Leaky sewers are likely responsible for large amounts of medications in streams(acs.org)
acs.org
Leaky sewers are likely responsible for large amounts of medications in streams
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2021/acs-presspac-august-18-2021/leaky-sewers-are-likely-responsible-for-large-amounts-of-medications-in-streams.html
112 comments
Typically > 90% of any drug taken orally is immediately discharged through the first pass metabolism (urine primarily, and breath and feces).* The body is good at disposing of substances it isn't looking for, especially when ingested. There are a lot of scare stories about the result (male fish in the Great Lakes with ovaries; therapeutic levels of antidepressants in the Edinburgh water supply, etc) but this is the first article I've seen that talks about the path.
Because of this so-called "first path" effect you end up taking enough that hopefully some (and enough) "gets to the required location" and not too much gets where it's not wanted (most of what counts as "side effects"). The approval process focuses on this and ignores anything excreted, which shouldn't be surprising: with few exceptions the process is #1 safety and #2 minimal clinically effective dosing.
* former pharmaceutical scientist; have designed protocols approved by the FDA.
Because of this so-called "first path" effect you end up taking enough that hopefully some (and enough) "gets to the required location" and not too much gets where it's not wanted (most of what counts as "side effects"). The approval process focuses on this and ignores anything excreted, which shouldn't be surprising: with few exceptions the process is #1 safety and #2 minimal clinically effective dosing.
* former pharmaceutical scientist; have designed protocols approved by the FDA.
Uhhh, isn’t first pass metabolism a metabolic pathway, not an excretion one? In other words, it’s the liver taking a first crack at breaking things down enzymatically at anything absorbed before it gets distributed around to post-liver bloodstream?
gut -> liver yes, but the relevant comment I was responding to was about how much dosage does not provide therapy and how it ends up in the water.
Out of curiosity, does this change at all if a person has a fatty liver or cirrhosis? Asking because a very large number of people in first world countries are pre-diabetic or have metabolic syndrome sometimes referred to as syndrome-x.
Exactly. Excretion of a drug unchanged is actually pretty rare. Most drugs get metabolized to something else before excreted.
Definitely (you can't generally pass anything through the liver without something happening to it) Unfortunately many metabolites also have some effects (as with the fish example)
> Obviously, people shouldn't do that.
I'm not sure this is obvious or even particularly well-publicized.
The "official recommendation" in the U.S. for many meds is that they be flushed down the toilet, especially scheduled/controlled substances. The FDA maintains a "flush list" [1] of medications that you are specifically instructed to dispose of by flushing. However, even for medications not on the official flush list, it's common to be informed by reasonable authorities that you should dispose of them by flushing -- e.g. I had to sign paperwork at my doctor's office affirming that I'd responsibly dispose of my unused ADHD meds by flushing them down the toilet before my dr would write the prescription. This was seconded by the drug/alcohol training I was given as a condition of attending college, which stated that you should flush all unused medication.
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/disposal-unused-medicines-what-you...
I'm not sure this is obvious or even particularly well-publicized.
The "official recommendation" in the U.S. for many meds is that they be flushed down the toilet, especially scheduled/controlled substances. The FDA maintains a "flush list" [1] of medications that you are specifically instructed to dispose of by flushing. However, even for medications not on the official flush list, it's common to be informed by reasonable authorities that you should dispose of them by flushing -- e.g. I had to sign paperwork at my doctor's office affirming that I'd responsibly dispose of my unused ADHD meds by flushing them down the toilet before my dr would write the prescription. This was seconded by the drug/alcohol training I was given as a condition of attending college, which stated that you should flush all unused medication.
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/disposal-unused-medicines-what-you...
Even more annoyingly, US pharmacies often refuse to accept leftover medicines for proper disposal. They'll hand out packets of stuff that makes opioids unusable to addicts, that's all.
Back in Europe, you could just hand off your unused meds to the local pharmacy and rest assured they'll be handled more responsibly.
