Air Pollutions in Malaysia

In the early days of abundant resources and minimal development pressures, little attention was paid to growing environmental concerns in Malaysia. The haze episodes in Southeast Asia in 1983, 1984, 1991, 1994, and 1997 imposed threats to the environmental management of Malaysia and increased awareness of the environment.

As a consequence, the government established Malaysian Air Quality Guidelines, the Air Pollution Index, and the Haze Action Plan to improve air quality. Air quality monitoring is part of the initial strategy in the pollution prevention program in Malaysia. Review of air pollution in Malaysia is based on the reports of the air quality monitoring in several large cities in Malaysia, which cover air pollutants such as:

• Carbon monoxide (CO),
• Sulphur Dioxide (SO2),
• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),
• Ozone (O3),
• and Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM).

The results of the monitoring indicate that Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) are the predominant pollutants.

Other pollutants such as Ox and Pb are also observed in several big cities in Malaysia.

The air pollution comes mainly from:

• land transportation,
• industrial emissions,
• and open burning sources.

Among them, land transportation contributes the most to air pollution. This paper reviews the results of the ambient air quality monitoring and studies related to air pollution and health impacts.

How can air pollution hurt my health?

Air pollution can affect our health in many ways with both 'short-term' and 'long-term' effects. Different groups of individuals are affected by air pollution in different ways. Some individuals are much more sensitive to pollutants than are others. Young children and elderly people often suffer more from the effects of air pollution.

People with health problems such as asthma, heart and lung disease may also suffer more when the air is polluted. The extent to which an individual is harmed by air pollution usually depends on the total exposure to the damaging chemicals, i.e., the duration of exposure and the concentration of the chemicals must be taken into account.

Examples of short-term effects include irritation to the:

• eyes,
• nose and
• throat, and

Upper respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia.

Other symptoms can include:

• headaches,
• nausea, and
• allergic reactions.

Short-term air pollution can aggravate the medical conditions of individuals with asthma and emphysema. In the great "Smog Disaster" in London in 1952, four thousand people died in a few days due to the high concentrations of pollution.

Long-term health effects can include:

• chronic respiratory disease,
• lung cancer,
• heart disease,

and even damage to the:

• brain,
• nerves,
• liver, or
• kidneys.

Continual exposure to air pollution affects:

• the lungs of growing children and
• may aggravate or complicate medical conditions in the elderly.

It is estimated that half a million people die prematurely every year in the United States as a result of smoking cigarettes.

Research into the health effects of air pollution is ongoing. Medical conditions arising from air pollution can be very expensive:

• Healthcare costs,
• lost productivity in the workplace, and
• human welfare impacts

cost billions of dollars each year.

Endocrine Disruptors

1. What is the endocrine system? The endocrine system is a complex network of glands and hormones that regulates many of the body's functions, including growth, development and maturation, as well as the way various organs operate. The endocrine glands -- including the pituitary, thyroid, adrenal, thymus, pancreas, ovaries, and testes -- release carefully-measured amounts of hormones into the bloodstream that act as natural chemical messengers, traveling to different parts of the body in order to control and adjust many life functions.

2. What is an endocrine disruptor? An endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical that when absorbed into the body either mimics or blocks hormones and disrupts the body's normal functions. This disruption can happen through altering normal hormone levels, halting or stimulating the production of hormones, or changing the way hormones travel through the body, thus affecting the functions that these hormones control. Chemicals that are known human endocrine disruptors include diethylstilbesterol (the drug DES), dioxin, PCBs, DDT, and some other pesticides. Many chemicals, particularly pesticides and plasticizers, are suspected endocrine disruptors based on limited animal studies.

3. What are some likely routes of exposure to endocrine disruptors? Exposure to endocrine disruptors can occur through direct contact with pesticides and other chemicals or through ingestion of contaminated water, food, or air. Chemicals suspected of acting as endocrine disruptors are found in insecticides, herbicides, fumigants and fungicides that are used in agriculture as well as in the home. Industrial workers can be exposed to chemicals such as detergents, resins, and plasticizers with endocrine disrupting properties. Endocrine disruptors enter the air or water as a byproduct of many chemical and manufacturing processes and when plastics and other materials are burned. Further, studies have found that endocrine disruptors can leach out of plastics, including the type of plastic used to make hospital intravenous bags. Many endocrine disruptors are persistent in the environment and accumulate in fat, so the greatest exposures come from eating fatty foods and fish from contaminated water.

4. How do we know that endocrine disruptors are dangerous? Many plant and animal species are showing signs of ill health due to exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. For example, fish in the Great Lakes, which are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other man-made chemicals, have numerous reproductive problems as well as abnormal swelling of the thyroid glands. Fish-eating birds in the Great Lakes area, such as eagles, terns, and gulls, have shown similar dysfunctions.

Scientists have also pointed to endocrine disruptors as the cause of a declining alligator population in Lake Apopka, Florida. The alligators in this area have diminished reproductive organs that prevent successful reproduction. These problems were connected to a large pesticide spill several years earlier, and the alligators were found to have endocrine disrupting chemicals in their bodies and eggs.

5. Should humans be concerned for their health based on evidence that fish, birds and alligators have been affected? Yes. All vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans) are fundamentally similar during early embryonic development. Scientists can therefore use the evidence acquired on other species to make predictions about endocrine disrupting effects on humans.

6. Is there direct evidence that humans are susceptible to endocrine disruption? Yes. In the 1950s and 1960s pregnant women were prescribed diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen, to prevent miscarriages. Not only did DES fail to prevent miscarriages, but it also caused health problems for many of these women's children. In 1971, doctors began reporting high rates of unusual vaginal cancers in teenage girls. Investigations of the girls' environmental exposures traced the problem to their mothers' use of DES. The girls also suffered birth defects of the uterus and ovaries, and immune system suppression.

7. Are children at greater risk from endocrine disruptor exposure? Yes. Because endocrine disruptors affect the development of the body's vital organs and hormonal systems, infants, children and developing fetuses are more vulnerable to exposure. And as was the case with DES, parents' exposure to certain chemicals may produce unexpected -- and tragic -- effects in their children, even decades later.

8. These days don't chemicals have to be safe to be allowed on the market? No. The majority of the more than 2,000 chemicals that come onto the market every year do not go through even the simplest tests to determine toxicity. Even when some tests are carried out, they do not assess whether or not a chemical has endocrine interfering properties.

9. What can I do to reduce my risk of exposure?

• Educate yourself about endocrine disruptors, and educate your family and friends.
• Buy organic food whenever possible.
• Avoid using pesticides in your home or yard, or on your pet -- use baits or traps instead,
• keepin your home especially clean to prevent ant or roach infestations.
• Find out if pesticides are used in your child's school or day care center and campaign for non-toxic alternatives.
• Avoid fatty foods such as cheese and meat whenever possible.
• If you eat fish from lakes, rivers, or bays, check with your state to see if they are contaminated.
• Avoid heating food in plastic containers, or storing fatty foods in plastic containers or plastic wrap.
• Do not give young children soft plastic teethers or toys, since these leach potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.
• Support efforts to get strong government regulation of and increased research on endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Mutagenic and carcinogenic properties of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

The rapid development of the chemical industry, combustion of fossil fuels, and smoking of tobacco have resulted in contact of the general population with benzo(a)pyrene and other carcinogenic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Persons especially at risk occupationally are those engaged in thermal processing of oil shale, coal, and heavy residual petroleum. It has been shown that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons require metabolic activation before they can act as mutagens or carcinogens.

