Image: Gallery Stock
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
More than 6,000 chemicals pollute U.S. drinking water, yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has added only one new pollutant to its regulatory roster in the past 15 years. Environmental groups have long raised questions about this track record, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office recently joined the chorus, releasing a report that charges the agency with taking actions that have “impeded ... progress in helping assure the public of safe drinking water.”
Among other things, the GAO report says, the EPA relies on flawed data. To determine the level of a particular pollutant in drinking water—which the EPA does before making a regulatory ruling on it—the agency relies on analytic testing methods so insensitive that they cannot identify the contaminants at levels expected to cause health effects. In addition, since 1996 the EPA has been required to make regulatory decisions about five new pollutants each year, ruling on those that might pose the biggest threats to public health. The GAO report asserts that the agency has been ruling only on the “low-hanging fruit”—contaminants for which regulatory decisions are easy rather than those that might be the most dangerous. “They’re not actually doing anything to protect public health,” says Mae Wu, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
For its part, the EPA has pledged to review the nation’s drinking-water standards and to add at least 16 new contaminants to the list of those it regulates. This past February the agency reversed a long-standing decision to not regulate the rocket-fuel ingredient perchlorate, making the chemical the first new drinking-water contaminant to be regulated since 1996. In its response to the GAO, the EPA stated that “no action” was necessary to better prioritize the contaminants on which the agency will rule in the future, nor did it acknowledge the need for improvements in data collection. The agency did, however, agree to consider improving its methods for alerting the public when there are drinking-water advisories.
This article was originally published with the title Is It Safe to Drink?.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentI'm pretty certain it's unsafe to not drink.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat comment. Would be even better if it made sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy tap water comes out smelling awful. You'd have to be an idiot to drink it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou get what you pay for. Everybody wants safe water but nobody wants to pay for it. No taxes, no people to work on regulations, no money to treat the water...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur drinking water in Florida is pretty safe to drink, no thanks to EPA. We take care of our own problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEPA water rules are not scientifically-sound. For example, EPA regulates copper as a human health hazard. No problem with that. However, because of a stupid math error years ago, the level of copper allowed in wastewater discharges is 400 times less than the level of copper allowed in drinking water.
EPA has refused to admit their error and correct the regulatory inconsistency.
I shudder to think of what happens when EPA decides to regulate 16 more substances simply for the sake of placating the need to regulate more.
Mike Kelter, PE, m.ASCE
Our drinking water in Florida is pretty safe to drink, no thanks to EPA. We take care of our own problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEPA water rules are not scientifically-sound. For example, EPA regulates copper as a human health hazard. No problem with that. However, because of a stupid math error years ago, the level of copper allowed in wastewater discharges is 400 times less than the level of copper allowed in drinking water.
EPA has refused to admit their error and correct the regulatory inconsistency.
I shudder to think of what happens when EPA decides to regulate 16 more substances simply for the sake of placating the need to regulate more.
Mike Kelter, PE, m.ASCE
You'd have to grow a sense of humor to make sense of what Postulator typed. Looks like you're going to miss his point, Burn Doubt... :{)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe water in Cleveland, straight out of Lake Erie at the five mile crib, was tested against 30 bottled waters and found to be cleaner, better tasting and obviously far less expensive than any of the bottled waters, regardless of whether they were recycled tap water or spring water, etc. My opinion?.....as long as Cleveland continues to be such a surprise to the rest of the country, as long as we're lumped with imploding disasters like Detroit and Las Vegas (we aren't even CLOSE in that respect, but how would you know?), the happier we'll be that we have 1.5 times the amount of highways we really need, out housing is some of the most lovely and afforable in the nation, our gigantic park systems are not stressed or over-used, our trees crowd every square inch of open space (had a friend from Nebraska go down into the Valley (Rocky River Reservation of the Cleveland Metroparks Emerald Necklace) and she got claustrophobic!), our orchestra is unmatched in the entire world, same for the hunting, fishing (Salmon and Trout 15 minutes from Downtown, I kid you not...). Want clean, fresh, excellant tap water?.....move to Cleveland... :{).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho believes anymore that some bureaucrat in Washington is going to "save" them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, you got to your point on the last sentance!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut yall should raise the speed limits on all those roads.