Back in Europe, you could just hand off your unused meds to the local pharmacy and rest assured they'll be handled more responsibly.
And if you didn’t pee it out, it wouldn’t get to the right spot to treat a urinary tract or kidney infection.
If you didn't pee it out it would remain in your system longer, limiting treatment options if it is in any way toxic. Or, if you don't pee it out it might over time break down into more toxic substances.
Or break down into less toxic substances, or things that are more likely to get excreted.
There's only one way out*, so you always pee it out somehow.
* Ignoring minute traces of minerals that are lost through transpiration
* Ignoring minute traces of minerals that are lost through transpiration
> if it is in any way toxic
That's its whole purpose. Just look at the name "antibiotic"...
That's its whole purpose. Just look at the name "antibiotic"...
Toxic to bacteria is different than toxic to humans cells
[deleted]
So if I'm reading the article correctly:
1. It doesn't say anything about whether the medications would have been removed if they went through a wastewater treatment facility.
2. It's basically saying we accidentally performed a tracking experiment by adding compounds that don't occur (in those levels) naturally to wastewater, and then seeing where we could find those chemicals unexpectedly -- it's like dumping fluorescent dye down your drains to see if you can find it spotting in the yard, but with pharmaceuticals.
1. It doesn't say anything about whether the medications would have been removed if they went through a wastewater treatment facility.
2. It's basically saying we accidentally performed a tracking experiment by adding compounds that don't occur (in those levels) naturally to wastewater, and then seeing where we could find those chemicals unexpectedly -- it's like dumping fluorescent dye down your drains to see if you can find it spotting in the yard, but with pharmaceuticals.
Caffeine is often used as that free "marker chemical" for tracing where sewage ends up.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Determination-of-caffe...
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Determination-of-caffe...
Acesulfame potassium (an artificial sweetener commonly known as Ace-K) which passes through in urine has also been used to determine the concentration of urine in pool water.
In case you're from the U.S. and wondering why you've never heard of this particular sweetener, I looked it up. It appears to be one of the ingredients in Equal, along with aspartame.
Wouldn’t that dépend a lot on the consumption of the pool’s entrants?
For a private pool with a few users, sure, one person could skew the results with a diet coke big-gulp, but for a busy public pool with thousands of users, then I'd think that some assumptions about average intake would give reasonable results.
It’s assuming the average pool goer consumes an average amount of artificial sweetener. Even further it’s making assumptions about the average person that pees in a pool.
If you're only interested in measuring increase over time, then the only assumption you need to make is that average consumption of Ace-K remains constant over time. And, I suppose that people that consume Ace-K pee in pools at the same rate as other people. As someone who doesn't pee in pools (but has peed in the ocean), I don't know how valid that is.
I've looked at countless sewer inspection videos--those pipes can be up to 80 years old and are often in pretty bad shape. Sewage leaking into the groundwater is a major problem but is very hard to detect and locate unfortunately.
Shameless plug: We're a startup building AI to detect leakages in sewers and tell cities when to fix their underground pipes. If you want to help us solve this problem and make cities more sustainable, let me know at [email protected] :)
Shameless plug: We're a startup building AI to detect leakages in sewers and tell cities when to fix their underground pipes. If you want to help us solve this problem and make cities more sustainable, let me know at [email protected] :)
On the surface, this looks like just another "We're using AI to detect X" cash grab. Are you just using image recognition for a novel application or what?
That's kind of a harsh way to express curiously, but I was also interested. If you go to https://www.hades.ai/, you can see that they use image recognition on videos. I can imagine why that might be an improvement over manually watching hours of sewer videos looking for cracks.
Most is kidney passthrough into pee. Second is combined sanitary AND rain runoff sewers - which bypass treatment when there is high rain. Third is treatment plant pass through - many drugs are not eliminated in sewage plants (it varies a lot with the drug)
> Second is combined sanitary AND rain runoff sewers - which bypass treatment when there is high rain.