This metabolic activation results from interaction with microsomal enzymes present in many body cells, yielding reactive epoxides which react with DNA and produce mutations in the count frame shift or participate in covalent bounding.

While opinions differ regarding the relative role of these processes in mutagenesis, considerable evidence exists which links mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Metabolites of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which are carcinogenic are usually mutagenic, which supports the hypothesis that damage to chromosomes plays an important role in carcinogenesis.

These facts open the possibility to monitoring the spread of carcinogenic substances in the biosphere by relatively simple tests whose endpoint is mutagenesis.

Dioxin danger worse than expected

For three years, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been reassessing the toxicity of dioxin and other dioxin-like chemicals, including dibenzofurans and some PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).

PCBs are industrial chemicals now banned in the US because of widespread environmental damage. Dioxins and furans are unwanted by-products of many industrial operations including incineration, tyre burning, combustion of coal and oil, manufacture of paper and some pesticides and metal smelting. Dioxins and furans are created when chlorine combines with other chemicals at high temperatures.

In 1990, the paper and chlorine industries campaigned to force EPA to undertake a thorough review of dioxin science. The reassessment has not turned out the way those industries hoped it would. We have obtained two drafts of the EPA's summary report of its dioxin reassessment, titled “Chapter 9. Risk Characterization of Dioxin and Related Compounds”, dated March 7, and May 2, 1994. Some conclusions of the May 2 draft were reported in the New York Times on May 11. What follows here is based entirely on the EPA's May 2 draft.

EPA has identified 30 dioxin-like chemicals (7 true dioxins, 10 furans, and 13 PCBs) that have dioxin-like characteristics. EPA's draft report describes the toxicity of all these 30 chemicals taken together; in this discussion we refer to them as simply dioxin.

EPA has concluded that:

* For non-cancer effects, such as damage to the reproductive, endocrine and immune systems, in birds, fish and mammals, including humans, dioxin is much more toxic than previously believed;

The agency says, “Indeed, these compounds are extremely potent in producing a variety of effects in experimental animals based on traditional toxicology studies at levels hundreds or thousands of times lower than most chemicals of environmental interest”. And: “... humans are likely to respond with a plethora of effects from exposure to dioxin and related compounds”.

* Dioxin's most powerful effects are on the reproductive system, the endocrine (hormone) system and the immune system. Most sensitive of all are newborn infants and foetuses exposed in the womb. Dioxin exposure of mammals (including humans) shortly before or shortly after birth is most likely to impair intellectual development and the immune system.

* Some of dioxin's powerful effects are observable in humans at dioxin exposure levels already occurring in the US population. EPA says, “Some of the effects of dioxin and related compounds have been observed in laboratory animals and humans at or near levels to which people in the general population are exposed.” Average levels of dioxin already present in the bodies of average Americans -- or levels not more than 10 times as high as average levels -- seem to be capable of damaging the immune system, reducing sex hormones in the bloodstream of men, interfering with glucose metabolism (a condition suggestive of diabetes) and causing other negative changes in health and well being.

The average amount of dioxin in Americans is 9 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) of body weight; a nanogram is a billionth of a gram. Sex hormones are diminished in men with 13 ng/kg; altered glucose tolerance has been observed in humans with 14 ng/kg; decreased growth is observable in humans having 47 ng/kg; endometriosis is produced in monkeys having 27 ng/kg.
Within the general public, some people are receiving lower than average doses of dioxin and others are receiving higher than average doses. EPA says, “Some more highly exposed members of the population may be at risk for a number of adverse effects including developmental toxicity, reduced reproductive capacity in males based on decreased sperm counts, higher probability of experiencing endometriosis in women, reduced ability to withstand immunological challenge, and others”.

* Dioxin's cancer effects are worse than previously thought. EPA now says flatly that dioxin is “likely to present a cancer hazard to humans”. Dioxin “probably increases cancer mortality of several types” in humans, EPA says.

EPA's best estimate is that existing levels of dioxin in the US population may be sufficient to cause cancer in somewhere between one in 10,000 people and one 1000 people during a lifetime (70 years). Since there are 250 million Americans, EPA is saying that existing dioxin levels may be causing somewhere between 25,000 and 250,000 cancers in a lifetime (70 years), or 350 to 3500 new cancers each year.

If EPA's estimate of the dioxin cancer hazard is correct, an individual's lifetime probability of getting cancer from dioxin in the US falls in the range of 1 in 1700 to 1 in 3300. This is the same risk you would get from 300 to 600 chest x-rays.

Dioxins are produced in very small quantities, if at all, by nature. EPA says, “... the presence of dioxin-like compounds in the environment occurs primarily as a result of industrial practices”.
EPA identifies four major sources of dioxin in the environment:

1. Combustion and incineration sources. This category includes incineration of municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, hospital wastes and hazardous wastes; metallurgical operations, such as high-temperature steel production, smelting and scrap metal recovery furnaces; and the burning of coal, wood, petroleum products and used tyres for power or energy generation.
2. Chemical manufacturing/processing sources. Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds are created by the manufacture of chlorine and such chlorinated compounds as chlorinated phenols, PCBs, phenoxy herbicides (2,4,5-T, 2,4-D and 11 others), chlorinated benzenes, chlorinated aliphatic compounds, chlorinated catalysts, and halogenated diphenyl ethers. Although manufacture of many chlorinated phenols and PCBs, ceased in the US around 1980, use and disposal are continuing both inside and outside the US. Large quantities of PCBs are in “storage” in leaking land fills; another billion pounds of PCBs (about 1/3 of all PCBs ever manufactured) simply cannot be accounted for.
3. Industrial/municipal processes: Dioxin-like compounds are created during chlorination of naturally occurring phenolic compounds, such as those in wood pulp. Chlorine bleaching in the manufacture of bleached pulp and paper has resulted in dioxins in paper products as well as in liquid and solid wastes from this industry.
4. Reservoir sources: Dioxin degrades very slowly once it is released into the environment. Therefore past releases of dioxin have accumulated in various “reservoirs”, such as soils, sediments, organic matter, and waste disposal sites. When dioxins move from these reservoirs they can become “new sources” of dioxin for a particular locale.
   

All together, these sources emit some 14 kilograms of total dioxins each year in the US. But the amount of dioxins falling on the surface of the US each year is estimated to be between 20 and 50 kg. Obviously some important sources of dioxin have not yet been identified. Dioxins may be arriving from other countries, carried on the wind. EPA simply doesn't know.

Dioxins fall out of the atmosphere onto the land and water and are then incorporated into the food chain, or they are discharged directly into waterways and incorporated into food chains. They tend to concentrate as they move upward in the food chain; over 90% of the dioxins in our bodies enter with our food. The major sources of dioxin to humans are meat, fish and dairy products, though inhalation may be important near some emission sources, such as some incinerators.

