Aqua Vantage - Health

What is in Our Drinking Water?

2006-02-08T13:00:00.000-08:00

Identification of New Chemical Disinfection By-products (DBPs)
What is a DBP?

A drinking water disinfection by-product (DBP) is formed when the chemical used for disinfecting the drinking water reacts with natural organic matter and/or bromide/iodide in the source water. Popular disinfectants include chlorine, ozone, chlorine dioxide, and chloramine. Source waters include rivers, lakes, streams, groundwater, and sometimes seawater. We have only known about DBPs since 1974, when chloroform was identified by Rook as a DBP resulting from the chlorination of tap water. Since then, hundreds of DBPs have been identified in drinking water.
So what? Millions of people in the U.S. are exposed to these drinking water DBPs every day. While it is vitally important to disinfect drinking water, as thousands of people died from waterborne illnesses before we started disinfection practices in the early 1900s, it is also important to minimize the chemical DBPs formed. Several DBPs have been linked to cancer in laboratory animals, and as a result, the U.S. EPA has some of these DBPs regulated. However, there are many more DBPs that have still not been identified and tested for toxicity or cancer effects. Currently, we have only identified <50% of the total organic halide (TOX) that is measured in chlorinated drinking water. There is much less known about DBPs from the newer alternative disinfectants, such as ozone, chlorine dioxide, and chloramine, which are gaining in popularity in the U.S. Are these alternative disinfectants safer than chlorine? What kinds of by-products are formed? And, what about the unidentified chlorine DBPs that people are exposed to through their drinking water--both from drinking and showering/bathing? The objective of our research is to find out what these DBPs are--to thoroughly characterize the chemicals formed in drinking water treatment--and to ultimately minimize any harmful ones that are formed.

Our research approach

• Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS), and gas chromatography/infrared spectroscopy (GC/IR) techniques are used to identify the unknown by-products

• NIST and Wiley mass spectral databases are used first to identify any DBPs that happen to be present in these databases

• Because many DBPs are not in these databases, most of our work involves unconventional MS and IR techniques, as well as a great deal of scientific interpretation of the spectra

o High resolution MS provides empirical formula information for the unknown chemical (e.g., how many carbons, hydrogens, oxygens, nitrogens, etc. are in the chemical’s structure)

o Chemical ionization MS provides molecular weight information when this is not provided in conventional electron ionization mass spectra

o IR spectroscopy provides functional group information (e.g., whether the oxygens are due to a carboxylic acid group, a ketone, an alcohol, or an aldehyde)

o LC/MS is used to identify compounds that cannot be extracted from water (the highly polar, hydrophilic ones). This is a major missing gap in our knowledge about DBPs--so far, most DBPs identified have been those that are easily extracted from water

o Novel derivatization techniques are also applied to aid in the identification of highly polar DBPs

o Formation and fate & transport studies are conducted to better understand how certain priority DBPs are formed and transformed in treatment and distribution systems

Currently

We recently completed a major nationwide DBP occurrence study EPA/600/R-02/068, where we sampled drinking water across the U.S. (disinfected with the different disinfectants and with different water quality, including elevated levels of bromide in the source water). A group of >50 DBPs that resulted from a prioritization of >500 DBPs in the literature for predicted adverse health effects was quantified in these drinking waters. Fate and transport studies were also conducted in the drinking water distribution systems to determine whether these DBPs changed in concentration or were transformed in the distribution systems. In addition to obtaining important quantitative information on these new DBPs (to help in prioritizing health effects testing), important new discoveries were made regarding the use of alternative disinfectants. While the use of alternative disinfectants lowered the levels of the four regulated trihalomethanes and five haloacetic acids (as compared to chlorine), many of the other prioritized DBPs were formed at higher levels with these alternative disinfectants. For example, the highest levels of iodinated DBPs were found in chloraminated drinking water, the highest levels of trihalonitromethanes were found in pre-ozonated drinking water, and dihaloaldehydes were highest at a plant using chloramines and ozone.

Our new work includes obtaining quantitative occurrence information on the iodo-acids that were identified for the first time in the Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study. Chloraminated waters (where levels are expected to be highest) are targeted for this work. In addition, a toxicity-based identification approach (using mammalian cell and medaka fish assays) will be used to ensure toxicologically important DBPs are not being missed. The full study of the Four Lab Study is also expected to begin in 2005 (where drinking water is treated and concentrated, comprehensive DBP identifications are carried out, and drinking water concentrates are tested in a battery of in vivo and in vitro toxicity assays, with an emphasis on newer reproductive and developmental health effects). This Four Lab Study involves the collaboration of EPA's national laboratories and centers (NHEERL, NERL, NRMRL, and NCEA). Finally, work continues in determining how the toxicologically significant bromonitromethane DBPs are formed. These bromonitromethanes are more genotoxic and cytotoxic to mammalian cells than most of the DBPs currently regulated and are also currently the focus of in vivo testing at NHEERL (RTP, NC) and at the National Toxicology Program (NTP, NIEHS).

Recent results

• A recent Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study has provided important new quantitative information on unregulated DBPs that have the potential to cause adverse health effects based on a structure-activity analysis (Woo et al., 2002); several of these DBPs have concentrations similar to some that are already regulated

• The use of alternative disinfectants can produce higher levels of these DBPs, as compared to chlorine

• A recent study reveals that iodoacetic acid (one of five new iodo-acids recently identified in chloraminated drinking water) is a potent cytotoxin and genotoxin in mammalian cells (Plewa et al., 2004a) (work is in progress on the toxicity of other iodo-acids)

• The presence of natural bromide in the source water results in a tremendous shift from chlorine-containing DBPs to bromine-containing DBPs when chlorine or chloramine is used as a disinfectant (even in combination with ozone)

• New analytical methods have been developed (and are continuing to be developed) for the analysis of highly polar DBPs

• Collaborations have been forged with health effects researchers to study selected DBPs for potential adverse health effects

Upcoming event

There will be a new Gordon Research Conference on drinking water DBPs on August 13-18, 2006, at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts. Title of meeting: Drinking Water Disinfection By-products: Integrating Occurrence and Formation, Exposure, Toxicity, and Epidemiology. Updates on this meeting can be found at www.grc.org/programs/2006/drinking.htm. Contact Susan Richardson for more information (richardson.susan@epa.gov).

Useful publications

1. Weinberg, H. S., S. W. Krasner, S. D. Richardson, and A. D. Thruston, Jr. The Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Health Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study. EPA/600/R02/068. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. 2002.

2. Plewa, M. J., E. D. Wagner, S. D. Richardson, A. D. Thruston, Jr., Y.-T. Woo, and A. B. McKague. 2004. Chemical and Biological Characterization of Newly Discovered Iodoacid Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(18): 4713-4722.

3. Richardson, S. D., and T. A. Ternes. 2005. Water Analysis: Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues. 2005. Analytical Chemistry, in press.

4. Zwiener, C., and S. D. Richardson. 2005. Drinking Water Disinfection By-Product Analysis by LC/MS and LC/MS/MS. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, in press.

5. Plewa, M. J., E. D. Wagner, P. Jazwierska, S. D. Richardson, P. H. Chen, and A. B. McKague. 2004. Halonitromethane Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts: Chemical Characterization and Mammalian Cell Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(1): 62-68.

6. Kundu, B., S. D. Richardson, P. D. Swartz, P. P. Matthews, A. M. Richard, and D. M. DeMarini. 2004. Mutagenicity in Salmonella of Halonitrometanes: A Recently Recognized Class of Disinfection By-Product in Drinking Water. Mutation Research, 562: 39-65.

7. Kundu, B., S. D. Richardson, C. A. Granville, D. T. Shaughnessy, N. M. Hanley, P. D. Swartz, A. M. Richard, and D. M. DeMarini. 2004. Comparative Mutagenicity of Halomethanes and Halonitromethanes in Salmonella TA100: Structure-Activity Analysis and Mutation Spectra. Mutation Research, 554: 335-350.

8. Vincenti, M., S. Biazzi, N. Ghiglione, M. C. Valsania, and S. D. Richardson. 2005. Comparison of Highly Fluorinated Chloroformates as Direct Aqueous Sample Derivatizing Agents for Hydrophilic Analytes and Drinking Water Disinfection By-Products. Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, in press.

9. Richardson, S. D. 2004. Environmental Mass Spectrometry: Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues. Analytical Chemistry, 76(12): 3337-3364.

10. Simmons, J. E., L. K. Teuschler, C. Gennings, T. F. Speth, S. D. Richardson, R. J. Miltner, M. G. Narotsky, K. D. Schenck, E. S. Hunter, III, R. C. Hertzberg, III, and G. Rice. 2004. Component-Based and Whole-Mixture Techniques for Addressing the Toxicity of Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts Mixtures. Journal of Toxicology & Environmental Health, 67: 741-754.

11. Richardson, S.D., J. E. Simmons, and G. Rice. 2002. DBPs: The Next Generation. Environmental Science & Technology, 36(9): 198A-205A.

12. Woo, Y.-T., D. Lai, J. L. McLain, M. K. Manibusan, and V. Dellarco. 2002. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (Suppl. 1): 75-87.

13. Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., C. Rav-Acha, L. Groisman, I. Popilevsky, V. Glezer, A. B. McKague, M. J. Plewa, and E. D. Wagner. 2003. Tribromopyrrole and Other DBPs Produced by the Disinfection of Drinking Water Rich in Bromide. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(17): 3782-3793.

14. Richardson, S. D. 2003. Water Analysis: Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues. Analytical Chemistry, 75(12): 2831-2857.

15. Richardson, S. D. 2003. Disinfection By-Products and Other Emerging Contaminants in Drinking Water. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 22(10):666-684

16. Chen, P. H., S. D. Richardson, S. W. Krasner, G. Majetich, and G. L. Glish. 2002. Hydrogen Abstraction and Decomposition of Tribromonitromethane and Other Trihalo Compounds by GC/MS. Environmental Science & Technology, 36(15): 3362-3371.

17. Simmons, J. E., S. D. Richardson, T. F. Speth, R. J. Miltner, G. Rice, K. M. Schenck, E. S. Hunter, III, and L. K. Teuschler. 2002. Development of a Research Strategy for Integrated Technology-Based Toxicological and Chemical Evaluation of Complex Mixtures of Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(Supp. 6): 1013-1024.

18. Arbuckle, T. E., S. E. Hrudey, S. W. Krasner, J. R. Nuckols, S. D. Richardson, P. Singer, P. Mendola, L. Dodds, C. Weisel, D. L. Ashley, K. L. Froese, R. A. Pegram, I. R. Schultz, J. Reif, A. M. Bachand, F. M. Benoit, M. Lynberg, C. Poole, and K. Waller. 2002. Assessing Exposure in Epidemiologic Studies to Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water: Report from an International Workshop. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (Supp. 1): 53-60.

19. Richardson, S. D., T. V. Caughran, T. Poiger, Y. Guo, and F. G. Crumley. 2000. Application of DNPH Derivatization with LC/MS to the Identification of Polar Carbonyl Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water. Ozone: Science & Engineering, 22: 653-675.

20. Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., T. V. Caughran, P. H. Chen, T. W. Collette, T. L. Floyd, K. M. Schenck, B. W. Lykins, Jr., G.-R. Sun, and G. Majetich. 1999. Identification of New Ozone Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water. Environmental Science & Technology, 33: 3368-3377.

21. Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., T. V. Caughran, P. H. Chen, T. W. Collette, T. L. Floyd, K. M. Schenck, B. W. Lykins, Jr., G.-R. Sun, and G. Majetich. 1999. Identification of New Drinking Water Disinfection By-products Formed in the Presence of Bromide. Environmental Science & Technology, 33: 3378-3383.

22. Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., T. V. Caughran, P. H. Chen, T. W. Collette, K. M. Schenck, B. W. Lykins, Jr., C. Rav-Acha, and V. Glezer. 2000. Identification of New Drinking Water Disinfection By-products from Ozone, Chlorine Dioxide, Chloramine, and Chlorine. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 123: 95-102.

A National Assessment of Tap Water Quality

2006-01-26T13:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.ewg.org/tapwater/findings.php

More than 140 contaminants with no enforceable safety limits found in the nation's drinking water

Utilities need more money to monitor for contaminants and protect source waters

Environmental Working Group
December 20, 2005

Executive Summary
Tap water in 42 states is contaminated with more than 140 unregulated chemicals that lack safety standards, according to the Environmental Working Group's (EWG's) two-and-a-half year investigation of water suppliers' tests of the treated tap water served to communities across the country.

In an analysis of more than 22 million tap water quality tests, most of which were required under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, EWG found that water suppliers across the U.S. detected 260 contaminants in water served to the public. One hundred forty-one (141) of these detected chemicals — more than half — are unregulated; public health officials have not set safety standards for these chemicals, even though millions drink them every day.

Details

Source: EWG analysis of water utility test data for 1998-2003, compiled and provided to EWG by state drinking water offices.

Note: EPA has set enforceable safety standards (called Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs) for 80 chemicals or chemical groups, which are present in tap water tests analyzed by EWG as 114 individual chemicals or chemical variants called isomers. EPA has also established 15 guidelines called National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs), five of which are represented in tap water tests analyzed by EWG.

EWG's analysis also found over 90 percent compliance with enforceable health standards on the part of the nation's water utilities, showing a clear commitment to comply with safety standards once they are developed. The problem, however, is EPA's failure to establish enforceable health standards and monitoring requirements for scores of widespread tap water contaminants. Of the 260 contaminants detected in tap water from 42 states, for only 114 has EPA set enforceable health limits (called Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs), and for 5 others the Agency has set non-enforceable goals called secondary standards. (EPA 2005a). The 141 remaining chemicals without health-based limits contaminate water served to 195,257,000 people in 22,614 communities in 42 states.

EWG acquired tap water testing data from state water offices, which collect it from drinking water utilities to fulfill their role as primary enforcement agents. EPA does not maintain a comprehensive, national tap water quality database. Instead, the Agency sets safety standards for contaminants based on partial information, from test data it gathers from select, representative states and water suppliers. EWG will be making its data available to the EPA, state authorities and water utilities.
The statistics reported here represent an underestimate of the scope of consumers' exposures to unregulated contaminants in the nation's tap water. The state records we have compiled contain no tests whatsoever on unregulated contaminants for fully 23% of the 39,751 water systems represented, and EPA has required testing, in limited surveillance programs, for just a fraction of the hundreds of unregulated tap water contaminants identified in peer-reviewed studies. Some unregulated contaminants were found in the tap water of hundreds of communities, while others were found in very few; some were detected at levels of health concern, while others were not. These differences in the scale and magnitude of exposures can guide priorities when EPA assesses potential mandatory safety standards for these chemicals:

• Of the 141 unregulated contaminants found in tap water, 40 were detected in tap water served to at least one million people. while 20 unregulated contaminants were detected in just one system, only one time.

• Nineteen unregulated contaminants were detected above health-based limits (EPA 2004b) in tap water served to at least 10,000 people. Forty-eight unregulated contaminants were not detected above health-based limits anywhere, and seventy lack health-based limits, which have yet to be developed by EPA.
The Agency has fallen short in efforts both to require the testing that would reveal what pollutants are in tap water supplies, and to set health-based standards for those that are found. EPA has ignored three mandatory Safe Drinking Water Act deadlines to set standards for unregulated contaminants (EPA 2001a). Nearly twenty percent of the contaminants that EPA is currently considering for regulation have been under study at the Agency for 17 years now, beginning with testing programs initiated in 1988 (EPA 2001b, 2005b).

The agency has also failed to act on its own information showing that increased testing is justified. EPA has required water suppliers to test tap water for approximately 200 unregulated contaminants over the past 30 years (EPA 2001b, 2001c, 2005c, FR 1996 - details). But the Agency's own scientists have identified 600 chemicals in tap water formed as by-products of disinfection (Richardson 1998, 1999a,b, 2003); tracked some 220 million pounds of 650 industrial chemicals discharged to rivers and streams each year (EPA 2003); and spearheaded research on emerging contaminants after the U.S. Geological Survey found 82 unregulated pharmaceuticals and personal care product chemicals in rivers and streams across the country that provide drinking water for millions of Americans (Kolpin et al. 2004, EPA 2005d). All told, EPA has set safety standards for fewer than 20 percent of the many hundreds of chemicals that it has identified in tap water.

Findings
Our investigation reveals major gaps in our system of public health protections when it comes to tap water safety. Federal programs that allocate grants and low-cost loans to prevent water pollution and protect the rivers, streams, and groundwater that we drink are sorely underfunded.