This is a very difficult problem. If the sanitary sewers aren't in great condition, rising ground water levels can leak into the sanitary sewers. Sewers that were initially well made might be damaged over time by people digging, the ground shifting, or tree roots pushing things around. One way or the other, when high ground waters get into a sanitary sewer, you now have a situation where those sewers are overflowing. And what can be done with that overflow? Let it pool up in the streets? Sending it down the storm drains is about the best you can do at that point.
This is a very difficult problem. If the sanitary sewers aren't in great condition, rising ground water levels can leak into the sanitary sewers. Sewers that were initially well made might be damaged over time by people digging, the ground shifting, or tree roots pushing things around. One way or the other, when high ground waters get into a sanitary sewer, you now have a situation where those sewers are overflowing. And what can be done with that overflow? Let it pool up in the streets? Sending it down the storm drains is about the best you can do at that point.
I think the original comment is referencing cities that built early sewer systems where they do not have separate sanitary and stormwater lines. That is by far the more pressing problem: street drains (and often house gutters) dump directly into the same lines. These systems are usually in big cities and were built before sewage treatment existed. Building enough capacity to handle stormwater surges is often not practical: what was relatively clean rainwater is now contaminated with sewage.
Combined sewers that are in perfect maintenance include provisions to overflow by design.
I'm not talking about combined sewers. Systems in which the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer are completely separate can become combined sewers when the sanitary sewer is inundated with more infiltration/inflow than it can handle. When this happens, the sanitary sewer overflows into the street or people's homes. That sewage overflowing into the street will then make its way into the storm sewer.
There is no easy solution to this. Building the sanitary sewers bigger is the obvious solution, except that costs more money and a lot of places don't have much money to spare (corruption, poverty, etc.) Furthermore, just how over-designed does a sanitary sewer have to be? Climate change makes this difficult to predict decades in advance.
BTW [intentionally] combined sewers are problematic even when they're not overflowing. Diluting sewage with a bunch of water increases the cost and decreases the efficacy of treatment.
There is no easy solution to this. Building the sanitary sewers bigger is the obvious solution, except that costs more money and a lot of places don't have much money to spare (corruption, poverty, etc.) Furthermore, just how over-designed does a sanitary sewer have to be? Climate change makes this difficult to predict decades in advance.
BTW [intentionally] combined sewers are problematic even when they're not overflowing. Diluting sewage with a bunch of water increases the cost and decreases the efficacy of treatment.
> Diluting sewage with a bunch of water increases the cost and decreases the efficacy of treatment.
Combined sewers are definitely problematic, but if diluting costs more depends on the inputs to the treatment plant. Some plants need to dilute with fresh water, and storm sewers are freshish, so it might reduce costs to use storm water rather than potable water.
If all else is equal, in my mind, I'd run the storm sewer to the treatment plant and treat it when there's capacity and let it flow when there isn't. Of course, most of the seasonal difference in sewage flow is from groundwater infiltration, so that probably doesn't make a lot of sense... Both systems will be at higher flows at the same time, for the most part.
Combined sewers are definitely problematic, but if diluting costs more depends on the inputs to the treatment plant. Some plants need to dilute with fresh water, and storm sewers are freshish, so it might reduce costs to use storm water rather than potable water.
If all else is equal, in my mind, I'd run the storm sewer to the treatment plant and treat it when there's capacity and let it flow when there isn't. Of course, most of the seasonal difference in sewage flow is from groundwater infiltration, so that probably doesn't make a lot of sense... Both systems will be at higher flows at the same time, for the most part.
If that's the case, we should be seeing correlation: higher amounts of medication in the waterways of older US cities, where sewer and stormwater systems were built to an earlier idea of best-practices.
This should be relatively straightforward to investigate.
This should be relatively straightforward to investigate.
Sure, assuming anyone has a desire to pump money into a large comparative study like this.
