become cancer statistics! Cancer is a man-made disease, and almost completely preventable. The purity of our water is one of the most important factors in the prevention of degenerative disease. With the risk so great and the solution so simple, why take the chance? In-home water filtration is the easiest, most effective and most economical way to have safe, healthy water for you and your family.
Aquasana makes healthy water affordable and convenient. The AQ-4000 is certified by the California Department of Health Services, the most rigorous certification entity in the world, to remove greater than 99% of alachlor, benzene, lindane, TCE, THMs, cryptosporidium, giardia, and VOCs, more than 97% of atrazine, and more than 93% of MTBE. Removal of benzene, atrazine, MTBE, VOC, cyst and THM is unique to the Aquasana AQ-4000. It performs better, has a more attractive design and, at $.09/gallon, the AQ-4000 is much more economical to use than a pour-through pitcher filter!
Additional Articles
Area Tap Water Has Traces of Medicines
Tests Find 6 Drugs, Caffeine in D.C., Va.
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 10, 2008; B01
The Washington area's drinking water contains trace amounts of six commonly used drugs that typically turn up in wastewater and cannot be filtered out by most treatment systems.
The pharmaceuticals -- an anti-seizure medication, two anti-inflammatory drugs, two kinds of antibiotics and a common disinfectant -- were found in very small concentrations in the water supply that serves more than 1 million people in the District, Arlington County, Falls Church and parts of Fairfax County. But scientists say the health effects of long-term exposure to such drugs are not known.
Pharmaceuticals, along with trace amounts of caffeine, were found in the drinking water supplies of 24 of 28 U.S. metropolitan areas tested. The findings were revealed as part of the first federal research on pharmaceuticals in water supplies, and those results are detailed in an investigative report by the Associated Press set to be published today.
In addition to caffeine, the drugs found in water treated by the Washington Aqueduct include the well-known pain medications ibuprofen and naproxen, commonly found in Aleve. But there were also some lesser-known drugs: carbamazepine, an anti-convulsive to reduce epileptic seizures and a mood stabilizer for treating bipolar disorders; sulfamethoxazole, an antibiotic that can be used for humans and animals in treating urinary tract and other infections; and monensin, an antibiotic typically given to cattle. In addition, the study uncovered traces of triclocarban, a disinfectant used in antibacterial soaps.
That the drugs were found so commonly nationwide highlights an emerging water dilemma that the public rarely considers. The drugs we use for ourselves and animals are being flushed directly into wastewater, which then becomes a drinking water source downstream. However, most wastewater and drinking water treatment systems, including Washington's, are incapable of removing those drugs.
And although the chemicals pose no immediate health threat in the water, the health effects of drinking these drug compounds over a long period is largely unstudied. Some scientists said there is probably little human health risk; others fear chronic exposure could alter immune responses or interfere with adolescents' developing hormone systems.
Washington's water regulators and utility officials say they are not alarmed by the findings because the drugs are found at such low levels -- parts per trillion, a tiny fraction of the amount in a medical dose. But they do view these "emerging contaminants" with concern.
"What concerns me is we're finding pharmaceuticals in the river that we rely upon for drinking water," said Thomas P. Jacobus, general manager of the Washington Aqueduct. "If we can't get them out, we have to find a way to neutralize them if we find there's a health effect from them."
Jacobus said the aqueduct leadership will recommend in the next few months likely upgrades for water treatment to deal with an array of newly identified and increasing contaminants in the water. The aqueduct uses chlorine, which kills a wide group of bacteria and breaks down some chemicals but cannot disrupt pharmaceuticals. Studies show ozone water treatment is the most effective in zapping such drugs.
The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have been screening Washington's and other cities' water supplies for pharmaceuticals in the first research project on pharmaceuticals in the water. The Washington Aqueduct, an arm of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, does not regularly screen for caffeine or pharmaceuticals, nor do most water utilities.
The drugs discovered in testing over the past two years typically get into the water supply because they pass through a user's body and are flushed downstream. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is studying some pharmaceuticals for their impact on public health but has not set safety standards for any of the drugs.
"We recognize it is a growing concern, and we're taking it very seriously," Benjamin H. Grumbles, the EPA's assistant administrator for water, said of the drugs' presence.
There is no clear evidence of a human health threat from such low levels of pharmaceuticals. But scientists warn that, because there has been very little study of the long-term or synergistic effects of this kind of drug exposure, water providers and regulators need to exercise caution. Although experts agree that aquatic life are most at risk from exposure to the drugs in rivers and streams, researchers are concerned about what they don't know about human health effects.
In other findings from its reporting, the AP said officials in Montgomery County and Fairfax have found numerous pharmaceuticals in their environmental watersheds but do not test their drinking water supplies for the same chemical compounds.
Nationwide, the AP reported that researchers found anti-depressants, antacids, synthetic hormones from birth control pills, and many other human and animal medicines in the water. In San Francisco, tests found a sex hormone. In New York, the water tested positive for heart medicines and a prescription tranquilizer.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
Bottled Water Backlash
Environmental Concerns are Sending People Back to Their Taps
By Melissa Knopper
Jennifer Phillips always felt guilty that her large Nashville law firm didn’t recycle. So after big client meetings, she collected all the empty plastic water bottles, took them home and added them to her own curbside recycling bin. Now, she is proud to report that her firm, Bass, Berry & Sims, serves an icy pitcher of tap water during meetings. “We even have glasses with the company logo on them,” she says. Phillips estimates switching to tap keeps 3,000 plastic water bottles per week out of the landfill.
It’s a trend that is taking hold in the U.S., Europe and Canada: more people are switching from bottled water to tap. Call it reverse snob appeal. Bottled water once carried a certain European mystique. But these days, it’s the tap water enthusiasts, concerned about the environment, who get to act self-righteous. Just like it has become cool to bring your own cloth bags to the grocery store and your own mug to the coffee shop, the reusable water bottle is the hip, new eco accessory.
It’s because people like Phillips and David Wilk, a Connecticut book publisher and tap water activist, have started to connect the dots. For Wilk, it happened on the soccer field. After his sons finished their games, he noticed the grass was littered with bottled water and Gatorade empties. Pretty soon, Wilk started showing up with a huge container of tap water. Now all the kids bring their own bottles and fill up when thirsty.
“We have such a consumption mentality, which leads to our throw-away society,” says Wilk, who started the website Turntotap.com to build more support for public water supplies and to cut down on the amount of plastic going into landfills. “I think the cost of our behavior should be built into the products,” Wilk says.