Just 5 percent of $6 billion granted to states under the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund, went toward mitigating polluted runoff from farms, and urban and sprawl areas, which collectively account for 60 percent of water pollution. And only $2.7 million has been allocated to conserve buffer zones along rivers and streams (1997-2003), over the six-year history of the source water protection program mobilized under the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund. This initiative has protected just 2,000 acres nationwide, although it is the most significant source water protection program in the history of the Safe Drinking Water Act (TPL and AWWA 2004).

By failing to clean up rivers and reservoirs that provide drinking water for hundreds of millions of Americans, EPA and the Congress have forced water utilities to decontaminate water that is polluted with industrial chemicals, factory farm waste, sewage, pesticides, fertilizer, and sediment. In its most recent national Water Quality Inventory EPA found that 45 percent of lakes and 39 percent of streams and rivers are "impaired" — unsafe for drinking, fishing, or even swimming, in some cases (EPA 2000). Even after water suppliers filter and disinfect the water, scores of contaminants remain, with conventional treatment regimes removing less than 20 percent of some contaminants (Faust and Aly 1998). By failing to set tap water safety standards expeditiously or require and fund comprehensive testing, EPA allows widespread exposures to chemical mixtures posing unknown risks to human health.

• Of the 141 unregulated contaminants utilities detected in water supplies between 1998 and 2003, 52 are linked to cancer, 41 to reproductive toxicity, 36 to developmental toxicity, and 16 to immune system damage, according to chemical listings in seven standard government and industry toxicity references. Despite the potential health risks, any concentration of these chemicals in tap water is legal, no matter how high.

• For 64 of the unregulated contaminants found in tap water, the government has not yet recommended unenforceable, health-based limits in tap water, let alone set an enforceable safety standard. For 46 of these chemicals, no health information whatsoever is available in standard government and academic references.

• Altogether, the unregulated chemicals that pollute public tap water supplies include the gasoline additive MTBE; the rocket fuel component perchlorate; at least 15 chemical by-products of water disinfection; four industrial plasticizers called phthalates linked to birth defects and reproductive toxicity; 78 chemicals used in industrial and consumer products; and 20 chemical pollutants from gasoline, coal, and other fuel combustion.

Water pollution from many sources — industry, agriculture, development, treatment
A Harris Interactive poll published in October 2005 found that Americans rank water pollution as the number one environmental concern facing the country, topping global warming, ozone depletion, and air pollution (The Harris Poll 2005). And yet we find a deep disconnect between what people care about and what the government is willing to act upon. From agricultural pollution, to industrial waste, to pollution stemming from sprawl and urban runoff, a lack of political will materializes into poor planning and scarce funding that leads to pollution beginning upstream and ending at the tap.

EWG's analysis of tap water testing from 42 states validates the public's concern about tap water. We found that between 1998 and 2003, water suppliers collectively identified in treated tap water 83 agricultural pollutants, including pesticides and chemicals from fertilizer- and manure-laden runoff; 59 contaminants linked to sprawl and urban areas, from polluted runoff and wastewater treatment plants; 166 industrial chemicals from factory waste and consumer products; and 44 pollutants that are by-products of the water treatment process or that leach from pipes and storage tanks.

Unregulated chemicals in tap water stem from all major water-polluting sources

Source: EWG analysis of water utility test data for 1998-2003, compiled and provided to EWG by state drinking water offices.

Agricultural chemicals in tap water. EWG's analysis of water suppliers' tap water test results shows that water contaminated with 83 agricultural pollutants, including pesticides and fertilizer ingredients, are served to 201,955,000 people in 41 states. 15% of those people were served water with one or more agricultural contaminants present at levels above non-enforceable, health-based limits. 54 of the agricultural chemicals detected in tap water are are unregulated, without a legal, health-based limit in tap water.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture figures, in 2002 the agriculture industry spread commercial fertilizer over one-eighth of the continental U.S. — 110 billion pounds of fertilizer over 248 million acres altogether (USDA 2002; AAPCO 2002). Crop production on those lands was supported by herbicide applications spread over literally one-tenth of the lower 48 states (USDA 2002). And in between farmed land tracts are what EPA estimates to be 238,000 concentrated feed lots for cattle and pigs — the equivalent of 75 in every U.S. county — that collectively produce 500 million tons of manure yearly (EPA 2004a).

Runoff from these farms and feed lots can be laden with sediment, disease-causing microorganisms, pesticides, and fertilizer ingredients that can can widely contaminate water supplies. In fact, in its most recent in a series of mandated biannual investigations on national water quality, EPA found that agricultural pollutants impair nearly one of every five miles of rivers and streams across the country (EPA 2000). Despite the widespread pollution, EPA has failed to set pollution prevention standards for agricultural operations, as mandated under the Clean Water Act. The Agency's inaction has spurred lawsuits in 40 states, and as a result, EPA and States have begun efforts, still in their infancy, to comply with the law (CalEPA 2005). In the meantime, water suppliers must strip pesticides and related pollutants from tap water supplies, often relying on additional processes such as carbon treatment to increase removal efficiencies at a cost to taxpayers running into the millions of dollars. And still, millions of Americans drink the residues that remain despite the treatment.

Industrial chemicals in tap water. EWG's analysis of water supplier's tap water test results shows that water contaminated with 166 industrial pollutants, including plasticizers, solvents, and propellants, are served to 210,528,000 people in 42 states. 56% of those people were served water with one or more industrial contaminants present at levels above non-enforceable, health-based limits. 94 of the industrial chemicals detected in tap water are are unregulated, without a legal, health-based limit in tap water.

U.S. industries manufacture and import approximately 82,000 chemicals, 3,000 of them at over a million pounds per year (GAO 2005, EPA 2005f). The EPA approves an average of two new industrial chemicals every day, 80 percent them within three weeks of an industry's application, with or without safety studies (GAO 2005, EPA 1997). A 1998 EPA study found that fully 43 percent of chemicals used in the highest volumes (more than one million pounds per year) completely lacked any of the seven most basic health and safety screening studies, let alone substantive information on the potential of the chemical to pollute tap water sources (EPA 1998). Health officials do not know the full extent of industrial pollution to tap water supplies, and what the health consequences of exposures may be.

But health officials do know with certainty that some of these chemicals end up in rivers and streams that form the nation's tap water supplies, and that many of them persist all the way to the tap. EPA's Toxics Release Inventory reporting program shows that in 2003 U.S. industries discharged 220 million pounds of 650 chemicals to rivers and streams (EPA 2003). And EWG's analysis shows that water suppliers detected 166 industrial chemicals in treated tap water from 42 states between 1998 and 2003. But the vast majority of industrial chemicals remain untested and unregulated in tap water.

Chemicals from sprawl and urban areas. EWG's analysis of water supplier's tap water test results shows that water contaminated with 59 pollutants linked to sprawl and urban areas, including plasticizers, solvents, and propellants, are served to 202,697,000 people in 42 states. 53% of those people were served water with one or more of these contaminants present at levels above non-enforceable, health-based limits. 41 of the urban and sprawl chemicals detected in tap water are are unregulated, without a legal, health-based limit in tap water.

As the U.S. population continues to grow, water supplies are strained with increasing loads of wastewater and stormwater runoff laden with the signature pollutants of urban and sprawl areas — chemicals from automobile emissions, road surfaces, yards and homes, and from the wastewater treatment plants that dump effluent into waterways at a rate of 60 gallons per person, every day.

While growth benefits the national economy, growth without national, state, or local plans that recognize — and control — impacts to the environment strains the quality of local streams and rivers. It burdens water suppliers with ever-increasing loads of pollutants. Government studies show that each new person joining the ranks of the U.S. population spurs development that consumes an average of just over an acre of countryside, for new housing, businesses, and infrastructure (USCB 2005, USGS 2003). At current national growth rates of three million people each year, this translates into tainted runoff from new development over an area one and a half times the size of Yellowstone National Park, every year. And it equates to an annual increased wastewater load of 66 billion gallons to U.S. waterways. Water suppliers sit at the equivalent of the tailpipe of this growth and its collateral pollution.

Development degrades water supplies in unexpected ways. When the U.S. Geological Survey set out to study insecticides in U.S. streams and rivers they found the highest concentrations not in the heavily sprayed farm belt, but in urban streams and rivers. When homeowners use insectides, rainwater and grounwater carry those chemicals to local waters. USGS scientists found more than half of all streams tainted with insecticides that exceeded levels set to protect health and the environment, in 10 to 40 percent of all samples. Ten percent of tested streams contained at least two neurotoxic, organophosphate insecticides in combination with at least four herbicides (USGS 1999).

New studies of urban and sprawl pollutants reveal more than just pesticides, through. USGS scientists have detected 82 pharmaceuticals, hormones, medications and other residues of consumer products in streams from 30 states. Eighty percent of streams contained at least one synthetic chemical, and the most contaminated stream contained detectable levels of 38 chemicals. Scientists found the antidepressant Prozac, anti-microbial hand soap and toothpaste chemicals (triclosan and triclocarban); active ingredients in oral contraceptives and thyroid hormone treatments; and hormone-mimicing detergents called alkylphenols. (Kolpin et al. 2004)
Many of these chemicals are excreted in human urine or are washed down the drain.

Many resist standard treatment regimes at wastewater treatment plants. And based on a landmark study released in November 2005, it appears that many of these chemicals also resist removal downstream, at tap water treament plants. In first-time tests in tap water of Organic Wastewater Contaminants, or OWC's, as they are called, USGS scientists found prescription and non-prescription drugs and their metabolites, fragrance compounds, flame retardants and plasticizers, and cosmetic compounds — between 11 and 17 compounds in each sample (Stackelberg et al. 2005). The resesarchers note deficiencies in current safety standards revealed by their findings:

[S]tandards or advisories have not been established for most of these compounds... Drinking-water criteria currently are based on the toxicity of individual compounds and not combinations of compounds. Little is known about potential human-health effects associated with chronic exposure to trace levels of multiple OWCs through routes such as drinking water. The occurrence in drinking-water supplies of many of the OWCs analyzed for during this study is unregulated and most of these compounds have not been routinely monitored for in the Nation's source- or potable-water supplies. — Stackelberg, et al. 2005

The U.S. population is growing at a rate of one person every 10 seconds. If we fail to undertake a national, coordinated initiative to control pollution from growth and sprawl, consumers can expect ever-growing loads of these pollutants in tap water supplies. If we fail to modernize health protections for drinking water exposures, we can expect health risks to increase.

Pollutants from water treatment, storage, and distribution. EWG's analysis of water suppliers' tap water test results shows that water contaminated with 44 pollutants that are residues of water treatment, storage, and distribution, including chemical by-products of water disinfection, are served to 178,679,000 people in 41 states. 79% of those people were served water with one or more of these contaminants present at levels above non-enforceable, health-based limits. 24 of these chemicals detected in tap water are are unregulated, without a legal, health-based limit in tap water.
Tap water disinfection is crucial for controlling waterborne disease, but the chemicals used for disinfecting can form harmful chemical by-products in the treated water. These by-products form when disinfectants react with organic pollution from agriculture, urban and sprawl runoff. EPA restricts levels of 11 of these chemicals in tap water that collectively are linked to cancer and reproductive toxicity, but scientists have identified not just 11, but 600 disinfection by-products in treated tap water altogether, any of which can be present in public water supplies (Richardson 1998, 1999a,b, 2003 - additional references). EPA has required short-term testing of only a handful of these in federal, unregulated contaminant monitoring programs, and water suppliers have found them: EWG's analysis of water suppliers' 1998-2003 tests of tap water quality reveals additional disinfection by-products — 17 unregulated chemicals altogether, in water consumed by 21.9 million Americans in 1,796 communities.

Recent federal clampdowns on levels of 9 regulated by-products (four chemicals known as trihalomethanes and five haloacetic acids) have spawned changes in water disinfection regimes at plants across the country, with many water systems switching from chlorine to alternate chemicals or mixtures of disinfectants and, as a result, generating novel, largely unstudied suites of disinfection by-products.

There is some irony in the fact that to reduce risk of infectious disease from microbes in tap water, water utilities must add chemicals that increase cancer risks, and that introduce risks to development and reproduction. Water disinfection is considered one of the great health triumphs of the 20th century, but 100 years after its inception the EPA and water suppliers are still in active study, negotiation and rulemaking to understand and reduce its health risks.

But potential risks from water treatment chemicals don't end with disinfection. Acrylamide, for instance, a probable human carcinogen, is added to water to aid in coagulation, or the clumping and removal of solids in the water. And water tanks and pipes in the distribution system — including pipes in the home — can add pollutants. Lead from pipes and lead-based solder can leach into water. And asphalt- or coal tar-lined storage tanks and pipes can leach chemicals linked to cancer, called PAHs, into tap water supplies. Critical upgrades to pipes, tanks, and other aging treatment and distribution equipment is part of water utilities' urgent $165 billion current need for infrastructure upgrades (EPA 2005e).

Policy Gaps Lead to Health Risks

Federal source water protection programs — failing. Scientists and policymakers have long known that pollution to drinking water sources can be reduced through two key means: preventing (or reducing) the release in the first place, or maintaining a buffer of protected lands around the water source that can, in essence, reduce or slow down the pollutant load. Neither has been done effectively.

Funding for federal initiatives on source water protection demonstrate a systematic failure on the part of legislators and policymakers to prioritize the critical measures needed to clean up and protect drinking water supplies. A recent review of federal funding programs conducted by the American Water Works Association and The Trust for Public Lands shows that taxpayer funds allocated to states and water utilities do not go toward pollution prevention and source water protection, but instead are used to fund projects that can range from sorely-needed pipe and equipment upgrades to projects that build new infrastructure and help subsidize sprawl (TPL and AWWA 2004).

This study found that in 2003 the government provided states with $6 billion under the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund; only 5 percent went toward mitigating the non-point source pollution like agricultural and urban runoff that accounts for 60 percent of the total contaminant load to rivers and streams. The remainder went to infrastructure improvements at wastewater treatment plants, many of which benefitted water quality but others of which subsidized expansions necessitated by growth and sprawl. In 2003 under the Clean Water Act Non-Point Source Program states received $237.5 million; only 17 percent went toward controlling non-point source pollution. And in 2003 states received $14 billion under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, but in the six-year history of the fund (as of 2003) just $2.7 million had gone toward land protection, conserving just 2,000 acres altogether (TPL and AWWA 2004). While the merits of some competing projects could be argued, the skew in funding is so decidedly shifted away from pollution prevention and source water protection, that no one can argue the vital need for additional support for these programs that so directly improve and protect water quality.

Gaps in federal standard-setting process. Every year water suppliers are required by law to submit a report to their customers detailing tap water testing results. In nearly every case, utilities are able to tell customers that the water meets or exceeds every standard in federal law, a laudable accomplishment considering the quality of the raw (untreated) water in many cases. But because of significant gaps in the standard-setting process, "meeting federal standards" doesn't necessarily mean the water is perfectly safe to drink.

• Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA sets standards not only based on health considerations, but also based on cost; the Agency is required to prove that the cost of removing a contaminant does not exceed the benefits. Because of this provision, EPA has set legal limits for 40 percent of regulated contaminants at levels higher than the Agency's own recommended health-based limits. In setting new limits for chemical disinfection by-products in tap water, EPA assumed that each life saved from pollution reductions (in this case, from bladder cancer) is worth an average of $5.6 million, a price tag that was then balanced against the costs of treatment plant upgrades. The final standard was set based on the balance of this equation (FR 1998). The price assigned to a human life has changed several times over the Agency's history, and in the end dictates whether or not legal limits for contaminants in tap water are set at levels that protect human health.

• EWG's analysis of tap water tests from 42 states shows that 195,257,000 people in communities have been served drinking water contaminated with one or more pollutants at levels above health-based limits, and in 4,950 communities four or more contaminants exceeded health-based limits between 1998 and 2003.

• Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA is allowed to set maximum legal limits for contaminants as if people are exposed to just one contaminant at a time. That's not the reality of human exposure — studies show instead that people carry hundreds of chemicals in their bodies at any given time. For example, recent investigation by EWG identified an average of 200 industrial chemicals, pesticides and pollutants in ten babies at the moment of birth. And a growing number of studies show that the risks add up when we're exposed to multiple chemicals that act in tandem to harm an organ or system in the body — and the total risk can be greater than the sum of the parts: some chemicals amplify the risks of companion chemicals.

