Copyright (c) 2008, all rights reserved

An article by Associated Press published in our local newspaper, the Daily Chief-Union of Upper Sandusky, detailing an investigation into pharmaceuticals in drinking water was both a good summary for citizens and thought-provoking. If your newspaper picked these up from the AP, you should pull the relevant issues out of recycling and take another look. Five things to remember about the tone and the information discussed:

1. This information is not new, but it reentered the news cycle because of these reports.

2. Despite the implications of the writers, there is no conspiracy of silence about pharmaceuticals in water supplies at any level of operation or oversight.

3. The picture is more complicated than they make it sound – chances are, you are not significantly exposed to pharmaceuticals by way of your water supply.

4. Potential fixes are complicated, pose their own problems, and expensive.

5. There is indeed quite a bit that individuals can do to protect themselves and to help solve the problem.

Read on...

Studies have shown estrogen-like compounds, caffeine, triclosan (the widely used antibacterial compound), and other artifacts of human activity in surface waters (rivers, streams, lakes) for many years. Caffeine and optical brighteners from detergent are in fact great tracers if one wants to follow a trail back to a wastewater source. More recent studies have shown the wide range of compounds discussed in the article. So this information is not new to those who study and make plans for water quality.

Americans are famously uninformed or oblivious about actual risks involved with choices. They freak out over nuclear power plants within miles of their homes but smoke tobacco in the same homes – and around their children. People are afraid to fly but drive days to destinations. They drink bottled water because they consider it “healthier” than public tap water even though standards for public tap water are as good as or higher than those for bottled water. They worry about pharmaceuticals in water and then what are some of the biggest water beverage sales for? Vitamin water. The risks of exposure to the parts-per-billion (one part in 10⁹) and parts-per-trillion (one part in 10¹²) quantities of pharmaceuticals are poorly understood. Based on studies of aquatic life, risk is not zero, but is it significant for human health? Consider that a part per trillion (according to Wikipedia) is equivalent to one drop of substance in 20, two-meter-deep Olympic-size swimming pools (50,000 m³). Our ~ 2 million gal/day water treatment plant (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) won’t pump it’s trillionth gallon for another 1200+ years. I cite these numbers to give an idea of scale.

Why is this important? In any endeavor, you want to weigh the risks and benefits and decide what to do. If one does not know what the risk is, you risk either over- or under-planning. People are making those judgments at the present time. One factor is cost. What will it cost to take every last molecule of ibuprofin out of a water supply, and who will pay for this? Compare this against the very real health improvements made due to water chlorination and filtration: diseases common in the 19^th Century such as typhoid fever were virtually absent by the early 20^th Century (well before the EPA was established). If you don’t spend time in the poorer parts of the developing world, do you know anyone who has died from a waterborne disease? Investment in good quality water supplies, filtration, chlorination and other water treatment has had huge payoff in eliminating unnecessary mortality and sickness.

Are you even at risk as the writers imply? The main issue is with surface water. Consider the Sandusky River watershed (second-largest in the Lake Erie basin), which is the raw water source for the small cities of Upper Sandusky, Bucyrus, Tiffin, and Fremont, and some villages. Tiffin has a mixed ground water-surface water supply. Other notable towns using surface water in our region are Findlay and Ottawa (Blanchard River). Water supplies serving numerous other surrounding communities such as Crestline, Carey, Nevada, Sycamore, Ada, and Kenton use ground water. Surface water is more vulnerable than ground water as, for example, everyone from Bucyrus downstream using surface water in the Sandusky River watershed is downstream from a wastewater outfall. Wastewater (that is, what we humans put in the water) is the principal source of pharmaceuticals in water.

Ground water (including private wells) is much less at risk to exposure to pharmaceuticals. This is not a zero risk. There have been documented examples of such compounds in ground water, but it has to be due to a significant source, such as antibiotic-laced manure spread over a shallow aquifer, or a very vulnerable source in a highly populated area (aquifers in Florida, for example). If, as around here, there is reasonably good soil cover, the main risk is a local one due to malfunctioning waste water systems.

All in all, ground water users should rest easy on this count. They should be concerned about bacteria and sometimes other contaminants. Old and poorly maintained wells in particular can have problems. If you have had a well drilled, did you pick the lowest price without checking out the experience of the contractor? They are not all interchangeable you know.

