On January 10th, 2014 in Charleston, West Virginia, residents surrounding the
Elk River were advised not to drink, bathe in, or
cook with tap water. A total of 5000 gallons of MCHM
(4-methylcyclohexane methanol) was accidentally released, affecting 300,000
people.
A similar situation occurred
on February 2nd 2014, with 82,000 tons of toxic coal ash spilled into the Dan
River, near the border of North Carolina and Virginia. Coal ash
contains arsenic, mercury, lead, thallium, among other contaminants. Like the West Virginia spill, state health
officials warned people not to swim or eat fish from the river.
These examples illustrate a
growing problem of contamination of United States water. Typically, chemicals in the United States are
introduced into the market without rigorous testing, unless they pose a serious health hazard to aquatic,
terrestrial or human life. This saves
money and time on testing, but it may come at a price to human and
environmental health.
The above figure represents data from 2004-2009 for tap
water that American’s received with all chemicals found and unregulated
chemicals, including those over health guidelines. (www.ewg.org,
Environmental Working Group)
In 2009,
only 91 contaminants were regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more
than 60,000 chemicals were used within the United States. The number of chemicals in use has risen to 80,000
at the end of 2013, which most have unknown health risks. William K. Reilly, the E.P.A. administrator
under President George H. W. Bush said, “For years, people
said that America has the cleanest drinking water in the world, which was true
20 years ago. But people don’t realize
how many new chemicals have emerged and how much more pollution has occurred.
If they did, we would see very different attitudes.”
There has been opposition to
testing chemicals for their potentially hazardous effects. Opponents say
that drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not
necessarily make someone ill. Many
contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years, and some researchers argue
that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long
periods, pose few risks.
Others argue
that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking
water does not equal the benefits.
Some say testing
chemicals is a waste of time, as chemicals not tested yet probably aren’t a
serious threat. And since science is complicated, often based on extrapolations
from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, it is not worth the effort.
Not only do chemical spills compromise
the quality of our drinking water, but droughts, floods and chronic pollution
from personal care products and pharmaceuticals (PPCP) do as well. Flooding from Hurricane Floyd in 1999
flushed hog waste into waterways which caused widespread fecal contamination. A report found that 254,000 people
in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley are at risk for nitrate
contamination of their drinking water with the current drought in California. PPCP’s
like antibiotics, steroids, soaps, shampoos, and lotions are washed down the
drain and sewage treatment plants are not equipped to remove them.
Industry and poor environmental regulations in
China have also seriously affected the water quality. Measured by the government’s standards, more than half of the country’s largest lakes and
reservoirs were so contaminated in 2011 that they were unsuitable for human
consumption. Nearly three-fifths
of all water supplies are “relatively bad” or worse. Water quality degradation is the result
of quick progress and the failure to keep up with the country’s quick
industrialization.
Hopefully in the future, development
of chemical knowledge and more efficient technologies will help make water
safer to use in the US and around the world.
Chemical contamination like the West Virginia spill demonstrates how
quickly the trust that most people place in their drinking water can be destroyed. Steve Fleischli, director and senior attorney
for the Natural Resources Defense Council Water Program in Los Angeles says, “We often don't
think about where our water comes from… if
your water source is not protected, people face a real risk”.
Any ideas about what kinds of technical solutions are there for chronic, low-level, and unintentional pollutants such as the pharmaceutical in this summary of a research report in Aquatic Toxicology?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7874781/Antidepressants-in-sea-may-damage-food-chain.html