• EWG's analysis of tap water tests from 42 states shows that 113 million people in 3,382 communities have been served drinking water found to be contaminated with at least 10 different pollutants on the same day.

• Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA is not required to set maximum legal limits for contaminants in tap water at levels that protect the health of children.

• EWG's analysis of tap water tests from 42 states shows that in 1,161 communities, concentrations of one or more pollutants exceeded EPA's recommended (not mandatory) limit for one-day exposures to protect a 22-pound child.
The cost-benefit balancing act EPA must orchestrate when setting tap water quality standards stands, and the absence of specific requirements to protect children or consider composite risks, from multiple chemicals with similar target target organs and modes of action, stand in stark contrast to the Agency's mandate when it comes to pesticides in food. There, the Agency is specifically required to set standards that protect children, using an additional 10-fold safety factor and considering all routes of exposure and additive risks from exposures to multiple chemicals. Standards are set to protect health.

Recommendations
The cost of treating water is high and will only increase if current policies continue. According to the EPA, the nation's water utilities will need an estimated $53 billion in investments for water treatment over the next 20 years, to meet safety standards for water polluted with the chemicals that EPA has failed to control upstream (EPA 2005e). This investment is not designed to vastly improve tap water quality — it's set to ensure that water suppliers can continue to meet current standards. And yet at current levels of contamination, the public doesn't trust the water: Americans will spend an estimated $10 billion in 2005 on bottled water (IBWA 2005), in part because of the belief that water from the tap isn't safe enough to drink. So we pay for our water twice, once at the tap and once in a bottle. We have, in essence, created a system with an economic divide, where those who can, buy bottled, and those who can't, drink it from the tap. Tap water should be safe for everyone to drink.

In light of the findings of this study, which show that tap water in 42 states is contaminated with more than 140 unregulated chemicals that lack legal limits in drinking water supplies, we recommend the following:

• EPA should maintain a national database of tap water quality testing. Without it, the Agency is hindered in its ability to make wise choices in the limiting testing it does require and the unregulated contaminants it does consider for regulation. The database compiled by EWG represents the most comprehensive database of tap water testing in existence. We recommend that EPA also construct and maintain a comprehensive, national database of tap water quality testing.

• EPA should study the health impacts of all water disinfection by-products, and require monitoring and toxicity testing sufficient to support a human health risk assessment for these compounds.

• EPA should set health-protective standards for chemicals that are currently unregulated, but present in tap water. EPA should greatly expand requirements for testing unregulated contaminants. EPA and Congress should provide support for utilities to get that testing done.

• Congress and EPA should support utilities and states in efforts to protect source waters. Source water protection programs should be significantly expanded, including efforts to prevent or reduce pollution to source waters, and efforts to conserve land in buffer zones around tap water supplies. Financial support for these efforts is crucial.

• We strongly urge that federal laws and policies be reformed to ensure that vulnerable populations, including pregnant women and children, are protected from chemicals. We urge that to the maximum extent possible, exposures to industrial chemicals in tap water during sensitive times in life, including in utero, be eliminated. The sooner society takes action, the sooner we can provide tap water that is safe for everyone.

References
AAPFCO (Association of American Plant Food Control Officials). 2002. Commercial Fertilizer Database (2002). AAPFCO Division of Regulatory Services, University of Kentucky.

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. TMDL Information — Background. State Water Resources Control Board.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/background.html. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. Chemical Assistance Manual for Premanufacture Notification Submitters. EPA 744-R-97-003. March 1997. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chem-pmn/index.htm.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study. What Do We Really Know About the Safety of High Production Volume Chemicals? http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hazchem.pdf.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. 2000 National Water Quality Inventory. National Water Quality Report to Congress under Clean Water Act Section 305(b). http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a. Controlling Disinfection Byproducts and Microbial Contaminants in Drinking Water. Chapter 2: A review of drinking water regulations in the U.S. EPA 600R01110. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/index.html. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. Occurrence of Unregulated Contaminants in Public Water Systems — A National Summary. EPA Office of Water. EPA 815-P-00-002. June 2001. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucm_rounds_1-2.html. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001c. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 1 (UCMR 1). Table: UCMR Monitoring List. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr1/factsheet.html#list. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture. EPA 841-B-03-004. July 2003. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory — Reporting Year 2003 Public Data Release, Summary of Key Findings. Toxics Release Inventory Program. http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri03/index.htm. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2004a. Protecting Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff. EPA 841-F-03-004. Available from http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agriculture.html. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2004b. 2004 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. EPA 822-R-04-005. Available from http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/drinking/standards/dwstandards.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. List of Contaminants and Their MCLs. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#mcls. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 2. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/ccl2_list.html. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005c. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 2 (UCMR 2). UCMR 2 Contaminants and Corresponding Analytical Methods. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/factsheet.html#list. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005d. PPCPs as Environmental Pollutants. National Exposure Research Laboratory. Environmental Sciences. http://www.epa.gov/esd/chemistry/pharma/new.htm. Accessed December 13, 2005.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005e. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. Third Report to Congress. June 2005. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/pdfs /2003/report_needssurvey_2003.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2005.

Faust, Samuel D and Osman M Aly. 1998. Chemistry of Water Treatment. Second Edition. Ann Arbor Press. Ann Arbor, MI.

FR (Federal Register). 1996. Vol. 61, No. 94. Tuesday, May 14, 1996. Final Rule. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Monitoring Requirements for Public Drinking Water Supplies: Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Viruses, Disinfection Byproducts, Water Treatment Plant Data and Other Information Requirements.

FR (Federal Register). 1998. Vol. 63, No. 24. December 16, 1998. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule.
GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2005. Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program. GAO-05-458. June 2005.

The Harris Poll. 2005. The Harris Poll #77. Three-Quarters of U.S. Adults Agree Environmental Standards Cannot Be Too High and Continuing Improvements Must Be Made Regardless of Cost. October 13, 2005.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=607. Accessed December 13, 2005.

IBWA (International Bottled Water Association). 2005. The 2004 Stats. Source: Commentary and content provided by Beverage Marketing Corporation. Bottled Water Continues As Number 2 in 2004. http://www.bottledwater.org/public/BWFactsHome_main.htm. Accessed December 13, 2005.

Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD, Barber LB, Buxton HT. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance. Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Mar 15;36(6):1202-11.

Richardson, Susan D. 1998. Drinking water disinfection byproducts. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Analysis and Remediation, Robert A. Myers, ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Richardson, Susan D., Alfred D. Thruston, Jr., Chaim Rav-Acha, Ludmila Groisman, Inna Popilevsky, Olga Juraev, Victor Glezer, A. Bruce McKague, Michael J. Plewa, and Elizabeth D. Wagner. 2003. Tribromopyrrole, Brominated Acids, and Other Disinfection Byproducts Produced by Disinfection of Drinking Water Rich in Bromide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 3782-3793.

Richardson, Susan D., Alfred D. Thruston, Jr., Tashia V. Caughran, Paul H. Chen, Timothy W. Collette, and Terrance L. Floyd. Identification of New Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts Formed in the Presence of Bromide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999a.

Richardson, Susan D., Alfred D. Thruston, Jr., Tashia V. Caughran, Paul H. Chen, Timothy W. Collette, Terrance L. Floyd, Kathleen M. Schenck, Benjamin W. Lykins, Jr., Guang-Ri Sun, and George Majetich. Identification fo New Ozone Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999b.

Stackelberg PE, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Zaugg SD, Henderson AK, Reissman DB. Persistence of pharmaceutical compounds and other organic wastewater contaminants in a conventional drinking-water-treatment plant. Sci Total Environ. 2004 Aug 15;329(1-3):99-113.

TPL and AWWA (The Trust for Public Lands and American Water Works Association). 2004. Protecting the Source. Land Conservation and the Future of America. http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=14288&folder_id=175.
USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). Population Growth Rate in the U.S. http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) historical data for 2002. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/index.asp.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2003. Projections of Land Use and Land Cover Change. U.S. Global Change Research Program. http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/ProgramElements/recent/landrecent.htm.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1999. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters. Nutrients and Pesticides. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 122. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/html/wq_urban.html.

Additional Resources
National Tap Water Quality. The National Tap Water Testing database is available at www.ewg.org/sites/tapwater/.

Unregulated contaminants. Tap water contaminants that have been found by water utilities and that lack enforceable health standards are shown at www.ewg.org/sites/tapwater/national/unregcontams.php/.

Health Effects of Chlorine in Drinking Water

2006-01-26T12:45:00.000-08:00

http://www.crystalclearsupply.com/category_s/44.htm

The U.S. General Accounting Office reports that there are serious deficiencies in water treatment plants in 75% of the states. More than 120 million people (about 50% of the population) may get unsafe water according to a study conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

U.S. Health Officials estimate 900,000 people each year become ill - and possibly 900 die - from waterborne disease. The General Accounting Office estimates 66% of Safe Drinking Water Act violations aren’t reported.

The contamination of water is directly related to the degree of contamination of our environment. Rainwater flushes airborne pollution from the skies, and then washes over the land before running into the, rivers, aquifers, and lakes that supply our drinking water. Any and all chemicals generated by human activity can and will find their way into water supplies.

The chemical element chlorine is a corrosive, poisonous, greenish-yellow gas that has a suffocating odor and is 2 1/2 times heavier than air. Chlorine belongs to the group of elements called halogens. The halogens combine with metals to form compounds called halides. Chlorine is manufactured commercially by running an electric current through salt water. This process produces free chlorine, hydrogen, and sodium hydroxide. Chlorine is changed to its liquid form by compressing the gas, the resulting liquid is then shipped. Liquid chlorine is mixed into drinking water and swimming pools to destroy bacteria.

Until recently, concerns about drinking water focused on eliminating pathogens. The chlorine used to reduce the risk of infectious disease may account for a substantial portion of the cancer risk associated with drinking water. Chlorination of drinking water was a major factor in the reduction in the mortality rates associated with waterborne pathogen. The use of chlorine was believed to be safe. This view is evident in an article, which appeared on the back page of the New York Times. The report stated that with the use of chlorine, "Any municipal water supply can be made as pure as mountain spring water. Chlorination destroys all animal and microbial life, leaving no trace of itself afterwards". This statement reflected opinion accepted until recent years when halogenated organic compounds, such as chloroform, were identified in chlorinated drinking water supplies. Recent surveys show that these compounds are common in water supplies throughout the United States.

These concerns about cancer risks associated with chemical contamination from chlorination by-products have resulted in numerous epidemiological studies. These studies generally support the notion that by-products of chlorination are associated with increased cancer risks.

Chlorine is used to combat microbial contamination, but it can react with organic matter in the water and form dangerous, carcinogenic Trihalomethanes. According to Dr. Joseph M. Price, MD, in Moseby's Medical Dictionary, "Chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times. It is an insidious poison".

In a 1992 study that made front-page headlines, and was reported on in the July issue of the American Journal of Public Health researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee found that people who regularly drink tap water containing high levels of chlorine by-products have a greater risk of developing bladder and rectal cancers than people who drink unchlorinated water. The study estimates that about 9 percent of all bladder cancer and 18 percent of all rectal cancer cases are associated with long-term consumption of these by-products. This amounts to over 20,000 new cases each year.

Morris, with epidemiologist Thomas C. Chalmers and his colleagues at Harvard, used a new technique called meta-analysis to combine the results from the 10 best studies, yielding the new findings. They report that people drinking chlorinated water over long periods have a 21% increase in the risk of contracting bladder cancer and a 38% increase in the risk of rectal cancer. "I am quite convinced, based on this study, that there is an association between cancer and chlorinated water.", says Robert D. Morris of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who directed the new study.

About 90% of the population is drinking water which may contain hundreds of these Disinfection By-products (DBPs), also known as Trihalomethanes. The Environmental Protection Agency lowered the Maximum Contaminant Level for Disinfection By-products but it will be years before the new standard goes into effect.

In his book, Coronaries/Cholesterol/Chlorine, Joseph M. Price, MD presents startling evidence that Trihalomethanes, are the "prime causative agents of arteriosclerosis and its inevitable result, the heart attack or stroke." These Trihalomethanes are created when the chlorine that is added to the municipal water supply reacts with organic matter such as leaves, twigs, or chemicals from agricultural runoff.

Here's What The Experts Have To Say:

"The drinking of chlorinated water has finally been officially linked to an increased incidence of colon cancer. An epidemiologist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities completed a study of colon cancer victims and non-cancer patients and concluded that the drinking of chlorinated water for 15 years or more was conducive to a high rate of colon cancer."

Health Freedom News, January/February 1987

"Long-term drinking of chlorinated water appears to increase a person's risk of developing bladder cancer as much as 80%," according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some 45,000 Americans are diagnosed every year with bladder cancer.

St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987

"Although concentrations of these carcinogens are low...it is precisely these low levels which cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States." Report Issued By The Environmental Defense Fund

"Chlorine itself is not believed to be the problem. Scientists suspect that the actual cause of the bladder cancers is a group of chemicals that form as result of reactions between the chlorine and natural substances and pollutants in the water." (organic matter such as leaves and twigs.)

St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987

Greenpeace reports have found chlorine-based compounds to be the most common toxic and persistent pollutants in the Great Lakes.

Summary and Prevention Strategies

In its proposal for revamping the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has recommended examining chlorine's impact on health and the environment (SN: 1/22/94, p.59). The agency's proposed $2 million, one-year chlorine study would look at the effects of the use of chlorine and chlorine compounds in the manufacture of paper, solvents, and plastics and in disinfecting waste water and drinking water, says EPA' James F. Pendergast.

Contaminants may enter water supplies at many points before reaching the tap. The carcinogens in drinking water at the point of use may result from contamination of source water, arise from the treatment processes, or enter as the water is transported to the consumer. Varied carcinogens may contaminate the source water, but they usually exist in drinking water at low concentrations. However, chemicals that enter drinking water during water treatment are limited in number, but appear in drinking water supplies with greater frequency than most source water contaminants.

Under conditions of average temperature, humidity, and activity, the human body loses and, therefore, must replace about 2.3 liters of water each day. Two-thirds of this consumption is in the form of water or some other beverage. Concerns about the health risks or taste of drinking water may cause those who consume tap water to shift to bottled water, or other beverages. These beverages may include sweetened soft drinks and alcoholic beverages, which can pose health risks greater than those associated with drinking water.

To stop chlorination of drinking water to eliminate the elevated cancer risks from chlorination by-products would be foolhardy. Nonetheless, the data provide strong evidence to support expanded efforts in research and development of alternatives to chlorination for the disinfection of drinking water. Chlorination is particularly effective in preventing recontamination during distribution. Alternatives must provide a similar level of protection. Perhaps the most viable alternative is point of use water treatment units.

The weight of the evidence suggests that chlorination by-products pose substantial cancer risks that should be reduced.

Health Effects of Lead in Drinking Water

2006-01-25T21:33:00.000-08:00

http://www.crystalclearsupply.com/category_s/43.htm

What's in your Bottled Water?

2006-01-25T21:14:00.000-08:00

Despite the hype, bottled water is neither cleaner nor greener than tap water

by Brian Howard - August 28, 2003

"You drink tap water? Are you crazy?" asks a 21-year-old radio producer from the Chicago area. "I only drink bottled water." In a trendy nightclub in New York City, the bartender tells guests they can only be served bottled water, which costs $5 for each tiny pint container. One outraged clubber is stopped by the restroom attendant as she tries to refill the bottle from the tap. "You can't do that," says the attendant. "New York's tap water isn't safe."

Whether a consumer is shopping in a supermarket or a health food store, working out in a fitness center, eating in a restaurant or grabbing some quick refreshment on the go, he or she will likely be tempted to buy bottled water.

A widening spectrum of bottled water types are crowding the market, including spring, mineral, purified, distilled, carbonated, oxygenated, caffeinated and vitamin-enriched, as well as flavored waters, such as lemon or strawberry, and specific brands aimed at children. Bottled water bars have sprung up in the hipper districts, from Paris to Los Angeles.

The message is clear: Bottled water is "good" water, as opposed to that nasty, unsafe stuff that comes out of the tap. But in most cases tap water adheres to stricter purity standards than bottled water, whose source -- far from a mountain spring -- can be the parking lot of an industrial facility in New Jersey. Forty percent of it began life as, well, tap water.