Pesticides in our food

In anything as complicated as pesticide exposure or even cigarette smoke, science can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "X" causes "Y".

There is always room for a researcher employed by the Crop Protection Association (the pesticide trade group) or Philip Morris to say, "Couldn't this disease be partly caused by some factor that you haven't taken intoconsideration? Couldn't this disease partly be caused by some factor you haven't even thought of." And the honest answer must always be: "Yes there is a slim chance that it could be."

Yet, you don't need to have a medical degree to know that anything which kills insects and other living creatures is not likely to be very good for you. Pesticides are toxic by design. They kill bugs, fungi, weeds, rodents and other pests. Right now, if (like me) you're skeptical about government and chemical company claims that pesticides are 'safe', buying organic food is your best option to reduce your intake of pesticides

A report released by the Pesticide Action Network Of North America and Commonwealth finds that Americans can experience up to 70 daily exposures to residues of a class of toxic chemicals known as "persistentorganic pollutants" or POPs, including such chemicals as dioxin and DDT, through their diets.

The report, "Nowhere to Hide: Persistent Toxic Chemicals in the U.S. Food Supply," analyzes chemical residue data collected by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and finds persistent chemical contaminants across ALL food groups.

Exposure to POPs has been linked to serious diseases and developmentaldisorders, including:

• Nervous system disorders
• Immune system suppression
• Breast and other types of cancer
• Reproductive damage
• Disruption of hormonal systems

Pesticides banned in the U.S. are still used in other countries

In the U. S., many of the chemicals responsible for contaminating the food supply have been banned. However, other countries continue to manufacture and use those chemicals, and their residues are carried across the globe by air, water currents and precipitation. "United States consumers have a right to know that chemicals banned in this country years ago continue to contaminate their food," said Kristin Schafer of Pesticide Action Network.

The group's evaluation of POP residue data yielded hard-to-believe findings, including the following:

• Virtually ALL food products are contaminated with POPs which have been banned in the U.S., including baked goods, vegetables, fruit, poultry, meat and dairy products.
• It is not unusual for daily diets to contain food items contaminated with 3 to 7 POPs.
• A typical holiday dinner menu of 11 food items can deliver 38 "hits" of exposure to POPs - a "hit" is one persistent toxic chemical on one food item.
• The sample daily meal plans used in the study were each found to deliver between 63 and 70 hits.separate exposures to POPs per day.
• The 2 most pervasive POPs found in food are dieldrin and DDE. Dieldrin is a very persistent and highly toxic organochlorine pesticide banned since the late 1970s. DDE is a breakdown product of DDT, which has been banned in the United States since 1972.
  

The report shows rather convincing and compelling evidence that organic foods are much less likely to have any residues. That when organic foods have residues they have fewer and that the levels of the residues are generally lower.

The report's findings are based on pesticide residue data collected on a wide variety of foods by the United States Department of Agriculture from 1994 to 1999, tests conducted on food sold in California by the state's Department of Pesticide Regulation from 1989 through 1998, and tests by Consumers Union in 1997. The combined data covered more than 94,000 food samples from more than 20 crops. 1,291 of those samples were organically grown, about 1.3%.

The Agriculture Department data showed that 73% of the conventionally grown foods had residue from at least one pesticide and were 6 times as likely as organic foods to contain multiple pesticide residues. Only 23% of the organic samples of the same groups had any pesticide residues.

The data obtained from the FDA shows that levels of contaminants in food are often at, or near, the levels found by the federal government to cause public health concern. In addition, recent scientific studies havediscovered that exposure to miniscule levels of POPs at crucial times in fetal and infant development can damage or disrupt human hormone, neurological, reproductive and immune systems.

Pesticides in YOUR food

The following link:
http://www.foodnews.org/gardensalad.php

offers you an interesting way to see just how prevalent pesticides are in our foods. Mix up your favorite garden salad and find out what pesticides are in it. Based upon tens of thousands of government tests of pesticide residue, their system picks both conventional and organic samples and tell you what pesticides were detected in those samples.

FoodNews checks government data on pesticide residues for the foods you picked. For each food you select, the FoodNews computer picks a lab test result at random from several databases. The main database contains the results of more than 160,000 government lab tests (USDA's Pesticide Data Program, PDP) for food contaminants for the years 1992 through 2000. Once you see the results for the sample you picked, you'll see that multiple exposures are daily events. If you eat in this country, you eat pesticides.

Some of you might be asking themselves why some organic food samples contain pesticides? You thought 'organic' meant 'no pesticides'?

Organic standards prohibit the use of pesticides in the production of food. But that doesn't mean food can't get contaminated.

Some pesticides, such as DDT, were banned 30 years ago but still persist in the environment and find their way into organic food. The banned pesticides found most often in organic food are DDT and its metabolite DDE, heptachlor and dieldrin. About 3% of 600 organic samples had detectable levels of persistent banned pesticides.

Pesticide residues have been found in state and federal food tests. In 2002, an analysis by Baker, C. Benbrook, Groth, and K. Benbrook showed that organic food did have some pesticide residues, but found that, compared to conventional food:

• the rate of contamination in organic is far lower
• the number of pesticides found is much lower and multiple residues are rare on organic samples
• where organic has residues, the residue levels are much lower.
  

It should also be noted that, since organic farming excludes genetic engineering, buying organic food as much as possible is the best way to avoid Genetically Engineered foods, which I will discuss in another article.
.
When you can't buy organic produce

Unfortunately many of you do not have access to organic foods. For those in many rural areas, it is simply not available, and for others cost is a problem. If you don't have access to organic vegetables, please do not use this as an excuse to not eat vegetables.

Non-organic vegetables are better than no vegetables at all. One of the many major benefits they provide is normalization of one's pH. That pH normalizing capacity is only slightly modified if the vegetables are non-organic.

There is also a practical option available to you for removing the pesticides from your body. A micro algae called chlorella binds very effectively to pesticides. It is also useful for helping you remove mercury from your body.

When you can't buy organic foods, try to buy fruits and vegetables which are consistently low in pesticides.

Analysis of the latest government test results shows that the following fruits and vegetables have the least pesticide contamination among conventionally-grown foods.

Fruits

1. Pineapples
2. Plantains
3. Mangoes
4. Bananas
5. Watermelon
6. Plums
7. Kiwi Fruit
8. Blueberries
9. Papaya
10. Grapefruit
    

Vegetables

1. Avocado
2. Cauliflower
3. Brussels Sprouts
4. Asparagus
5. Radishes
6. Broccoli7) Onions
7. Okra
8. Cabbage
9. Eggplant

Health Effects of Drinking Water Contaminants

People are increasingly concerned about the safety of their drinking water. As improvements in analytical methods allow us to detect impurities at very low concentrations in water, water supplies once considered pure are found to have contaminants. We cannot expect pure water, but we want safe water.

The health effects of some contaminants in drinking water are not well understood, but the presence of contaminants does not mean that your health will be harmed. In North Carolina, drinking water is generally of high quality and free from significant contamination. Public water supplies are tested, and regulated to ensure that our water remains free from unsafe levels of contamination. Small private water supplies, including wells, are not regulated by drinking water standards, and the owner must take steps to test and treat the water as needed to avoid possible health risks.

