Feds stumble over limiting drugs in water

LogicSoDeveloped

LogicSoDeveloped

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
3,427
Location
The Mountains
LOS ANGELES

Federal regulators who are supposed to decide whether to impose limits on prescription drugs in U.S. drinking water still aren't even sure which pharmaceuticals pose human health risks at the low concentrations scientists are finding, government investigators say in a new report.

What began several years ago as a coordinated effort among federal agencies to analyze what -- if anything -- should be done about hormones, antibiotics, painkillers and other drugs in tap water has fizzled, according to a report released Thursday by the Government Accountability Office.

The solution proposed by GAO investigators: Another federal "workgroup" to tackle the issue systematically.

The lack of coordination among regulators persists three years after an Associated Press investigation revealed that traces of pharmaceuticals were passing through treatment plants and into drinking water supplies nationwide.

The main source of the contamination is medicine that people take, but that their bodies don't fully absorb. Some of the active ingredients are flushed when people use the toilet, beginning a journey to sewage plants, into waterways that are drinking water sources, and -- after further treatment to make it potable -- back to the kitchen sink.

Representatives of water utilities and pharmaceutical manufacturers say that the low concentrations pose no human health risk -- that a person would need to drink thousands of glasses of water to get a typical therapeutic dose. Research cited in AP's original 2008 investigation suggested cause for concern: Even very small amounts of unwanted drugs could do cumulative harm to people who regularly drink water, in part because they may combine with other pharmaceuticals to unforeseen effect, according to researchers.

In the new GAO report, investigators focused on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is in charge of national water policy.

Two years ago, the EPA announced that it would consider setting limits for pharmaceuticals in drinking water, publishing a list of nine sex hormones, one antibiotic and two other chemicals that remain candidates for regulation. Making the candidate list doesn't mean a chemical will be regulated -- that's the analysis EPA officials have to complete, and they have said they intend to make preliminary decisions on some of the 12 contaminants next year.

Just how that will be done was one source of concern to authors of the GAO report, who cited a lack of data on water quality and human health effects.

"EPA is collaborating with the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Geological Survey on research to help obtain such data but these efforts are largely informal," the authors wrote. "EPA officials said there is no formal mechanism, such as a long-term strategy or formal agreement, to manage and sustain these collaborative efforts."

An EPA spokeswoman did not answer questions from the AP. In a letter responding to the report before it was made public, EPA's acting administrator for water, Nancy K. Stoner, wrote that the agency agreed with the recommendation of a more coordinated effort across agencies, with the caveat that its level of involvement would depend on available resources.

That would not be the first workgroup on the subject.

An effort known as Pharmaceuticals in the Environment, which involved scientists at eight federal agencies, culminated in 2009 with a draft report that was never publicly released. Comments included in the GAO report from several participating agencies show that bickering over what that report should include led to its death.
Click to expand...
source: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9PKKCCG1.htm
 
is it really that big a deal? I'd like to know what kind of concentrations are in the water...

ONOES NOT 1 MICROGRAM OF OXY! AH AM ADDICTED NOWZ :'(
 
yes network, you didnt know?
i remember seeing it on the news a few years ago
and it was something like hormones or something
not wat i want
 
^ YOU'RE A MOD NOW?!?? AWESOME

OT: News anchors that are paid to promote mass hysteria are causing this. In a city of say 20,000, probably less than 20 of them each piss away a few micrograms--AT BEST-- of a hormone per urination. So unless you're going to start drinking a few thousand liters of water each day... And then there's the 2,000 people with a well, 500 people that only buy well water. The chlorine in the water which is very bad for pharmaceuticals... All of this means unless you live in California where they dine on bottles of hormone supplements and Vicodin, you have nothing to worry about. Drugs don't build up, so it's not like over the course of 4 years you're going to grow a pill farm in your blood stream.

There's nothing to worry about, for anyone.
 
^ The chlorine in the water is probably far worse for us than the pharms.

But the thing is that we don't know for sure what the effects of taking mini-doses of dozens of pharms, plus hormones, and antibiotics on a regular basis.
Scientists do not yet know the answer - and may never know - so it is hard to take your statement as the final word on the matter, if you know what I mean.
 
Ugh.. re-reading my post, I have no idea what's going on with my grammar lately. I can't seem to type anything right anymore, so I sound retarded.

But yeah, I understand, but you should also understand that it's unlikely these pharms do anything in doses of a few molecules per mL. Like the article says, the dose in a glass of water is thousands and thousands of times less than a therapeutic dose. And these drugs aren't exactly like lead in that they don't build up, so drinking a mg of post-piss valium over 3 years isn't going to do anything.

There's also the part that many medicines quickly metabolize into inert substances. But no one really knows what does what in nano-doses like this.
 
Another reason I wish we had bottled distilled drinking water in our supermarkets. It's rather common in asia, but for some reason not over here. Guess too many people still believe you can die from it. :/
Well, at least reverse osmosis is rather cheap nowadays.
There's so much shit in our drinking water it's not even funny anymore.
 
a gallon or two of LSD into each major city in the US's water supply= probably change the earth for the better. Haha
 
Newbierock said:
is it really that big a deal? I'd like to know what kind of concentrations are in the water...

ONOES NOT 1 MICROGRAM OF OXY! AH AM ADDICTED NOWZ :'(
Click to expand...

How about you add in some estrogen, other hormones, and antiobiotics into that mix?
 
hiphophippy said:
a gallon or two of LSD into each major city in the US's water supply= probably change the earth for the better. Haha
Click to expand...

Not really, the second the chlorine hits LSD it will be rendered inactive, as Shulgin mentions in the LSD entry in TIHKAL:

...Oh yes, and often overlooked, there may be only an infinitesimal amount of chlorine in treated tap water, but then there is only an infinitesimal amount of LSD in a typical LSD solution. And since chlorine will destroy LSD on contact, the dissolving of LSD in tap water is not appropriate....
Click to expand...

[Source]
 
Last edited:
boobs.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top