A 2001 World Wildlife Fund study confirmed the widespread belief that consumers associate bottled water with social status and healthy living. Their perceptions trump their objectivity, because even some people who claim to have switched to bottled water "for the taste" can't tell the difference: When Good Morning America conducted a taste test of its studio audience, New York City tap water was chosen as the heavy favorite over the oxygenated water 02, Poland Spring and Evian.

Bottled water is so ubiquitous that people can hardly ask for water anywhere without being handed a bottle. But what is the cost to society and the environment?
The bottled water industry has exploded in recent years, and enjoys annual sales of more than $35 billion worldwide. Americans paid $7.7 billion for bottled water in 2002, according to the consulting and research firm Beverage Marketing Corporation. Bottled water is the fastest-growing segment of the beverage industry, and the product is expected to pass both coffee and milk to become the second-most-consumed beverage (behind soft drinks) by 2004. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, "More than half of all Americans drink bottled water; about a third of the public consumes it regularly."

But while the Environmental Protection Agency regulates the quality of public water supplies, the agency has no authority over bottled water. Bottled water that crosses state lines is considered a food product and is overseen by the Food and Drug Administration, which does mandate that it be bottled in sanitary conditions using food-grade equipment. According to the influential International Bottled Water Association, "By law, the FDA Standard of Quality for bottled water must be as stringent as the EPA's standards for public drinking water."

However, the FDA is allowed to interpret the EPA's regulations and apply them selectively to bottled water. As senior attorney Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council explains, "Although the FDA has adopted some of the EPA's regulatory standards, it has decided not to adopt others and has not even ruled on some points after several years of inaction." In a 1999 report, the NRDC concludes that bottled water quality is probably not inferior to average tap water, but Olson (the report's principal author) says that gaps in the weak regulatory framework may allow careless or unscrupulous bottlers to market substandard products.

The bottling association urges consumers to trust bottled water in part because the FDA requires water sources to be "inspected, sampled, analyzed and approved." However, the NRDC argues that the FDA provides no specific requirements -- such as proximity to industrial facilities, underground storage tanks or dumps -- for bottled water sources. That's looser monitoring than occurs at the EPA, which requires more specific assessments of tap water sources.

Olson says one brand of "spring water," which had a graphic of mountains and a lake on the label, was actually taken from a well in Massachusetts in the parking lot of an industrial facility. The well, which is no longer used for bottled water, was near hazardous waste and had experienced contamination by industrial chemicals.
According to Olson, the FDA has no official procedure for rejecting bottled water sources once they become contaminated. He also says a 1990 government audit revealed that 25 percent of water bottlers had no record of source approval. Further, in contrast to the EPA, which employs hundreds of staffers to protect the nation's tap water systems, the FDA doesn't have even one full-time regulator in charge of bottled water.

Scott Hoober of the Kansas Rural Water Association says that although municipal system managers have to pay a certified lab to test samples weekly, monthly and quarterly for a long list of contaminants, water bottlers can use any lab they choose to perform tests as infrequently as once a year. Unlike utilities, which must publish their lab results in a public record, bottlers don't have to notify anyone of their findings, including consumers who inquire. The FDA has the authority to ask for a company's data, although test results can be destroyed after two years.
Olson adds, "Unlike tap water violations, which are directly enforceable, if a company exceeds bottled water standards, it is not necessarily a violation -- they can just say so on the label, and may be insulated from enforcement."

Further, while EPA rules specify that no confirmed E. coli or fecal coliform (bacteria that indicate possible contamination by fecal matter) contamination is allowed in tap water, the FDA merely set a minimum level for E. coli and fecal coliform presence in bottled water. Tap water from a surface source must be tested for cryptosporidium, giardia and viruses, unlike bottled water, and must also be disinfected, unlike bottled water.

The EPA concludes, "Some bottled water is treated more than tap water, while some is treated less or not at all." Henry Kim, consumer safety officer for the FDA, asserts, "We want bottled water to have a comparable quality to that of tap water" -- which, of course, runs counter to the widely held public belief that bottled water is better.

Environmentalists also point out that if a brand of bottled water is wholly packaged and sold within the same state, it is technically not regulated by the FDA, and is therefore only legally subject to state standards, which tend to vary widely in scope and vigor. Co-op America reports that 43 states have one or fewer staff members dedicated to bottled water regulation. The NRDC estimates that 60 to 70 percent of bottled water brands sold in the U.S. are single-state operations. Stephen Kay, vice president of communications of the International Bottled Water Association, says he doubts the percentage is that high.

Kay is adamant that "no bottled water escapes regulation," and he points out that all members of the IBWA (which is responsible for 80 percent of U.S. bottled water sales) must also adhere to the organization's mandatory Model Code. This code does close some of the FDA's regulatory gaps, including setting a zero tolerance for coliform contamination, and it requires members to follow certain standards and undergo an annual, unannounced plant inspection. However, Olson stresses, except in a few states, this Model Code is not legally binding or enforceable. Members of the much smaller National Spring Water Association follow their own guidelines, and must get their water from free-flowing springs.

One result of such Byzantine bottled water standards has been the widespread use of disinfection to try to eliminate possible contaminants. Although the FDA does not require it, disinfection is mandatory in several states, including New York, California and Texas. However, chemicals commonly used to disinfect water, including chlorine and ozone gas, may react unpredictably, forming potentially carcinogenic by-products. Opponents also argue that disinfection destroys naturally beneficial bacteria, creating a blank palette.

Even with widespread disinfection, consumer groups have raised numerous warnings about a host of different microorganisms and chemicals that have been found in bottled water. In a four-year scientific study, the NRDC tested more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of bottled water. The group concluded, "Although most bottled water tested was of good quality, some brands' quality was spotty." A third of the tested brands were found to contain contaminants such as arsenic and carcinogenic compounds in at least some samples at levels exceeding state or industry standards.
Another area of potential concern is the fact that no agency calls for testing of bottled water after it leaves its initial packaging plant, leaving some to wonder what happens during months of storage and transport. To begin to examine this question, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment tested 80 samples of bottled water from retail stores and manufacturers. All 80 of the samples had detectable levels of chlorine, fluoride and sodium. Seventy-eight of the 80 contained nitrate (which can cause methemoglobinemia, or blue-baby syndrome), 12 had nitrite, 53 had chloroform, 33 contained bromodichloro-methane, 25 had arsenic and 15 tested positive for lead.

Forty-six of the samples contained traces of some form of the carcinogen (and hormone disrupter) phthalate, while 12 of those exceeded federal safety levels for that chemical. According to Olson, phthalates may leach out of some plastic bottles into water. "Phthalates are not legally regulated in bottled water because of intense industry pressure," says Olson. Although Co-op America concludes that there is little evidence of a link between phthalate exposure from bottled water and any health problems, the group suggests using glass over plastic bottles as a precaution.

The bottling association argues that the presence of benign bacteria in bottled water has no bearing on public health, since the treatment processes used by manufacturers ensure the death of any potentially harmful organisms. The group's website claims that there have been no confirmed cases of illness in the U.S. as a result of bottled water. The NRDC argues that no U.S. government agency actively searches for incidents of illness from bottled water.

Another complaint commonly levied against the bottled water industry is that many of the myriad product labels are misleading. The bottling association states, "The labeling requirements ensure that the source and purity of the bottled water are identified and that, if the label is false or misleading, the supplier is subject to civil or criminal sanctions." Even so, the FDA technically requires that bottled water labels disclose only three variables: the class of water (such as spring or mineral), the manufacturer, and the volume. That brand of Massachusetts "spring water" exposed by NRDC was so-named because the source occasionally bubbled up to the surface in the industrial parking lot.

Co-op America advises consumers "to be wary of words like 'pure,' 'pristine,' 'glacial,' 'premium,' 'natural' or 'healthy.' They're basically meaningless words added to labels to emphasize the alleged purity of bottled water over tap water." The group points out that, in one case, bottled water labeled as "Alaska Premium Glacier Drinking Water: Pure Glacier Water from the Last Unpolluted Frontier" was actually drawn from Public Water System #111241 in Juneau. According to Co-op America, "as much as 40 percent of bottled water is actually bottled tap water, sometimes with additional treatment, sometimes not." So-called purified water can be drawn from any source as long as it is subsequently treated, which leaves some to wonder how that differs from good old tap water.
The number one (Aquafina) and two (Dasani) top-selling brands of bottled water in the U.S. both fall in the category of purified water. Dasani is sold by Coca-Cola, while Aquafina is a Pepsi product. As U.S. News & World Report explains, "Aquafina is municipal water from spots like Wichita, Kansas." The newsmagazine continues, "Coke's Dasani (with minerals added) is taken from the taps of Queens, New York, Jacksonville, Florida, and elsewhere." Everest bottled water originates from southern Texas, while Yosemite brand is drawn from the Los Angeles suburbs.
In June, a lawsuit was filed against Poland Spring, the nation's largest bottled spring water company. Poland Spring is a brand of Nestlé Waters North America, which is based in Greenwich, and used to be called Perrier Group of America. Nestlé's 14 other brands of U.S. bottled water include Arrowhead, Deer Park, Aberfoyle, Zephyrhills, Ozarka and Ice Mountain.

The plaintiffs charged that Nestlé duped consumers by advertising that Poland Spring water comes from "some of the most pristine and protected sources deep in the woods of Maine." The lawsuit alleges that ever since the original Poland Spring was shut down in 1967, the company has used man-made wells, at least one of which is in a parking lot along a busy road. "Poland Spring is exactly what we say it is -- natural spring water," responded a Nestlé spokesperson.

So why do so many of us trust and prefer bottled water to the liquid that is already piped directly into our homes? For the price of one bottle of Evian, a person can use 1,000 gallons of tap water in the home. Americans spend around $10,700 on bottled water every minute, reports Co-op America, and many consumers think nothing of paying three times as much per gallon of bottled H2O as they do for gasoline.
Kay says the bottling association does not intend to promote bottled water as a replacement for tap water, except maybe during emergencies. "Since bottled water is considered a food product by law, it doesn't make sense to single it out as needing more regulations than other foods," says Kay. He also stresses that IBWA guidelines strictly prevent members from trying to capitalize on fears over tap water, or from advertising that their products are more pure than municipal water.

More and more environmentalists are beginning to question the purpose of lugging those heavy, inefficient, polluting bottles all over the Earth. The WWF argues that the distribution of bottled water requires substantially more fuel than delivering tap water, especially since over 22 million tons of the bottled liquid is transferred each year from country to country. Instead of relying on a mostly preexisting infrastructure of underground pipes and plumbing, delivering bottled water -- often from places as far-flung as France, Iceland or Maine -- burns fossil fuels and results in the release of thousands of tons of harmful emissions. Since some bottled water is also shipped or stored cold, electricity is expended for refrigeration. Energy is likewise used in bottled water processing. In filtration, an estimated two gallons of water is wasted for every gallon purified.

The WWF estimates that around 1.5 million tons of plastic are used globally each year in water bottles, leaving a sizable manufacturing footprint. Most water bottles are made of the oil-derived polyethylene terephthalate, which is known as PET. While PET is less toxic than some plastics, the Berkeley Ecology Center found that manufacturing PET generates more than 100 times the toxic emissions -- in the form of nickel, ethylbenzene, ethylene oxide and benzene -- compared to making the same amount of glass.

Not surprisingly, a considerable number of used water bottles end up as litter, where they can take up to 1,000 years to biodegrade. Pat Franklin, the executive director of the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), says nine out of 10 plastic water bottles end up as either garbage or litter -- at a rate of 30 million per day. According to the Climate Action Network, when some plastic bottles are incinerated along with other trash, as is the practice in many municipalities, toxic chlorine is released into the air while heavy metals deposit in the ash. If plastics are buried in landfills, not only do they take up valuable space, but potentially toxic additives such as phthalates may leak into the groundwater. "It's ironic that many people drink bottled water because they are afraid of tap water, but then the bottles they discard can result in more polluted water," says Franklin. "It's a crazy cycle."

Despite such a sizable environmental footprint, the push to recycle plastic water bottles has not been as successful as many consumers might like to think as they faithfully toss their used containers into those blue bins. As Utne magazine recently reported, "Despite the ubiquitous arrow symbol, only five percent of plastic waste is currently recycled in America and much of that must be fortified with huge amounts of virgin plastic." One limitation is that recycling plastic causes it to lose strength and flexibility, meaning the process can only be done a few times with any given sample.

Another problem is that different types of plastics are very difficult to sort, even though they can't be recycled together. Common plastic additives such as phthalates or metal salts can also thwart recycling efforts, as can too high a ratio of colored bottles (such as Dasani's blue containers) to clear bottles.

Industry analysts point out that demand exceeds supply in the market for recycled PET plastic, which is used in a range of goods from flowerpots to plastic lumber. Franklin says deposit systems, or so-called bottle bills, would go a long way to improving the collection of used water bottles, especially since only half the country has curbside recycling available. But only a few states have bottle bills, largely because of strong opposition from the container, beverage and retail industries (and their front group, Keep America Beautiful). While Kay stresses that the bottling association urges consumers to recycle, he says his organization opposes bottle bills because "food retailers shouldn't have to devote any money-making floor space to storing and sorting recyclables, especially as that may lead to unsanitary conditions."

Numerous environmental and social activists have recently begun to put up a fight against the expanding bottled water industry, which they claim threatens local wells, streams, wetlands and ways of life. Bottling companies may pump up to 500 gallons per minute, or even more, out of each well, and many wells run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Such operations have drawn intense opposition in Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan and Wisconsin.

"Resistance against water bottlers is a classic NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) issue," says Kay. The bottling association claims bottlers wouldn't pump aquifers to depletion because that wouldn't make good business sense. But civil engineer and hydrologist Tom Ballestero of the University of New Hampshire cautions that surrounding wells and the environment can be negatively impacted before an aquifer is severely depleted. "The groundwater they are pumping and exporting was going somewhere where it had an environmental benefit," says Ballestero.

Much of the opposition to water bottlers has been directed at Nestlé Waters North America, which taps around 75 different U.S. spring sites. A spokesperson for the corporation, Jane Lazgin, says most communities welcome the jobs and revenue brought by bottling operations. For its Ice Mountain brand, Nestlé received permission from the state of Michigan to build a $100 million plant capable of bottling 260 million gallons of water a year from an aquifer in rural Mecosta County, which is about 60 miles north of Grand Rapids. Nestlé paid around $100 for permits and received substantial tax breaks.

Local activists, mobilized by the newly formed Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, protested the plant on the grounds that the facility would take too heavy a toll on the surrounding environment and quality of life. Although Nestlé claims it conducted "exhaustive studies for nearly two years to ensure that the plant does not deplete water sources or harm the ecosystem," the activists pointed out that the state has no authority to limit the amount of water that is actually removed.

Three Native American tribes sued the state on the basis that rivers, and ultimately, the Great Lakes, would be affected. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation and a few local residents also filed a lawsuit, claiming that the Mecosta operations violate state and federal water rights. The controversy became a hot topic during the 2002 gubernatorial election. A ruling on the case is expected soon, and is believed to have far-reaching ramifications.

A host of environmental groups are joining resource managers in the call for Americans to cut back on bottled water and instead look to tap systems to provide our daily needs. As the NRDC points out, incidents of chemical or microbial contamination in tap water are actually relatively rare. In a recent review of the nation's public drinking water infrastructure, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health concluded, "Reasonably reliable water is currently available to nearly all 270 million U.S. residents."

Writing in The Kansas Lifeline , Scott Hoober expresses frustration on the part of municipal water managers, who are increasingly shackled with negative reputations despite their actual accomplishments. Hoober advises managers sarcastically, "What are you waiting for? Turn a few valves, install a bottling plant and begin to make the big bucks. You could sell your water for half of what the other bottler down the road is charging and still make a bundle. With no meters or mains to maintain, no monthly billing, lower lab bills, why, you could afford a top-dollar advertising campaign telling folks how much better your water is than the stuff that used to come out of the tap."

It's true that tap water does face numerous threats, including possible contamination from the potentially harmful by-products of chlorination, the specter of pollution and a lack of adequate funding. Stresses from global warming, urban sprawl and population increase also must be factored in, as well as the looming threat of terrorism. The WWF argues that governments should focus their limited energies on repairing tap water infrastructures and on protecting watersheds from harmful farm, industry and urban pollutants. We certainly need to think twice before handing off the public water trust to private companies that put it in attractive bottles at a high price.

How much should you drink every day?

2006-01-25T20:30:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/water/NU00283

Your body is mostly water, so it makes sense to keep well hydrated. But how much water you should drink depends on you.

