Water Risk. Wanna bet that No One in Jacksonville is even monitoring this?

[stephendare]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/sex-hormones-mood-stabil_n_90714.html

A vast array of pharmaceuticals _ including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex 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 sex 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 sex 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 contaminants but is very expensive for large-scale use and leaves several gallons of polluted water for every one that is made drinkable.

Another issue: There's evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.

Human waste isn't the only source of contamination. Cattle, for example, are given ear implants that provide a slow release of trenbolone, an anabolic steroid used by some bodybuilders, which causes cattle to bulk up. But not all the trenbolone circulating in a steer is metabolized. A German study showed 10 percent of the steroid passed right through the animals.

Water sampled downstream of a Nebraska feedlot had steroid levels four times as high as the water taken upstream. Male fathead minnows living in that downstream area had low testosterone levels and small heads.

Other veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, and even obesity _ sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.

Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no. "Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby _ director of environmental technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. _ said: "There's no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they're at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms."

Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation.

Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life _ such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.

Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They say, though, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.

"It brings a question to people's minds that if the fish were affected ... might there be a potential problem for humans?" EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson told the AP. "It could be that the fish are just exquisitely sensitive because of their physiology or something. We haven't gotten far enough along."

With limited research funds, said Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a greater emphasis should be put on studying the effects of drugs in water.

"I think it's a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health," said Snyder. "They need to just accept that these things are everywhere _ every chemical and pharmaceutical could be there. It's time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental."

To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to "detect and quantify pharmaceuticals" in wastewater. "We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations," he said. "We're going to be able to learn a lot more."

While Grumbles said the EPA had analyzed 287 pharmaceuticals for possible inclusion on a draft list of candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, he said only one, nitroglycerin, was on the list. Nitroglycerin can be used as a drug for heart problems, but the key reason it's being considered is its widespread use in making explosives.

So much is unknown. Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans. Confidence about human safety is based largely on studies that poison lab animals with much higher amounts.

There's growing concern in the scientific community, meanwhile, that certain drugs _ or combinations of drugs _ may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day.

Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.

Many concerns about chronic low-level exposure focus on certain drug classes: chemotherapy that can act as a powerful poison; hormones that can hamper reproduction or development; medicines for depression and epilepsy that can damage the brain or change behavior; antibiotics that can allow human germs to mutate into more dangerous forms; pain relievers and blood-pressure diuretics.

For several decades, federal environmental officials and nonprofit watchdog environmental groups have focused on regulated contaminants _ pesticides, lead, PCBs _ which are present in higher concentrations and clearly pose a health risk.

However, some experts say medications may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body.

"These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That's what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects," says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs.

And while drugs are tested to be safe for humans, the timeframe is usually over a matter of months, not a lifetime. Pharmaceuticals also can produce side effects and interact with other drugs at normal medical doses. That's why _ aside from therapeutic doses of fluoride injected into potable water supplies _ pharmaceuticals are prescribed to people who need them, not delivered to everyone in their drinking water.

"We know we are being exposed to other people's drugs through our drinking water, and that can't be good," says Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany.

[Springfield LitiGator]

St. Johns Riverkeeper is the only advocate stressing that people understand the flawed systems behind discharging millions of gallons of treated wastewater into the St. Johns daily, while in stark contrast we put 50-70% of our potable water on our lawns.

[JeffreyS]

It was on the front page of the T.U. today.

[Springfield LitiGator]

On the front cover, but not a word from DEP, the Water (Mis)Management District, the City, etc..

What element of state/local regulatory schemes do you think analyze and respond to this type of data?

[KenFSU]

Stories like this illustrate just how poorly the media does its job. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. There have been numerous studies done in the last ten years, including one major one in 2004, showing the same thing -- pharmas, mood stabilizers, tranquilizers, and hormones in our drinking water. Sure, it's only trace amounts, but with the amount of water we drink, come into contact with, and submerge ourselves in on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis, I find it impossible to believe that there are no effects of these drugs on our bodies and minds. Studies like these also bring some very disturbing possibilities to light. It seems very Aldous Huxley to suggest, but imagine how effective it would be for a government body to strategically introduce larger doses of mood stabilizers, tranquilizers and hormones into its water supply. They could get away with whatever they want with if they were to drug their population into such a state of complacency. Be shocked if a country like North Korea or China hasn't already attempted such a thing.

[Jason]

Doesn't the City of Jax (most of Florida for that matter) get its drinking water from deep wells versus rivers, lakes, or tributaries?  The Floridian Aquifer has been touted as world's best filtration system. 