What is in your drinking water? The only way to know is to have it tested.

Drinking water can become contaminated at the original water source, during treatment, or during distribution to the home.

• 
  
  If your water comes from surface water (river or lake), it can be exposed to acid rain, storm water runoff, pesticide runoff, and industrial waste. This water is cleansed somewhat by exposure to sunlight, aeration, and micro-organisms in the water.
  
  
  
• 
  
  If your water comes from groundwater (private wells and some public water supplies), it generally takes longer to become contaminated but the natural cleansing process also may take much longer. Groundwater moves slowly and is not exposed to sunlight, aeration, or aerobic (requiring oxygen) micro-organisms. Groundwater can be contaminated by disease-producing pathogens, leachate from landfills and septic systems, careless disposal of hazardous household products, agricultural chemicals, and leaking underground storage tanks.
  
  
  

Possible Health Effects

The levels of contaminants in drinking water are seldom high enough to cause acute (immediate) health effects. Examples of acute health effects are nausea, lung irritation, skin rash, vomiting, dizziness, and even death.

Contaminants are more likely to cause chronic health effects - effects that occur long after repeated exposure to small amounts of a chemical. Examples of chronic health effects include cancer, liver and kidney damage, disorders of the nervous system, damage to the immune system, and birth defects.

Evidence relating chronic health effects to specific drinking water contaminants is limited. In the absence of exact scientific information, scientists predict the likely adverse effects of chemicals in drinking water using human data from clinical reports and epidemiological studies, and laboratory animal studies.

Drinking Water Standards

The Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974 directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that public water systems (systems serving more than 25 people) and noncommunity water systems (hotels, campsites, restau- rants, migrant workers' encampments, and work sites) meet minimum standards for protecting public health. Its main provisions directed the EPA to establish minimum drinking water standards to limit the amounts of various contaminants found in drinking water. Because of growing concerns about the safety of the water supply, amendments were made to strengthen this law in 1986. These amendments required the EPA to do the following:

• 
  
  Develop a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and a maximum contarninant level (MCL) for all regulated contaminants. MCLGs are nonenforceable health-based goals and represent the maximum level of a contaminant that is expected not to cause any adverse health effects over a lifetime. MCLs are enforceable contaminant levels. They are set as close to the MCLG as possible and are based on protecting public health within economical and technical reason.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Increase the number of regulated contaminants to a total of 83 by June, 1989. MCLs must be set for an additional 25 contaminants every 3 years thereafter.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Set required schedules for water systems to monitor for contaminants in drinking water.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Identify best available technologies (BATS) for removing excess contaminants from water, based on efficiency, availability, and cost.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Issue variances and exceptions to systems that cannot comply with MCLs despite the application of BATS, unless an "unreasonable risk" to health exists. "Unreasonable risk" has not yet been defined.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Provide for public notification when drinking water standards are violated.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Ban the use of lead pipes, solder, fittings, and flux in public water systems.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Bolster enforcement of penalties for violators of drinking water standards at the state and local level.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Provide for protection of groundwater sources.
  
  
  

Contaminants are regulated when they occur in drinking water supplies and are expected to threaten public health. Most levels established by the EPA allow a sufficient margin of safety, but acceptable contaminant levels vary widely among individuals and population groups. For example, high sodium levels, harmless for most people, can be dangerous for the elderly, people with high blood pressure, pregnant women, and people having difficulty in excreting sodium.

North Carolina has adopted EPA standards and the state has responsibility for enforcing drinking water standards.

Risk Assessment

Every day, you can be exposed to combinations of many toxic substances and these substances may interact.

What is in water may represent only a small part of your overall exposure to a specific contaminant. Scientists who investigate how contaminants affect human health get information in several ways. They may study how a toxic substance has affected people in a community over time. In some cases, this can show relationship between exposure to a contaminant and a health effect They may also use animal studies to collect information on the acute and chronic health effects.

Research helps scientists determine toxic doses and levels below which toxic effects are not observed. For noncancer-causing toxic substances, scientists use "acceptable daily intake" to estimate risk. The acceptable daily intake is the amount of a contaminant or toxic substance that humans can consume daily for a lifetime without any known ill effects. It includes a margin of safety. For a cancer-causing substance, no safe level has been set. Toxicity is estimated by calculating a risk estimate, or the concentration of a substance that presents the least acceptable risk. In the case of cancer-causing toxins, regulations are based on a level of risk that is acceptable, not a safe amount or concentration of a substance.

Four Groups of Contaminants

Microbial Pathogens.

Pathogens in drinking water are serious health risks. Pathogens are disease-producing micro-organisms, which include bacteria (such as giardia lamblia), viruses, and parasites. They get into drinking water when the water source is contaminated by sewage and animal waste, or when wells are improperly sealed and constructed. They can cause gastroenteritis, salmonella infection, dysentery, shigellosis, hepatitis, and giardiasis (a gastrointestinal infection causing diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and gas). The presence of coliform bacteria, which is generally a harmless bacteria, may indicate other contamination to the drinking water system.

Organics.

People worry the most about potentially toxic chemicals and metals in water. Only a few of the toxic organic chemicals that occur drinking water are regulated by drinking water standards. This group of contaminants includes:

• 
  
  Trihalomthanes (THMs), which are formed when chlorine in treated drinking water combines with naturally occurring organic matter.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides.
  
  
  
• 
  
  Volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), which include solvents, degreasers, adhesives, gasoline additives, and fuels additives. Some of the common VOCs are: benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), styrene, toluene, and vinyl chloride. Possible chronic health effects include cancer, central nervous system disorders, liver and kidney damage, reproductive disorders, and birth defects.
  
  
  

Inorganics.

These contaminants include toxic metals like arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver. These metals can get into your drinking water from natural sources, industrial processes, and the materials used in your plumbing system. Toxic metals are regulated in public water supplies because they can cause acute poisoning, cancer, and other health effects.
Nitrate is another inorganic contaminant. The nitrate in mineral deposits, fertilizers, sewage, and animal wastes can contaminate water. Nitrate has been associated with "blue baby syndrome" in infants.

Radioactive Elements.

Radon is a radioactive contaminant that results from the decay of uranium in soils and rocks. It is usually more of a health concern when it enters a home as a soil gas than when it occurs in water supplies. Radon in air is associated with lung cancer.

Summary

As people hear about the possibility of contaminants in their drinking water, they worry about potential health effects. Water supplies once considered to be pure may have various contaminants, often from natural sources. These are usually at levels below those considered to be harmful.

Analysis Of Bacteria Shows Significant Resistance To Important Human Antibiotics

YONKERS, NY-In a nationally representative analysis of antibiotic resistance in store-bought chicken, Consumer Reports (CR) tested 484, fresh, whole broilers and found salmonella or campylobacter-the bacteria most likely to give Americans food poisoning-in about half the samples. The study is the largest of its kind known to Consumer Reports. The results are published in the January 2003 issue of Consumer Reports and the entire article is available free at http://www.consumerreports.org/.