By the way, my well water is cheap and clean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love to watch it rain!
People hate government until they lose their jobs; their house is blown away or flooded; the oil has destroyed their fishing grounds and tourism; the chemicals have seeped into their only water source; the banks have ripped them off; they are losing their homes; or until they get old and need free health care. Then the Gov doesn't seem so bad. Maybe you mean Congress, not 'the Gov'. How many of you will NOT want help if these things happen (and don't lie) :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know those at the EPA are so wealthy from high salaries, speaking engagement fees and other "perks" they likely have water filtration systems on their estates, and they drink bottled water at the office. Therefore, I'm sure they're adding to their "honorariums" and "perks" by working with industry interests in deregulating the water supply. Afterall, they can afford not to bath directly in it or drink directly from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs psyche western civilization based on fear so people of west found everywhere pollution, danger,and taking too much care made their life feeble,fade,narrow minded In 2001 I was in U.S. staying in youth hostel of Chicago there I asked tap water for drinking,people of U.S.amazed and told me don't drink tap water instead of drink coca cola.I told them coke is most harmful to health,multinational corporation so tactfully brainwashed the people of America they don't know healthy drinking or eating.I first time seen what a terrible effect of brainwashing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it safe to drink is typical of the type of fear mongering that too often dominates articles about the environment. Without going into the politics of the GAO reports and EPA regulations suffice it to say we have some of the cleanest water in the world. Worldwide the quality of drinking water may be the biggest threat to health, but not in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArticles like Melinda Moyer's move us in the wrong direction. There is no doubt that if we spend enough money we could remove many more chemicals from our water but it will never be perfect. Spending millions dollars (just a small portion of what it would cost) may make our water 0.0001% cleaner; but the money would be more wisely spent on education and health care and improving the water in 3rd world countries.
I live I a town that used to have a sign claiming we had the cleanest water in the world. Right out of the mountains, it did taste great. We now spend millions of dollars putting in chemicals to make it “cleaner”. And we took the sign down.
the answer is yes and no. The real issue in terms of what can find its way in and make it unsafe is what happens when you get desorption of polar materials from the activated carbon used in treatment. Carbons are great at holding onto non polar materials. Lots of water soluble nasties which are polar adsorb onto activated carbon to make our water safe. They form an adsorped/solution equilibrium - guess what happens when one side of an equilibrium changes. Unless your water provider is continually doing analysis online for a broad spectrum of contaminants they would have no real idea of what they may be actually may be putting in your water at higher concentrations than were taken out. In the Uk we are only just waking up to this issue - I have no idea in the US or elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Environmental Protection Agency does very little for the money they are paid from the taxpayers - check this out:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition to an alarming amount of other toxic chemicals, the carcinogenic chemical "Chromium-6" (or "Hexavalent Chromium") has been found in the drinking water of 31 out of 35 U.S. cities analyzed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)(an independent lab); which released results of it's tests on December 20. "Chromium-6" is the chemical made infamous in the movie “Erin Brockovich,” about the residents of Hinkley, California, who won $333 million in damages in 1996 from Pacific Gas and Electric for polluting their drinking water with Chromium-6.
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified Chromium-6 as “likely to be carcinogenic
to humans” when ingested through drinking water in a draft review of the chemical, but it does not require testing for it; nor has it established safe legal limits for the chemical." What kind of sense is that?!
This is a shining example of why the Environmental Protection Agency is one of the government agencies that Ron Paul will shut down if he is elected President - they don't do anything. I mean, how can they declare a substance that's in our drinking water "carcinogenic", and then do nothing about it? What kind of show are they running over there?
Hundreds of thousands of people have in fact consumed pollutants in amounts over the drinking
water health standards. The utilities that service the 31 cities whose tap water contained
Chromium-6 provide water to over 26 million people. Chromium-6 is highly toxic and has been
found to cause allergic dermatitis, and stomach and gastrointestinal cancer in animals and humans.