It's an extremely reasonable hypothesis but you also have other factors to deal with (size of city resulting in more wear and tear on infrastructure, other environmental factors that could cause deterioration of pipes, water hard/softness, quality of wastewater processing facilities). Age would likely be a major factor but not the only factor.
It's an extremely reasonable hypothesis but you also have other factors to deal with (size of city resulting in more wear and tear on infrastructure, other environmental factors that could cause deterioration of pipes, water hard/softness, quality of wastewater processing facilities). Age would likely be a major factor but not the only factor.
Sometimes I wonder if placing all this important infrastructure under ground was a big mistake. Seems like issues like this and the Flint water crisis would be alot easier to remediate if the pipes were easily accessible.
I’m not sure above-ground pipes makes a lot of sense. Now every building has to maintain a pump to get sewage high enough off the ground that vehicles can pass under the pipes. And if those pumps fail (e.g. power outage), all of a sudden everyone is dealing with sewage backflow.
Something I’d like to see more of is utility tunnels where all utilities are undergrounded in a single tunnel with with easy access. Yes it’s expensive, but could work out in the long run. Just look at how much utility relocation can drive up the cost for simple projects like BRT.
Something I’d like to see more of is utility tunnels where all utilities are undergrounded in a single tunnel with with easy access. Yes it’s expensive, but could work out in the long run. Just look at how much utility relocation can drive up the cost for simple projects like BRT.
Let's not forget that the standard place to put water and sewage pipes is "below the frost line".
> And if those pumps fail (e.g. power outage), all of a sudden everyone is dealing with sewage backflow.
While disgusting...this would have the side effect of those being repaired very quickly I imagine.
While disgusting...this would have the side effect of those being repaired very quickly I imagine.
I suppose it depends on the state. If you’re in Texas or California good luck.
> Something I’d like to see more of is utility tunnels where all utilities are undergrounded in a single tunnel with with easy access.
You've just described the Paris sewer system, where the sewage tunels also house fresh water, power, comms…
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/wRHK1kkKpNBXt4WWuCQW...
You've just described the Paris sewer system, where the sewage tunels also house fresh water, power, comms…
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/wRHK1kkKpNBXt4WWuCQW...
You don't necessarily even have to tunnel, like one would do with a borer. I think that would be cost-prohibitive.
Trench and cover, probably with streets.
But it would create a lot of extra void to maintain that would need its own drainage, maintenance to keep it free of debris and pests, inspections to make sure they don't collapse, and security to keep people out. Feasibility is probably commensurate with urban density.
Trench and cover, probably with streets.
But it would create a lot of extra void to maintain that would need its own drainage, maintenance to keep it free of debris and pests, inspections to make sure they don't collapse, and security to keep people out. Feasibility is probably commensurate with urban density.
There's also the issue of where you would put all the spoils from tunneling. Historically that was in the ocean and rivers to make more land, but this is frowned upon for a variety of reasons now, the least being that not all types of soil work well as landfill.
How do pipes work when terrain isn’t leveled but rather very sloped?
Sewage pumps in the pipes and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebeanlage (sorry do not know the english word for that)
Synthetic fibres in tissues are a huge issues for these pumps..
Lift station or pump station, I believe.
https://htt.io/resources/lift-station-basics/
https://htt.io/resources/lift-station-basics/
>> if the pipes were easily accessible.
Also more accessible to damage from vandals and car crashes. And they would freeze in winter. And they would expand/contract with temperature changes, leading to increased cracking etc. The only places that use above ground water/sewer pipes are those with unsupportive soils such as permafrost or deep sand that would cause breaks.
Also more accessible to damage from vandals and car crashes. And they would freeze in winter. And they would expand/contract with temperature changes, leading to increased cracking etc. The only places that use above ground water/sewer pipes are those with unsupportive soils such as permafrost or deep sand that would cause breaks.