Ninety percent of the campylobacter bacteria tested from the chicken and 34 percent of the salmonella showed some resistance to one or more antibiotics often used to treat people. The presence of resistant strains in chickens has been linked to feeding them drugs to prevent or reduce sickness and to speed growth."As a result, the estimated 1.1 million or more Americans sickened each year by undercooked, tainted chicken, or by food that raw chicken juices have touched, may stay sick longer, possibly with more serious illnesses. Doctors may have to prescribe several antibiotics before finding one that works. And patients may have to pay more to be treated," says Doug Podolsky, a health writer and Senior Editor at Consumer Reports.Shoppers bought the chicken for CR's tests at supermarkets and health-food stores in 25 cities nationwide last spring. Represented in our tests were 4 leading brands (Foster Farms, Perdue, Pilgrim's Pride, and Tyson), 14 supermarket brands, 9 premium brands (usually from smaller companies, usually more expensive, labeled as raised without antibiotics, and including free-range, and organic brands), and 2 kosher brands."These are the first comprehensive tests of chickens CR has done since the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 1998 implementation of its food-safety program known as HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points). In CR's March 1998 report on chicken-done before HACCP was fully in place-the magazine found contamination in almost three-fourths of the broilers. While our recent tests showed nearly 50 percent contamination-down from our 1998 report-it is evident there are still significant holes in the food-safety net," says Ellen Klosz, who oversaw the chicken testing and is a Senior Project Leader in Consumers Union's Foods Department.

Highlights from CR's tests of chicken contamination include:·

Campylobacter was present in 42 percent of the chickens-down from 63 percent in our 1998 report, salmonella in 12 percent-down from 16 percent in our 1998 report.· The presence of the 2 bugs on a chicken carcass often didn't track. Five percent of all chickens had both campylobacter and salmonella; 51 percent had neither.· Five premium brands had no salmonella. One of those, the free-range Ranger, also had no campylobacter, at least in the 12 samples we tested.· No major brand was less contaminated than others overall. Pilgrim's Pride had an exceptionally low incidence of salmonella but, along with Tyson, a higher incidence of campylobacter than most other brands.

Highlights from CR's tests of antibiotic resistance include:·

In 66 percent of the campylobacter-contaminated chickens tested for antibiotic resistance and 17 percent of the salmonella-contaminated chickens, the bacteria were resistant to tetracycline, an older but still important drug used against germs from pneumonia to chlamydia.· In 20 percent of campylobacter-contaminated chickens tested for antibiotic resistance, the bacteria were resistant to erythromycin, an option for patients allergic to penicillin and in 19 percent of the salmonella-contaminated chickens, the bacteria were resistant to ampicillin, used against a dozen or more different bacterial infections.
"Although stronger-than-usual or extended doses of antibiotics might eventually kill the bugs in most people, resistant germs can be risky for the very young, the very old, and people with weakened immune systems," adds Podolsky.

Recommendations for Government Action

Based on CR's testing and research, the magazine includes the following recommendations:·

• The government should require companies to monitor data on the use of antibiotics in food animals.·
• Congress should ban sub-therapeutic uses of medically important drugs in poultry and other livestock.·
• The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) should extend its food-safety program to include testing for campylobacter in poultry plants, should better train its inspectors to spot deficiencies, and should require speedy fixes.

SOFT WATER -- IT'S NOT FOR DRINKING

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County prepared this information. It also is available on their website at http://www.nashville.gov/water/soft_h2o.htm

Soft water is neither healthy nor desirable for drinking! If you were a steam iron or a washing machine it would be great, but we are neither! There are good reasons you should not be drinking soft water!

Water is a universal solvent. Most materials, especially metals, are partially soluble in water. If that water is heated or softened it becomes much more aggressive at leaching metals from water lines. Lead in soldered joints and copper in pipe are particularly vulnerable and these are two of the heavy metals which shouldn't be present in significant amounts in your drinking water.

WATER HARDNESS

Calcium and magnesium are two minerals which make water "hard." Both of these minerals are classed as "contaminants," but that's a poor choice in terminology, for calcium is essential in our diet! A softener merely exchanges one group of non-toxic elements for another group of non-toxic elements. Water hardness is measured either in grains per gallon (GPG) or as calcium hardness in milligrams per liter (mg/l) or parts per million (ppm). GPG is based on calcium hardness. To convert from calcium hardness ppm, just divide by a factor of 17.2 and this gives you hardness in GPG. A soft or slightly hard water has up to 3.5 GPG; moderately hard water runs from 3.5 to 10.5 GPG; and very hard water is greater than 10.5 GPG. If your water is over 7 GPG, you might want to consider a softener just for the laundry.

Metro water is on the low side of moderately hard at 4.1 GPG (that is 70 mg/l of calcium hardness. This is an excellent value and highly desirable! Cities which have soft water are having difficulty meeting the new lead standards in tap water. Metro has had none of these difficulties in meeting the new standards!

SOFT WATER

A soft water is aggressive at leaching metals (like lead) from your lines and faucets. Most faucets are solid brass (with a relatively high lead content) and are chrome plated. This means that if you have soft water, there is a great chance that your initial drawing of cold water will have a higher lead content than normal. Hot or warm water from the tap should never be used for cooking, shortcuts, drinking water, beverages, or infant formula as it could be higher in heavy metals like lead!

WATER SOFTENERS

Besides making the water more corrosive and aggressive at leaching metals from your lines and fixtures, the zeolite beads from water softening systems may back-siphon into your toilet tanks, and the soft water may attack vital plumbing parts. While supposedly solving one set of problems, the softener could possibly introduce other problems which you may or may not be aware of! A water softener, besides leaching lead and other metals from your plumbing, can increase your sodium intake. In a water softening device hard water flows through synthetic resin beads. Sodium ions (salt) are loosely attached to each bead and the water exchanges hardness ions (calcium and magnesium) for the soft sodium ions. These devices can also be costly to run since they can waste up to 120 gallons for every 1,000 delivered.
A water softener is not designed (nor is it effective) to remove lead and other metals, chlorine, taste/odor compounds, nor chlorine by-products. Its purpose is only to make a hard water soft. Water treated to remove chlorine may encourage the formation of black rings in toilet bowls!

IN CONCLUSION

...Soft water is great for laundry, bathing, steam irons, and auto batteries, but definitely not for anything else. If you are contemplating installing a softener, there are serious questions you should ask: who will test the effectiveness of the softener, how often will these tests be run, and how will my drinking water quality be affected?

Metro Water Services does not test any home water treatment device, including softeners, and does not recommend the use of particular devices!

Toxic Shock: The Links between Pesticides and Cancer

This is compelling stuff that we have to take seriously. Whilst a UK focussed article, the risks are common to Australia as well. In our view, we eat organic because why take the risk when the evidence is emerging? The dangers of chemicals and pesticides are becoming increasingly apprarant and we dont want to wait until it is 100% certain before changing our eating habits. As the article says "the time lapse makes it hard to research any link with disease"

Cancer and Pesticides Link

A new link has been found between cancer and pesticides. According to a recent study by Belgian toxicologist Dr Charles Charlier, women with breast cancer are five to nine times more likely to have pesticide residues in their blood than those who do not.1 The doctors found hexachlorobenzene and DDT, banned in Europe for over a decade but still present in the environment.

