What's Coming From Your Tap? water pollution water filters

[Guest guest]

What's Coming From Your Tap?

By *ANJALI ATHAVALEY*

August 19, 2008; Page D1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910526011851511.html?mod=todays_us_personal_j\

ournal

America's latest drinking problem isn't about alcohol.

Concerned about the cost of bottled water -- and its environmental

consequences -- many people are turning back to tap water to quench

their thirst. But as evidence mounts of contaminants in public systems,

unease about the water supply is growing.

Engineers say that U.S. water quality is among the world's best and is

regulated by some of the most stringent standards. But as detection

technology improves, utilities are finding more contaminants in water

systems. Earlier this year, media reports of trace amounts of

pharmaceuticals in water across the country drew attention from U.S.

senators and environmental groups, who are now pushing for regulation of

these substances in water systems.

[photo]

Getty Images

Of particular concern, experts say, are endocrine-disrupting compounds

-- found in birth-control pills, mood-stabilizers and other drugs --

which are linked to birth defects in wildlife. Also alarming are

antibiotics, which if present in water systems, even in small amounts,

could contribute to the rise of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, or

so-called super bugs.

Many pharmaceuticals taken by humans are excreted into urine, or are

flushed intentionally down the toilet. Even though wastewater is

treated, trace amounts of the drugs are often not eliminated. Also,

drugs found in the waste of animals treated with hormones and

antibiotics can eventually end up in groundwater.

The actual health effects of drugs in water systems are unclear. The

levels that have been detected are relatively small compared with those

of other regulated contaminants, such as mercury and benzene. A 2008

study funded by the Denver-based Awwa Research Foundation -- a nonprofit

research group that was established by the American Water Works

Association -- concluded that it is " highly unlikely " that

pharmaceuticals will pose a threat to human health.

But many medical experts argue that more studies need to be done -- and

note that the amount of drugs in the water matters less than who drinks

it. Some drugs, even in small amounts, can be especially harmful to

infants, pregnant women or those with chronic health conditions, for

example.

The publicity has frightened many consumers. Pfeil, 39, a

stay-at-home mother with four sons in Mason, Ohio, says it does concern

her, " especially when thinking of my children's welfare. "

She says she started using bottled water at home 15 years ago when she

was pregnant with her eldest son because she thought it was safer than

tap water. Three years ago, though, her family switched to a PUR Water

Filter System, made by Procter & Gamble

<http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn & symbol=PG> Co., to save

money and to reduce the waste resulting from plastic bottles.

(Environmentalists also point to the energy wasted in transporting

bottled water.)

Now, says Ms. Pfeil, she has concerns about consuming trace amounts of

pharmaceuticals that the filter may not eliminate. A spokeswoman for

P & G's PUR division says it " cannot confirm the reduction of

pharmaceuticals in water with carbon filters. "

Sales of PUR filters are at an all-time high, says the spokeswoman, an

indication of tap water's new popularity. U.S. consumers spent $16.8

billion on bottled water in 2007, up 12% from the year before, according

to Beverage Digest, a trade publication. But growth has slowed over the

last three years.

Drugs are only one category of contaminants found in tap water. A 2005

study released by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, a

Washington-based research group, found that tap water in 42 states is

contaminated with more than 140 unregulated chemicals, including MTBE,

perchlorate and industrial solvents.

*Protesting a Disinfectant*

Even chemicals used to clean and disinfect drinking water are causing

worry. Citizens' groups in states such as California, New York and

Vermont are protesting the increasing use of chloramine -- a combination

of chlorine and ammonia -- to disinfect drinking water. Utilities are

using chloramine because of Environmental Protection Agency limits on

chlorine byproducts.

Citizens Concerned About Chloramine in the San Francisco Bay Area, an

activist group, says that hundreds of residents have had reactions, such

as rashes and respiratory problems, to the disinfectant. Some byproducts

of chloramine can be more toxic than chlorine byproducts, says

Plewa, a professor of genetics at the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign who has studied disinfection byproducts.

The EPA says chloramine is safe in drinking water and has been used for

decades.

In the absence of federal regulation of certain chemicals in water

systems, some states have stepped in. California, for one, has set

standards for various compounds that are not regulated by the EPA,

including perchlorate, an ingredient used in rocket fuel that was

spilled into groundwater during the Cold War and has been found in many

water systems. Massachusetts has set standards for perchlorate and

requires that water utilities in the state test for MTBE, a gasoline

additive.

" What you see in many states is a reaction to the lack of action at the

federal level, " says Suzanne Condon, director of the Bureau of

Environmental Health at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

*Tap Versus Bottled*

Health concerns extend to bottled water, says Janssen, a science

fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, a nonprofit

environmental advocacy group based in New York. " A lot of bottled water

is actually tap water, so there is no assurance that what is coming from

the bottle is any safer than what is coming from the tap, " she says.

In fact, experts say tap water is held to more stringent standards by

the EPA, and tested more often, than bottled water, which is regulated

by the Food and Drug Administration.

Utilities are required by law to send annual reports to their customers

detailing contaminants found in water systems and whether they exceed

levels set by the EPA. They are not required to list unregulated

contaminants in these reports.

If a contaminant exceeds the EPA's " maximum contaminant level, " the

report should detail the potential health effects of the contaminant and

a summary of actions the utility is taking. If you do notice a

contaminant that exceeds EPA levels in your utility's report, consider

installing a tap-water filter, experts say.

Water that is tested by utilities is generally tested at the plant. It

still has to travel through your pipes to get to your tap, so if you

have pipes that are a couple of decades old, it may be a good idea to

get the water from your tap tested in a lab -- especially if you are

pregnant, nursing or have small children, says the NRDC's Dr. Janssen.

People who get their water from private wells should have their water

tested annually.

Water filters aren't foolproof. Those that are certified by NSF

International -- a nonprofit group that tests food and water products --

can get rid of unwanted chemicals to EPA's standards, but consumers

should be aware that trace amounts of chemicals may still be left in

their water.

Carbon filters, which come in the form of a faucet mount or a pitcher,

are the most commonly used and cost about $30, says Rick ,

operations manager of the drinking water treatment unit program at NSF.

These can be fairly effective in removing many contaminants, but need to

be replaced about every two months.

Other options -- such as reverse-osmosis systems, which use a

semipermeable membrane to remove contaminants, or ultraviolet light

treatment, which prevents micro-organisms from reproducing -- can be

more effective, but they cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

Some consumers have found the cost is worth it, especially if members of

the family have certain health conditions.

Last April, Beyer, 47, purchased a Kinetico Inc. K5 Drinking

Water Station for her father, who had a liver transplant in February.

Doctors had advised him to drink only filtered water. The system, which

cost $2,100, is meant to remove contaminants ranging from lead to

chlorine sediment using reverse-osmosis technology and two additional

filters.

Ms. Beyer, who lives in Venice, Fla., says it was worth it. Her water is

clearer and crisper. " I can definitely taste the difference, " she says.

" You can see the difference. "

[chart]

*Write to *Anjali Athavaley at anjali.athavaley@...