Not apples-to-apples, but having living in places with above-ground and below-ground power supply, I know which one I've found more reliable.
Yes, maintenance gets more expensive, but that maintenance should be far less frequent. And hopefully more predictable (true maintenance vs emergency repair).
Yes, maintenance gets more expensive, but that maintenance should be far less frequent. And hopefully more predictable (true maintenance vs emergency repair).
Back in 1999 we had a massive storm in France. It put large parts of the country in a blackout in the middle of winter because all the electricity infrastructure was above ground. Out neighbours in Germany, who buried everything, were fine. We had water, as it was already underground. Nowadays everything is systematically buried.
I'll take the odd risk of contamination and excavator-induced failure over fragile and inconsistent infrastructure every day.
I'll take the odd risk of contamination and excavator-induced failure over fragile and inconsistent infrastructure every day.
Doesn't the Michigan area get cold during the winters? There are many reasons why pipes are underground, even in hotter climates freak weather incidents do happen.
Pros and cons.
I'd imagine a lot more problems would occur if pipes were exposed to the elements, for example.
And of course, the issue of where to put the pipes when they're above ground.
I'd imagine a lot more problems would occur if pipes were exposed to the elements, for example.
And of course, the issue of where to put the pipes when they're above ground.
Medications in streams are good right? At least fish will be healthy. /s
Shouldn't we be placing the blame on people flushing meds down the toilet? Or are they leeching from peoples urine and waste?
It is in the urine. Drug companies have long resisted any investigation of the impact of their drugs once they have exited the first patient. The necessary implication would be that waste from patients on certain drugs should be treated as hazardous, or even radioactive. That's Pandora's box.
A parallel question is whether the body of a deceased patient should be treated as hazardous. We do tend to bury or cremate them without a thought towards whether these drugs will survive and impact the local environment.
A parallel question is whether the body of a deceased patient should be treated as hazardous. We do tend to bury or cremate them without a thought towards whether these drugs will survive and impact the local environment.
>> The necessary implication would be that waste from patients on certain drugs should be treated as hazardous, or even radioactive. That's pandora's box.
So here's the bit that I don't get. When my friend had to get her cat a medical scan, the cat had to have radiactive contrast ingested/injected. She was then told to carefully, without touching it, collect all poop made by the cat in the next 7 days, put it in this special container, then bring it back to the vet for safe disposal.
However, when humans have the same procedure done....no one cares? You drink radioactive contrast, then pee and poop as normal, it all goes down our drains. How does that make any sense?
So here's the bit that I don't get. When my friend had to get her cat a medical scan, the cat had to have radiactive contrast ingested/injected. She was then told to carefully, without touching it, collect all poop made by the cat in the next 7 days, put it in this special container, then bring it back to the vet for safe disposal.
However, when humans have the same procedure done....no one cares? You drink radioactive contrast, then pee and poop as normal, it all goes down our drains. How does that make any sense?
Human waste gets heavily diluted, essentially immediately, and even more so once it leaves the waste treatment plant for the local river, lake, or ocean.
Cat shit stays intact when it goes to a landfill, and thus would cause a potential hot spot that humans would not.
Cat shit stays intact when it goes to a landfill, and thus would cause a potential hot spot that humans would not.
That makes sense, but then why not then advise the pet owner to flush the cat's poop down the toilet? Seems simpler than having a special container and a return trip to the vet.
It's not just the poop, it can be the urine, too.
Cat litter + indoor plumbing = not a good time.
Cat litter + indoor plumbing = not a good time.
OP said the vet said to return the poop, not the entire contents of the kitty litter box.
Hey, it's me - my friend specifically told me about collecting poop from the litter box, not the whole thing. But maybe she got it wrong, I'm not sure.
When our cat had a similar procedure, they advised that it was okay to flush the cat poop (assuming you could separate it from the litter).
I did think it seemed kind of silly though. Like the state is really gonna hunt down whoever threw away radioactive cat poop.
