Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Pharmaceuticals in Our Water Supply Are Causing Bizarre Mutations to Wildlife

By Greg Peterson, E Magazine. Posted August 9, 2007.


Federal officials are studying the effects of pharmaceuticals such as pain killers and depression medicine in our water supply.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Greg Peterson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

From inter-sex fish in the Potomac River to frog mutations in Wisconsin, federal officials are spending this summer studying the effects of pharmaceuticals such as pain killers and depression medicine on the environment, because the drugs have turned up in America's drinking water.

The cumulative effect of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals and personal-care products in the water on humans isn't yet known, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking preventative measures. Pharmaceuticals have already been linked to behavioral and sexual mutations in fish, amphibians and birds, according to EPA studies.

Better sensors have revealed that trace amounts of pharmaceuticals, including narcotics, birth control, antidepressants and other controlled substances, are in the drinking water and in U.S. rivers, lakes and streams. The growing public debate on pharmaceuticals in water will heat up this summer as experts on both sideas of the issue try to convince the public that it's either much ado about nothing or another example of humans ignoring early warning signs such as deformed frogs -- the amphibian considered the canary in the coal mine when it comes to water issues.

The EPA suspects that part of the problem is consumers flushing old and unwanted drugs down toilets or drains. Americans are taking more drugs than ever -- especially the aging baby boomer generation. Pharmaceuticals were found in 80 percent of the samples taken during a U.S. Geological Survey and EPA study of 139 streams in 30 states. Many of America's wastewater treatment plants are not designed to remove pharmaceuticals and personal care products, the EPA says.

A 1999 (EPA and German) study of pharmaceutical and other personal-care products concluded the "undetectable effects on aquatic organisms are particularly worrisome because effects could accumulate so slowly that major change goes undetected until the cumulative level of these effects finally cascades to irreversible change -- change that would otherwise be attributed to natural adaptation or ecologic succession."

Meanwhile, federal officials continue to study the human health effects of the pharmaceutical compounds found in water known as endocrine disruptors, including possible links to neurological problems in children and increased incidence of some cancers. Federal officials are investigating a wide range of fish health problems in Cheasapeake Bay and its watershed. Several studies of the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers have revealed inter-sex fish, a wide range of "abnormalities in which both male and female characteristics are present within the same fish."

The abnormalities include nine male smallmouth bass from the Potomac River near Sharpsburg, Maryland (about 60 miles upstream from Washington) that developed female eggs inside their sex organs. Inter-sex bass were also found in a study three years earlier, after fish kills about 170 miles upstream in the South Branch of the Potomac in Hardy County, West Virginia.

The suspected causes include "previously banned compounds…such as DDT and chlordane, natural and anthropogenic hormones, herbicides, fungicides, industrial chemicals and an emerging group of compounds that may act as endocrine disruptors," according to a 2006 summary of the various studies prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. Other studies have linked endocrine disruptors to possible cancer in humans.

A recent survey of "cancer in Hardy County, where some residents get drinking water from the South Branch, found rates of cancer of the liver, gallbladder, ovaries and uterus that were higher than the state average," according to the Washington Post.

Officials are investigating whether there is a link between the increased cancer rates, river water and altered fish including the possible connection to wastewater discharges containing trace pharmaceuticals. This is disconcerting to residents of metro Washington, D.C., because the Potomac River is the main source (75 percent) of drinking water for 3.6 million residents, including the Maryland and Virginia suburbs.

Regulatory issues won't be tackled for years to come, but the EPA isn't waiting for more study results before taking action. The EPA is educating the public and funding pharmaceutical programs by concerned groups and state and local government agencies.