How much water should you drink each day? — a simple question with no easy answer. Just as you are unique, so are your water needs. And how much water you need depends on many factors, including your health status, how active you are and where you live.

Though no single formula fits all people, several guidelines are available to help you estimate how much to drink each day. Delve into your daily fluid needs to learn how your body uses water and what factors may increase — or decrease — your water requirements.

Health benefits of water

Functions of water in the body

Water is crucial to your health. It makes up, on average, 60 percent of your body weight. Every system in your body depends on water.

Lack of water can lead to dehydration, a condition that occurs when you don't have enough water in your body to carry on normal functions. Even mild dehydration — as little as a 1 percent to 2 percent loss of your body weight — can sap your energy and make you tired. Dehydration poses a particular health risk for the very young and the very old. Signs and symptoms of dehydration include:

Excessive thirst
Fatigue
Headache
Dry mouth
Little or no urination
Muscle weakness
Dizziness
Lightheadedness

How much water do you need?

Every day you lose water through sweating — noticeable and unnoticeable — exhaling, urinating and bowel movements. For your body to function properly, you need to replace this water by consuming beverages and foods that contain water. So how much water, or more precisely fluid, do you need?

This isn't an easy question to answer. A healthy adult's daily fluid intake can vary widely. Most people drink fluid to quench thirst, to supply perceived water needs and "out of habit." At least three approaches estimate total fluid (water) needs for healthy, sedentary adults living in a temperate climate.

Replacement approach. The average urine output for adults is 1.5 liters a day. You lose close to an additional liter of water a day through breathing, sweating and bowel movements. Food usually accounts for 20 percent of your fluid intake, so you if you consume 2 liters of water or other beverages a day (a little more than 8 cups), along with your normal diet, you can replace the lost fluids.
Eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day. Another approach to water intake is the "8 x 8 rule" — drink eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day (about 1.9 liters). The rule could also be stated, "drink eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid a day," as all fluids count toward the daily total. Though this approach isn't supported by scientific evidence, many people use this basic rule as a guideline for how much water and other fluids to drink.

Dietary recommendations. The Institute of Medicine recommends that men consume 3 liters (about 13 cups) of total beverages a day and women consume 2.2 liters (about 9 cups) of total beverages a day. These guidelines are based on national food surveys that assessed people's average fluid intakes.

You can choose any of these fluid intake approaches to gauge your fluid needs. But your current total fluid intake is probably OK if you drink enough water to quench your thirst, produce a colorless or slightly yellow normal amount of urine, and feel well.

Factors that influence water needs

You may need to modify total fluid intake from these recommended amounts depending on several factors, including how active you are, the climate, your health status, and if you're pregnant or breast-feeding.

Exercise.

If you exercise or engage in any activity that makes you sweat, you'll need to drink extra water to compensate for that fluid loss. Drink 2 cups of water two hours before a long endurance event, for example, a marathon or half-marathon. One to 2 cups of water is also adequate for shorter bouts of exercise. During the activity, replenish fluids at regular intervals, and continue drinking water or other fluids after you're finished. During intense exercise involving significant sweating, for example, during a marathon, sodium is lost in sweat, and you may need a sports drink with sodium rather than just water.

Environment.

You need to drink additional water in hot or humid weather to help lower your body temperature and to replace what you lose through sweating. You may also need extra water in cold weather if you sweat while wearing insulated clothing. Heated, indoor air can cause your skin to lose moisture, increasing your daily fluid requirements. And altitudes greater than 2,500 meters (8,200 feet) also can affect how much water your body needs. Higher altitudes may trigger increased urination and more rapid breathing, which uses up more of your fluid reserves.

Illnesses or health conditions. Some signs and symptoms of illnesses, such as fever, vomiting and diarrhea, cause your body to lose extra fluids. To replace lost fluids, drink more water or oral rehydration solutions (Gatorade, Powerade, CeraLyte, others). When water loss can't be replaced orally, intravenous water and electrolytes may be necessary. Increased water intake is nearly always advised in people with urinary tract stones. On the other hand, you may need to limit the amount of water you drink if you have certain conditions that impair excretion of water — such as heart failure and some types of kidney, liver, adrenal and thyroid diseases.

Pregnant or breast-feeding.

Women who are pregnant or breast-feeding need additional water to stay hydrated and to replenish the fluids lost, especially when nursing. The Institute of Medicine recommends that pregnant women drink 2.3 liters (nearly 10 cups) of fluids a day and women who breast-feed consume 3.1 liters (about 13 cups) of fluids a day.

Beyond the tap: Many sources of water

You don't need to sip from your water bottle all day to satisfy your fluid needs. Your diet, including the beverages you drink, can provide a large portion of what you need. In an average adult diet, food provides about 20 percent of total water intake. The remaining 80 percent comes from beverages of all kinds.

Fruits and vegetables — besides being good sources of vitamins, minerals and fiber — contain lots of water. For example, oranges are 87 percent water, and cucumbers are 95 percent water. Milk, juice and other beverages also have large amounts of water. Conversely, dried fruits, nuts, grain products and baked goods generally contain less water.

Alcohol — such as beer and wine — and caffeinated beverages — such as coffee, tea or soda — can contribute to your total fluid intake. But your best beverage is still water. Water is calorie-free, inexpensive when drawn from a faucet or fountain, and readily available in and out of your home.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

Make it count: Meet your water needs through food and beverages

Thirst not always a reliable gauge

If you're healthy and not in any dehydrating conditions, you can generally use your thirst as an indicator of when to drink water. But thirst isn't always an adequate gauge of your body's need for fluid replenishment. The older you are, the less you're able to sense that you're thirsty. And during vigorous exercise, an important amount of your fluid reserves may be lost before you feel thirsty. So make sure that you're sufficiently hydrated before, during and after exercise.

Increased thirst and increased urination, both in volume and frequency, can be signs and symptoms of diabetes. With diabetes, excess blood sugar (glucose) in your body draws water from your tissues, making you feel dehydrated. To quench your thirst, you drink a lot of water and other beverages and that leads to more frequent urination. If you notice unexplained increases in your thirst and urination, see your doctor. It may not necessarily mean you have diabetes. It could be something else. And some people consume large amounts of water and experience increased urine output not associated with any underlying disease.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

Type 1 diabetes

Staying safely hydrated

Make a conscious effort to keep yourself hydrated and make water your beverage of choice. Nearly every healthy adult can consider the following:

Drink a glass of water with each meal and between each meal.
Take water breaks instead of coffee or tea breaks.
Substitute sparkling water for alcoholic drinks at social gatherings.
If you drink water from a bottle, thoroughly clean or replace the bottle often. Every time you drink, bacteria from your mouth contaminate water in the bottle. If you use a bottle repeatedly, make sure that the bottle is designed for reuse. To keep it clean, wash your container in hot, soapy water or run it through a dishwasher before refilling it.

Though uncommon, it's possible to drink too much water. Drinking excessive amounts can overwhelm your kidneys' ability to get rid of the water. This can lead to hyponatremia, a condition in which excess water intake dilutes the normal amount of sodium in the blood. Marathon runners and people who are older, who have certain medical conditions — such as congestive heart failure and cirrhosis, or who are taking certain diuretics are at higher risk of hyponatremia.

Drinking too much water is rare in healthy adults who consume an average American diet. Check with your doctor or a registered dietitian if you're concerned about drinking too much or too little water. He or she can help you determine the amount that's best for you.

Potential Health Effects From Ingestion of Water

2006-01-25T15:33:00.000-08:00

Resource for the following information: US Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs or primary standards) are legally enforceable standards that apply to public water systems. Primary standards protect drinking water quality by limiting the levels of specific contaminants that can adversely affect public health and are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems

Potential Health Effect Contaminant

(Numbered List on the Right)

Adrenal Glands 26, 65
Allergy (skin) 7
Anemia 18, 20, 30
Benign Intestinal Polyps 3
Blood Glucose (decrease) 1
Blood Pressure (increase) 4, 11
Blue Baby Syndrome 13, 14
Bone Disease 10
Cancer 2, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 31, 35, 36, 38, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 60, 62, 63, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73
Cardiovascular Disease 19
Cataracts 41
Cholesterol (increase) 1
Circulatory Problems 2, 15, 29, 59, 66
Dermatitis 7
Eye Problems 18
Fingernail Loss 15
Fingers Numb 15
Gastrointestinal Disease 8, 77
Giardiasis 74
Hair Loss 15, 16
Immune Deficiencies 55, 67
Intestinal Lesions 5, 16, 42
Kidney Damage 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 25, 26, 27. 29, 30, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 56, 59, 62, 63, 67
Legionnaire's Disease 76
Liver Damage 8, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68
Mental Development Slow 11
Nerve Damage, Nervous System 9, 17, 22, 24, 43, 54, 55, 61, 62, 66, 70
Physical Development Slow 11
Pneumonia 76
Reproduction Difficulties 19, 21, 22, 28, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, 47, 50, 53, 55
Skin Damage 2, 55
Spleen Problems 18, 30
Stomach 42, 44, 46, 51
Teeth (mottled) 10
Thymus Gland 55
Thyroid Problems 9, 63
Toes Numb 15
Toxic (General) 37

CONTAMINANTS

Inorganic Chemicals

1. Antimony
2. Arsenic
3. Asbestos
(fiber >10 micrometers)
4. Barium
5. Beryllium
6. Cadmium
7. Chromium (total)
8. Copper
9. Cyanide (as free cyanide)
10.Fluoride
11.Lead
12.Inorganic Mercury
13.Nitrate (measured as Nitrogen)
14.Nitrite (measured as Nitrogen)
15.Selenium
16.Thallium

Organic Chemicals

17.Acrylamide
18.Alachlor
19.Atrazine
20.Benzene
21.Benzo(a)pyrene
22.Carbofuran
23.Carbon tetrachloride
24.Chlordane
25.Chlorobenzene
26.2,4-D
27.Dalapon
28.1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
29.o-Dichlorobenzene
30.p-Dichlorobenzene
31.1,2-Dichloroethane
32.1-1-Dichloroethylene
33.cis-1, 2-Dichloroethylene
34.trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
35.Dichloromethane
36.1-2-Dichloropropane
37.Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate
38.Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
39.Dinoseb
40.Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
41.Diquat
42.Endothall
43.Endrin
44.Epichlorohydrin
45.Ethylbenzene
46.Ethelyne dibromide
47.Glyphosate
48.Heptachlor
49.Heptachlor epoxide
50.Hexachlorobenzene
51.Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
52.Lindane
53.Methoxychlor
54.Oxamyl (Vydate)
55.Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
56.Pentachlorophenol
57.Picloram
58.Simazine
59.Styrene
60.Tetrachloroethylene
61.Toluene
62.Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
63.Toxaphene
64.2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
65.1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
66.1,1,1-Trichloroethane
67.1,1,2-Trichloroethane
68.Trichloroethylene
69.Vinyl chloride
70.Xylenes (total)
Radionuclides
71.Beta particles and photon emitters
72.Gross alpha particle activity
73.Radium 226 and Radium 228 (combined)

Microorganisms
74.Giardia lamblia
75.Heterotrophic plate count
76.Legionella
77.Viruses (enteric)

Chlorine & your Shower

2006-01-25T15:25:00.000-08:00

Chlorine & your Shower - Part-1

New Scientist - 18.Sep.86
US News & World Report - 29.Jul.91
Bottom Line - Aug.87
Consumer Reports Books
American Journal of Public Health
Environmental Protection Agency
The NADER Report:
Troubled Waters on Tap
Science News - Vol.#130

New Scientist - 18.Sep.86

Taking long hot showers is a health risk, according to research presented last week in Anaheim, California, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society. Showers--and to a lesser extent baths--lead to a greater exposure to toxic chemicals contained in water supplies than does drinking the water. The chemicals evaporate out of the water and are inhaled. they can also spread through the house and be inhaled by others. House holders can receive 6 to 100 times more of the chemical by breathing the air around showers and bath than they would by drinking the water.

(CHLORINE & YOUR SHOWER - Ian Anderson)

US News & World Report - 29.Jul.91

Studies indicate the suspect chemicals can also be inhaled and absorbed through the skin during showering and bathing. Ironically, even the Chlorine widely used to disinfect water produces Carcinogenic traces. Though 7 out of 10 Americans drink chlorinated water, its safety over the long term is uncertain. Drinking chlorinated water may as much as double the risk of the Bladder Cancer, which strikes 40,000 people a year.

Is Your Water Safe - The Dangerous State of Your Water

Bottom Line - Aug.87

A long, hot shower can be dangerous.

The toxic chemicals are inhaled in high concentrations.
Dr John Andelman, PhD

Consumer Reports Books

On one hand, chlorination has freed civilisation from the constant dangers of waterborne epidemics. On the other hand in the mid - 70s scientists discovered that chlorination could create carcinogens in water. 80% of the population drinks chlorinated water. There was a higher incidence of cancer of the oesophagus, rectum, breast, and larynx and of Hodgkins Disease among those drinking chlorinated surface waters. Volatile organics can evaporate from water in a shower or bath. Conservative calculations indicate that inhalation exposures can be as significant as exposure from drinking the water, that is, one can be exposed to just as much by inhalation during a shower as by drinking 2 litres of water a day. People who shower frequently could be exposed through ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal absorption.

IS YOUR WATER SAFE TO DRINK?

American Journal of Public Health
Skin absorption of contaminant has been underestimated and ingestion may not constitute the sole or even primary route of exposure.

Dr Halina Brown

Environmental Protection Agency

Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of the chlorine in the water.

Dr Lance Wallace

The NADER Report - Troubled Waters on Tap

A Professor of Water Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh claims that exposure to vaporised chemicals in the water supplies through showering, bathing, and inhalation is 100 times greater than through drinking the water.
As chlorine is added to kill pathogenic micro-organisms, the highly reactive chlorine combines with fatty acids and carbon fragments to form a variety of toxic compounds, which comprise about 30% of the chlorination by-products.

During the mid-1970s monitoring efforts began to identify widespread toxic contamination of the nation's drinking water supplies, epidemiological studies began to suggest a link between ingestion of toxic chemicals in the water and elevated cancer mortality risks. Since those studies were completed a variety of additional studies have strengthened the statistical connection between consumption of toxins in water and elevated cancer risks. Moreover, this basic concern has been heightened by other research discoveries.

Centre For Study of Responsive Law

Science News - Vol.#130

The National Academy of Sciences estimate that 200 to 1000 people die in the United States each year from cancers caused by ingesting the contaminants in water. The major health threat posed by these pollutants is far more likely to be from their inhalation as air pollutants. The reason that emissions are high is that because water droplets dispersed by the shower head have a larger surface-too-value ratio than water streaming into the bath.
Janet Raloff

Chlorine & your Shower - Part-2

Coronaries / Cholesterol / Chlorine
Chemistry & Control of Modern Chlorination
Water Can Undermine Your Health
Saginaw Hospital

US Council of Environmental Quality
Healthy Water for a Longer Life
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Kemysts Laboratory

Reference List

Coronaries / Cholesterol / Chlorine

The cause of atherosclerosis and resulting heart attacks and strokes is none other than the ubiquitous chlorine in our drinking water.

Dr J M Price, MD

Chemistry & Control of Modern Chlorination

In the vast majority of cases where germ-free water is required whether for public supply, or in the swimming pool, the process of disinfection will involve the use of chlorine in one form or another.

Dr A T Palin, PhD (OBE)

Water Can Undermine Your Health

Chlorine gas was despicably used during WWI. When the war was over, the use of chlorine was diverted to poisoning germs in our drinking water. All water supplies throughout the country were chlorinated. The combination of chlorine (when in drinking water) and animal fats results in atherosclerosis, heart attacks, and death.
Dr N W Walker, DS

Saginaw Hospital

Chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times. While it prevented epidemics of one disease, ill was creating another. Two decades ago, after the start of chlorinating our drinking water in 1904. The present epidemic of heart trouble, cancer and senility began.
Dr J M Price, MD

US Council of Environmental Quality

Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.