And what has been measured in these tests anyway? Unless you have conducted environmental or medical testing, it is hard to appreciate how sensitive these tests are. If I will be testing for volatile organics in ground water, I need to avoid filling my vehicle's fuel tank for a day before. My plastic gloves, a piece of electrical tape, or my coffee breath will trigger the meter we use to test for organic vapors in air. The same protocol is used for these trace contaminants. For example, samplers do not drink coffee or other caffeinated beverages, take medicines, or otherwise come in contact with the target compounds for 24 hours before testing. Any slip up (taking an Advil) could result in a bad test.

Also consider exposure routes. People are worried about substances in their water while they drink enriched bottled water and pop ibuprofin and a range of other medicines. Come this time of year, I eat those strawberries from Florida and California grown in sterile, pesticide-laced soil. I know I shouldn't, but I crave the fresh fruit. Unless you are very particular about what you eat, water is not your major route of exposure to pesticides, other estrogen-like substances, or medicines.

So, you drink treated public water from a surface water source, and you still want to see your upstream neighbors' part-per-trillion birth control residue and deer hormones kept out of your life. What are the options? Upper Sandusky, for example, will be upgrading its water treatment plant, so now is the time to plan. The plant and its staff produce a high-quality water, and the city has made significant investments in water supply infrastructure. The upgrades the city needs to make now are for byproducts of the chlorination that keeps us safe from pathogenic bacteria sent to us by our neighbors upstream. The risks of these compounds are small and take a long time to take effect in a small number of people. If you want to go further, what do you plan for and how much will it cost? Are their undesirable consequences?

Many organic compounds are trapped by activated carbon, which is one option for removal. Such treatment is likely to be part of the new plant. Indeed, it is used now to control taste and odor. Another is membrane filtration. One kind is reverse osmosis (RO), often used in private homes. This treatment produces a stream of almost pure water with nothing in it at all (think Aquafina or Dasani bottled water). Another is called nanofiltration (NF), which allows through more minerals, but not much else.

One problem is that only about one-third of the water going into the RO filters comes out as treated drinking water. Depending on the system, anywhere from two to five gallons of water is rejected to waste – wherever “away” is – for every one gallon sent to customers. So there is a huge waste of water associated with this treatment. NF wastes much less water, but is more complicated to engineer properly. Some rejectant can be recycled back in, but water waste is a problem with all membrane methods. You would have to design for much bigger intake pumps and lines, and use more power. RO water is also very aggressive. A nearly pure water stream is very corrosive to pipes and fittings. It is necessary to add minerals and raise pH after treatment. NF would be a possible choice. It is increasingly common in public water supply treatment around Ohio, but is itself expensive. You get the idea. Central water treatment to take out parts-per-trillion amounts of a low-risk compound could be very expensive to implement. A doubling or tripling of water rates would not be out of the question.

There is much we can do to cut down on these compounds in the environment and in our homes – much less expensively than installing Space Station water treatment methods. Agriculture has already accomplished much in limiting herbicide exposure (see our website page on large-scale agriculture Concentrated Animal Feeding Facilities...Resources for Environmental Responsibility).

• Get control of your food. You can eat organic. The markets are becoming more convenient. Grow your own. It's therapeutic, too. Visit the farmers' market. Patronize food producers that do not use hormones and other things you wish to avoid. Risk: Your kids might be shorter.

• Quit flushing medicine down the toilet – and tell everyone upstream the same thing. This is potentially a job for the Sandusky River Watershed Coalition (or your local equivalent): educating the public and working with solid waste districts, the medical community and others to stop flushing the extra – as people have been told to do for decades.

• Are you just a little leery of the water and maybe just want to clear the taste? Buy and use a filter pitcher in your home. We do, just for taste. We drink Upper's tap water in our home.

• If you are especially vulnerable to waterborne compounds, install your own RO unit. It should be specified, installed, and regularly serviced by a professional.

• Save your money: don't rely on bottled water. That is the expensive route, and you may be ingesting compounds from the bottles themselves. Please note: If you drink RO-treated bottled water (most common brands and the stuff at the grocery) or if you install RO, you need to be sure you restore the minerals to your system that you normally get in water.

So, don't worry, take what action you can. Control the more significant sources of pharma-compounds – your own actions and your food. Relax about the water. Educate yourself: two government web sites on the topic are http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc/index.html and www.epa.gov/ppcp/. There is much more information (of various quality) that you can find using a search engine. Don't think your water suppliers are hiding a great health conspiracy from you. If you want the ibuprofin-free water, you should be prepared to pay, or just buy that refrigerator pitcher and its $6.00-each filters. Your public water supply's operating team and its engineers are working hard to provide good water – which is a real bargain, by the way. Even if rates go up significantly, tap water remains a very good value and a safe and beneficial part of your diet. Imagine life without it.