In the short term, numerous grassroots and government pharmaceutical collection projects have sprung up worldwide from police stations to pharmacies to church parking lots.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: mutation, water, drugs

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
but what about unmetabolized drugs?
Posted by: jpaul on Aug 9, 2007 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i might be wrong. but i remember reading somewhere that a lot of the drugs on the market (including birth control pills) aren't completely metabolized. Meaning, that when they're taken, quite a lot of the actual drug gets flushed down the toilet either as urine or feces.
Who's looking at this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» what about the metabolites? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: but what about unmetabolized drugs? Posted by: dagnymeetsassisi
Flush Not
Posted by: Colton on Aug 10, 2007 1:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to mention all the people that flush unwanted medicine down the toilet when it expires/they don't want to take it. I remember reading about one study where they found human estrogen mimics downstream from several retirement communities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,890,000
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Aug 10, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when googling 'birth control drinking water'. old and estabished research. only getting worse with population growth as more hormones consumed and passed through a growing population. i know of no other animal which chooses to foul it's own nest as humans do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Self-Management
Posted by: parmenicleitus on Aug 10, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read about pharmaceuticals in the water some time ago, and have been highly concerned about it ever since. Reading things like this one thing always strikes me:

We've gifted ourselves with the "management" of wildlife, the air, the water, the land, yet none of these are the source of environmental problems. Humans are. Period. Yet, we don't manage ourselves with the same, or at least similar, standards of which we foist upon the non-human world. This is a sad state of affairs, indeed.