Healthy Water for a Longer Life

Drinking tap water that is chlorinated is hazardous, if not deadly to your health.
Dr Martin Fox

Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory

Known carcinogens are found in drinking water as a direct consequence of the practice of chlorination. A long established public health practice for the disinfection of drinking water.
Francis T Mayo, Director

Kemysts Laboratory

Chlorine is used almost universally in the treatment of public drinking water because of its toxic effect on harmful bacteria and other waterborne, disease-causing organisms. But there is a growing body of scientific evidence that shows that chlorine in drinking water may actually pose greater long term dangers than those for which it was used to eliminate. These effects of chlorine may result from either ingestion or absorption through the skin. Scientific studies have linked chlorine and chlorination by-products to cancer of the bladder, liver, stomach, rectum, and colon, as well as heart disease, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), anaemia, high blood pressure, and allergic reactions. There is also evidence that shows that chlorine can destroy protein in our body and cause adverse effects on skin and hair. The presence of chlorine in water may also contribute to the formation of chloramines in the water, which can cause taste and odour problems. Since chlorine is required by public health regulations to be present in all public drinking water supplies, it is up to the individual to remove it at the point-of-use in the home.

Dr Riddle, PhD - BIBLIOGRAPHY - Part-1

New Scientist - 18.Sep.86
US News & World Report - 29.Jul.91
Bottom Line - Aug.87
Consumer Reports Books
American Journal of Public Health
Environmental Protection Agency
The NADER Report:
Troubled Waters on Tap
Science News - Vol.#130

New Scientist - 18.Sep.86

Taking long hot showers is a health risk, according to research presented last week in Anaheim, California, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society. Showers--and to a lesser extent baths--lead to a greater exposure to toxic chemicals contained in water supplies than does drinking the water. The chemicals evaporate out of the water and are inhaled. they can also spread through the house and be inhaled by others. House holders can receive 6 to 100 times more of the chemical by breathing the air around showers and bath than they would by drinking the water.

(CHLORINE & YOUR SHOWER - Ian Anderson)

US News & World Report - 29.Jul.91
Studies indicate the suspect chemicals can also be inhaled and absorbed through the skin during showering and bathing. Ironically, even the Chlorine widely used to disinfect water produces Carcinogenic traces. Though 7 out of 10 Americans drink chlorinated water, its safety over the long term is uncertain. Drinking chlorinated water may as much as double the risk of the Bladder Cancer, which strikes 40,000 people a year.

Is Your Water Safe - The Dangerous State of Your Water

Bottom Line - Aug.87

A long, hot shower can be dangerous.

The toxic chemicals are inhaled in high concentrations.
Dr John Andelman, PhD

Consumer Reports Books
On one hand, chlorination has freed civilisation from the constant dangers of waterborne epidemics. On the other hand in the mid - 70s scientists discovered that chlorination could create carcinogens in water. 80% of the population drinks chlorinated water. There was a higher incidence of cancer of the oesophagus, rectum, breast, and larynx and of Hodgkins Disease among those drinking chlorinated surface waters. Volatile organics can evaporate from water in a shower or bath. Conservative calculations indicate that inhalation exposures can be as significant as exposure from drinking the water, that is, one can be exposed to just as much by inhalation during a shower as by drinking 2 litres of water a day. People who shower frequently could be exposed through ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal absorption.

IS YOUR WATER SAFE TO DRINK?

American Journal of Public Health
Skin absorption of contaminant has been underestimated and ingestion may not constitute the sole or even primary route of exposure.

Dr Halina Brown

Environmental Protection Agency

Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of the chlorine in the water.

Dr Lance Wallace

The NADER Report - Troubled Waters on Tap

A Professor of Water Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh claims that exposure to vaporised chemicals in the water supplies through showering, bathing, and inhalation is 100 times greater than through drinking the water.
As chlorine is added to kill pathogenic micro-organisms, the highly reactive chlorine combines with fatty acids and carbon fragments to form a variety of toxic compounds, which comprise about 30% of the chlorination by-products.

During the mid-1970s monitoring efforts began to identify widespread toxic contamination of the nation's drinking water supplies, epidemiological studies began to suggest a link between ingestion of toxic chemicals in the water and elevated cancer mortality risks. Since those studies were completed a variety of additional studies have strengthened the statistical connection between consumption of toxins in water and elevated cancer risks. Moreover, this basic concern has been heightened by other research discoveries.
Centre For Study of Responsive Law

Science News - Vol.#130

The National Academy of Sciences estimate that 200 to 1000 people die in the United States each year from cancers caused by ingesting the contaminants in water. The major health threat posed by these pollutants is far more likely to be from their inhalation as air pollutants. The reason that emissions are high is that because water droplets dispersed by the shower head have a larger surface-too-value ratio than water streaming into the bath.
Janet Raloff

Chlorine & your Shower - Part-2

Coronaries / Cholesterol / Chlorine
Chemistry & Control of Modern Chlorination
Water Can Undermine Your Health
Saginaw Hospital

US Council of Environmental Quality
Healthy Water for a Longer Life
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Kemysts Laboratory

Reference List

Coronaries / Cholesterol / Chlorine

The cause of atherosclerosis and resulting heart attacks and strokes is none other than the ubiquitous chlorine in our drinking water.

Dr J M Price, MD

Chemistry & Control of Modern Chlorination

In the vast majority of cases where germ-free water is required whether for public supply, or in the swimming pool, the process of disinfection will involve the use of chlorine in one form or another.

Dr A T Palin, PhD (OBE)

Water Can Undermine Your Health

Chlorine gas was despicably used during WWI. When the war was over, the use of chlorine was diverted to poisoning germs in our drinking water. All water supplies throughout the country were chlorinated. The combination of chlorine (when in drinking water) and animal fats results in atherosclerosis, heart attacks, and death.
Dr N W Walker, DS

Saginaw Hospital

Chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times. While it prevented epidemics of one disease, ill was creating another. Two decades ago, after the start of chlorinating our drinking water in 1904. The present epidemic of heart trouble, cancer and senility began.
Dr J M Price, MD

US Council of Environmental Quality

Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.

Healthy Water for a Longer Life

Drinking tap water that is chlorinated is hazardous, if not deadly to your health.
Dr Martin Fox

Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory

Known carcinogens are found in drinking water as a direct consequence of the practice of chlorination. A long established public health practice for the disinfection of drinking water.
Francis T Mayo, Director

Kemysts Laboratory

Chlorine is used almost universally in the treatment of public drinking water because of its toxic effect on harmful bacteria and other waterborne, disease-causing organisms. But there is a growing body of scientific evidence that shows that chlorine in drinking water may actually pose greater long term dangers than those for which it was used to eliminate. These effects of chlorine may result from either ingestion or absorption through the skin. Scientific studies have linked chlorine and chlorination by-products to cancer of the bladder, liver, stomach, rectum, and colon, as well as heart disease, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), anaemia, high blood pressure, and allergic reactions. There is also evidence that shows that chlorine can destroy protein in our body and cause adverse effects on skin and hair. The presence of chlorine in water may also contribute to the formation of chloramines in the water, which can cause taste and odour problems. Since chlorine is required by public health regulations to be present in all public drinking water supplies, it is up to the individual to remove it at the point-of-use in the home.

Dr Riddle, PhD - BIBLIOGRAPHY

Potential Health Hazards from Chlorine

2006-01-25T13:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.acornid.com/articles_08.htm

"Known carcinogens are found in drinking water as a direct consequence of the practice of chlorination - a long established public health practice for the disinfection of drinking water."

- Francis T. Mayo, Director, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory

"Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine."

- U.S. Council of Environmental Quality

http://www.puritec.com/links.cfm

And, a study by Dr. John Andelman, Ph.D. entitled BOTTOM LINE states "A long, hot shower can be dangerous. The toxic chemicals are inhaled in high concentrations."

http://www.aquatechnology.net/showerfilters.html

"Skin absorption of contaminant has been underestimated and ingestion may not constitute the sole or even primary route of exposure."

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Dr. Halina Brown

"Drinking tap water that is chlorinated is hazardous, if not deadly to your health.

"HEALTHY WATER FOR A LONGER LIFE Dr. Martin Fox

"A Professor of Water Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh claims that exposure to vaporized chemicals in the water supplies through showering, bathing, and inhalation is 100 times greater than through drinking the water."

"As chlorine is added to kill pathogenic microorganisms, the highly reactive chlorine combines with fatty acids and carbon fragments to form a variety of toxic compounds, which comprise about 30% of the chlorination by-products."

"During the mid-1970s monitoring efforts began to identify widespread toxic contamination of the nation's drinking water supplies, epidemiological studies began to suggest a link between ingestion of toxic chemicals in the water and elevated cancer mortality risks.

Since those studies were completed a variety of additional studies have strengthened the statistical connection between consumption of toxins in water and elevated cancer risks. Moreover, this basic concern has been heightened by other research discoveries.

THE NADER REPORT - TROUBLED WATERS ON TAP Center For Study of Responsive Law

"Taking long hot showers is a health risk, according to research presented last week in Anaheim, California, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society. Showers-and to a lesser extent baths-lead to a greater exposure to toxic chemicals contained in water supplies than does drinking the water.

The chemicals evaporate out of the water and are inhaled. They can also spread through the house and be inhaled by others. House holders can receive 6 to 100 times more of the chemical by breathing the air around showers and bath than they would by drinking the water."

NEW SCIENTIST 18 September 1986 lan Anderson

"On one hand, chlorination has freed civilization from the constant dangers of waterborne epidemics. On the other hand in the mid-70s scientists discovered that chlorination could create carcinogens in water."

"80% of the population drinks chlorinated water."

"There was a higher incidence of cancer of the esophagus, rectum, breast, and larynx and of Hodgkins Disease among those drinking chlorinated surface waters."

"Volatile organics can evaporate from water in a shower or bath."

"Conservative calculations indicate that inhalation exposures can be as significant as exposure from drinking the water, that is, one can be exposed to just as much by inhalation during a shower as by drinking 2 liters of water a day."

"People who shower frequently could be exposed through ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal absorption. "

IS YOUR WATER SAFE TO DRINK? Consumer Reports Books

"Chlorine is used almost universally in the treatment of public drinking water because of its toxic effect on harmful bacteria and other waterborne, disease-causing organisms. But there is a growing body of scientific evidence that shows that chlorine in drinking water may actually pose greater long term dangers than those for which it was used to eliminate.

These effects of chlorine may result from either ingestion or absorption through the skin. Scientific studies have linked chlorine and chlorination by-products to cancer of the bladder, liver, stomach, rectum, and colon, as well as heart disease, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), anemia, high blood pressure, and allergic reactions. There is also evidence that shows that chlorine can destroy protein in our body and cause adverse effects on skin and hair.

The presence of chlorine in water may also contribute to the formation of chloramines in the water, which can cause taste and odor problems."
"Since chlorine is required by public health regulations to be present in all public drinking water supplies, it is up to the individual to remove it at the point-of-use in the home. The best available method of chlorine removal, for the individual consumer is found in the Shower Filter Unit."

"The Shower Filter Unit is of great value to those who are concerned about the adverse health effects of exposure to chlorine due to absorption through the skin or by inhalation.

The Shower Filter will Provide superior protection from chlorine, when used in accordance with the Manufacturer's recommended operating procedures.
KEMYSTS LABORATORY Dr. Riddle, Ph.D.

“Taking long hot showers is a health risk, according to research presented last week in Anaheim, California, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society. Showers – and to a lesser extent baths – lead to a greater exposure to toxic chemicals contained in water supplies than does drinking the water. The chemicals evaporate out of the water and are inhaled. They can also spread through the house and be inhaled by others. House holders can receive 6 to 100 times more of the chemical by breathing the air around showers and bath than they would by drinking the water.”

NEW SCIENTIST 18 September 1986
Ian Anderson

“Studies indicate the suspect chemicals can also be inhaled and absorbed through the skin during showering and bathing.”

“Ironically, even the Chlorine widely used to disinfect water produces Carcinogenic traces.”

“Though 7 out of 10 Americans drink chlorinated water, its safety over the long term is uncertain.”

“Drinking chlorinated water may as much as double the risk of the Bladder Cancer, which strikes 40,000 people a year.”

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT – July 29 1991

Is Your Water Safe – The Dangerous State of Your Water
“A long, hot shower can be dangerous. The toxic chemicals are inhaled in high
concentrations.”

BOTTOM LINE/August 87
Dr. John Andelman, Ph.D

http://www.showerfilterstore.com/learning/lc_7.html

American Journal of Public Health, 1984, 74:479-484
COMPARED WITH ITS ABSORPTION THROUGH THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM, SKIN ABSORPTION COULD BE THE MAJOR ROUTE OF PENETRATION INTO THE BODY. SKIN PENETRATION RATES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE REMARKABLY HIGH, AND THE OUTER LAYER OF SKIN IS A LESS EFFECTIVE BARRIER TO PENETRATION THAN TRADITIONALLY ASSUMED…We conlude that skin absorption of contaminants in drinking water has been underestimated and that ingestion may not constitute the sole or even primary route of exposure.”

"On one hand, chlorination has freed civilization from the constant dangers of waterborne epidemics. On the other hand in the mid-70s scientists discovered that chlorination could create carcinogens in water."

"80% of the population drinks chlorinated water."

"There was a higher incidence of cancer of the esophagus, rectum, breast, and larynx and of Hodgkins Disease among those drinking chlorinated surface waters."

"Volatile organics can evaporate from water in a shower or bath."

"Conservative calculations indicate that inhalation exposures can be as significant as exposure from drinking the water, that is, one can be exposed to just as much by inhalation during a shower as by drinking 2 liters of water a day."

"People who shower frequently could be exposed through ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal absorption. "

IS YOUR WATER SAFE TO DRINK? Consumer Reports Books

"Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of the chlorine in the water."
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Dr. Lance Wallace

"A Professor of Water Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh claims that exposure to vaporized chemicals in the water supplies through showering, bathing, and inhalation is 100 times greater than through drinking the water."

"As chlorine is added to kill pathogenic microorganisms, the highly reactive chlorine combines with fatty acids and carbon fragments to form a variety of toxic compounds, which comprise about 30% of the chlorination by-products."

"During the mid-1970s monitoring efforts began to identify widespread toxic contamination of the nation's drinking water supplies, epidemiological studies began to suggest a link between ingestion of toxic chemicals in the water and elevated cancer mortality risks. Since those studies were completed a variety of additional studies have strengthened the statistical connection between consumption of toxins in water and elevated cancer risks. Moreover, this basic concern has been heightened by other research discoveries.

THE NADER REPORT - TROUBLED WATERS ON TAP Center For Study of Responsive Law

"The National Academy of Sciences estimate that 200 to 1000 people die in the United States each year from cancers caused by ingesting the contaminants in water. The major health threat posed by these pollutants is far more likely to be from their inhalation as air pollutants. The reason that emissions are high is that because water droplets dispersed by the shower head have a larger surface-to-value ratio than water streaming into the bath."

SCIENCE NEWS: VOL. 130 Janet Raloff

"The cause of atherosclerosis and resulting heart attacks and strokes is none other than the ubiquitous chlorine in our drinking water."

CORONARIES/CHOLESTEROL/CHLORINE Dr. J.M. Price, M.D

http://www.showerfilterstore.com/learning/lc_8.html

by Elmer G. Heinrich

Reprinted from Wellness Lifestyle, January 1990

Several EPA surveys, taken during the last several years, indicate that both finished and ground water supplies throughout the United States have been contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The compounds and concentrations vary considerably by location but are generally highest in the industrialized areas east of the Mississippi River.

While contamination of surface waters is found more frequently, ground water degradation is of particular concern because of the high levels detected and because pollution of ground water is not reversible. There are no known natural cleansing processes associated with ground water movement in the Earth. Since about one half of the population relies on ground water for its daily water supply, this is a matter of concern for regulators. Acute and chronic effects have been demonstrated for most of these compounds, and several are suspected or known carcinogens. Others have shown mutagenic and teratogenic capacities.

Water and health regulators of today face complex problems in assessing the health hazards associated with contamination of drinking water supplies. Due to the general absences of federal drinking water standards for the volatile solvents commonly found in contaminated water, state and local authorities must decide whether to discontinue or restrict use of water supplies on a cases-by-case basis.

These decisions are heavily, if not exclusively, based on the recommendation of a toxicologist.

The methodology to calculate an acceptable level of a chemical in drinking water has been developed by the National Academy of Sciences and is incorporated in the Environmental Protection Agency's "suggested no adverse response level." These figures represent the highest level or dose of chemical compounds which produced no observed adverse side effect in chronic or sub-chronic tests with animals or humans, divided by the volume of water consumed by an average adult or child in order to calculate the acceptable concentration of a chemical in water measured in parts per million. One of the underlying assumptions here is that ingestion constitutes the chief route of exposure to the contaminant. Such an assumption disregards other routes of exposure such as skin absorption during bathing or swimming and inhalation of vapors while showering.