A Gathering Revolt
In Canada, the bottled water issue has become, as Wilk says, an “uprising.” College students are staging protests—declaring “bottled water-free zones” on campus. High school activists are raising questions about why their school board members are locking them into a contract with Coke or Pepsi (makers of Aquafina and Dasani bottled water) when they have access to drinking fountains for free. Some students have jokingly started to sell bottled air for $1.
In an even bolder move, the United Church of Canada asked its three million members to consider banning bottled water during meetings and events. “We just had a lot of concerns about governance and accountability,” says Julie Graham, who leads the anti-bottled water campaign for a Toronto ecumenical activist group called Kairos. “Why is it people in Canada are willing to pay twice as much for bottled water as for gasoline? We started challenging that and raising questions about billions of empty bottles going into landfills.”
Others, like Richard Girard, a corporate researcher for the Ottowa-based Polaris Institute, don’t like the hypocrisy they perceive in the bottled water marketing. “This movement is gaining momentum because the general public is starting to figure out bottled water is a scam,” says Girard. More than half of all bottled water is simply filtered tap anyway, he argues. And some of it is actually worse in quality because bottled water companies aren’t subject to the same strict oversight as public water supplies.
© Andy Hughes, from the book Dominant Wave Theory, published by H. N. Abrams, New York “We want the bottled water corporations to be held accountable for their actions,” Girard says. “These companies are essentially commodifying water. We hope we can force them to change and be more environmentally responsible.”
The trend away from bottled water also ties in with the Slow Food movement—as the restaurant industry tries to support local agriculture and cut down on extravagant energy used to ship imported foods from around the world. At Berkeley’s Chez Panisse, general manager Mike Kossa-Rienzi had his “a-ha” moment when he sat down and calculated how far the 25,000 bottles of sparkling Italian spring water he ordered had to travel through the air. “It really does not make sense to ship from all around the world when you have such good water in your backyard,” he says. “You have to think about the carbon imprint you’re making there.”
Another big push for the bottled water backlash came during World Water Day 2007, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declared a ban on bottled water contracts for all city departments. Instead of bottled water vending machines, he installed large dispensers in city buildings that poured out pure tap water from the Sierra mountains. Other cities, from Chicago to Salt Lake, followed suit.
Just think about a bottled water brand like Fiji, says Wilk. On the company’s website, it says, “When it comes to drinking water, remote is very, very good.” If you think about it, Wilk says, it’s pretty arrogant to ask that Fiji water be flown 8,000 miles across the world just so North American yuppies can enjoy a slightly better taste.
Responding to rising criticism, the company launched the “Fiji Green” campaign. It partnered with Conservation International to go carbon negative, reduced packaging, committed to 100 percent recycled materials and has pledged money to protect the Sovi Basin rainforest in Fiji. A cynic would say the company is doing this because it can afford to—marketing Fiji water is an enormously profitable enterprise.
Bottled Waste
It takes 15 million barrels of oil per year to make all of the plastic water bottles in America, according to the Container Recycling Institute. Sending those bottles by air and truck uses even more fossil fuel.
Once people drain the bottles, they rarely recycle them because they’re often purchased at big concert venues or airports with no recycling bins. CRI says eight out of 10 water bottles end up in the landfill. The bottles that drift from landfills and litter streams are washing out to sea to form a huge raft of plastic debris in the center of the Pacfic that is twice the size of Texas.
It takes 1,000 years for plastic bottles to break down, CRI estimates. But when they do, they disintegrate into tiny bits. The green and blue bottles, especially, look like tasty food to fish and shorebirds. Scientists are finding these dead animals on the beach, with bellies full of plastic pellets.
If more states added deposits on bottled water bottles, it might spur recycling. Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has even proposed a national beverage bottle bill. But PET water bottles (short for polyethylene terephthalate) can only be recycled a few times. What about going back to refillable glass bottles? For one thing, they are heavy to ship. And Zero Waste expert Neil Seldman of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance doesn’t imagine anyone could persuade the beverage industry to go that route. “They have always lobbied against it,” Seldman says. “The industry does not want to deal with it after people buy their product—they want to wash their hands of the containers.” That’s why it makes the most sense to avoid creating the waste in the first place by drinking tap from your own container, Seldman says.
Meanwhile, as drought spreads to North Carolina and Atlanta, residents are casting a suspicious eye on beverage companies like Coca Cola, which tap into local aquifers to fill their bottles. Nestle has been seeking environmental approval for what would be the largest water bottling plant in the U.S.—one million square feet in McCloud, California—against community protests. The company has had to significantly increase the amount it’s paying for the water (from $26 an acre-foot to $183) and limit its draw to 520 million gallons annually. It’s still battling opposition from residents concerned about the mega-plant’s effects on quality of life and outdoor recreation.
Bottled water industry groups, such as the International Bottled Water Association, say they are being unfairly targeted. They argue bottled water is a healthy alternative to sugary soda. And it can also be a lifesaver when disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, strike. “It’s not really a bottled water vs. tap water world,” says IBWA spokesman Steven Kay. “Most people drink both. We think bottled water provides a good healthy choice.”
© www.tappening.com But industry marketing firms have had to do an about-face. “What’s interesting about the backlash,” says CRI Executive Director Betty McLaughlin, “is that the companies say ‘drink our water, not tap water.’ Now people are going back to tap and they’ve got to reposition themselves.” Companies are trying every angle, from claims of superior filtration to adding antioxidants (Snapple) and fruity flavors (Dasani and others).
Don’t Refill that Bottle!
The IBWA argues that bottled water companies are responding to environmental concerns by making lighter bottles that require less plastic in the manufacturing process. Kay says the industry does invest significant money to improve access to recycling at large public venues, such as airports and concert halls. Companies like Nalgene, Sigg and Brita are aggressively marketing their refillable bottles and home filters as a more responsible option.
When it comes to reusable bottles, however, consumers still need to do their homework. Research shows that clear bottles made of polycarbonate plastic (such as the original 32-ounce Nalgene) can leach bisphenol-A (BPA). This is an endocrine-disrupting chemical that acts like estrogen in the body. BPA essentially tricks your body into thinking it’s estrogen, says Washington State University Researcher Patricia Hunt. She discovered the dangers of BPA when some of her polycarbonate mouse cages started to leach BPA, causing infertility in female mice.
Since BPA has been linked to low sperm counts and an increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, scientists like vomSaal and Hunt suggest avoiding reusable bottles made from plastic. They also raise serious concerns about the potential for other plastic chemicals to leach out of typical PET water bottles—especially if they sit in the hot sun.
