The answer lies in the fact that medical professionals prescribing antibiotics in stronger (and stronger) dosages and more frequently means more antibiotics wind up in the general population which then, in turn, flushes them down the toilet as bodily waste.

So what’s the problem?

As a general rule most water treatment plants lack the technology to filter out many of the antibiotics and byproducts left over once antibiotics pass through the human body. Therefore it stands to reason that we will then consume some of those antibiotic byproducts in our drinking water.

While some believe the quantities contained in drinking water ought not pose a problem, we have, yet, to see a lot of data on the effects of consuming these products long-term… and who knows? Perhaps they may harm us in the way that long-term consumption of arsenic in drinking water does?

Some folks, like those in the CDC, say our overexposure to antibiotics has resulted in the creation of ‘superbugs’ that have adapted in ways that now allow them to survive antibiotic treatments.

The facts below scared us into thinking more about the amount of antibiotics we take — and eventually pass back into the environment as waste:

• Approximately 2 million people per year develop anti-biotic resistant infections and 23,000 people die annually from ineffective anti-biotic treatment.
   
• In 2007, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimated over 100,000 people died from infection received while in a hospital. Currently, it is unclear how many of those deaths are the result of drug resistant infection. ( source )

In no way, shape or form do we think doctors should 100% scrap the use of antibiotics, but the numbers do seem to show that the more antibiotics we as a population take, the more ‘weird’ and ‘funky’ mutated strains of bacteria keep popping up — and killing people in HOSPITALS.

Don’t you think a HOSPITAL would be the LAST place where these odd, lethal strains of bacteria would show up?

Moral of the story?

We feel that more research needs to get done on the effects of residual pharmaceuticals in the water supply. Are they causing us harm? Are they helping bacteria mutate into superbugs? How can we effectively remove them from the water supply? And finally, does a better means of treating infection exist that will allow us to slow down the mutation rate of bacteria strains?

Remember in War of the Worlds when the massively advanced, space travelling aliens got taken down by the common cold? We do!

Here’s the list of metropolitan areas, with the number of pharmaceuticals detected and some examples of specific drugs that were found, or where tests were negative, not conducted or awaiting results:

Albuquerque, N.M.: tests negative Arlington, Texas: 1 (unspecified pharmaceutical) Atlanta: 3 (acetaminophen, caffeine and cotinine) Austin, Texas: tests negative Baltimore: no testing Birmingham, Ala.: no testing Boston: no testing Charlotte, N.C.: no testing Chicago: no testing Cincinnati: 1 (caffeine) Cleveland: no testing Colorado Springs, Colo.: no testing Columbus, Ohio: 5 (azithromycin, roxithromycin, tylosin, virginiamycin and caffeine) Concord, Calif.: 2 (meprobamate and sulfamethoxazole) Dallas: results pending Denver: (unspecified antibiotics) Detroit: (unspecified drugs) El Paso, Texas: no testing Fairfax, Va.: no testing Fort Worth, Texas: no testing Fresno, Calif.: no testing

Honolulu: no testing Houston: no testing Indianapolis: 1 (caffeine) Jacksonville, Fla.: no testing Kansas City, Mo.: no testing Las Vegas: 3 (carbamazepine, meprobamate and phenytoin) Long Beach, Calif.: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin) Los Angeles: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin) Louisville, Ky.: 3 (caffeine, carbamazepine and phenytoin) Memphis, Tenn.: no testing Mesa, Ariz.: no testing Miami: no testing Milwaukee: 1 (cotinine) Minneapolis: 1 (caffeine) Nashville, Tenn.: no testing New Orleans: 3 (clofibric acid, estrone and naproxen) New York City: no testing Northern New Jersey: 7 (caffeine, carbamazepine, codeine, cotinine, dehydronifedipine, diphenhydramine and sulfathiazole) Oakland, Calif.: no testing Oklahoma City: no testing Omaha, Neb.: no testing

Orlando, Fla.: no testing Philadelphia: 56 (including amoxicillin, azithromycin, carbamazepine, diclofenac, prednisone and tetracycline) Phoenix: no testing Portland, Ore.: 4 (acetaminophen, caffeine, ibuprofen and sulfamethoxazole) Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, Md.: no testing Riverside County, Calif.: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin) Sacramento, Calif.: no testing San Antonio: no testing San Diego: 3 (ibuprofen, meprobamate and phenytoin) San Francisco: 1 (estradiol) San Jose, Calif.: no testing Santa Clara, Calif.: no testing Seattle: no testing Southern California: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin) Suffolk County, N.Y.: no testing Tucson, Ariz.: 3 (carbamazepine, dehydronifedipine and sulfamethoxazole) Tulsa, Okla.: no testing Virginia Beach, Va.: tests negative Washington, D.C.: 6 (carbamazepine, caffeine, ibuprofen, monensin, naproxen and sulfamethoxazole) Wichita, Kan.: no testing.