The whole thing was more about 9/11 / terrorism than environmental damage.
I did think it seemed kind of silly though. Like the state is really gonna hunt down whoever threw away radioactive cat poop.
The whole thing was more about 9/11 / terrorism than environmental damage.
Wait, are you saying it's possible to construct a nuclear device out of cat poop?
It’s the same reason radiology technicians leave the room before imaging a patient. You want to reduce exposure to unnecessary radiation.
> However, when humans have the same procedure done....no one cares? You drink radioactive contrast, then pee and poop as normal, it all goes down our drains. How does that make any sense?
Not necessarily? My father had to collect his waste for disposal for a week following a scan where he had to drink the radioactive contrast stuff. Made easier by him being in the hospital for the duration and then some.
Not necessarily? My father had to collect his waste for disposal for a week following a scan where he had to drink the radioactive contrast stuff. Made easier by him being in the hospital for the duration and then some.
Humans don't poop in a box and have someone else handle it? Or at least their caregivers assume they don't.
Many people in rural areas use composting toilets. It's a popular trend with those into self sustaining homesteads. The poop is generally going to be handled by a family member and mixed in with compost. After the bacteria in the compost breaks it down, it is then mixed in with other fertilizer and earth and used in greenhouses. The products grown in the greenhouse may be shared with neighbors or sold locally. Just adding for completely sake.
Correct. We poop into a pipe that takes it to a wastewater treatment facility where government employees handle it.
Do wastewater plants use Geiger counters/data loggers on waste streams?
I don't think that there is a need for monitoring since radiotracer usually have a short halflife, they usually use fluoride-18 (half life 110min) to replace a -OH or a well placed -H in a molecule that bind to the site of interest (ex: glucose -> fluorodeoxyglucose, levodopa -> fluorodopa).
> Humans don't poop in a box and have someone else handle it?
Well.. not usually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedpan
Well.. not usually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedpan
Also composting toilets.
If it's safe, then this is just a revenue scam for the doctor/insurance companies.
If it's actually not safe, then they are irradiating humans for fun.
If it's actually not safe, then they are irradiating humans for fun.
Why not both? It's not safe, but it's better than other options! Why I don't get is why the cat owner can't just flush the irradiated poop? Maybe litter in the pipes isn't good?
Why would you flush what rightfully belongs in the ground?
You could say the same for human waste
> The necessary implication would be that waste from patients on certain drugs should be treated as hazardous, or even radioactive.
I thought that was common for patients on chemotherapy drugs? I remember seeing some sign in a hospital room's bathroom about it, but the details escape me.
I thought that was common for patients on chemotherapy drugs? I remember seeing some sign in a hospital room's bathroom about it, but the details escape me.
Yes, but, this is sort of "priced in" so although your waste is measurably radioactive it enters the same stream.
> Drug companies have long resisted any investigation of the impact of their drugs once they have exited the first patient.
Not even drugs necessarily. The theory is out there that a hidden but significant influence on society is large-scale male consumption of estrogen via contamination from women's urine.
Not even drugs necessarily. The theory is out there that a hidden but significant influence on society is large-scale male consumption of estrogen via contamination from women's urine.
It's not a theory, it's a debunked hypothesis. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208125813.h...
> Contrary to popular belief, birth control pills account for less than 1 percent of the estrogens found in the nation's drinking water supplies
> Some research cited in the report suggests that animal manure accounts for 90 percent of estrogens in the environment. Other research estimates that if just 1 percent of the estrogens in livestock waste reached waterways, it would comprise 15 percent of the estrogens in the world's water supply.
> Some research cited in the report suggests that animal manure accounts for 90 percent of estrogens in the environment. Other research estimates that if just 1 percent of the estrogens in livestock waste reached waterways, it would comprise 15 percent of the estrogens in the world's water supply.