Hunt uses a stainless bottle brand called Klean Kantene, and Wilk’s website sells stainless guaranteed-not-to-leach SIGG bottles made in Switzerland. The trend away from bottled water may also boost sales of home filters. Water-quality experts say most tap water is fine to drink straight from the faucet—especially in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, New York City and Denver, where water comes from pristine mountain reservoirs. But in places that draw drinking water from lakes and rivers with sewer outfalls, it might make sense to install a filter. Sometimes rusty pipes or naturally occurring iron can also affect the taste.
It makes sense for anyone turning back to tap to become educated about the local public water supply. And since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires frequent water quality reports, the data is easy to find. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) makes it easy with its Tap Water Database. You can plug in your zip code and find out whether your local water system is up to par.
Now that more people are trying get out of the bottled water habit, groups like Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and EWG wonder if this new awareness will translate into more support for public water supplies, and for water conservation in general.
Once you kick the bottle, they say, the next step is to get educated and get involved—find out what your water system needs and start pushing your elected officials to bring more funds to bear on the problem. According to NRDC, the EPA has asked for billions of dollars for a public water supply needs assessment. But the Bush Administration has allocated only a small portion of that request, says NRDC attorney Mae Wu.
“People are very concerned about what’s in their water because we drink so much of it,” says Jane Houlihan, EWG’s vice president for research. “We’re advocating for more protection for the waters that are the source of what comes out of kitchen faucets.”
MELISSA KNOPPER is a Colorado-based science writer and tap water enthusiast.
Bottled Water: Better Than the Tap?
By Anne Christiansen Bullers
It's a rare day that Kelly Harrison, a mother of five from Tulsa, Okla., doesn't find herself chauffeuring kids to some kind of sports practice or school activity. As she checks to see that each child is seat-belted into the family's minivan, Harrison also makes sure they've got the essentials: the right sports equipment, the right clothes, and what she considers to be the right drink--bottled water.
When she was growing up, Harrison, 34, might have grabbed a soft drink or juice on her way out the door. But for her kids, Harrison insists on what she thinks is a healthier choice--water. She says her children's young bodies need water as they play in the Oklahoma sun. Bottled water also contains no caffeine, no calories and no sugar. Plus, bottled water comes in convenient bottles, easy to tote from home to wherever the busy family goes. [See what Americans are drinking in 2002.]
"I really think this is best for a lot of different reasons," says Harrison, who often tucks a bottle for herself into the basket in her minivan that contains other on-the-go mom necessities, such as a paperback book and her cell phone.
Once, most Americans got their water only from the tap. Now, like Harrison, they're often buying their water in a bottle. At work, after a workout, or just about any time, Americans are drinking bottled water in record numbers--a whopping 5 billion gallons in 2001, according to the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), an industry trade group. That's about the same amount of water that falls from the American Falls at Niagara Falls in two hours.
Explosive growth in the industry for more than a decade has placed bottled water in nearly every supermarket, convenience store and vending machine from coast to coast, where dozens of brands compete for consumers' dollars. In four years, industry experts anticipate that bottled water will be second only to soda pop as America's beverage of choice.
Water, of course, is essential to human health. Drinking enough water to replace whatever is lost through bodily functions is important. But surveys indicate that most of us might not be drinking enough. Is bottled water part of the answer? To decide, consumers need to arm themselves with knowledge about what they're buying before they grab the next bottle of Dasani, Evian or Perrier off the shelf. "It really pays to do your homework," says Stew Thornley, a water quality health educator with the Minnesota Department of Health.
Different Varieties
Bottled water may seem like a relatively new idea--one born during the heightened awareness of fitness and potential water pollution during the last two or three decades. However, water has been bottled and sold far from its source for thousands of years. In Europe, water from mineral springs was often thought to have curative and sometimes religious powers. Pioneers trekking west across the United States during the 19th century also typically considered drinkable (potable) water a staple to be purchased in anticipation of the long trip across the arid West.
Today, of course, there are dozens of brands of bottled water and many different kinds, including flavored or fizzy, to choose from.
Federal Regulations
The Food and Drug Administration regulates bottled water products that are in interstate commerce under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
Under the FD&C Act, manufacturers are responsible for producing safe, wholesome and truthfully labeled food products, including bottled water products. It is a violation of the law to introduce into interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded products that violate the various provisions of the FD&C Act.
The FDA also has established regulations specifically for bottled water, including standard of identity regulations, which define different types of bottled water, and standard of quality regulations, which set maximum levels of contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) allowed in bottled water.
From a regulatory standpoint, the FDA describes bottled water as water that is intended for human consumption and that is sealed in bottles or other containers with no added ingredients, except that it may contain a safe and suitable antimicrobial agent. Fluoride may also be added within the limits set by the FDA.
High Standards
Is the extra expense of bottled water worth it? One thing consumers can depend on is that the FDA sets regulations specifically for bottled water to ensure that the bottled water they buy is safe, according to Henry Kim, Ph.D., a supervisory chemist at the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages. Kim, whose office oversees the agency's regulatory program for bottled water, says that major changes have been made since 1974, when the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) first gave regulatory oversight of public drinking water (tap water) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each time the EPA establishes a standard for a chemical or microbial contaminant, the FDA either adopts it for bottled water or makes a finding that the standard is not necessary for bottled water in order to protect the public health.
"Generally, over the years, the FDA has adopted EPA standards for tap water as standards for bottled water," Kim says. As a result, standards for contaminants in tap water and bottled water are very similar.
However, in some instances, standards for bottled water are different than for tap water. Kim cites lead as an example. Because lead can leach from pipes as water travels from water utilities to home faucets, the EPA set an action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb) in tap water. This means that when lead levels are above 15 ppb in tap water that reaches home faucets, water utilities must treat the water to reduce the lead levels to below 15 ppb. In bottled water, where lead pipes are not used, the lead limit is set at 5 ppb. Based on FDA survey information, bottlers can readily produce bottled water products with lead levels below 5 ppb. This action was consistent with the FDA's goal of reducing consumers' exposure to lead in drinking water to the extent practicable.
Production of bottled water also must follow the current good manufacturing practices (CGMP) regulations set up and enforced by the FDA. Water must be sampled, analyzed and found to be safe and sanitary. These regulations also require proper plant and equipment design, bottling procedures and recordkeeping.
The FDA also oversees inspections of the bottling plants. Kim says, "Because the FDA's experience over the years has shown that bottled water poses no significant public health risk, we consider bottled water not to be a high risk food." Nevertheless, the FDA inspects bottled water plants under its general food safety program and also contracts with the states to perform some bottled water plant inspections. In addition, some states require bottled water firms to be licensed annually.