Studies have shown that there are over 500 chemicals in our bodies which were not there 50 years ago. Meanwhile cancer is on the increase. So how strong is the link between cancer and the chemicals used in farming?

Part of the problem with pesticides (which include herbicides and fungicides) is that they just don't fade away. Often stable and persistent, they can be found decades later in the environment, and subsequently collect in our fatty tissue. This time lapse makes it hard to research any link with disease.

Several studies have shown, however, that those with high exposures to pesticides, like farm workers, have higher incidences of cancer.2,3 Despite this, government bodies, like the Food Standards Agency (FSA), argue that by the time pesticide-sprayedfood reaches the table, the chemicals are hardly a health risk. With this kind of attitude, it follows that government testing may be half-hearted.

Inadequate testing

So-called safe limits of pesticides for humans are established by testing the effects of different levels of the chemicals on laboratory rats and mice. How safe is safe? The Soil Association believes any exposure to these toxins is a potential health risk.

When pesticides turn up in food, they are called residues. No government testing is carried out on the impact of residues on children, despite their extra vulnerability (children absorb more toxins per kilo of body weight and their bodies are less able to break them down). As for monitoring methods, they are hit and miss: although staples such as milk, potatoes and bread are checked annually, there is little consistency for other foods. Coffee, for instance, has never been tested.

The government's Pesticide Residues Committee's latest annual report found that, out of 4,000 samples, nearly a third contained pesticides residues, with one in a hundred over permitted levels.

Even the FSA is now beginning to recognise that organic food may provide the reassurance consumers need. Last June, the chair of the FSA, Sir John Krebs, said, "Organic food contains fewer residues of pesticides used in conventional agriculture, so buying organic is one way to reduce the chances that your food contains these pesticides."

Hormones disrupted

The apparent cancer link may be related to the impact of some pesticides on human hormones, says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association's Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health. "Some pesticides mimic the hormone oestrogen, potentially disrupting the fine hormonal balance in our bodies, and this may be why incidences of hormone related cancers such as breast, prostrate, ovarian and testicular cancers are on the increase," he says.

This area has been explored by Miriam Jacobs of the University of Surrey. "It should come as no surprise that many pesticides interfere with hormone pathways, as they are designed to interfere with these systems," she writes on the Pesticide Action Network website, "for instance, insecticides which disrupt the hormonal systems that control moulting."5 Atrazine, a herbicide commonly used on maize, and listed by the US Environmental Protection Agency as a potential carcinogen, has been shown to be a powerful disrupter of oestrogen mechanisms in rodents, reports Miriam Jacobs.

These concerns are echoed by the Royal Society which recommends that, "human exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (especially during pregnancy) should be minimised on grounds of prudence."

Cocktail effect

A further concern is the 'cocktail effect' –what happens when different types of pesticides are sprayed on crops. Studies show that combinations of low-level insecticides, herbicides and nitrates can affect our health in ways that chemicals in isolation do not.Eventually, after years of pressure from the Soil Association and others, a report was produced in 2002 expressing disquiet about the risks of combining chemicals. According to the FSA, recommendations are currently being considered under its pesticide action plan, but it will be a while before we know how effectively these will be implemented.

While waiting for the authorities to pronounce on pesticides, the Soil Association believes that sufficient evidence already exists to make an informed choice about the food we eat. This is the precautionary principle; if there is a potential risk, why take it? We know that agrichemicals are potentially toxic and there is too little control over how they are used. We also know that they are not necessary.

Organic farming works. It is founded on the belief that a healthy soil yields healthy plants which are therefore robust enough to resist disease and attack by pests. For instance, because organic crops grow slowly, in a fertile and living soil, they have thicker cell walls providing a natural barrier to pests.

Compared to the 430 pesticides allowed in non-organic agriculture, only a tiny number (seven, of which five are restricted) are allowed by the Soil Association – and only then if organic methods are inadequate. Yet UK agriculture uses a massive 25,000 tonnes of pesticides each year.How much evidence do we need to show that organic food reduces our exposure to cancer-causing chemicals? A new study from Seattle analysed the urine of two groups of children and reported that those eating organic fruits and vegetables are more protected from pesticides than children eating non-organic produce.

Organic food not only has the potential to protect us against cancer by lowering the toxic burden from our polluted world but evidence suggests that the increased levels of antioxidants in organic food help combat the damage caused by carcinogenic chemicals. While government bodies sit on the fence, you can take your health into your own hands by choosing organic food.

Distribution of metals in the Linggi River Basin, Malaysia

Pollution inputs into the Linggi River Basin comprise domestic sewage, agroindustrial effluent (especially from rubber factories and palm-oil mills), and effluent from animal-husbandry activities.

Total metals were analysed at eight sampling stations located at three highly polluted sub-basins: Linggi, Simin and Kundor. Dissolved metals were analysed occasionally at 21 major tributaries.

The following concentrations were found (mg L-1; d.l., detection limit):

1. Na, 0.93-117.73;
2. K, 0.88-77.03;
3. Ca, 1.89-24.00;
4. Mg, 0.30-14.78;
5. Fe, 0.47-12.2;
6. Zn, 0.06-5.12;
7. Cu, d.l. -2.88
8. Mn, d.l.-0.18
9. Pb, Ni and Cr were not detectable in their dissolved or total forms.

Organic sewage inputs greatly increased the concentration of metal ions in reaches just downstream of discharge points. Ion concentrations generally decreased, but not substantially so, in the recovery reaches.

Various pollutants contributed differentially to the concentrations of specific metal ions; rubber-factory effluent contributed slightly lower amounts of these ions than did industrial, urban, or palm-oil-mill effluents.

No seasonal changes can be readily detected because of the influence of rainfall patterns, variable effluent discharges, and a complex combination of physical, chemical and biological processes occurring in the river.

The Danger of Using Reverse Osmosis Filters For Pure Drinking Water

The reverse osmosis water filter was an amazing invention. The majority of the water on this planet is salt-water, undrinkable. The correct reverse osmosis filter can remove the salt and make it drinkable.

That being said, reverse osmosis filters have been touted as the best purification system for home use and that is simply not true. If your source is dirty, salty or full of debris, then that may be the case, but, on its own, a reverse osmosis water filter does not make it safe to drink. Additional steps are needed to accomplish that task.

Let's look at how the reverse osmosis filter works:

A liquid under high pressure is forced through a porous membrane. Anything heavier or molecularly larger than the liquid is removed. Anything smaller or lighter passes through with the liquid.

Reverse osmosis filters are used in kidney dialysis machines to clean the blood. They are good at de-mineralizing for industrial applications that require it to prevent equipment corrosion and wear. And, as mentioned they can remove salt, which is heavier and molecularly denser or larger. Those things are great, but not enough to purify.

