Regarding #67

Just out of curiosity, where is that reference from? I come from a scientific background, so I am highly skeptical of anything that isn't properly referenced (and, ideally, peer-reviewed!)

Reg. # 3 by Wastrel

"If it doesn't scratch your itch, why not keep your trap shut about it?"

My my, isn't someone being unnecessarily aggressive? I didn't call it ugly. I just didn't fawn over it. A simple "because some people like it" would have sufficed and probably made your point in a much more mature manner.

Not sound like an uncultured fool... but...

why?

I just like to play the devil's advocate :)

If you want to hear (what sounded to me like) a rock solid case regarding the negative effects of a compound we put into the environment at a rate of millions of tons a year. Atrazine is a pesticide used to kill weeds in food crops. It has been shown to cause major reproductive deformities in frogs, delay development of tadpoles, induce stress and immunosuppression, among many other effects.

I recently attended a fantastic lecture by Dr. Tyrone Hayes (out of Berkley), who has been involved in many of these atrazine studies on frogs. Watch this (older) lecture of his. It's worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4lijvIjpRw

Reg Comment #37 by PTERYXX

lol... I am well aware of the various toxicological issues in the environment, and am in full agreement with the belief that there are true risks out there, and very likely subtle effects that we have no idea about yet. I did my Master's thesis on the use of goldfish as sentinal species for detecting possible detrimental effects of treated sewage effluent and reuse water (primarily due to the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products, as well as pesticides).

Endocrine disruptors are a major issue in many parts of the world, of this I have no doubt. But there are also a number of studies that have shown no effect of sewage effluent exposure on fish physiology, or inconclusive results. I'm not casting doubt on the studies that have shown positive effects, not at all (well, most of them, lol), but I'm just saying that when working with any biological system things are never simple. And we must look at all information with a critical eye. Neither laboratory nor field studies alone are sufficient to definitively determine whether a compound is harmful or safe.

These are real issues, I 100% agree with you. But if we automatically cry wolf at any contaminant we find in the environment the public will become desensitized and not react as they should when a major toxicological issue comes about.

#21 "Informing the public that "X" has been found
in their drinking water does NOT disclose what other substances can be tested for."

Thousands and thousands of chemicals can theoretically be tested for within water samples - it just all depends upon you're willing to pay for it.

People cannot expect publicly funded wastewater treatment facilities to test for all potential man made compounds in drinking water unless:

a) there is a reasonable risk that this compound will occur in the drinking water

b) it will occur at levels found to, or believe to be a threat to human health

and most importantly,
c) someone is willing to pay for it.

It's amazing how vehemently people will crusade for a cause, but then back down when they find out that their taxes will go up x amount more than they're willing to pay. Perhaps in the US where such an obscene amount of money is spent on the military, you have good justification for wanting the government to upgrade sewage treatment and drinking water facilities. But you just have to recognize that these things cost money. Lots of money. People tend to look at the short term, not the long term. Everyone wants to improve the environment, but very few people are truly willing to change their behaviours to the degree that will actually make any measurable impact.

Hell, the majority of coastal cities just dump their sewage into the ocean, totally untreated. How about we get them to do some sewage treatment before we start on getting reverse osmosis and activated carbon filtration into all our sewage plants and water treatment facilities?

#11
"it is intriguing that water filtering systems can block out bacterial contamination, but not pharmaceutical residue…
i wonder if there will be a special type of home filtering system to black out such substances like PUR water filtering systems. www.purwater.com"

Firstly, sewage treatment facilities were designed to eliminate fecal coliforms (E. coli, etc) and to reduce ammonia levels, nitrates, nitrites, etc - the vast majority of treatment facilities do not even have the capacity to target xenobiotics (man made chemicals) for removal. If they have denitrification capabilities by bacterial colonies (secondary or tertiary treatment) the concentration of these chemicals CAN be reduced, but how much really depends on the compound and the sludge retention time. Bacteria often cannot break down a chemical if they have never evolved the 'machinery' to recognize it in the first place.

Scientists have really only known about, and thus been concerned about the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in sewage effluent or the receiving environment within the last 15 years or so. Sewage treatment plants were often designed and built way before this.

Secondly, regarding a method to remove these chemicals from drinking water, it's as simple as an activated carbon filter! (also used in fish tanks and brita water filters).

#17: "From this article: "More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in surface waters throughout the world.""

Just because you can detect a compound in the environment does not necessarily mean it will have an effect on an organism in that environment. Animals have many physiological ways to deal with toxic/dangerous compounds - it is only when these defense mechanisms get overwhelmed that damage/negative effects occur in the animal.

This does not mean that we should not be concerned about the chemicals we put into the environment, but we should also look at the concentrations at which these compounds are present within the environment and their active concentration within sensitive species before fully raising the alarm bells.