Other than occupation settings, little attention has been paid to skin absorption as a route of entry for volatile organic compounds and authorities and regulators have been primarily concerned with exposures via inhalation and ingestion. During the last 25 years, numerous investigators have explored the mechanism of epidermal barrier function in relation to solvents and solvent mixtures. Although a complex process, dermal uptake of compounds occurs mainly through passive defusion, involving selective mechanisms in various lipid and protein structures of the stratum corneum. According to the American Journal of Public Health, many investigators have reported on the toxicity and unexpectedly high penetration rates of volatile organics.

Numerous articles have been written with regard to skin absorption of disinfectants such as chlorine and volatile chemicals. One such article said, "Given the choice of drinking two liters of water contaminated with a volatile chemical at 7 parts per billion or showering for 15 minutes in the same water, the safer choice would be to drink the water." This conservative article said that from two to four times as much of the chemical can enter the body through skin absorption as through the intestines. One researcher says that, during a lifetime, 50 pounds of toxic wastes and pollutants can enter a body from drinking water and at least 450 pounds can enter the body through skin absorption.

The conditions under which exposure occurs and the specific characteristics of both the compounds and the people involved will each affect the rate and amount of absorption through the skin. Variables such as duration of exposure, type of skin exposed (chemical composition, vascularity, age, thickness), and amount of surface area exposed will influence absorption. Absorption intake is dependent upon skin hydration, water temperature, skin condition and regional variability. The epidermis of the hand represents a relatively greater barrier to penetration than many other parts of the body including the scalp, forehead, abdomen, postauricular areas, underarm, fossa cupitalis, and scrotum. According to the Journal of American Health, penetration through the scrotum is, in fact, estimated to be about 100% as compared to 8.6% for the forearm.

This information promotes speculation that most people have been approaching the water contaminant problem from the wrong angle. Obviously, the cumulative toxins one encounters from water is much more dramatic from bathing than from drinking.

By Liz Rittersporn

From Chicago Tribune, July 26, 1990

Nothing feels better on a hot day than a dip in a cool pool. And nothing, apparently, is as hard on hair and skin as repeated dips in that pool. Chlorine, used to destroy bacteria in pool water, Jacuzzis and hot tubs, bonds with hair and breaks down protein. It makes hair dry and brittle, and it is also blamed for itchy skin and flaky scalp…."there are extremely rare cases of chlorine allergy, with symptoms akin to hives or poison ivy.", says dermatologist-David Orentrcich.
Essentially a bleach, chlorine changes the color and tone of hair, especially if the hair is tinted, rinsed or otherwise treated.

James Viera, Vice-President and Corporate Technical Director of L'Oreal, explains chlorine is blue and "when you have any degree of blond, and blue is added to it, the result is a more greenish tone. Brown hair with golden highlights gets dull, and red hair gets drab…."Stripping hair of chlorine can be a rugged business, Viera says

http://www.showerfilterstore.com/learning/lc_4.html

by Zoe Landale
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

VANCOUVER—This city's top hairdresser Derek London charges his clients are getting burned by the city. "One out of every two clients coming into the salon has chlorine damage to their hair," says London.

"It's almost the same as oxidation from peroxide burning, except chlorine adds density to the hair."

"You see a lot of breakage and splitting. The chlorine makes hair shiny like fiberglass. Hair tangles when it's shampooed and becomes difficult to comb."

CHLORINE IN DRINKING WATER CAUSES HEART ATTACKS, CANCER AND PREMATURE AGING

2006-01-25T13:24:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.ultra-pure.net/pages/5/page5.html?refresh=1040890121356

DOCTORS WARN……

CHLORINE IN DRINKING WATER CAUSES HEART ATTACKS, CANCER AND PREMATURE AGING
by James M. Quinlan

Chlorine in America’s drinking water has opened a Pandora’s box of medical dangers-including heart attacks, strokes, cancer and premature aging, report leading research scientists throughout the country.

“Chlorine has so many dangers it should be banned,” says Biological chemist Dr. Herbert Schwartz of Cumberland County College in Vineland, NJ. “Putting chlorine into the water supply is like starting a time bomb. Cancer, heart trouble, Premature senility-both mental and physical are conditions attributable to chlorine-treated water supplies. It is making us grow old before our time, by producing symptoms of aging such as hardening of the arteries. Tests have shown that chlorine does have devastating effects on such living organisms as plant seeds. When it is present in the human body, you may expect a premature end of cell life and death. It has been shown that where people drink mountain water, pure and free of the chlorine found in big city water, they tend to live longer. I feel if chlorine were now proposed for the first time to be used in drinking water it would be banned by the FDA”

A University of Minnesota researcher, Dr. Robert Carlson, said, “We are worrying a lot about chlorine. When chlorine is used to treat water, it doesn’t disappear. It shows up as part of thousands of new compounds. Anytime you have a situation where there are new compounds involved, you can be certain new problems will pop up somewhere.” Dr. Carlson, whose research work is being sponsored by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continued, “The chlorine problem is very similar to that of air pollution.”

“Chlorine is an oxidizing agent very similar to the poisonous nitrogen oxides we have in the air” And, charging that chlorine “is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times,” Dr. Joseph Price, chlorine researcher, called the widely used purifier “the cause of an unprecedented disease epidemic which includes heart attacks, strokes, senility and sexual impotency.”

“Chlorine is an insidious poison. Most medical researchers were led to believe it was safe, but we are now learning the hard way that all the time we were preventing epidemics of one disease, we were creating another. Two decades after the start of chlorinating our drinking water in 1904, the present epidemic of heart trouble and cancer began.”

Experiments in which he added chlorinated water to the diet of chickens produced results that “were nothing short of spectacular,” said Dr. Price, who is affiliated with the Saginaw General Hospital. “Every chicken treated with chlorine showed evidence of either atherosclerosis (degeneration) of the heart artery, or obstruction of the circulatory system.”

Chlorinated Drinking Water and Cancer

2006-01-24T19:24:00.000-08:00

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/coc/drink.htm

Chlorinated drinking water and cancer
COC statement COC/99/S2 - May 1999

Introduction

1. In the United Kingdom, North America, and many other countries, chlorination has long been an important part of water treatment, intended to ensure that drinking-water contains no microbes hazardous to human health. In the mid-1970s, refinements in techniques of chemical analysis resulted in the detection in drinking-water of traces of chemicals formed when organic chemicals (such as those which may occur naturally in rivers, lakes, reservoirs and other water sources) are subjected to chlorination. In drinking- water, each of these chlorination byproducts (CBPs) is typically present at a concentration below 1 part per billion (1 µg/l). Some however, such as the trihalomethanes (THMs, ie chloroform, bromodichloromethane, chlorodibromomethane and bromoform), are often present at concentrations between 10 and 100 µg/l. Numerous CBPs have been identified, but many have yet to be detected or characterised.

2. Some CBPs, including some of the THMs, are known to be carcinogenic in laboratory mammals given doses far greater than human intakes from drinking-water. Some CBPs are genotoxic in test systems, including the bacterial "Mutagen X" (MX; 3-chloro-4-dichloromethyl-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone). There have been many epidemiological investigations into the possible association between chlorination of drinking-water and cancer in humans and also many experimental studies regarding the mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of CBPs which have been considered in this statement.
Previous evaluations

3. In 1986, the Department of Health (DH) Committee on Medical Aspects of the Contamination of Air, Soil and Water (CASW) reviewed the relevant data on carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and epidemiology, and advised that there was
no sound reason to conclude that the consumption of the byproducts of chlorination, in drinking-water which has been treated and chlorinated according to current practices, increases the risk of cancer in humans.

The effective disinfection of water supplies is clearly of great importance in maintaining public health. In our opinion, modification of chlorination processes which have proved effective over many years, or the replacement of chlorination by other disinfectants, is not required by the available data on cancer epidemiology, animal carcinogenicity and mutagenicity in relation to chlorination byproducts in drinking-water.

4. In 1991, the DH Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COM) considered research on methods for concentrating extracts of chlorinated drinking-water, and the mutagenicity of these extracts, and of MX. The COM concluded that treated drinking-water itself presents little risk in this regard, and that no further studies on the mutagenic potential of these compounds were warranted.

5. In 1992, the DH Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC) evaluated further epidemiological studies, and advised that.

The conclusions of the 1986 CASW meeting were soundly based on the data available at the time. Many of the studies considered were correlation surveys which would have been difficult to interpret because of confounding factors such as other chemicals in the water supply, and there was also the problem of accurately determining the exposure of the population.

There was nothing in the more recent publications which would lead to alteration of the 1986 conclusions. The work by Cantor (1) and Lynch (17) was well conducted. The Cantor study was a case control study which took account of confounding factors, and showed a weak association between consumption of chlorinated drinking-water and an increase in bladder cancer once smoking had been taken into account, but this was insufficient to alter CASW's 1986 conclusions.

The Committee concluded that the 1986 conclusions of CASW were adequately founded and that information from subsequent investigations did not alter those conclusions. With regard to further epidemiological investigations within the UK the Committee pointed out that it would be very difficult to take account of consumption of chlorinated water in food, bottled water and other beverages. The Committee could not recommend that further epidemiological studies should be undertaken in the UK at the present time.

6. COC also reviewed a meta-analysis (20) published in July 1992. The authors estimated an overall relative risk (RR) of 1.15 (1.09-1.20) {95% confidence interval, used throughout this statement} for all cancer sites together, with statistically-significant elevated RRs for bladder cancer (1.21 [1.09-1.34]) and rectal cancer (1.38 [1.01-1.87]) but not for the other ten categories of cancer which were evaluated. COC considered that the meta-analysis gave insufficient evidence for increased concern over the carcinogenic effects of chlorinated drinking-water. It was noted that no account had been taken of consumption of water other than tap water, but that in fact bottled water and water used in food was often chlorinated in the manufacturing plant. COC concluded that the meta-analysis did not change its conclusions, but added a proviso that the Committee could not recommend that further epidemiological studies should be undertaken in the UK at the present time, unless a population can be found with a distinctive exposure to chlorinated drinking-water.

7. In 1996, COC and COM considered the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity data on the THMs, and COC advised that The ratio between the lowest dose level giving rise to a carcinogenic effect in animals and the likely human exposure level from drinking-water for each of the four THMs considered by the Committee was in excess of 10,000. Thus the levels of these THMs in drinking-water in the UK are unlikely to provide a carcinogenic risk to humans.

New epidemiological studies

8. Twenty further relevant epidemiological studies (2-16, 18, 19, 21-23) have been published since COC's 1992 evaluation. They include studies on a wide range of cancers:

Type of Cancer & Reference Number

All Cancers combined 4,23
Brain and Nervous System 3,14,23
Oesophagus 14,23
Stomach 4,13,14,22,23
Liver 14,15,23
Gallbladder and Bile Ducts 14
Pancreas 9, 14-16, 23
Colon 4,7,8,13,14,23
Rectum/ Anus 4,7,8,10,13,14,21,23
Kidney 4,12-14,23
Bladder 2,4,6,10-14,19,21-23
Prostate 14,23
Testis 14
Ovary 4,14,23
Uterus 4,14,23
Breast 4,14,18,23
Lung 4,14,23
Skin 4,14
Soft Tissue 14,15
Thyroid 14
Leukaemia 5,14,15
Hodgkin's Lymphoma 14,15
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma 4,14,15

9. A mixture of case-control, cohort and ecological studies has been employed to investigate the association between chlorinated drinking water and various cancers. Most of the recent epidemiological studies were carried out in North America. None were from the United Kingdom. The focus for case control studies has been cancers at sites implicated in earlier epidemiological studies, and for which there may be, theoretically, a higher exposure to agents in drinking water.

10. Those carcinogenicity studies which have been performed on CBPs do not identify any CBP, or group of CBPs, which appears likely to cause cancer at these sites at the concentrations found in drinking-water. The Committee reaffirmed its view that since bottled water products may contain chlorinated water, it was not possible to identify an unexposed control group. In the absence of an identified aetiological agent, or a precise means of measurement, a number of different surrogates of exposure have been employed in these studies including the following comparisons :

: chlorinated vs non-chlorinated water sources
: duration of time exposed to chlorinated water
: surface vs groundwater sources
: trihalomethane levels (total and individual substances)
: high organic content vs low organic content
: high level of estimated water mutagenicity vs low level

This consequently introduces uncertainty in exposure classification and makes comparison between studies, and interpretation of individual studies, more difficult.

11. In addition to these uncertainties, lifetime estimates of actual water consumption cannot be ascertained with any certainty, and exposure to substances occurring in drinking water via other routes (ie inhalation, dermal) or from other sources (eg food) may also not be properly considered. Consequently cancer epidemiological studies of chlorinated water suffer to a lesser or greater degree from deficiencies of study design.

12. It is also not uncommon, in those studies where statistically significant relative risks are observed, for these to be typically in the region of 2 or lower. Consequently, the strength of association between health outcomes and measures of exposure is considered to be weak, and the elevated risks may be within the range of uncertainty arising from possible confounding factors.

13. Of the 20 recent studies, only 4 were particularly well conducted. These comprised two case control studies dealing solely with bladder cancer, (2, 6) one case control study considering colon and rectal cancers (7) and a prospective cohort study of postmenopausal women (4) which looked at many different cancer sites including the bladder, colon and rectum. The remaining studies were either ecological in nature or had other serious limitations in design. Overall, however, all studies suffered to some extent from the difficulty of assessing long term exposure to potential aetiological agents in chlorinated drinking water. Additionally there was a lack of consistency of effect across studies dealing with different cancer end points. Many studies were also not directly comparable as they contained different measures of assessing exposure to chlorinated drinking water.

Bladder cancer

14. Previous epidemiological studies have suggested associations between bladder cancer and CBPs, and eleven of the twenty recent studies have investigated this hypothesis. Five were case-control studies,(2, 6, 10-12, 19) two were cohort studies, (4 14) and four were ecological.(13, 21-23) Most report some statistically significant elevated relative risks for groups with the highest estimated duration or level of exposure, but the associations are generally weak, with relative risks below 2. Exceptions are found in subgroups in four of the case-control studies, but are not consistent between studies. Thus, in two studies (2, 6) the relative risk was confined to male smokers (respectively, odds ratios [ORs] of 2.3 for more than 60 years of use of chlorinated water, and 3.2 for more than 40 years use of municipal water). This contrasts with another case-control study (12) which found an elevated OR only in male non-smokers (OR 2.59 for 30 years exposure to drinking-water estimated as "substantially mutagenic"), and with an earlier large case-control study (1) which found associations primarily in non-smokers of both sexes. Members noted that a new ecological study (23) of chlorination of drinking water and cancer mortality in Taiwan had recently been published but agreed that such studies were only useful in the generation of hypotheses and not in respect of the evaluation of risk. A retrospective cohort study in Finland (14) found an elevated relative risk for women only (1.48 [1.01-2.18]) but, as noted above, the same group's case-control study (12) found an elevated OR in male smokers only. In another case-control study (10, 11) the highest ORs (2.28-2.58) were seen in groups with 35 or more years of unusually high consumption of water with estimated THM levels greater than 50 µg/l.

15. These recent studies of bladder cancer do not show any consistent dose-response relationship with estimated exposures to CBPs or THMs.

Colon and rectal cancers

16. Since the 1992 evaluation there have been 7 epidemiological studies which have examined an association with cancer of the colon and 8 studies investigating rectal cancer. Of these only two studies were considered to be particularly well conducted, a case-control study of colon and rectal cancers (7) and a prospective cohort study in postmenopausal women. (4) Findings from these two studies were inconsistent; for cancer of the colon, a moderately strong association with increasing duration of exposure was found in the case-control study but no significant association was found in the cohort study; conversely, for rectal cancer, a moderately strong association was found in the cohort study but not in the case-control study. Inconsistent findings were also evident in the other reviewed studies of these sites.

Other sites

17. Studies of the other sites were not considered to be of good quality and, although some elevated risks were identified, these studies overall also failed to demonstrate any consistent association.

Conclusion

18. Overall, the further epidemiological studies fail to provide persuasive evidence of a consistent relationship between chlorinated drinking-water and cancer. It remains possible that there may be an association between chlorinated drinking water and cancer which is obscured by problems such as the difficulty of obtaining an adequate estimate of exposure to chlorination by-products, misclassification of source of drinking water (including the use of bottled water), failure to take adequate account of confounding factors (such as smoking status), and errors arising from non-participation of subjects.