In order to purify, a reverse osmosis water filter must be followed by disinfection, carbon filtration and re-mineralization. You probably recognize that drinking bacteria filled water is unhealthy. It typically causes gastrointestinal illnesses, similar to the stomach flu. In most cases chlorine or some other chemical is used to kill bacteria.

Carbon filtration is necessary to remove the chlorine and other chemical contaminants. More than 2400 have been found in ground-water. All of them cause cancer. So, activated carbon granules are a step that cannot be skipped.

Re-mineralization is only necessary when a reverse osmosis filter or distillation is used. Drinking de-mineralized causes digestive disorders and is bad for your health. So, the "re" mineralization step is necessary to make the fluids healthy.

A reverse osmosis water filter for the home costs at least $10,000. It takes a long time to clean even a gallon of water. For every gallon that it cleans, as many as five become waste-water. Some people use the wastewater for plants or irrigation purposes, but most people realize that it isn't even good for the garden.

A reverse osmosis filter is easily torn and requires a lot of maintenance. They are prone to manufacturing defects, so they may not even do the job that they are supposed to do.

Reverse osmosis filters require electricity to work properly. It is needed to pressurize and pump. Thus, it increases electricity bills and adds to the natural resources used.

All in all, you may see that while a reverse osmosis water filter is great for some purposes, it is not the best choice for most of us. Treatment facilities make sure that what comes out of our tap is clear and bacteria free. We have to worry about chemicals, drugs, hormones, weed killers, bug sprays and other chemicals that a reverse osmosis filter will not remove. Those are the facts. The choice is yours.

Pollution faced in Malaysia

Land pollution :

Agriculture still plays a very important role in the development of Malaysia and a lot of emphasis has been laid on it. Too much perhaps, the wildlife that thrives so abundantly among us has been placed in danger.

In Cameron Highlands, in the state of Pahang, one of the many places where vegetables as well as tea which it is famous for, is planted, human activity has taken it’s toll on the fragile environment. Large scale farming has caused thousands of acres of forest land to be ploughed up and the habitat of thousands, maybe even millions of wildlife has been destroyed. Many wildlife flee or migrate to escape the dangers and activities of man. Unknown to them, they cause an imbalance in their ecosystem, making some areas too densely populated with predators and not enough food to go around.

Pesticides used in agriculture also plays a main role in the degradation of the environment. Many of these pesticides contain non biological ingredients and can cause abnormal changes in any wildlife that comes across it. In other words, these chemicals can cause wildlife to mutate. Not only insects to which the pesticides are aimed towards are affected, but also the animals which feed on them and they can eventually end up in human bodies.

Pesticides pollute the earth, making it useless as well as poisonous after all the nutrients have been sapped out from it. Thus the land may lay barren and empty for years before it is able to recover its normal pH level and nutrients. Pesticides also flow into the rivers and streams and eventually seas, causing pollution as it continues its seaward journey.

Pesticides, if used at a minimal amount, is harmless and even helps in the production of agriculture by eliminating unwanted pests. But pests soon build up a defense system and are eventually immune to the effects of the pesticides and become very hard to get rid off. So, farmers have no choice but to increase in the amount of pesticides. The effects are unimaginable.

Logging too has made its mark in the degradation of nature. ( I bet you already know the effects, guys. So needless for me to say anymore!) Malaysia is forced to become a dumping site to the millions of tons of rubbish thrown every week due to her sharp increase in the population. This has become a major headache to everyone in the country.

Air pollution:

Malaysia has risen to the industrial age, not wanting to be left behind in the dark ages anymore, but at the cost of the environment. Many industrial zones have been approved by the government to be set up in mostly forestland and uninhabited areas. One very good example of the industrial zone is of Shah Alam in the state of Selangor. As a result, trees has been cut down to accommodate towards the building of large industrial factories.

Not only has the oxygen supply been decreased, these factories are spewing out poisonous gases in the course of its production.

Naturally, people would flock to industrial zones such as Shah Alam because of the high pay and high opportunity of jobs involved. Shah Alam is now one of the most densely populated areas as well as one of the most highly polluted areas in the country, and yet it is not the only one. One can imagine the amount of people who will be affected by the long side effects of the pollution from the gases.

The increasing amount of cars in Malaysia also has lent a hand in the pollution. Excess poisonous gases and heat are emitted daily (you should know the rest). Open air burning, despite it being banned by law, has not been heeded by the people of Malaysia. Burning is also the only way right now to get rid of the excess rubbish. Smoke and heat is released.

Water pollution:

As Malaysia is fast becoming an industrial country, many of her rivers have become polluted due to the many wastes that have been poured out into her rivers. Such as the paper making industry, it requires chemicals, often poisonous in its production. The rivers are used as an outlet for the chemicals to drain away, in turn harming the waters and the lives that revolve around them.

There are many ethnic aboriginal groups that still exist in Malaysia and the people depend on the rivers and streams to survive. They depend on the river for food, water supply for drinking, bathing and for their crops. the river happens to be the main centre of their livelihood and without the rivers the whole tribes cannot survive as their ancestors had done generations before them, all of them depending on the rivers.

The rivers have become a tourist attraction and this has prompted the construction of hotels and resorts around the area. As a result, many of the forests surrounding the river areas have been chopped down. The surrounding soil have no roots to hold on to and soon erode when the rains come. The soil runs into the rivers and soon the rivers become murky and shut out all the sunlight from reaching the aquatic life in the rivers and streams. This causes them to die.

A good example is the construction of a new golf course near the waterfall at tourist attraction Fraser’s Hill in the state of Pahang, causing it to become extremely murky and dirty due to the silt and sand that comes from the construction. The waterfall which has been the centrepoint of the hill has now lost all its attraction just because of the overwhelming need to attract more tourists to the place by building more facilities.

Main Pain:

Another example of the tourist industry in being the cause of pollution is the water area. At Chini Lake (Tasik Chini), just so that 'eco-tourists' don't have to get their feet wet, the Government built a dam at the river draining Pahang's Tasik Chini. But now the dam has drowned thousands of trees surrounding the lake, threatening fisheries as well. In a cautionary tale of the times, Andrew Sia who won the ICI-CCM Environmental Journalism Award (Honourable Mention) for his 1994 story, Damming the Lotus Lake, revisits Tasik Chini to seek out the real picture behind the ostensible 'tourist pampering' rationale of the dam.

Chlorine - A Special Problem for Drinking Water

"There is increased evidence for an association between rectal, colon and bladder cancer and the consumption of chlorinated drinking water", this according to the President's Council on Environmental Quality.

Why Use Chlorine?
Chlorination is used extensively by municipal water treatment plants to disinfect water. However, the gaseous chlorine used by these plants is much too dangerous for home use. Household bleach (a 5.25% solution of sodium hypochlorite which is equivalent to 5% available chlorine) can be used for disinfecting drinking water (How to Super Chlorinate). When chlorine is fed into water, it first reacts with any iron, manganese, or hydrogen sulfide that may be in the water. If any residual (un-reacted) chlorine remains it will next react with any organic material (including bacteria) present. In order to ensure that the water remains protected throughout the distribution system, an excess of chlorine, usually .5 parts per million (ppm) is added. In large systems chlorine will be added again at distribution junctions. This "rate of feed" is normally adjusted to make sure that sufficient chlorine is available to fully react with the organics present. When both the mineral and organic reactions have been completed, any residual chlorine remains in the drinking water. Most people find the taste of water with residual chlorine to be objectionable but they do get used to it! Chlorination kills many pathogenic bacteria (including those which cause typhoid, cholera and dysentery), however cyst forming protozoa (Cryptosporidium) which cause amoebic dysentery, and giardiasis are extremely resistant to chlorination.