Members of the IBWA also agree to adhere to the association's Model Code, a set of standards that is more stringent than federal regulations in some areas. Bottling plants that adopt the IBWA Model Code agree to one unannounced annual inspection by an independent firm.
The FDA also classifies some bottled water according to its origin.
Artesian well water. Water from a well that taps an aquifer--layers of porous rock, sand and earth that contain water--which is under pressure from surrounding upper layers of rock or clay. When tapped, the pressure in the aquifer, commonly called artesian pressure, pushes the water above the level of the aquifer, sometimes to the surface. Other means may be used to help bring the water to the surface. According to the EPA, water from artesian aquifers often is more pure because the confining layers of rock and clay impede the movement of contamination. However, despite the claims of some bottlers, there is no guarantee that artesian waters are any cleaner than ground water from an unconfined aquifer, the EPA says. Mineral water. Water from an underground source that contains at least 250 parts per million total dissolved solids. Minerals and trace elements must come from the source of the underground water. They cannot be added later. Spring water. Derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the earth's surface. Spring water must be collected only at the spring or through a borehole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring. If some external force is used to collect the water through a borehole, the water must have the same composition and quality as the water that naturally flows to the surface. Well water. Water from a hole bored or drilled into the ground, which taps into an aquifer. Bottled water may be used as an ingredient in beverages, such as diluted juices or flavored bottled waters. However, beverages labeled as containing "sparkling water," "seltzer water," "soda water," "tonic water," or "club soda" are not included as bottled water under the FDA's regulations, because these beverages have historically been considered soft drinks.
Some bottled water also comes from municipal sources--in other words--the tap. Municipal water is usually treated before it is bottled.
Bottled vs. Tap
Whether bottled water is better than tap water, and justifies its expense, remains under debate. Stephen Kay, vice president of the IBWA, says member bottlers are selling the quality, consistency and safety that bottled water promises, and providing a service for those whose municipal systems do not provide good quality drinking water.
"Bottled water is produced and regulated exclusively for human consumption," Kay says. "Some people in their municipal markets have the luxury of good water. Others do not."
Thornley, of the Minnesota Department of Health, agrees that consumers can depend on bottled water's safety and quality. But he says consumers should feel the same way about the quality of their tap water. Tap water may sometimes look or taste differently, he says, but that doesn't mean it's unsafe. In fact, the most dangerous contaminants are those that consumers cannot see, smell or taste, he says. But consumers don't need to worry about their presence, he adds. Municipal water systems serving 25 people or more are subject to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. As such, the water constantly and thoroughly tested for harmful substances, he says. If there is a problem, consumers will be warned through the media or other outlets.
"In lieu of being told otherwise, consumers should feel confident of the safety of their water," Thornley says.
Dr. Robert Ophaug, a professor of oral health at the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, notes that tap water has another advantage many people don't think about: It typically contains fluoride. Many communities have elected to add fluoride to drinking water to promote strong teeth and prevent tooth decay in residents, though some groups continue to oppose this practice and believe it's detrimental to health.
Ophaug says bottled water often does not have fluoride added to it. Or, if it has been purified through reverse osmosis or distillation, the fluoride may have been removed. People who drink mostly bottled water, especially those who have children, need to be aware of this, he says. They may need to use supplemental fluoride that is available by prescription from dentists or doctors. The supplements are usually recommended for children ages 7 to 16. Fluoride supplements cost around $15 for a three-month supply.
"At the least, inform the children's dentist or doctor that you are relying on bottled water," Ophaug says.
The IBWA says there are more than 20 brands of bottled water with added fluoride available to consumers today. When fluoride is added to bottled water, the FDA requires that the term "fluoridated," "fluoride added," or "with added fluoride" be used on the label. Consumers interested in how much fluoride bottled water contains can usually find out by contacting individual companies directly.
Surging Sales
Consumers don't appear ready to give up their bottled water any time soon. Younger, health-oriented people are driving the market's growth, according to industry officials. "They've grown up with bottled water, and it doesn't seem like such a stretch to them to buy water," says Kay.
Jeremy Buccellato, 31, of Ramsey, Minn., says he's heard the arguments that tap water is just as good if not better than bottled water. A glass from his own tap, however, provides water that's discolored, chlorinated, and tastes like "pool water." Buccellato says the extra money he spends on bottles of Dasani water is worth it.
"It tastes better and looks better, plus it's easy to take with me," says Buccellato. "What's not to like?"
Harrison agrees that there's nothing like a refreshing cool bottle of water to beat the heat during an Oklahoma summer.
"It's a product that fits our needs and our lifestyle," she says.
Anne Christiansen Bullers is a free-lance writer in Prairie Village, Kan.
To Filter or Not to Filter?
Consumers can buy purified water. They also have the option of doing it at home.
John B. Ferguson, communications manager/executive editor with the Water Quality Association, says that consumers can feel confident about the water quality provided by brand name home-filtration systems.
Stew Thornley of the Minnesota Department of Health agrees that home filtration systems can improve the taste or appearance of tap water at a minimal cost. However, Thornley points out that consumers need to be careful about maintaining these filters. Typically, specific instructions are included with the purchase of the product. Without proper maintenance, he says, it's possible bacteria or other contaminants can build up in the products.
--A.C.B.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FDA Consumer magazine
July-August 2002
Chlorine Pollutants at High Levels in DC Tap Water
Published on Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org)
Chlorine Pollutants at High Levels in DC Tap Water
New tests find high levels of hazardous chlorination byproducts in D.C. tap water
Published July 19, 2007
In spite of the best efforts of the Washington Aqueduct to provide quality drinking water to the District of Columbia, tap water tests from May, 2007 revealed toxic by-products of the chemicals used to purify Potomac River water, at levels above annual federal health limits. These results illustrate the tremendous difficulties that water utilities face when trying to provide tap water that is free of potentially deadly bacteria and pathogens, yet not contaminated with toxic by-products of the chemicals used to kill these same microbes. This problem is particularly acute when utilities draw water from poorly protected water sources like the Potomac River. As recently reported in the Washington Post, the Potomac may not even be suitable for swimming; turning this water into safe drinking water is a serious public health challenge.
Based on these test results the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is recommending carbon filtration for all 1.1 million consumers of tap water from the Washington Aqueduct in Washington DC and northern Virginia. Carbon filtration of tap water will dramatically lower levels of toxic disinfection byproducts; it is also 10 to 20 times less expensive than bottled water, and does not produce the waste and pollution associated with the packaging and transport of bottled water.