Thanks for spreading the word, since we won't hear about this horror on corporate media, or even NPR (Merck is one of their largest underwriters, after all).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Become Part of The Earth Posted by: edgar_michel
poor work
Posted by: Banshee on Aug 10, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story is sloppy and irresponsible, especially as the Potomac River is concerned. I've fished and guided this river for forty years, and researched and written about its pollution issues in national magazines. So far there is no proven link between intersex fish and human drugs in the water of the Potomac and tributaries. Worse, the intersex issue is just the most curious component of a world of trouble that has befallen this watershed, and you’ve swallowed the government’s and Big Agriculture’s attempt to offer it up as a distracting red herring. Though the cause of the sexual abnormalities in smallmouth bass in these rivers is unknown, the suggestion that it is the result of drug pollution has many weaknesses, and the likelihood that it is just a result of other stresses far more likely.
Also, the use of the word "mutation" is very troublesome. In the modern world, mutation is a comic-book notion of instant transformation, and your writers are evidently trying to capitalize on the scary quality of the word. In fact there is no alteration of DNA or RNA in intersex fish, and no likelihood of the effect being passed on in reproduction, so the intersex effect though troublesome and scary is not a mutation except in the most general (and unscientific) sense that it is a change.
In the past generation, all of the Potomac tributaries, especially the Shenandoah, have suffered massive biological trauma, mainly at the hands of agriculture, careless overdevelopmnet, and manufacturing. Intensive point-source chemical pollution has made fish inedible. Huge fish kills have wiped out entire cohorts of fish species. Pervasive bacterial and algae blooms have made the rivers opaque and ugly. Surviving fish show sores and blotches. In many places the entire food web is disrupted. The rivers, once beautiful and rich resources, are contaminated so thoroughly that in many stretches they can’t be safely used. Among that carnage the intersex incidence is a triviality--but but that is what you report. That’s like devoting your story to the fact that some of the flood survivors were nude.
If human drug contamination were the culprit, the problem would arise simultaneously in watersheds all across the United States, varying only by population density, treatment regime, and the incidence of drug use. Nothing like this has happened; the incidence of intersex fish in the Potomac in fact indexes most closely to other pollution and stress factors. Few other watersheds are affected even though traces of pharmaceuticals are often found. The suggestion that it’s related to human drug use—ie, development stress—is popular because it’s weird and sexy and shocking and lays the blame directly on The People. In fact in the Potomac watershed a few hundred intersex fish have been found while millions of fish have died and large proportions of the rest are visibly diseased.
Some biologists—generally people with the best intersts of the rivers in mind—have proposed that the intersex effect is just one of a suite of results from stress and from the destruction of entire reproductive cohorts. I don’t find this mentioned in your story even though it is easily accessible to the most casual researcher.
(I'm going long so I'll continue in the next comment. Mods--sorry to circumvent your rules but as you can see this is a carefully composed remark.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» what backs up your point of view? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
poor work part 2
Posted by: Banshee on Aug 10, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another fault in this argument is the idea that human drugs would occur in consistent and sufficient quantities to have such an effect. The drugs are powerful, and some human drugs do affect animals. But river flows (especially in these rivers) vary enormously; people do not regularly dump drugs, so the effect would have to be the result of drug residues that pass through the bodies of humans, through wastewater treatment (however ineffective), and then into a watercourse with enough volume and consistency to change fish biology in broad stretches of river. It is possible, and fisheries biologists are working hard to duplicate these effects, but to attribute it certainly to human drugs (as this story does) is extremely premature and careless.
Whatever drug volume does enter the rivers from human pharmaceuticals is dwarfed by the tremendous volume of other contamination. That makes causality very difficult to prove—lots of other culprits are around, and in much greater volumes. Your story offers no discussion of balancing of this ambiguity other than an attribution of the “facts” to EPA studies. This weak treatment of scientific practice and complexity does a lot of harm in our current climate of anti-intellectualism and cafeteria science. I’d expect more of an “alt” journal than craven consumption of the least “alt” sources available in the interest of getting the jazzy word “intersex” into your headline.
The Potomac watershed has suffered enormous, expanding impact from intensive and irresponsible agriculture and business. Aside from the intersex effect, much of the rivers’ problems are clearly attributable to nutrient loading from dairy, poultry, and industry operations. The states involved—especially Virginia—are extremely lax in regulation and inspection of these operations. Wastewater treatment is a joke in many areas, and the corporate systems that bring jobs to the mainly rural valleys refuse to invest in expensive infrastructure. The local politicians have typically favored corporate birds in the hand. I've studied this problem close up and It's clear to me that even if pharmaceutical contamination is a problem--it probably is--it's a drop in a nasty bucket of other, much more pressing water issues.
Even the drug-like effects may have agricultural rather than human sources. Chicken manure left untreated can undergo chemical changes that create endocrine effects in fish. Livestock are given large, crude doses of various drugs, many of which are hormonal in nature; cattle are still allowed into the river in most parts of the East Coast which leads to direct contamination of riverwater with manure. At any given moment the Shenandoah valley is home to 250 million chickens and 8 percent of the nation's turkeys and only a handful of inspectors to make sure that the birds' abundant manure is not permitted to flow directly into the river.
But the eyecatching “intersex” headline has a lot of power. Ironically, the link between human drugs and fish effects is popular among the very interests that are most responsible for the damage to these rivers—Big Ag and and their government stooges. They have never hesitated to offer overdevelopment and “human overmedication” to deflect attention from much more obvious and likely causes: profitable farming under cheap regulatory schemes. This story plays right into that strategy. There are lots of careful and thoughtful studies and observations on the topic in easy reach of a researcher, but perhaps they are not so glamorous or simple. What is the hasty and careless journalist more likely to grab: transgendered fish or chicken shit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: poor work part 2 Posted by: fanny666
» RE: poor work part 2 Posted by: edgar_michel
» Poor work indeed Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Poor work indeed Posted by: Banshee
» RE: Poor work indeed Posted by: edgar_michel
» Hasty and Careless Response Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Relax, people! Posted by: fanny666
The Left should be spending time going on the offensive and countering this SHIT.
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 10, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legalize hemp and market the natural non-pharma cures out there instead. Of course Big Pharma and Big Oil are FUCKING America to DEATH ! In the meantime, the author could have chosen to go on the offensive to allow the natural cures to be legalized and/or pervade the "free" market.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Typo... Posted by: parmenicleitus
DRUG COMPANIES
Posted by: Roverton on Aug 10, 2007 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are doing us in. I have lost more than one relative to the negative effects.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DRUG COMPANIES Posted by: fanny666
Birth control pills may be causing odd mutations where I live
Posted by: fanny666 on Aug 10, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» Better links Posted by: fanny666
God knows these miserable D.C. drones are drugged up
Posted by: FDPN on Aug 10, 2007 10:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole notion of pharmaceuticals being passed into the drinking water has frightened me since I first became aware of it a few months ago. I happen to live in the D.C. area and, judging by the people I interact with on a daily basis, I know these people are on so many drugs they are essentially zombies.

Seriously, these people are miserable, spiteful, hateful abominations of the human soul and spirit and there is no way they can get through a day without jumping off a bridge without the assistance of massive doses of pharmaceuticals.

Terrifying. Time to move to Wyoming and dig a hole in the freaking mountains to hide in from the MONSTERS that America has created.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HUGE UNDEREPORTED/UNDEREGULATED ISSUE-THANKS!
Posted by: drricklippin on Aug 11, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for article. Europeans are way ahead of us.