There are two rather distinct questions:
1. How much estrogen gets into the water supply from birth control pills?
2. How much estrogen gets into the water supply from women's urine?
(There are other similar questions, of course.)
These two questions are related in that #1 is mostly a subset of #2. But concluding that #1 is an insignificant source of estrogen doesn't tell you much about #2. Women produce estrogen on their own.
1. How much estrogen gets into the water supply from birth control pills?
2. How much estrogen gets into the water supply from women's urine?
(There are other similar questions, of course.)
These two questions are related in that #1 is mostly a subset of #2. But concluding that #1 is an insignificant source of estrogen doesn't tell you much about #2. Women produce estrogen on their own.
It appears that article say the source being urine waste of women taking birth control pills is debunked, it says nothing about the long-term health impacts of drinking water being contaminated with estrogen or what the sources of the other 99% of estrogens found in drinking water are. So while the causal link may be false, the underlying claim is still a concern.
It's actually a massive problem in the West, especially the US, that the average person is exposed to tons of endocrine disruptors in the food and water supply, everything from estrogens in the water to plasticizers in your food wrappings on your take out or in the store.
It's actually a massive problem in the West, especially the US, that the average person is exposed to tons of endocrine disruptors in the food and water supply, everything from estrogens in the water to plasticizers in your food wrappings on your take out or in the store.
What does a libertarian have to say about market players preventing normal functioning of the market by restricting knowledge like actively resisting studies on products?
Don't like it? Move where there isn't radioactive water. /s
Get sick. Get put on a crap ton of medications. You found out that most have all sorts of crazy effects on the body. Ones not listed as side effects, or very rare, or even common but doctor has never heard of.
Or your fun ones where 2 conflict in crazy ways.
Poor fish downstream don’t stand a chance.
Poor fish downstream don’t stand a chance.
A bigger question in my mind is whether this is a real problem, or ever could be with higher concentrations likely to occur in this way. Certainly not having medications in the tap water seems safer than having any, but what amount of what specific chemicals is likely to have a downstream effect? This poses a much broader question about low dosage toxicity for any number of chemicals in fresh water, ranging from agricultural run-off to industrial waste and spillage. Hard to study.
>> Certainly not having medications in the tap water seems safer
Except for fluoride and chlorine. Small amounts of those chemicals in water are a net health benefit. Society has to be careful about adding anything, but 100% pure water isn't the healthiest choice no matter what the commercials say.
Also iodine in salt.
Except for fluoride and chlorine. Small amounts of those chemicals in water are a net health benefit. Society has to be careful about adding anything, but 100% pure water isn't the healthiest choice no matter what the commercials say.
Also iodine in salt.
It's possible water without chlorine is beneficial too. Doesn't Paris use ozone and/or UVC instead?
I also wonder about fluoride's benefits if we use toothpaste and mouthwash that has it. For example, I know people on well water or city water without it that don't have teeth issues.
I also wonder about fluoride's benefits if we use toothpaste and mouthwash that has it. For example, I know people on well water or city water without it that don't have teeth issues.
Paris still uses chlorine. It may also use UV but nothing kills bacteria as effectively and constantly as bleach. In a large population with lots of ancient pipes not using chlorine would be very dangerous.
I wonder where I heard that, or if it's a different city.
Also, they are generally using chloramine, not sodium hypochlorite.
Also, they are generally using chloramine, not sodium hypochlorite.
I don't think chlorine in water is considered a medication. Chlorine in water is added with the intention of disinfecting the water, for human health reasons, but that disinfection happens before the water is consumed. The chlorine is treating the water, not the humans who drink the water.
Natural flowing water (in streams, rivers) contains ions of calcium, magnesium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, potassium and fluor, with chlorine content around 10mg/l. Tap water without chlorine treatment would be devoid of most of those and that could be argued unhealthy.
That is - assuming the natural levels are healthy for us.
That is - assuming the natural levels are healthy for us.
