Reduce drug traces in tap water
One solution: Require that buyers return their unused pharmaceuticals to vendors.
| March 11, 2008 edition
News that traces of drugs are found in tap water consumed by millions of Americans should awaken citizens and public officials. Precious water resources must be guarded and pharmaceuticals treated as hazardous waste.
Investigative reporters at the Associated Press have established that the drinking water of at least 41 million Americans from coast to coast is tainted by pharmaceuticals, albeit in minute levels far below those taken as prescriptions.
They include a medicine cabinet full of various drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter, from pain medications to antidepressants to steroids. Some 56 kinds of drugs were identified in the water supply of Philadelphia alone. But the report says smaller towns and even rural areas may be affected, too. And that bottled water you’re sipping? It probably wasn’t tested for drug traces either.
The news report spotlights a troubling and growing form of pollution. As the series points out, the number of prescriptions written in the US rose to 3.7 billion in 2006, a 12 percent increase over five years earlier. Nonprescription drugs account for another 3.3 billion annual purchases.
While a portion of the problem comes from improper disposal of unused drugs, the majority is the result of drugs that are taken and excreted into wastewater systems. They make their way into groundwater and eventually into reservoirs. Nearly all forms of conventional water treatment, except the expensive process called reverse osmosis, fail to completely remove the drugs, the report says.
An added problem: Some of the drugs are likely to have come from animal sources, either farm animals or household pets, both of which are being given pharmaceuticals in growing amounts.
Studies have shown these drugs are present in wildlife, from fish to earthworms. The effects are unknown: The US government hasn’t established any safety limits nor does it mandate testing for them.
Certainly more local water districts will need to test for the presence of drugs. Of 62 major districts contacted by AP, 34 do not test. And the Environmental Protection Agency should be more aggressive in studying the problem and possible impact. What might be the long-term effects? Could certain drugs combine with each other or with chlorine, frequently used in treating water supplies, to form toxic compounds?
The era of flushing nonconsumed prescription drugs down the toilet is over. Dropping drugs in the trash risks them being fished out by others and abused. That’s why federal and state officials urge crushing and mixing pills with coffee grounds or cat litter to prevent misuse.
Even then, drugs sitting in landfills leave some risk of escaping into groundwater.
Better yet would be programs to return unused drugs to the drugstore or other vendors where they were purchased for proper disposal, or for cities and towns to include them in hazardous waste drop-off programs.
The problem of consumed drugs is more difficult. The ongoing discussion over whether Americans are being overmedicated perhaps has gained a new talking point.
If Americans don’t want to breathe someone else’s cigarette smoke, do they really want to swallow someone else’s drugs – even in small amounts?
( More stories )
Comments
2. James Wally | 03.09.09
I’m currently an environmental engineering student at UF, often studying this very issue. It turns out unused drugs compose such a small fraction of the drug traces in our water, they aren’t even worth bothering with. It would be like trying to put out a fire in your garden while your house was on fire. I’d imagine no more than 10% of prescription drugs go unused, and they’re less likely to return to the water cycle than the used ones.
The problem is, when you take a drug, it enters your system, does it’s job, and then leaves your body, and enters the sewers. At no point in this process does it break down, and if it’s water soluble, it will just stay in the water until it makes its way back to a lake, aquifer, or river that we drink from. We need to find ways to break them down, or come up with a better way to treat our illnesses, but legislating their disposal drugs seems more difficult than its benefits merit.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Dr. Ayo Maat | 01.19.09
I am so happy that you published this article. I was already apprised of thedrugs in the tap water by a local paper, but the article was discounted by the mayor’s statement that Chicago water was safe. That is also what tobacco manufacturers said about tar levels in their cigarettes while nicotine levels increased and nonsmokers were exposed to 4000+ chemicals.
No, I don’t want the drugs of tap water nor the 200+ chemicals used to treat Chicago’s tap water. I prefer water in glass and even though you may not approve, I prefer Mountain Valley, though water certified by QAI seems to be okay and the ionized water is one of the latest rages.