If you’d like to find out what else might be in your drinking water, the EWG’s National Drinking
Water Database is a compilation and analysis of approximately 20 million records from state
water utilities in 45 states and the District of Columbia. During its investigation from 2004-2009,
EWG found 316 contaminants in the water drunk by 256 million Americans in 48,000 communities.
Trihalomethanes, Haloacetic Acids, Nitrate & Arsenic are also present in majority of the cities'
water supply, in addition the the Chromium-6.
In San Diego, CA, just look at what they're getting in their water supply:
"Gross Beta Particle Activity (pCi/L): San Diego, CA
(Source: Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit organization)
The Environmental Protection Agency does very little for the money they are paid from the taxpayers - check this out:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition to an alarming amount of other toxic chemicals, the carcinogenic chemical "Chromium-6" (or "Hexavalent Chromium") has been found in the drinking water of 31 out of 35 U.S. cities analyzed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)(an independent lab); which released results of it's tests on December 20. "Chromium-6" is the chemical made infamous in the movie “Erin Brockovich,” about the residents of Hinkley, California, who won $333 million in damages in 1996 from Pacific Gas and Electric for polluting their drinking water with Chromium-6.
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified Chromium-6 as “likely to be carcinogenic
to humans” when ingested through drinking water in a draft review of the chemical, but it does not require testing for it; nor has it established safe legal limits for the chemical." What kind of sense is that?!
This is a shining example of why the Environmental Protection Agency is one of the government agencies that Ron Paul will shut down if he is elected President - they don't do anything. I mean, how can they declare a substance that's in our drinking water "carcinogenic", and then do nothing about it? What kind of show are they running over there?
Hundreds of thousands of people have in fact consumed pollutants in amounts over the drinking
water health standards. The utilities that service the 31 cities whose tap water contained
Chromium-6 provide water to over 26 million people. Chromium-6 is highly toxic and has been
found to cause allergic dermatitis, and stomach and gastrointestinal cancer in animals and humans.
If you’d like to find out what else might be in your drinking water, the EWG’s National Drinking
Water Database is a compilation and analysis of approximately 20 million records from state
water utilities in 45 states and the District of Columbia. During its investigation from 2004-2009,
EWG found 316 contaminants in the water drunk by 256 million Americans in 48,000 communities.
Trihalomethanes, Haloacetic Acids, Nitrate & Arsenic are also present in majority of the cities'
water supply, in addition the the Chromium-6.
In San Diego, CA, just look at what they're getting in their water supply:
"Gross Beta Particle Activity (pCi/L): San Diego, CA
(Source: Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit organization)
mjasko - I don't know where you get your information, but you are sadly mistaken. The EPA routinely declares substances in our drinking water as "toxic", but then does not follow through on that and require testing by water utility companies that supply our tap water! Keeping that agency going is a waste of the taxpayer's money, and they should be eliminated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will provide the source of my information so you can go check it out yourself - an independent organization called Environmental Working Group has created a National Drinking Water Database that is a compilation and analysis of approximately 20 million records from state water utilities in 45 states and the District of Columbia. During its investigation from 2004-2009,
EWG found 316 contaminants in the water drunk by 256 million Americans in 48,000 communities.
It would behoove anyone who is interested in how many toxic chemicals they are consuming every time they drink tap water in America, to go to their website and look up your city to see what you're drinking. And note that I did not say IF your tap water contains
contaminants - I said HOW MANY it contains. Since the
day I read their website, I have not used tap water to even cook with. We're being slowly poisoned, folks; through the water chain.
Amen to that, Mike - you are spot on about the EPA. They will say something is bad, but will not require that the water utility companies who provide the water to test it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess that is what "regulation" means to EPA - they "regulate" by simply stating a contaminant is toxic - but then, they do not oversee removal of it - they just turn their backs and keep letting it go through the pipes! What a sham; no wonder Ron Paul says that the EPA is one of the government agencies that has got to go if he is elected President!