Drugs In Our Drinking Water and Rivers

[Guest guest]

> " SSRI-Research " <ssri-research >

> JustSayNo

> Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:44:40 -0400

> [sSRI-Research] Drugs In Our Drinking Water

> and Rivers

>

> Drugs In Our Drinking Water and Rivers

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2000/jun/3/drugs_water.htm

>

> Italian researchers went looking for

> therapeutic drugs in our drinking water and rivers

> and unfortunately found nearly every one that they

> tested for. They state that these drugs can

> contaminate the environment because of metabolic

> excretion, improper disposal, or industrial waste.

>

> There are thousands of tons of drugs that are

> used by people yearly to treat illnesses, to prevent

> unwanted pregnancy, or to face the stresses of

> modern life, as well as widespread reliance on drugs

> in animal farming (e.g., antibiotics as feed

> additives, hormones, etc.). Some of these substances

> are excreted unmetabolised or as active metabolites;

> they escape degradation in waste treatment plants

> and enter the environment. Improper disposal of

> expired medication and manufacturing facilities can

> also contribute to this contamination.

>

> Since pharmaceutical products can have long

> half-lives, they accumulate, reaching detectable and

> biologically active amounts. Several commonly used

> medicinal drugs, such as erythromycin,

> cyclophosphamide, naproxen, sulpha-methoxazole, or

> sulphasalazine, can persist in the environment for

> more than a year. Clofibric acid, the main

> metabolite of clofibrate, has an estimated

> persistence in the environment of 21 years and is

> still detectable in lakes and rivers even after its

> withdrawal from the market.

>

> Researchers specifically tested for popular

> medications which are excreted unmetabolised (not

> broken down), plus some previously found in the

> environment, as well as others commonly used as

> growth promoters in animals

>

> All drugs, with the exception of 2 were

> detected in river or drinking water or river

> sediments.

>

> Although the concentrations measured in the

> water may result in human exposure much lower than

> those producing a noticeable pharmacological effect,

> possible effects of long-term exposures have still

> not been determined.

>

> Lancet 2000; 355: 1789 - 1790

>

> Dr. Mercola's Comment:

>

> This finding is concerning because it means

> that all of us are actually being exposed to

> medications that we are not even taking. This

> includes pregnant women and children, who are much

> more susceptible to adverse effects from them. Many

> of these drugs are not even approved for use in

> humans. It is interesting that with all the problems

> of contaminants in our water (e.g., pesticides,

> herbicides, gasoline additive MTBE, chlorine, etc.)

> a much greater effort is expended to add fluoride to

> our water than cleaning up the existing supply. It

> is worth noting that there are no regulations in

> place requiring testing for these pharmaceutical

> contaminants or safety limits set.

>

> So, not only do we need to be concerned about

> chlorine in the drinking water, but we actually need

> to factor in the drugs that are used or tossed away

> by society. Fortunately this is easy to avoid. All

> we need to do is to drink bottled water or good

> filtered water. It is important to note that for a

> variety of reasons one should avoid distilled water.

> Although it will be free of contaminants, it also

> acts like a vacuum and will suck out many of the

> beneficial trace minerals you need to stay healthy.

> Obtaining good mineral balance is hard enough; one

> clearly does not want to put a metabolic drain in

> their system by drinking distilled water.

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>