Source: EPA. 2004. Estimated Per Capita Water Ingestion and Body Weight in the United States–An Update. October, 2004. EPA-822-R-00-001
American Water Works Association. 2007. Questions and answers about your water.
http://www.drinktap.org
EWG collected tap water samples in May, 2007, from 18 locations across Washington D.C., including the U.S. Capitol, EPA headquarters, parks, schools, and residences of pregnant women and other groups susceptible to health harms from exposures to disinfection byproducts. We commissioned tests from an accredited lab for two classes of disinfection byproducts — trihalomethanes, or THMs, and haloacetic acids, or HAAs. The laboratory analyses found:
More than 40 percent of the tap water samples contained chemical byproducts of water treatment above annual federal health limits. The group of contaminants known as haloacetic acids (HAAs) were found at their highest levels since 2001, the last year before the Washington Aqueduct modified its treatment techniques in an attempt to reduce levels of trihalomethanes, related byproducts of tap water chlorination.
HAAs were highest at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library, an elementary school in the district's Northwest quadrant, and the home of a woman who was 9 months pregnant.
Almost 90 percent of the samples had THMs at levels associated in epidemiological studies with low birth weight and serious birth defects in infants. TTHM levels were highest at the National Mall, the same elementary school, and the home of a 2-year-old infant. Benefits of water disinfection come at a price. Chlorination of tap water is one of the greatest public health improvements of the last 100 years, vastly reducing deaths from water-borne diseases. But chlorination produces disinfection byproducts (DBPs) like THMs and HAAs that are themselves potentially harmful.
Because of the recognized health risks of the byproducts, in particular THMs, many utilities, including the Washington Aqueduct, have switched from treatment using so-called free chlorine to compounds called chloramines, which tend to produce lower levels of the handful of disinfection byproducts for which EPA has set legal limits, including THMs and HAAs. But because chloramines are not as effective at disinfection as free chlorine, the Aqueduct, like other utilities that use chloramine, periodically switches back to chlorine. This so-called "chlorine burn" removes sludge and sediment from the pipes, but also temporarily raises the level of disinfection byproducts. This year the utility's chlorine burn was conducted between April 7 and May 7.
While chloramines appear to help lower THM levels, they also produce an entirely different set of byproducts, including the HAAs and other byproducts, for which we have less information about long-term human health effects. A recent EPA study found that water treated with chloramines had the highest levels of iodacetic acid, a byproduct that in animal studies has been found toxic to cells and DNA. In general, however, the long term public health consequences of exposure to chloramines and chloramine byproducts is poorly understood.
What is known about HAAs, however, raises concerns. EPA classifies HAAs as possible human carcinogens, and peer-reviewed studies have identified adverse reproductive and developmental effects, and the ability to damage DNA. The state of Oregon has warned that long term exposure to HAAs at levels equal to those found in DC tap water could cause injury to the brain, nervous system, the eyes, and the reproductive system.
Disinfection byproducts are a bigger problem than these tests show. EPA scientists have identified a total of 600 disinfection byproducts in tap water but EPA has set legal limits in tap water for only 11. And these legal limits, such as those for HAAs and THMs, are established as a balance between health, treatment cost and feasibility.
This is a critical point for most consumers: The legal limit, or MCL, is not intended to be a true safe exposure level. For almost all contaminants in tap water, including those identified in this analysis, the MCL allows far more contamination than the truly safe level, or what EPA refers to as the public health goal.
In 1999, EPA strengthened the legal limit for THMs in tap water and set a first-time standard for HAAs due to these chemicals' potential links to cancer, birth defects, and other adverse health outcomes. To comply with these tighter standards, DC Water and Sewer Authority began using chloramine as a disinfectant because of its known capacity to lower levels of the regulated byproducts. This switch, which the utilities' water quality test reports show did indeed lower THM and HAA levels, also spurred some significant negative consequences: it likely created a complex, new suite of disinfection byproducts that are neither defined nor studied; and it contributed to elevated lead levels in tap water across the District, a problem that prompted additional manipulations in water chemistry by the utility that are still under study.
Protecting tap water at the source. If the Potomac River were less polluted as it flowed into the utility's intake pipe, less chlorine and chloramines would be needed, and levels of disinfection byproducts would be lower as a result. But government policies, in general, do little to advance this goal. Instead, taxpayers pour billions of dollars into federal programs like farm subsidy payments that actually exacerbate pollution problems, and then pile on additional billions for water treatment facilities that try to clean it up. Very little is spent on more effective and efficient measures to protect rivers and streams from pollution in the first place.
Agriculture is the top source of pollution in the Potomac River watershed, but efforts to control agricultural pollution remain largely unfunded. From 1999 through 2005, taxpayers spent five times more money subsidizing farmers in the Potomac River basin as they did on programs to control agricultural pollution - $287 million on subsidies compared to $57 million on conservation and pollution control. Many farmers received no money at all. In an era of tight federal budgets, political pressure to fully fund farmer subsidies almost always trumps whatever concerns might exist about controlling agricultural pollution. In 2004 and 2005, 4,155 farmers in the Potomac watershed were denied funding for conservation and water quality projects due to lack of available funds.
Recommendations. The findings presented here make a strong case for keeping sources of tap water clean before they require expensive and potentially harmful treatment with chlorine or chloramines. But until such measures are in place and contaminant levels are dramatically reduced from current levels, EWG recommends that anyone drinking DC tap water use some form of carbon filtration designed to reduce levels of THM and HAAs.
In addition:
Farm polices must be reformed to fully fund programs specifically designed to keep agricultural pollutants of all kinds – manure, fertilizer, pesticides and soil – out of tap water supplies.
Safety standards for chlorination and chloramine byproducts must be reevaluated in light of research indicating that current regulations are not stringent enough.
Greater efforts are put in place to educate the public about the health risks of chlorine and chloramine byproducts and to warn all Aqueduct water consumers of the annual chlorine burn. Pollution + Disinfectants = Problems There is no question that the wide scale use of chemical disinfectants in public drinking water supplies has been one of the greatest public health advances in the twentieth century. Over time, however, we have become overly reliant on chemical treament of tap water as we have simultaneously failed to protect and clean up the sources of this water. This has placed water purveyors like the Washington Aqueduct in an intractable bind where the process of purification of polluted source water exposes consumers to unnecessarily high and potentially unsafe levels of toxic chemicals formed during the treatment process.