[reednavy]

The City of Jacksonville actually gets its water from the Floridan Aquifer, several hundred, to over 1,000 feet below ground. Below our sandy, and sometimes sand-clay mixture soil is a sturdy layer of limestone, and possibly some phosphate, although phosphate is more West Central Florida. The aquifer is one of cleanest in the world, and largest at over 100,000 sq. miles of total coverage, it covers all of Florida, GA from about Bainbridge, northeastward to Augusta, Alabama from Dothan, west to near Demopolis, Mississippi counties of Jackson, Harrison, and parts of 3 others, and lastly South Carolina from Georgetown, over to Augusta, GA. South Florida gets most of their water from either Lake Okeechobee or the Biscayne Aquifer. Only some area of NE Florida actually get water from the St. Johns, I don't know of any off the top of my head. Much of the Floridan Aquifer discharge is in the Tallahassee area, especially Wakulla Springs. So needless to say, JAX water is coming from a very clean source, very few impurities are found in it. The Floridan Aquifer is 2nd only to the Ogalla Aquifer/ High PLains Aquifer, which extends from the Llano Estacado in W. Texas, to almost all of NB and into a sliver of SD. It is the supplier for cities such as Lubbock, Amarillo, Guymon, Dodge City, Goodland, Scottsbluff, North Platte, and Grand Island to name a few(going from south to north). Much of it is used for agricultural purposes though, and is shrinking faster than the Floridan Aquifer.

[Springfield LitiGator]

While it is true we consume our potable drinking water from the Floridan aquifer, the fact that Central Florida utilities are pushing forward plans to use the St. Johns for potable supply makes for an eye-opening regional issue facing us today.

Currently, here in NE Florida, we dump our (poorly) treated wastewater (to the tune of over 100 million gallons per day) into our River, and then enable folks like Georgia-Pacific who want to dump what they want, and when they want it.

Silence from the St. James Building, DEP, Water Management District, the list goes on.

If the City of Jax really wanted to have the slightest sliver of credibility in the administrative withdrawal challenge, then they should also be forcefully rejecting G-P's expansion plans.

[reednavy]

Currently, here in NE Florida, we dump our (poorly) treated wastewater (to the tune of over 100 million gallons per day) into our River, and then enable folks like Georgia-Pacific who want to dump what they want, and when they want it.

Actually, GP has become an evironmental leader in the ways they process and produce the lumber, paper, pulp, etc they produce. Rice Creek, directly adjacent to their production facility in Palatka is much cleaner than it was when the state mandated strict guidelines. We can't blame everything on people now, its also partly the river to blame. It is an incredibly lazy river, and flushing it out is quite a dificult task for it to do, it relies completly on the tides to flush itsself, even then, the tides effects are influenced by the amount of flow the river has, like right now, the flow is much more than typical due to flooding rains. Knowing this, we need to take better care of the river. If Seminole County gets approval, its going to take a helluva lot of treatment before a drop can be used by people, the river is full of stuff.

[JeffreyS]

It is an incredibly lazy river, and flushing it out is quite a dificult task for it to do, it relies completly on the tides to flush itsself, even then, the tides effects are influenced by the amount of flow the river has, like right now, the flow is much more than typical due to flooding rains. Knowing this, we need to take better care of the river. If Seminole County gets approval, its going to take a helluva lot of treatment before a drop can be used by people, the river is full of stuff.

We are going to have to go to desalinization to meet the growing demands for water in this state.  That said we should just do it.  A study about how much water we can take from the river as a short term solution is a waste of time and money. Do not even study it just go with the long term solution.

This reminds me of building a dedicated bus way so we can tear it up for a rail system if it is successful.

[Springfield LitiGator]

GP is a leader in public deception.  GP's Palatka facility, built in the 1940s, utilizes over 900 acres of treatment ponds.  GP has the ability, in a technologically and economically viable manner, to convert this plant to a closed cycle bleaching system (read:  no discharge to the St. Johns).

The catch is that it is less expensive to build a pipe to discharge their waste in the main stem of the St. Johns.  And it turns out, DEP more than happy to let it happen. 

GP proposes to do this for two reasons:

1.  They can't meet minimum water quality standards in Rice Creek.  Turns out Rice Creek isn't the "Old Florida" they project in their multimillion dollar ad/pr campaign.

2.  DEP allows GP to use "mixing zones" covering hundreds of square meters.  The effluent being discharged should meet water quality standards "at the pipe",  not in the middle of some mixing zone.

The purpose of the laws regarding our waterways (we collectively own them) is pretty much common sense: they should be "fishable and swimable."  To those who believe Rice Creek has made a miraculous recovery, I'd like to see someone catch a bream near the mill outfall and feed it to their family.

[Jason]

Luckily for Central Florida they plan to pull from the southern portion of the river.  Everything Jax does just hits the ocean.  They will be responsible for the quality of the water at that point.  If the river were flowing the other direction then there are bigger problems.  That being said, Central Florida may have more incentive to work with the SJRWMD to keep the "Up stream" portion of the river cleaner so that their drinking water won't be as heavily effected.  Still, pumping that much water from an already lazy river would most definitely have an adverse effect on its overall health.

Look on the bright side.... if Orlando dires up people will likely move away and may perhaps provide the additional population boom we're hoping for to fill up all of these mega developments pushing Jacksonville into the urban big leagues...  I'm just sayin! 

[JeffreyS]

Look on the bright side.... if Orlando dires up people will likely move away and may perhaps provide the additional population boom we're hoping for to fill up all of these mega developments pushing Jacksonville into the urban big leagues...  I'm just sayin! 

Maybe we could get their nba team.