So What's the Problem?
Chlorine as stated above is a very effective disinfectant and has been used in drinking water supplies for nearly 100 years. What concerns health officials are the chlorination by-products, "chlorinated hydrocarbons,"known as trihalomethanes (THM's). Most THM's are formed in drinking water when chlorine reacts with naturally occurring substances such as decomposing plant and animal materials. Risks for certain types of cancer are now being correlated to the use of chlorinated drinking water. Suspected carcinogens make the human body more vulnerable through repeated ingestion and research indicates the incidents of cancer are 44% higher among those using chlorinated water.

To minimize the risks of using chlorine, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) adopted new regulations in November 1980, requiring cities to cutdown the chlorination by-products in water to a level not exceeding 100 parts per billion. Dr. Robert Harris, an environmental scientist and one of the three members of the White House Advisory Council, said that while this new reduced level is a beginning, but it still doesn't provide proper safeguards and should be strengthened. Dr. Harris recommended that citizens find out the current levels of chlorinated by-products in their drinking water and if necessary buy bottled water or home purifying systems. Yet, there is little likelihood that the use of chlorine will be discontinued since it is currently the MOST ECONOMICALLY acceptable chemical for bacterial control at this time.
It is ironic that chlorination, the very process by which we cleanse our water of infectious organisms, can create cancer causing substances from otherwise innocent chemicals in water. Cancers of the kidney, bladder and urinary tract are more common in certain cities than others; why?

New Orleans takes its tap water from the highly polluted Mississippi River and adds chlorine in excess of government standards to insure protection against infectious diseases. Approximately 63 new carcinogenic compounds are created in Mississippi drinking water when chlorine combines with methanol, carbon disulphide, and other substances.

Drugs In Water Part 02 (Factories Dumping Medicines in Waste Water)

The Associated Press (AP) has long been following the issue of drugs in our waterways and is now breaking with more news about medications being dumped into waste water. The findings are based on federal testing being conducted in sewage near public treatment facilities handling waste from drug manufacturers, said the AP.

Initial findings from two significant, federal studies reveal that increased medical waste is present in sewage near public treatment plants that service the drug manufacturing community, versus sewage not in the vicinity of such plants, said the AP. One of the studies, said the AP, found drugs such as opiates, a barbiturate, and a tranquilizer at "much higher detection frequencies and concentrations" than samples taken at other plants, citing early research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Metaxalone, a muscle relaxant, was detected in treated sewage at significantly higher concentrations—hundreds of times greater—than “the level at which federal regulators can order a review of a drug's environmental impact,” reported the AP, which added that secrecy agreements with researchers prevented release of the names of the treatment plants involved.

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study of sewage at a public waste water plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan—which serves a large Pfizer Inc. factory—revealed high levels of lincomycin, an antibiotic that Pfizer was producing there when scientists were collecting samples, said the AP. Of note, said the AP, a 2008 study conducted with lincomycin combined in tiny doses of other drugs also found in surface water, was able to make human cancer, among other findings. Francesco Pomati, a biologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, was extremely concerned with the studies’ findings, to date; he and his colleagues have warned that “chronic exposure to the combination of drugs via drinking water could be ‘a potential hazard for particular human conditions, such as pregnancy or infancy,’” reported the AP.

Lincomycin, for example, is known to mutate genetic information in bacteria, algae, microscopic aquatic animals, and fish, said the AP.In March, we wrote about how pharmaceuticals, in addition to being found in our waterways, were found to be contaminating fish, which points to both environmental jeopardy and an additional route in which medications can work their way into our bodies. In the first study of its kind, fish studied near water treatment plants were found to be contaminated with seven different pharmaceuticals, including medications to treat high blood pressure, allergies, high cholesterol, and psychiatric issues, said Natural News in a prior article.

In Asia and Europe, reported the AP, research is linking factories to drugs in water that include sulfamethoxazole, another antibiotic; diclofenac, a pain reliever; carbamazepine, an anticonvulsant; an antihistamine; aspirin; and female sex hormones.

In India, researchers have found that an astounding 100 pounds of ciprofloxacin, another antibiotic, enter a river there—daily—from one waste water treatment plant that services dozens of drug makers.

In Switzerland, drug maker Roche sponsored a study that found “0.2 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients escape during its own processing,” said the AP.

The AP pointed out that while the figure seems innocuous, when it is annualized over worldwide drug production, the amount of drugs released before dumping and human metabolic processing become astounding.

Drugs In Water Part 01

Water system contamination by drugs is becoming more and more newsworthy. This is partly due to new studies and tests being done. It seems that most public water handling facilities are not built to be able to filtrate pharmaceutical drugs out of our water. Here is a look at drug contamination of water supplies.

Small traces of drugs such as anti-depressants, antibiotics and prescription medicines can now be found in many public water supplies. This is because a significant percentage of drugs that are given to animals and humans pass through their bodies and into the environment. These pharmaceuticals are not removed by filtrating through the earth or by water treatment facilities and end up contaminating our household water.

Traces of drugs have been found in watercourses, rivers and even the drinking water of some cities. Varied surveys have discovered the presence of low levels of pharmaceuticals and pesticides in the tap water of some major U.S. regions. At the moment U.S. federal authorities have not determined any safety limits for drugs in drinking water. Regular testing is not a requirement either. This needs to change.

It is estimated that U.S. drinking water may contain in excess of 2000 toxic chemicals that can cause cancer in regular water users. Add pharmaceutical contamination to that list and you have a potentially harmful mixture of chemicals. It is no wonder that people are getting sicker and sicker despite all the vainglorious attempts of modern medicine.

The drinking water of millions of Americans may be polluted with up to 50 pharmaceuticals at one time. Loads of drugs are being ditched into sewer water. The presence of pharmaceuticals in the public water supply is a reality. It seems that we as a society are using so much medicinal drugs that they are being recycled back into our tap water.

The basic origins of pharmaceutical pollution of drinking water are the throwing away of unused drugs, human and livestock waste matter and industrial runoff.

Some people have pointed out that fish and other wildlife living in or near contaminated rivers are showing negative side effects after exposure to residual compounds in the water. Our dependence upon modern pharmaceutical medicine instead of natural medicine provided by the earth is polluting our environment and hurting our fellow animals. Just about every prescription drug is a man-made organic chemical. We should start to seriously question the sustainability of the pharmaceutical as well as chemical industry. We should also start to question our own use of pharmaceutical drugs and household chemicals in our daily lives.

So does reverse osmosis remove pharmaceuticals from water? Unfortunately not. The synthetic organic chemical compounds are small enough to pass through most filter membranes. You need to use a carbon filter to remove most of the pharmaceuticals in water supply systems.