Chlorine is very effective at killing and inactivating disease-causing microganisms in tap water. The problem is that if the water also contains "natural organic matter" the chlorine will react with the humic and fulvic acids that form as the organic matter breaks down. These reactions, in turn, produce numerous other chemical compounds that are collectively called disinfection byproducts (DBPs).
Although scientists have identified 600 different kinds of DBPs, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently only regulates just eleven (Richardson 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2003). These regulated compounds include four trihalomethanes (chloroform, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, and dibromochloromethane), and five haloacetic acids (monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid and dibromoacetic acid), which together are linked to a variety of adverse health effects such as cancer (DeAngelo 1997; Villanueva 2007), birth defects (Klotz, 1999; Porter 2005), and an increased incidence of miscarriage (Waller 1998).
After the EPA tightened its health standards for the trihalomethanes (THMs) and implemented health standards for the haloacetic acids (HAAs) in 1999, several utilities decided to alter their disinfection practices by switching to a new disinfectant called chloramine, which is made from chlorine and ammonia gases. Washington Aqueduct, the utility responsible for the treatment of drinking water in the District of Columbia, and Arlington County and Falls Church in Northern Virginia, made the switch to chloramines in November of 2000 (EPA 2006).
There are several reasons why utilities find chloramines appealing: they are more stable than chlorine and reduce the peak levels of at least some toxic chlorination byproducts – particularly THMs. The EPA has reported, for example, that the Washington Aqueduct's switch to chloramines resulted in an estimated average reduction in monitored DBPs of 47% (EPA 2006).
But chloramines also have significant drawbacks. They are not only toxic to kidney dialysis patients, who cannot drink chloraminated water, they are also extremely toxic to fish, which die if chloraminated water is used in their tanks. And chloramines also produce a whole new complex of contaminants that are very poorly studied.
To make matters even more complicated, many utilities that use chloramines decide to temporarily switch back to free chlorine in order to "dislodge biofilms and sediment in water mains" (EPA 2007). Since spring 2002, the Washington Aqueduct has used this practice on a more or less annual basis, implementing a month-long "chlorine flush" of its system roughly every year. This means that customers of chloramines-using utilities often end up being exposed to multiple different sets of DBPs over time, at varying levels.
It is tempting to chalk up all of the problems with DBPs to an unwanted but unavoidable consequence of the organic matter naturally found in the rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. But the underlying sources of this "natural organic matter" are not actually natural at all. In much of the country, the bulk of organics in drinking water supplies stems from agriculture in the form of uncontrolled soil erosion, manure and fertilizer runoff, and from municipal sewage treatment plant discharges:
About one billion tons of topsoil erode from U.S. cropland each year (USDA 2001), much of it deposited in streams and rivers. Soil contains organics that combine with chlorine to form disinfection byproducts. Soil in combination with manure eroding from pasture and range lands contains even higher amounts of DBP-forming organics.
Studies released by the US Geological Survey (USGS) found that fertilizer used in agriculture accounted for 17% of total phosphorus that entered major river basins in the U.S. (CSP, 2007). Excess phosphorus causes uncontrolled algae blooms that create massive slugs of organic matter, which then combine with chlorine to form chlorination byproducts. Most phosphorus is absorbed to soil particles in the field and is carried to streams and rivers through soil erosion. USGS studies show that three-quarters of all streams and rivers in the U.S. are polluted with phosphorus at levels that can support uncontrolled algae growth (USGS 1999, Cooke 1989).
In urban areas, sewage treatment plants flush large quantities of organics and phosphate into rivers that serve as drinking water supplies. Some of these organics can combine with chlorine to form chlorination byproducts. The phosphate stimulates algae growth that ultimately leads to chlorination byproducts. In national water quality surveys, USGS finds the highest phosphate levels in the country in urban areas impacted by sewage discharges (USGS 1999).
For the Potomac River watershed, agriculture is the top pollution source. Efforts to control farm runoff of soil, fertilizer and manure, however, remain largely unfunded. From 1999 through 2005, taxpayers spent five times more money subsidizing farmers in the Potomac River basin as they did on programs to control agricultural pollution - $287 million on subsidies compared to $57 million on conservation. In an era of tight federal budgets, political pressure to fully fund farmer subsidies almost always trumps whatever concerns there might be about controlling agricultural pollution. As a result, 4,155 farmers in the Potomac watershed were denied funding for conservation programs in 2004 and 2005 due to lack of available funds.
This has real-world consequences for DC residents. If the Potomac River were less polluted as it flowed into the utility's intake pipe, disinfectant loads could be reduced, and levels of disinfection byproducts would be lower as a result.
Unanswered Questions
This study highlights many of the unanswered questions surrounding tap water disinfection in the DC area. Ultimately, the most important questions involve the decision to alter disinfection practices at the Washington Aqueduct, switching from chlorine to chloramines. This is of primary importance due to the exposure of 1.1 million people to a number of compounds that have not been fully assessed for long-term health effects in humans. In a recent nationwide DBP study conducted by the EPA (2002) it was reported that chloraminated drinking water had the highest levels of iodinated DBPs and studies have found that iodoacetic acid, one of these iodinated DBPs, is a potent toxin to cells and cellular DNA in mammalian cells (Plewa 2004). Although switching to chloramination achieved the desired effect of reducing THM levels, the decision may have inadvertently exposed the population to additional unregulated byproducts that are more harmful in the long run.
The second issue that needs to be addressed is the necessity of the annual “chlorine burn” and the potential health effects of this continual cycling of disinfectants and the resulting mix of disinfection byproducts to which people are exposed. Since chlorination of tap water is known to produce DBPs associated with adverse health effects, the fact that this annual procedure has to be performed poses questions about the efficacy of chloramines for water disinfection and, more importantly, raises concerns about whether enough amount of research was conducted before this decision was imposed upon the public.
Third, evidence presented in several studies strongly suggests that the current EPA MCLs are not adequate to protect public health. These studies show occurrences of adverse health effects below the MCLs, especially in the case of THMs, where reproductive and developmental effects have been observed as a result of exposures as low as 40 ppb. The EPA must, therefore, revise their standards, using data based on current studies, so that their "safe dose" is in fact safe for all populations.
Finally, since the formation of DBPs result from a reaction between chlorine, whether from chlorination or chloramination, and organic matter in surface waters, cleaner source water is the critical step to reliably reduce these byproducts while at the same time guaranteeing water as free of pathogens as possible. By failing to clean up source water, the Congress, EPA, and polluters are leaving Americans with no choice but to consume high levels of DBPs.
