Drugs in our Drinking Water
There is Something in the Water
|Drugs in our Drinking Water
There is Something in the Water
In the Associated Press they did a report that over 41
million people are exposed to pharmaceutical drugs in treated drinking
water. We have all heard the saying: 'There is something in the
water'... well there is.
Fluoride toxicity - In high concentrations, soluble fluoride salts are toxic and skin or eye contact with high concentrations of many fluoride salts is dangerous. Referring to a common salt of fluoride, sodium fluoride (NaF), the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).
A toxic dose that may lead to adverse health effects is estimated at 3 to 5 mg/kg of elemental fluoride. Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.2–0.3 mg/kg) than lethal doses. Although helpful for dental health in low dosage, chronic exposure to fluoride in large amounts interferes with bone formation. In this way, the greatest examples of fluoride poisoning arises from fluoride-rich ground water.
Throughout most of the world, the most common contamination of raw water sources is from human sewage and in particular human faecal pathogens and parasites.
In 2006, waterborne diseases were estimated to cause 1.8 million deaths each year while about 1.1 billion people lacked proper drinking water.
It is clear that people in the developing world need to have access to good quality water in sufficient quantity, water purification technology and availability and distribution systems for water. In many parts of the world the only sources of water are from small streams often directly contaminated by sewage.
Most water requires some type of treatment before use, even water from deep wells or springs. The extent of treatment depends on the source of the water. Appropriate technology options in water treatment include both community-scale and household-scale point-of-use (POU) designs.
A few large urban areas such as Christchurch, New Zealand have access to sufficiently pure water of sufficient volume that no treatment of the raw water is required. Over the past decade, an increasing number of field-based studies have been undertaken to determine the success of POU measures in reducing waterborne disease.
The ability of POU options to reduce disease is a function of both their ability to remove microbial pathogens if properly applied and such social factors as ease of use and cultural appropriateness. Technologies may generate more (or less) health benefit than their lab-based microbial removal performance would suggest.
The current priority of the proponents of POU treatment is to reach large numbers of low-income households on a sustainable basis. Few POU measures have reached significant scale thus far, but efforts to promote and commercially distribute these products to the world's poor have only been under way for a few years.
|Question Your Reality
This video discusses the dangers of fluoride in our drinking water, and
how it is responsible for a host of different medical problems -
including cancer, brittle bone disease, immune deficiency, mental
sedation, and even reduced IQ. This has all been known to the
powers-that-be since the 1920's.
Despite the fact that fluoride has been
shown to have no effect whatsoever in reducing dental problems, the
powers-that-be insist on putting it in our tap water.
Fluoride is a
toxic industrial bi-product from the aluminium industry. It is
classified as hazardous waste. Consumption of fluoride - even in tiny
amounts - is extremely harmful to the body.
This is established medical
fact. One of the first uses for fluoride was in the 1930's and 1940's
when fluoridated water was given to prisoners of Nazi concentration
camps to cloud their thinking ability and weaken their mental resolve.
This very same tactic is now being used on us, by our very own leaders,
to the extent where many people are incapable of thinking outside the
All of the studies in every state and every country show that
fluoride does NOT improve the state of your teeth or gums. And even if
it did help in any way, why does this highly toxic substance have to be
put in our drinking water? Think about it. There's only one logical
reason to put it in our water -- the elite are using fluoride as one of
their many tools to assault our body and mind for their own gain.
nothing more than battery cells to them. We are just programmable,
income-generating, tax-paying consumers. They extract money from our
labour, our sweat-equity, and they use that money to build the prison
walls around us so they can control us even more.
If they had their way,
we'd all be nothing more than robots who do as we're told and never
complain. The last thing they want is an informed, active and
closely-knit society of people who have the brains, the heart, the
courage, and the will to change the status quo. Therefore they use every
tool at their disposal to keep us all in a perpetual dumbed-down,
distracted and submissive state.
The elite are the only ones who gain
from this, not us! We should all stop squabbling amongst ourselves and
instead focus our attention on the puppets and their masters who profit
from all the things that make us angry. Stop getting all your info from
the mainstream media - do your own news gathering from many independent
Only then can you confidently say that you know what's going on
in the world. It is time to break out of your conditioning and express
your true individuality.
Fluoride's adverse effects depend on total fluoride dosage from all sources.
At the commonly recommended dosage, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health.
The critical period of exposure is between ages one and four years, with the risk ending around age eight. Fluorosis can be prevented by monitoring all sources of fluoride, with fluoridated water directly or indirectly responsible for an estimated 40% of risk and other sources, notably toothpaste, responsible for the remaining 60%.
Compared to water naturally fluoridated at 0.4 mg/L, fluoridation to 1 mg/L is estimated to cause additional fluorosis in one of every 6 people (95% CI 4–21 people), and to cause additional fluorosis of aesthetic concern in one of every 22 people (95% CI 13.6–∞ people).
Here, aesthetic concern is a term used in a standardized scale based on what adolescents would find unacceptable, as measured by a 1996 study of British 14-year-olds. In many industrialized countries the prevalence of fluorosis is increasing even in unfluoridated communities, mostly because of fluoride from swallowed toothpaste.
