I was just reading the morning paper, and the AP has released a study that confirms the existence of pharmaceuticals (generally traces of prescription drugs) in many U.S. drinking water sources. I am not a water engineer or scientist, so I was wondering if anyone out there knew if there was a way to filter out these substances? I use a filter on my faucet at home, and have installed a water filtration system at work for our employees, but both use municipal drinking water. Would a filter catch the pharmaceuticals, or are filters not designed for that type of filtration?

 

Riverlady,

I assume your using a typical water filter which contains granulated carbon. If so, it will filter out the compounds. With respect to the word "trace", it does have a scientific definition. I believe it means, we know it's there but it is in quantities so small it can't accurately quantified.

The are loads of trace chemicals in our drinking water. I'm sure I could find fecal matter, lead, iron, dioxin, radioactive materials in a large enough sample with the right equipment.

MikeCJ

 

MikeCJ makes an excellent point about chemicals in our drinking water.  Water is "legal" only if it does not contain excessive amounts of pollutants on lists developed by federal, state, and local governments.  As you can tell from your consumer confidence reports, those lists are very short.  Municipalities work hard to ensure that they are in compliance with listed limits.  Meanwhile, hundreds of other chemicals are allowed into the drinking water system.  The reasons are many.  As MikeCJ says, the means to detect some of these chemicals have not been developed or are too costly and complex to be available to drinking water providers.  However, many other chemicals are detectable, but government/science says it does not have evidence to indicate that these chemicals are harmful to people.  Of course that does not mean they are not harmful; it only means we do not know what the effects are.  Then there is another layer of costs water providers must cover to remove contaminants.  As a result, government moves with excruciating deliberation in setting drinking water standards.  (Recall the arsenic controversy under the Whitman EPA).  The bottom line is that water that is considered safe by regulatory standards is rarely if ever uncontaminated.    

What I don't understand is why everyone is acting like this is something new.  This information was brought to light at least ten years ago.  Did someone pay to shove it under the rug for ten years?  It's not new news.

Dear Stone,

I don't believe anyone tried to hide or squash the report. I don't know what drove the testing. Perhaps there was a mandate under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Being the cynic, I believe there are short and long term news cycles. Every few years the news does a story about what is your drinking water.

A couple of examples: "The worst polluters in xxx county" comes from the annual TRI report publication. Every few years there is a story about the 400 dollar hammer. So on and so forth.

MikeCJ