For the majority of the water systems with elevated DBP levels, cleaner source water will require aggressive action to reduce agricultural pollution, runoff from suburban sprawl and upstream sewage discharges. The public and policy makers have been led to believe that they must accept either water polluted with pathogens or water contaminated with high levels of chlorination and chloramination byproducts. This is simply not true. Tap water in DC and, in fact, the entire United States, can meet pathogen standards and be low in DBPs as well.
Recommendations
Recommendations for consumers:
Use a carbon filter to reduce DBPs in your home’s drinking water
In 2006, researchers from Universite Laval in Quebec, Canada found that the use of activated-carbon filters is one of the most effective ways for households to reduce THM and HAA concentrations in drinking water (Lévesque, 2006). The study found this method to be more effective than the other methods commonly used to improve the taste, smell and appearance of drinking water - i.e., storing water in the refrigerator for 48 hours prior to consumption and boiling water before storage - and have the added benefit of reducing lead levels which is a particular concern for DC residents.
Carbon filtration systems come in various different forms, including pitchers, faucet-mounted attachments, as well as larger systems that are installed on or under counter tops. Prices vary and may be deceiving since different systems require filter replacement at different frequencies. EWG research shows that pitcher and faucet-mounted systems are typically the most economical, with yearly costs typically in the range of about $100. Counter-top and under-counter systems tend to be more expensive at the outset, though the yearly maintenance costs are often not that much higher than the pitcher and faucet-mounted systems. The prices for all of these systems pale in comparison to the amount that a family of four would spend if they were purchasing bottled water, which EWG estimates to range between $950 and $1,800 per year.
Before purchasing, it is important to do your research, for not water filters using activated carbon remove DBPs. Click here to see a list of some filters that reduce the levels of at least some DBPs. EWG also recommends that consumers examine a recent Consumer Reports study that actually tested more than a dozen of common carbon filters for their ability to remove the THM chloroform. CR found that while many scored “very good” or “excellent,” a number of others scored “fair” or “poor” (Consumer Reports 2007). Click here to find CR’s study. Whatever system you end up purchasing, remember to change the filter according to the manufacturer's guidelines, or it will become clogged and cease to function effectively.
Consider purchasing a whole-house filtration system to further reduce DBP exposure
Numerous studies have shown that showering and bathing are important routes of exposure for THMs and certain other DBPs, and may actually contribute more to total exposure than drinking water (OEHHA 2004, Xu and Weisel 2003, Weisel and Laskin ND). One study, for example, found the highest chloroform exposure values among adults taking a 30-minute bath daily (Krishnan 2003). For this reason, consumers should consider purchasing a whole-house filtration system if they want to protect themselves from DBP-related health effects to the fullest extent possible. Consumers should be aware, however, that many whole-house filtration systems don’t actually remove DBPs, and those that do typically cost several hundred dollars to install with yearly maintenance costs that can also run into the hundreds of dollars. This option may also not be worthwhile for those who are more concerned with HAAs than other DBPs, since preliminary research has suggested that showering and bathing are not actually important exposure routes for these compounds (Weisel and Laskin ND).
Policy recommendations:
Agriculture is the top source of pollution in the Potomac River watershed, but efforts to control agricultural pollution remain largely unfunded. From 1999 through 2005, taxpayers spent five times more money subsidizing farmers in the Potomac River basin as they did on programs to control agricultural pollution - $287 million on subsidies compared to $57 million on conservation and pollution control. In an era of tight federal budgets, political pressure to fully fund farmer subsidies almost always trumps whatever concerns might exist about controlling agricultural pollution. As a result, 4,155 farmers in the Potomac watershed were denied funding for conservation programs in 2004 and 2005 due to lack of available funds.
EWG’s findings argue strongly for keeping sources of tap water clean before they require expensive and potentially harmful treatment with chlorine or chloramines. But until such measures are in place and contaminant levels are dramatically reduced from current levels, EWG recommends that anyone drinking DC tap water use some form of carbon filtration designed to reduce levels of THM and HAAs.
In addition, we recommend that:
Farm polices must be reformed to fully fund programs specifically designed to keep agricultural pollutants of all kinds – manure, fertilizer, pesticides and soil – out of tap water supplies.
Safety standards for chlorination and chloramine byproducts must be reevaluated in light of research indicating that current regulations are not stringent enough.
Greater efforts are put in place to educate the public about the health risks of chlorine and chloramine byproducts and to warn all Aqueduct water consumers of the annual chlorine burn.
References
Bove FJ, Fulcomer MC, Klotz JB, Esmart J, Dufficy EM, Savrin JE. 1995. Public drinking water contamination and birth outcomes. American journal of epidemiology 141(9): 850-62.
Bove F, Shim Y, Zeitz P. 2002. Drinking water contaminants and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a review. Environmental health perspectives 110 Suppl 1: 61-74.
Consumer-Reports. 2007. Water filters: Simple, effective ooptions. Available: http://www.consumerreports.org [accessed 2007].
Cooke G, Carlson R. 1989. Reservoir Management for Water Quality and THM Precursor Control: AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.
CSP. 2007. Conservation Security Program (CSP) Program Assessment: A report from the Soil and Water Conservation Society and Environmental Defense: Conservation Security Program.
DeAngelo AB, Daniel FB, Most BM, Olson GR. 1997. Failure of monochloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid administered in the drinking water to produce liver cancer in male F344/N rats. Journal of toxicology and environmental health 52(5): 425-45.
Dodds L, King W, Woolcott C, Pole J. 1999. Trihalomethanes in public water supplies and adverse birth outcomes. Epidemiology 10: 233-37.
EPA. 2002. Microbial Health Effects Tables: Potential Adverse Health Effects from high/long-term exposure to hazardous chemicals in drinking water.
EPA. 2002. The Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Health Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study.
EPA. 2006. Lead in DC Drinking Water: Changes in Lead Levels during Annual Switch to Free Chlorine.
EPA. 2006. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final Rule. (Agency EP, ed): Government Printing Office, 107.
EPA. 2007. Lead in Drinking Water: Corrosion Control.
Hinckley AF, Bachand AM, Reif JS. 2005. Late pregnancy exposures to disinfection by-products and growth-related birth outcomes. Environmental health perspectives 113(12): 1808-13.
Kanitz S, Franco Y, Patrone V, Caltabellotta M, Raffo E, Riggi C, et al. 1996. Association between drinking water disinfection and somatic parameters at birth. Environmental health perspectives 104: 516-20.
Klotz JB, Pyrch LA. 1999. Neural tube defects and drinking water disinfection by-products. Epidemiology 10(4): 383-90.