A 2009 systematic review indicated that fluorosis is associated with consumption of infant formula or of water added to reconstitute the formula, that the evidence was distorted by publication bias, and that the evidence that the formula's fluoride caused the fluorosis was weak.
In the U.S. the decline in tooth decay was accompanied by increased fluorosis in both fluoridated and unfluoridated communities; accordingly, fluoride has been reduced in various ways worldwide in infant formulas, children's toothpaste, water, and fluoride-supplement schedules.
Mercury and Fluoride
The Dumbing Down Of A Population
Why is America so brainwashed by the corporate media? Why do we care
more about American Idol and sports games than being poisoned with
mercury in our vaccinations and sodium fluoride in our water supply?
America needs to wake up and get the facts about our chemical
manipulation before it's too late.
Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk than either excessively high levels of fluoridation or no fluoridation.
There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma. Other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.
A Finnish study published in 1997 showed that fear that water is fluoridated may have a psychological effect with a large variety of symptoms, regardless of whether the water is actually fluoridated. Fluoride can occur naturally in water in concentrations well above recommended levels, which can have several long-term adverse effects, including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones.
The World Health Organization recommends a guideline maximum fluoride value of 1.5 mg/L as a level at which fluorosis should be minimal. In rare cases improper implementation of water fluoridation can result in overfluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Three such outbreaks were reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L; in the 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died.
In 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina in 90 minutes—an amount that was intended to be released in a 24-hour period. Like other common water additives such as chlorine, hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride decrease pH and cause a small increase of corrosivity, but this problem is easily addressed by increasing the pH.
Although it has been hypothesized that hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride might increase human lead uptake from water, a 2006 statistical analysis did not support concerns that these chemicals cause higher blood lead concentrations in children. Trace levels of arsenic and lead may be present in fluoride compounds added to water, but no credible evidence exists that their presence is of concern: concentrations are below measurement limits.
The effect of water fluoridation on the natural environment has been investigated, and no adverse effects have been established. Issues studied have included fluoride concentrations in groundwater and downstream rivers; lawns, gardens, and plants; consumption of plants grown in fluoridated water; air emissions; and equipment noise.
Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water
41 million people are drinking water tainted with pharmaceutical drugs and related bi-products. CBS Reports.
In emergency situations when conventional treatment systems have been compromised, water borne pathogens may be killed or inactivated by boiling but this requires abundant sources of fuel, and can be very onerous on consumers, especially where it is difficult to store boiled water in sterile conditions and is not a reliable way to kill some encysted parasites such as Cryptosporidium or the bacterium Clostridium.
Other techniques, such as filtration, chemical disinfection, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (including solar UV) have been demonstrated in an array of randomized control trials to significantly reduce levels of water-borne disease among users in low-income countries, but these suffer from the same problems as boiling methods.
Parameters for drinking water quality typically fall under two categories:
Chemical/Physical parameters include heavy metals, trace organic compounds, total suspended solids (TSS), and turbidity.
Microbiological parameters include Coliform bacteria, E. coli, and specific pathogenic species of bacteria (such as cholera-causing Vibrio cholerae), viruses, and protozoan parasites.
Chemical parameters tend to pose more of a chronic health risk through buildup of heavy metals although some components like nitrates/nitrites and arsenic may have a more immediate impact. Physical parameters affect the aesthetics and taste of the drinking water and may complicate the removal of microbial pathogens.
Originally, fecal contamination was determined with the presence of coliform bacteria, a convenient marker for a class of harmful fecal pathogens. The presence of fecal coliforms (like E. Coli) serves as an indication of contamination by sewage. Additional contaminants include protozoan oocysts such as Cryptosporidium sp., Giardia lamblia, Legionella, and viruses (enteric).
Microbial pathogenic parameters are typically of greatest concern because of their immediate health risk.
Enforcement of drinking water standards in small water systems is weak. According to a New York Times
analysis published in December 2009, more than 20 percent of water
treatment systems in the U.S. providing water to 49 million people have
violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the previous
Violations involved arsenic, radioactive substances like
uranium or tetrachloroethylene, and coliform bacteria.
Fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever
fined or punished by state or federal officials.
According to David
Uhlmann, a former Justice Department official, "there is significant
reluctance within the EPA and Justice Department to bring actions
against municipalities, because there’s a view that they are often
cash-strapped, and fines would ultimately be paid by local taxpayers".
longtime EPA enforcement official who was quoted in the report said
"The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements.
That’s not drinking-water cases." State regulators rather provide
technical assistance to help systems that violate the rules.
systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered. For over
a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity
standards, there is even no record that they were ever contacted by a
|Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment
More research is needed to determine the effects on humans of long-term
exposure to low levels of PPCPs. The full effects of mixtures of low
concentrations of different PPCPs is also unknown.
Research has shown that pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment (PPCPs) are present in water bodies throughout the
world. While some studies have suggested that these substances cause
ecological harm, no studies have shown a direct impact on human health.
While the full effects of most PPCPs on the environment are not understood, there is concern about the potential they have for harm because they may act unpredictably when mixed with other chemicals from the environment or concentrate in the food chain. Additionally, some PPCPS are active at very low concentrations, and are often released continuously in large or widespread quantities.
