03-13-2008, 06:34 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_...s/pharmawater_i
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_us/pharmawater_i>
AP probe finds drugs in drinking water
By JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press
Writers1 hour, 21 minutes ago
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.
____
The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at)
ap.org
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_us/pharmawater_i>
AP probe finds drugs in drinking water
By JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press
Writers1 hour, 21 minutes ago
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.
____
The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at)
ap.org