About the study:

At least one pharmaceutical was detected in tests of treated drinking water supplies for 24 major metropolitan areas, according to an Associated Press survey of 62 major water providers and data obtained from independent researchers.

Only 28 tested drinking water. Three of those said results were negative; Dallas says tests were conducted but results are not yet available. Thirty-four locations said no testing was conducted.

Test protocols varied widely. Some researchers looked only for one pharmaceutical or two; others looked for many.

Some water systems said tests had been negative, but the AP found independent research showing otherwise. Both prescription and non-prescription drugs were detected.

Because coffee and tobacco are so widely used, researchers say their byproducts are good indicators of the presence of pharmaceuticals. Thus, they routinely test for, and often find, both caffeine and nicotine’s metabolite cotinine more frequently than other drugs.

Source: The Associated Press ( our source )

So naturally the question many people may have at this time sounds a lot like, “OK, well can we test for these pharmaceuticals and other things ourselves?” Sadly, we report that we do not know of any at-home test kits for complex molecules such as pharmaceuticals.

You can, however, contact an independent water testing laboratory if you have concerns about the possibility of these items existing in your drinking water.

You can get the names and contact information for State Certified Laboratories in your area by calling 1-800-426-4791 or visiting http://www.epa.gov/safewater/labs/index.html.

Scientists are warning that manmade pollutants which have escaped into the environment mimic the female sex hormone oestrogen.

The males of species including fish, amphibians, birds, and reptiles have been feminised by exposure to sex hormone disrupting chemicals and have been found to be abnormally making egg yolk protein, normally made by females, according to the report by Chem Trust, environmental group.

The authors claim that the chemicals found in food packaging, cleaning products, plastics, sewage and paint cause genital deformities, reduce sperm count and “feminise” males.

Fish have been specifically affected by the gender changing chemicals. In one study, half the male fish in British lowland rivers had signs of being feminised – as chemicals which block the male hormone androgen had been released- leading to the development of eggs in their testes.

Although the report only looked at the impact of gender bending chemicals on the animal world, its authors say the findings have disturbing implications for human health.

Gywnne Lyons, a former Government advisor on chemical pollution and author of the report, said: “Urgent action is needed to control gender bending chemicals and more resources are needed for monitoring wildlife.

“If wildlife populations crash, it will be too late. Unless enough males contribute to the next generation there is a real threat to animal populations in the long term,” she added.

The paper lists the affected species and include, flounder in UK estuaries, cod in the North Sea, cane toads in Florida, peregrine falcons in Spain, and turtles from the Great Lakes in North America.

Some male roaches have changed sex completely after exposure to oestrogen from the Contraceptive pill pouring out of sewage works. (source)

The obvious question becomes, “Does no one test the quality of our drinking water for potentially and seriously harmful contaminants?”

Yes and no. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has two sets of established ‘standards’ by which it judges drinking water quality: Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards. The first regulates known threats to human health such as known toxic chemicals, deadly periodic table elements, various forms of bacteria, pathogenic viruses, etc. The second regulates contaminants know to ruin drinking water’s aesthetic properties such as taste, color and odor.

Why have the chemicals and chemical by-products that scientists and researchers now believe may result in the mutation of and subsequent femininisation of males not gotten added to either of those Drinking Water Standards? Probably because no one had definitive proof of their potentially damaging effects on humans until now.

“Currently, federal and state legislation mandates testing and treatment for a wide array of tap water contaminants. A vast majority of public and private water utilities provide drinking water that meets or exceeds U.S. EPA and state drinking water safety standards. Additional legislation is being considered.” (source)

The next logical question which comes to most people’s minds at this point centers around learning how to effectively remove potentially dangerous chemicals such as pharmaceuticals from their drinking water. On that topic,  NSF International (National Sanitation Foundation) had this to say:

“While home water treatment systems are not specifically certified to reduce pharmaceuticals at this time, many of these products can help provide additional protection against a wide array of other contaminants, including arsenic, lead and cysts, sometimes found in drinking water.” (source)

More or less that means no one has stepped up and proposed a solid solution for getting the thousands of potentially harmful pharmaceutical and chemical waste and by-products out of our water supply. Kind of scary, right?

So for right now it seems as though the public’s best protection against drinking water contaminants comes in the form of arming itself with knowledge by testing its drinking water, or getting it tested, and applying that knowledge by installing the correct drinking water filtration system if needed.