Because of the high solubility of most PPCPs, aquatic organisms are especially vulnerable to their effects. Researchers have found that a class of antidepressants may be found in frogs and can significantly slow their development. The increased presence of estrogen and other synthetic hormones in waste water due to birth control and hormonal therapies has been linked to increased feminization of exposed fish and other aquatic organisms.
After these products are properly disposed, the process of treating
them for minimizing environmental impact begins. Water treatment
facilities use different processes in order to minimize or fully
eliminate the amount of these pollutants. This is done by using sorption where suspended solids are removed by sedimentation.
|The chemicals within these PPCP products could
either affect the feminization or masculinization of different fishes,
therefore impacting their reproductive rates. In addition to being found
only in waterways, the ingredients of some PPCPs can also be found in
the soil. Since some of these substances take a long time or cannot be
degraded biologically, they make their way up the food chain.
Information pertaining to the transport and fate of these hormones and
their metabolites in dairy waste disposal is still being investigated,
yet research suggest that the land application of solid wastes is likely
linked with more hormone contamination problems. Not only does the
pollution from PPCPs affect marine ecosystems, but also those habitats
that depend on this polluted water.
Depending on the source and ingredients, there are various
ways in which the public can dispose of pharmaceutical and personal care
products. In the case of pharmaceutical products, the most
environmentally safe one is to take advantage of a community drug
take-back programs that collect drugs at a central location for proper
disposal. These programs should exist in every community, and if further
information is required on the matter the city officials should be
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of
National Drug Policy further emphasize that if no program is available
to follow the subsequent measurements:
- take the prescription drugs out of their original containers
- mix drugs with cat litter or used coffee grounds
- place the mixture into a disposable container with a lid, such as a sealable bag
- cover up any personal identification with a black marker that is on the original pill containers
- place these containers in the bag with the mixture, seal them, and place them in the trash.
Another method used is biodegradation,
and through this method microorganisms, such as bacteria, feed or break
down these pollutants thus eliminating them from the contaminated
Pharmaceuticals Found in Treated Drinking Water
Below is a list of some of the pharmaceuticals they found
in treated drinking water:
Amoxicillin — for
pneumonia, stomach ulcers
Azithromycin — for pneumonia, sexually
Bacitracin — prevents infection in cuts and
Chloramphenicol — for serious infections when other
antibiotics can't be used
Ciprofloxacin — for anthrax, other
Doxycycline — for pneumonia, Lyme disease, acne
— for pneumonia, whooping cough, Legionnaires' disease
— for strep, staph, other serious infections
for respiratory, urinary infections
Penicillin G — for anthrax,
Penicillin V — for pneumonia, scarlet fever,
infections of ear, skin, throat
Roxithromycin — for respiratory,
Sulfadiazine — for urinary infections, burns
— for urinary infections
Sulfamethoxazole — for traveler's
diarrhea, pneumonia, urinary and ear infections
for pneumonia, acne, stomach ulcers, Lyme disease
for urinary and ear infections, traveler's diarrhea, pneumonia
Acetaminophen — soothes arthritis, aches, colds;
Antipyrine — for ear infections
for minor aches, pain; lowers risk of heart attack and stroke
— for arthritis, menstrual cramps, other pain
Ibuprofen — for
arthritis, aches, menstrual cramps; reduces fever
Naproxen — for
arthritis, bursitis, tendinitis, aches; reduces fever
for arthritis, allergic reactions, multiple sclerosis, some cancers
Atenolol — for high blood pressure
for cholesterol problems
Clofibric acid — byproduct of various
Diltiazem — for high blood pressure,
Gemfibrozil — regulates cholesterol
— slows production of cholesterol
— for seizures, mood regulating
Diazepam — for anxiety,
seizures; eases alcohol withdrawal
Fluoxetine — for depression;
relieves premenstrual mood swings
Meprobamate — for anxiety
— controls epileptic seizures
Risperidone — for schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder, severe behavior problems
OTHER HUMAN DRUGS
— found in coffee; also used in pain relievers
byproduct of nicotine; drug in tobacco, also used in products to help
Iopromide — given as contrast agent for medical
Nicotine — found in tobacco, also in medicinal products
to help smokers quit
Paraxanthine — a byproduct of caffeine
— for asthma, bronchitis and emphysema
— for control of dysentery, bacterial enteritis in pigs; promotes
Chlortetracycline — for eye, joint, other animal ailments
— for infections in farm animals and pets; treats wounds
— for weight gain, prevention of severe diarrhea in farm animals
— for severe diarrhea in farm animals
Oleandomycin — for
respiratory disease; promotes growth in farm animals
promotes growth in livestock
Sulfachloropyridazine — for
enteritis in farm animals
Sulfadimethoxine — for severe diarrhea,
fowl cholera, other conditions in farm animals
for a range of infections in cats, fowl
Sulfamethazine — for
bacterial diseases in farm animals; promotes growth
— for diseases in aquarium fish
Tylosin — promotes growth,
treats infections in farm animals, including bees
M1 — prevents infection, promotes growth in farm animals