Krishnan K. 2003. Evaluation of the relative importance of dermal and inhalation routes for developing drinking water guidelines for trihalomethanes. 602-4500059013: Health Canada.
Levesque S, Rodriguez MJ, J S, C B, F P. 2006. Effects of indoor drinking water handling on trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. Water research 40(15): 2921-30.
Linder RE, Klinefelter GR, Strader LF, Narotsky MG, Suarez JD, Roberts NL, et al. 1995. Dibromoacetic acid affects reproductive competence and sperm quality in the male rat. Fundam Appl Toxicol 28(1): 9-17.
NTP. 2005. Dichloroacetic Acid (Executive Summary). In: Clinical Evaluation Committee Draft Report.
NTP. 2007. NTP Report on the Toxicology Studies of Bromodichloromethane (CAS NO. 75-27-4) in Genetically Modified (FVB Tg.AC Hemizygous) Mice (Dermal, Drinking Water, and Gavage Studies) and Carcinogenicity Studies of Bromodichloromethane in Genetically Modified [B6.129-Trp53tm1Brd (N5) Haploinsufficient] Mice (Drinking Water and Gavage Studies). 07-4422: National Institutes of Health.
ODHS. 2004. Haloacetic Acids. Technical Bulletin.: Oregon Department of Human Services; Environmental Toxicology Section.
OEHHA. 2004. Evidence on the Developmental and reproductive Toxicity of Chloroform: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Available: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/ChloroformHID.pdf
Plewa MJ, Wagner ED, Richardson SD, Thruston AD, Jr., Woo YT, McKague AB. 2004. Chemical and biological characterization of newly discovered iodoacid drinking water disinfection byproducts. Environmental science & technology 38(18): 4713-22.
Porter CK, Putnam SD, Hunting KL, Riddle MR. 2005. The effect of trihalomethane and haloacetic acid exposure on fetal growth in a Maryland county. American journal of epidemiology 162(4): 334-44.
Reif JS, Hatch MC, Bracken M, Holmes LB, Schwetz BA, Singer PC. 1996. Reproductive and developmental effects of disinfection by-products in drinking water. Environmental health perspectives 104(10): 1056-61.
Richardson SD. 1998. Drinking Water Disinfection By-Products. In: Encyclopedia of Environmental Analysis and Remediation (Myers R, ed): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Richardson SD, Thruston AD, Jr., Caughran T, Chen P, Collette T, Floyd T. 1999. Identification of New Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts Formed in the Presence of Bromide. Environmental science & technology.
Richardson SD, Thruston AD, Jr., Caughran T, Chen P, Collette T, Floyd T, et al. 1999. Identification of New Ozone Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water. . Environmental science & technology.
Richardson SD, Thruston AD, Jr., Rav-Acha C, Groisman L, Popilevsky I, Juraev O, et al. 2003. Tribromopyrrole, brominated acids, and other disinfection byproducts produced by disinfection of drinking water rich in bromide. Environmental science & technology 37(17): 3782-93.
Rusin PA, Rose JB, Haas CN, Gerba CP. 1997. Risk assessment of opportunistic bacterial pathogens in drinking water. Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology 152: 57-83.
USDA. 2001. National Resources Inventory 2001: Annual NRI. United States Department of Agriculture.
USGS. 1999. The quality of our Nation's Waters, Nutrients and Pesticides: US Geological Survey. [accessed Access 1999].
Villanueva C, Cantor K, Grimalt J, Malats N, Silverman D, Tardon A, et al. 2007. Bladder cancer and exposure to water disinfection by-products through ingestion, bathing, showering, and swimming in pools. American journal of epidemiology 165(2): 148-56.
Waller K, Swan SH, DeLorenze G, Hopkins B. 1998. Trihalomethanes in drinking water and spontaneous abortion. Epidemiology 9(2): 134-40.
Weisel C, D L. Inhalation and Dermal Exposure to Disinfection Byproducts of Chlorinated Drinking Water: University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Available: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/drinkingwater/weisel_r825953.pdf [accessed July 13 2007]
Xu X, Weisel CP. 2003. Inhalation exposure to haloacetic acids and haloketones during showering. Environmental science & technology 37(3): 569-76.
New Tests Find High Levels of Hazardous Chlorination Byproducts in D.C. Tap Water WASHINGTON — In spite of the best efforts of the Washington Aqueduct to provide quality tap water to the District of Columbia, tests conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in May of 2007 revealed toxic by-products of the chemicals used to purify Potomac River water, at levels above annual federal health limits.
These results illustrate the tremendous difficulties that water utilities face when trying to provide tap water that is free of potentially deadly bacteria and pathogens, yet not contaminated with toxic by-products of the chemicals used to kill these same microbes. This problem is particularly acute when utilities draw water from poorly protected water sources like the Potomac River.
“These toxic byproducts will continue to persist until the Potomac River is adequately cleaned up. Until that happens residents of Washington and Northern Virginia should use carbon filters that can reduce these contaminants dramatically at one tenth the cost of bottled water.” said EWG Executive Director Richard Wiles.
EWG collected tap water samples from 18 locations across Washington D.C., including the U.S. Capitol, EPA headquarters, parks, schools, and residences of pregnant women and other groups susceptible to health problems from exposures to disinfection byproducts. Tests were commissioned from an accredited lab for two classes of disinfection byproducts — total trihalomethanes, or THMs, and haloacetic acids, or HAAs.
More than 40 percent of the tap water samples contained chemical byproducts of water treatment above annual federal health limits. The group of contaminants, known as haloacetic acids, or HAAs, were found at their highest levels since 2001, the last year before the Washington Aqueduct modified its treatment techniques in an attempt to reduce levels of related byproducts of tap water chlorination known as THMs.
EPA classifies HAAs as possible human carcinogens, and peer-reviewed studies have identified adverse reproductive and developmental effects, and the ability to damage DNA. The state of Oregon has warned that long term exposure to HAAs at levels equal to those found in DC tap water could cause injury to the brain, nervous system, the eyes, and the reproductive system.
The by-products of chlorination present a significant health issue that is not well addressed by current drinking water health standards. EPA scientists have identified a total of 600 disinfection byproducts in tap water but EPA has set legal limits in tap water for only 11. And these legal limits, such as those for HAAs and THMs, are established as a balance between health, treatment cost and feasibility.
“These results represent the tip of the iceberg for chemical contamination of DC tap water,” said Richard Wiles, Executive Director of EWG.
EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. EWG's work on tap water contamination can be found at http://www.ewg.org/tapwater.
Source URL:
http://www.ewg.org/reports/dctapwater