We therefore consider that efforts to minimise exposure to chlorination by-products remain appropriate, providing that they do not compromise the efficiency of disinfection of drinking-water.

REFERENCES
1. Cantor KP, Hoover R, Hartge P, Mason TJ, Silverman DT, Altman R, Austin DF, Child MA, Key CR, Marrett LD, Myers MH, Narayana AS, Levin LI, Sullivan JW, Swanson GM, Thomas DB, West DW. Bladder cancer, drinking water source, and tap water consumption: a case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1987; 79: 1269-1279.

2. Cantor KP, Lynch CF, Hildesheim ME, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Alavanja M, Craun G. Drinking water source and chlorination byproducts I. Risk of bladder cancer. Epidemiology 1998; 9: 21-28.

3. Cantor KP, Lynch CF and Hildesheim M. Chlorinated drinking water and risk of glioma : a case control study Iowa, USA. Epidemiology 1996; 7(4) : pS83 (T25).

4. Doyle TJ, Zheng W, Cerhan JR, Hong CP, Sellers TA, Kushi LH, Folsom AR. The association of drinking water source and chlorination by-products with cancer incidence among postmenopausal women in Iowa: a prospective cohort study. Am J Public Health 1997; 87: 1168-1176.

5 Fagliano J, Berry M, Bove F and Burke T. Drinking water contamination and the incidence of leukaemia: an ecologic study. Amer J Pub Health 1990 ; 80 1209-1212

6. Freedman DM, Cantor KP, Lee NL, Chen LS, Lei HH, Ruhl CE, Wang SS. Bladder cancer and drinking water: a population-based case-control study in Washington County, Maryland (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 1997; 8: 738-744.

7. Hildesheim ME, Cantor K, Lynch CF, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Alavanja M, and Craun G. Drinking water and chlorination byproducts II. Risk of colon and rectal cancers. Epidemiology 199 8; 9: 29-35.

8. Hoff G, Moen IE, Mowinkel P Rosef O, Nordbro E, Sauar J Vatn MH and Torgrimsen T. Drinking water and the prevalence of colorectal adenomas ; an epidemiologic study in Telemark, Norway. Eur J Cancer Prev 1992 : 1 423-428.

9 Ijsselmuiden CB, Gaydos C, Feighner B, Novakoski WL, Serwadda D, Caris LH and Comstock GW . Cancer of the pancreas and drinking water : a population based case -control study in Washington County, Maryland. Am J Epidemiol 1992 ; 139: 836-42.

10 King W. Great Lakes water and your health. A summary of "Great Lakes Basin Cancer risk Assessment : A case control study of cancers of the bladder, colon and rectum" Health Canada publication. December 1995.

11. King WD, Marrett LD. Case-control study of bladder cancer and chlorination by-products in treated water (Ontario, Canada). Cancer Causes and Control 1996; 7: 596-604.

12. Koivusalo M, Hakulinen T, Vartiainen T, Pukkala E, Jaakkola JJK, Tuomisto J. Drinking water mutagenicity and urinary tract cancers: a population-based case-control study in Finland. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 148: 704-12.

13. Koivusalo M, Jaakkola JJK, Vartiainen T, Hakulinen T, Karjalainen S, Pukkala E, Tuomisto J. Drinking water mutagenicity and gastrointestinal and urinary tract cancers: an ecological study in Finland. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 1223-1228.

14. Koivusalo M, Pukkala E, Vartiainen T, Jaakkola JJK, Hakulinen T. Drinking water chlorination and cancer - a historical cohort study in Finland. Cancer Causes and Control 1997; 8: 192-200.

15 Koivusalo M, Vartiainen T, Hakulinen T, Pukkala E and Jaakkola J. Drinking water mutagenicity and leukaemia, lymphomas and cancers of the liver, pancreas and soft tissue. Arch Environ Health 1995 ; 50 269-276.

16. Kukkula M and Lofroth G. Chlorinated drinking water and pancreatic cancer. A population based case-control study. Eur J Pub Health 1997; 7: 297-301.

17. Lynch CF, Woolson RF, O'Gorman T and Cantor KP. Chlorinated drinking-water and bladder cancer: effect of misclassification on risk estimates. Arch Environ Health 1989; 44: 252-259.

18. Marcus PM, Savitz DA, Millikan RC and Morgenstern H. Female breast cancer and trihalomethane levels in drinking water in North Carolina. Epidemiol 1998; 9: 156-160.

19. McGeehin MA, Reif JS, Becher JC, Mangione EJ. Case-control study of bladder cancer and water disinfection methods in Colorado. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 138: 492-501.

20. Morris RD, Audet AM, Angelillo IF, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F. Chlorination, chlorination by-products and cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 1992; 82: 955-963.

21. Savrin JE, Cohn PD. Comparison of bladder and rectal cancer incidence with trihalomethanes in drinking water [Abstract]. Epidemiology 1996; 7(4 Suppl): S63.

22. Suarez-Varela MMM, Gonzales AL, Perez MLT, Caraco EF. Chlorination of drinking water and cancer incidence. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol 1994; 13:39-41.

23. Yang C-Y, Chiu H-F, Cheng M-F and Tsai S-S. Chlorination of drinking water and cancer mortality in Taiwan. Environ Res 1998 ; Section A78 1-6.

Dangers of Chlorine

2006-01-24T19:12:00.000-08:00

Written by Jerry Smith

"Cancer risks among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine." -- Dr. J.M. Price MD

NEW SCIENTIST 18 September 1986 - Ian Anderson
"Studies indicates the suspect to chemicals can also be inhaled and absorbed through the skin during showering and bathing." "Ironically, even the chlorine widely used to disinfect water produces Carcinogenic traces." "Though 7 out of 10 Americans drink chlorinated water, its safety over long term is uncertain." "Drinking chlorinated water may as much as double the risk of Bladder Cancer, which strikes 40,000 people a year."

U.S. NEWS &WORLD REPORT - July 29 1991
Is Your Water Safe--The Dangerous State of Your Water
"A long hot shower can be dangerous. The toxic chemicals are inhaled in high concentrations."

CHLORINE AND YOUR SHOWER - Bruce Black
"Taking long hot showers is a health risk, according to research presented last week in Anaheim California, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society--and to a lesser extent baths--lead to a greater exposure to toxic chemicals contained in water supplies than does drinking the water. The chemicals evaporate out of the water and are inhaled. They can also spread through the house and be inhaled by others. House holders can receive 6 to 100 times more of the chemical by breathing the air around showers and bath than they would by drinking the water"

BOTTOM LINE/August 87 - Dr. John Andelman, Ph.D..
"On one hand, chlorination has freed civilization form the constant dangers of waterborne epidemics. On the other hand in the mid--70's scientists discovered that chlorination could create carcinogens in water." "80% of the population drinks chlorinated water." "There was a higher incidence of cancer of the esophagus, rectum, breast, and larynx and of Hodgkin's Disease among those drinking chlorinated surface waters." "Volatile organics can evaporate from water in a shower or bath." "Conservative calculations indicate that inhalation exposure can be as significant as exposure from drinking the water, that is, one can be exposed to just as much by inhalation and/or dermal absorption."

IS YOUR WATER SAFE TO DRINK? - Consumer Reports Books
"Skin absorption of contaminant has been underestimated and ingestion may not constitute the sole or even primary route of exposure.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH - Dr.Halina Brown
"Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of the chlorine in the water."

ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Dr. Lance Wallace
"A Professor of Water Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh claims that exposure to vaporized chemicals in the water supplies through showering, bathing, and inhalation is 100 times greater than through drinking water." "As chlorine is added to kill pathogenic microorganisms, the highly reactive chlorine combines with fatty acids and carbon fragments to form a variety of toxic compounds, which comprise about 30% of the chlorination by--products." "During the mid-1970's monitoring efforts began to identify widespread toxic contamination of the nation's drinking water supplies, epidemiological studies began to suggest a link between ingestion of toxic chemicals in the water and elevated cancer mortality risks. Since those studies were completed a variety of additional studies have strengthened the statistical connection between consumption of toxins in water and elevated cancer risks. Moreover, this basic concern has been heightened by other research discoveries.

THE NADER REPORT - TROUBLED WATERS ON TAP- Center For Study of Responsive Law "The National Academy of Science estimate that 200 to 1000 people die in the United States each year from cancers caused by ingesting the contaminants in the water. The major health threat posed by these pollutants is far more likely to be from their inhalations as air pollutants. The reason that emissions are high is that because water droplets dispersed by the shower head have a larger surface--to--value ratio than water streaming into the bath."

SCIENCE NEWS, VOL. 130 - Janet Raloff
"The cause of atherosclerosis and resulting heart attacks and strokes is none other than the ubiquitous chlorine in our drinking water."

CHEMISTRY AND CONTROL OF MODERN CHLORINATION - Dr. A.T. Palin, Ph.D..(O.B.E.)
"Chlorine gas was despicably used during WWI. When the war was over, the use of chlorine was diverted to poisoning germs in our drinking water. All water supplies throughout the country were chlorinated. The combination of chlorine (when in drinking water) and animal fats results in atherosclerosis, heart attacks, and death."

WATER CAN UNDERMINE YOUR HEALTH - Dr. N.W. Walker, D.S.
"Chlorine is the greatest cripple and killer of the modern times. While it prevented epidemics of one disease, it was creating another. Two decades ago, after the start of chlorinating our drinking water in 1904. The present epidemic of the heart trouble, cancer and senility began."

U.S. COUNCIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
"Drinking tap water that is chlorinated is hazardous, if not deadly to your health."

HEALTHY WATER FOR A LONGER LIFE - Dr. Martin Fox
"Known carcinogens are found in drinking water as a direct consequences of the practice of chlorination. A long established public health practice for the disinfection of drinking water."

MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - Francis T. Mayo, Director
"Chlorine is used almost universally in the treatment of public drinking water because of its toxic effect on harmful bacteria and other waterborne, disease-causing organisms. But there is a growing body of scientific evidence that shows that chlorine in drinking water may actually pose greater long term dangers than those for which it was used to eliminate.

These effects of chlorine may result from either ingestion or absorption through skin. Scientific studies have linked chlorine and chlorination by-products to cancer of the bladder, liver, rectum, and colon, as well as heart disease, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), anemia, high blood pressure, and allergic reactions. There is also evidence that shows that chlorine can destroy protein in our body and cause adverse effects on skin and hair. The presence of chlorine in the water may also contribute to the formation of chloramines in the water, which can cause taste and odor problems." "Since chlorine is required by public health regulations to be present in all public drinking water supplies, it is up to the individual to remove it at the point-of-use in the home."

HEALTH EFFECTS OF CHLORINE IN DRINKING WATER - http://www.ewaterfilters.com/chlorine.html

The U.S. General Accounting Office reports that there are serious deficiencies in water treatment plants in 75% of the states. More than 120 million people (about 50% of the population) may get unsafe water according to a study conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council. U.S. Health Officials estimate 900,000 people each year become ill - from waterborne disease. The General Accounting Office estimates 66% of Safe Drinking Water Act violations aren't reported. The contamination of water is directly related to the degree of contamination of our environment. Rainwater flushes airborne pollution from the skies, and then washes over the land before running into the, rivers, aquifers, and lakes that supply our drinking water. Any and all chemicals generated by human activity can and will find their way into water supplies. The chemical element chlorine is a corrosive, poisonous, greenish-yellow gas that has a suffocating odor and is 2 1/2 times heavier than air. Chlorine belongs to the group of elements called halogens.

The halogens combine with metals to form compounds called halides. Chlorine is manufactured commercially by running an electric current through salt water. This process produces free chlorine, hydrogen, and sodium hydroxide. Chlorine is changed to its liquid form by compressing the gas, the resulting liquid is then shipped. Liquid chlorine is mixed into drinking water and swimming pools to destroy bacteria. Until recently, concerns about drinking water focused on eliminating pathogens. The chlorine used to reduce the risk of infectious disease may account for a substantial portion of the cancer risk associated with drinking water. Chlorination of drinking water was a major factor in the reduction in the mortality rates associated with waterborne pathogen.

The use of chlorine was believed to be safe. This view is evident in an article, which appeared on the back page of the New York Times. The report stated that with the use of chlorine, "Any municipal water supply can be made as pure as mountain spring water. Chlorination destroys all animal and microbial life, leaving no trace of itself afterwards." This statement reflected opinion accepted until recent years when halogenated organic compounds, such as chloroform, were identified in chlorinated drinking water supplies. Recent surveys show that these compounds are common in water supplies throughout the United States. These concerns about cancer risks associated with chemical contamination from chlorination by-products have resulted in numerous epidemiological studies.

These studies generally support the notion that by-products of chlorination are associated with increased cancer risks.

"The drinking of chlorinated water has finally been officially linked to an increased incidence of colon cancer. An epidemiologist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities completed a study of colon cancer victims and non-cancer patients and concluded that the drinking of chlorinated water for 15 years or more was conducive to a high rate of colon cancer." Health Freedom News, January/February 1987

"Long-term drinking of chlorinated water appears to increase a person's risk of developing bladder cancer as much as 80%," according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some 45,000 Americans are diagnosed every year with bladder cancer. St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987

"Although concentrations of these carcinogens are low...it is precisely these low levels which cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States." Report Issued By The Environmental Defense Fund

"Chlorine itself is not believed to be the problem. Scientists suspect that the actual cause of the bladder cancers is a group of chemicals that form as result of reactions between the chlorine and natural substances and pollutants in the water." (organic matter such as leaves and twigs.) St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987

Chlorine was first added to a community water system in 1908 in Chicago and was instrumental in eliminating many types of water-borne disease such as Cholera and Typhoid fever. Prior to chlorination, many major cities had death tolls of 1 in 1000 people from Typhoid alone. Chlorine has been used to disinfect municipal water for over 80 years and has had some positive effects on public health. In the 1970's it was discovered that chlorine, when added to water, forms Trihalomethanes (chlorinated by-products) by combining with certain naturally occurring organic matter such as vegetation and algae. In 1992 the American Journal of Public Health published a report that showed a 15% to 35% increase in certain types of cancer for people who consume chlorinated water. This report also stated that much of these effects were due to showering in chlorinated water. The National Cancer Institute estimates cancer risks for people who consume chlorinated water to be 93% higher than for people who do not. The effects of drinking chlorinated water have been debated for decades. However, most experts now agree that there are some significant risks related to consuming chlorine and chlorinated by-products. (www.waterwarning.com)

CHLORINATED WATER CAN AFFECT CANCER RISK - Epidemiology 1998;9(1):21-28,
29-35 Lifetime consumption of chlorinated tap water can more than double the risk of bladder and rectal cancers in certain individuals, two new studies conclude. Both studies examined the lifetime water-consumption patterns, diets and lifestyles of over 2,200 middle-aged and elderly Iowans suffering from either bladder, colon, or rectal cancers. Those profiles were then compared with those of a pool of nearly 2,000 healthy 'controls'.

Recent research has suggested that chlorine reacts with naturally-found organic compounds in water to form what the study authors call "chlorination byproducts." They say many of these byproducts are "mutagenic and/or carcinogenic." The first study found that smoking men who drank chlorinated tap water for more than 40 years faced double the risk of bladder cancer compared with smoking men who drank nonchlorinated water. Women who drank chlorinated water, on the other hand, had only slightly raised risks for bladder cancers, regardless of (their) smoking status.

The second study found that rates for rectal cancers for both sexes escalated with duration of consumption of chlorinated water. Individuals on low-fiber diets who also drank chlorinated water for over 40 years more than doubled their risk for rectal cancer, compared with lifetime drinkers of nonchlorinated water.

Similar differences were also found between the risk patterns of chlorinated-water drinkers who exercised at least once a week, and those who exercised just once a month, or less. Experts have long recommended regular exercise as one means of reducing one's risk of rectal and other cancers. The study found no link between the long-term consumption of chlorinated tap water and the incidence of colon cancer. This was not surprising, the researchers explain, since colon tumors have very different patterns of genesis and development compared with rectal tumors.

They speculate that the source of chlorinated tap water may help determine its potential to promote cancers. Since surface water (such as that found in lakes and reservoirs) usually contains higher concentrations of organic compounds, the study authors say it is also more likely to contain higher levels of (potentially carcinogenic) chlorination byproducts, compared with water sourced from deep underground.