Part of the idea of wastewater treatment plants is to address things like chemicals in wastewater. If the pipes on the way leak the tainted water, it can't be treated. Of course there are also "forever chemicals" that we can't neutralize, but we have no hope of dealing with chemically tainted water that never gets to the locations capable of addressing it.
So we should all pee in bottles and ship them to waste water plant.
Perhaps we could build some sort of hyper loop to send them in bulk to speed up the process.
Diagram of the idea, reversed https://xkcd.com/1599/
Perhaps we could build some sort of hyper loop to send them in bulk to speed up the process.
Diagram of the idea, reversed https://xkcd.com/1599/
No, we should pay the taxes or user fees needed to maintain our infrastructure in a state of good repair.
Sadly it's not the taxpayer that decides where the money goes. Getting new military airplanes, putting them in their own pockets, and bribing the media with it seems to be preferable for politicians.
The federal government doesn’t maintain sewer lines anywhere in the US except maybe on military bases and the like. At least in California we have special tax districts that are managed by a voter-elected board. The voters literally get to decide on infrastructure spending, at least in California.
No, we fix the leaky pipes.
Where did your conclusion come from? Why would adding extra waste (the bottles) to the equation result in less contamination? What about my statement made you think "this man wants people to bottle their waste, rather than maintaining/improving existing infrastructure that addresses the issue"?
Where did your conclusion come from? Why would adding extra waste (the bottles) to the equation result in less contamination? What about my statement made you think "this man wants people to bottle their waste, rather than maintaining/improving existing infrastructure that addresses the issue"?
"You killed him."
"No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him."
- Collateral (2004 film)
"No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him."
- Collateral (2004 film)
Even if that was true, why should we shift the blame away from an entity with plausible ability to solve it, and towards the great mass of people who are impossible to hold accountable?
"entity with plausible ability to solve it"
I didn't see a mention of an overall solution in the article. I see they mention that leaky pipes could be the cause for that stream. Is there evidence to suggest that the sewage treatment facility actually removes these chemicals?
I didn't see a mention of an overall solution in the article. I see they mention that leaky pipes could be the cause for that stream. Is there evidence to suggest that the sewage treatment facility actually removes these chemicals?
A quick google search suggests that a typical basic sewage treatment plant doesn't do a great job of removing pharmaceuticals. But we already do have some plants which are pretty good at it. So this isn't even really an engineering problem at this point, it's a political(funding) problem.
So you're saying if it were coming from people throwing meds down the toilet, we should blame the drug makers? Is that what you're saying or am I misunderstanding?
> we should blame the drug makers?
No, of course not.
What I am saying is that our best shot at getting pharmaceuticals out of fresh water is better sewer & water treatment. We can control that. It is implausible to control people who are, within the privacy of their bathroom, chucking random things down the toilet. The only thing that would stop that behavior is immediate consequences to them personally.
Edit: And this assumes it is all people chucking drugs down the toilet. If it's coming through their urine, then we're definitely back to water treatment being the only plausible answer.
No, of course not.
What I am saying is that our best shot at getting pharmaceuticals out of fresh water is better sewer & water treatment. We can control that. It is implausible to control people who are, within the privacy of their bathroom, chucking random things down the toilet. The only thing that would stop that behavior is immediate consequences to them personally.
Edit: And this assumes it is all people chucking drugs down the toilet. If it's coming through their urine, then we're definitely back to water treatment being the only plausible answer.
Do you want to go and stage some awareness campaign to tell people not to flush their meds and hope they don't, or would you rather we be proactive about the reality we're in and do something about it now?
I have seen many news reports of free medication drops offs and asking people not to flush them. Does that answer your condescending question?
I don't know anyone who flushes their meds. Is this really a big issue? I thought it's mostly waste based sources.
[deleted]
Obviously, people shouldn't do that. But some antibiotics go through the body almost unchanged. When penicillin was first developed they used to recycle the antibiotic from the patient's urine over and over because they had so little of it.