As US population grows and as 77 million US boomers age, consume more meds, and excrete more meds into the environment this issue will become huge.(Especially in population dense areas)

I am especially concerned with hormone products, steroids, anti-cancer agents and psychotropic meds to name a few.

More lawsuits for Big PhRMA on the issue of "product stewardship"

Be Well,

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read Theo Coburn's "Our Stolen Future."
Posted by: american on Aug 11, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A groundbreaking book, it is a compendium of years of reasearch into endocrine disrupting chemicals' characteristics. Endoctrine disrupting chemicals alter hormone activity, leading to profound biological and ecological calamities too numerous to mention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what is the arrogant position NOW?
Posted by: on Aug 12, 2007 6:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few days ago, people were criticizing people who use bottled water--including me--calling us "morons". Now how do you feel? Oh, there are meds in the water, so I guess we're not morons, huh?

This morning, I was washing out my coffee pot, and happened to smell the tap water I was using to do so. Actually, I didn't have to really try to smell it--it was so god-awful, it stunk prominently.

Tonight--just now in fact--I was giving my 4-year-old daughter a bath, when my wife and I noticed the water was brown. Yes, brown. What the hell? I have no idea, but it was nasty, and it kept right on coming. It looked like pond water.

So, am I still a "moron" for not wanting to consume--nor wanting my young daughter to consume--tap water laced with pharmaceutical agents, dirt, stench, and god knows what else? Should I feel OK bathing my daughter in... Whatever cesspool liquid was vomiting itself out of my faucets? Any of the arrogant people who criticized me want to proffer some advice here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

& only last FRIDAY...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Aug 13, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was snarkily & hysterically notified that pet introduced ambient general bacteria & fecal coliform was the MOST horrifying GREATEST risk to Great Lakes swimmers...
*snork*

of course, DUMPING TOXINS & other pollutants in the Lakes would have NOTHING to do with THAT...

"Tylenol is Made with Love"
===
Common Disinfectant TRICLOSAN could breed super bugs
By Maggie Fox, Health & Science, Reuters, WASHINGTON
It sounds like a good idea -- put a germ-killing disinfectant in toothpaste & soap to keep kids & adults safe from infection -- right? Wrong, Boston-based microbiologist Laura McMurry & colleagues at the Tufts University School of Medicine say. ...
===
Study dishes the dirt on hygiene's role in disease
Last Updated: Sunday, June 18, 2006, CBC News, Scandinavian Journal of Immunology.
A comparison of rats living in the wild & the lab lends support to the idea that an overly hygienic environment can lead to allergies and autoimmune diseases.
According to the "hygiene hypothesis," exposure early in life to infections from household dust, germy siblings or surfaces may reduce the risk of developing disease in adulthood. ... team compared lab rodents to more than 50 rats and mice captured and killed in cities and farms.
"Laboratory rodents live in a virtually germ- & parasite-free environment, & they receive extensive medical care — conditions that are comparable to what humans living in Westernized, hygienic societies experience," Parker said in a release.
"On the other hand, rodents living in the wild are exposed to a wide variety of microbes & parasites, much like humans living in societies without modern health care & where hygiene is harder to maintain."
Industrialized societies that emphasize hygiene have higher rates of allergy, asthma & autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis compared to the developing world.

The wild rodents also showed as much as four times higher levels of immunoglobulins related to allergy & autoimmune disease, but didn't get sick. ...
===
Is Canada Too Clean? More Ulcerative Colitis & Crohn's Cases
Article Date: 26.Aug.06, Dr. Richard Fedorak, American Journal of Gasteroenterology
Canada has among the highest incidences of ulcerative colitis & Crohn's disease cases per capita in the world, a new study shows.

IBD is a wearing away of the lining of the intestinal tract until it becomes red & raw and begins to bleeds, like a skinned knee. ...
"We know that people need a certain genetic mutation to be vulnerable to the disease," said Fedorak. "However, we believe there is an environmental element to it, as well, because not all people with the genetic mutation develop the disease."

Fedorak said the disease does not exist in some parts of the world, such as China & Africa. The explanation for this, he added, may be that children in developed countries are not exposed to as many intestinal bacteria as are children in the developing world; & therefore, some children in the developed world may not develop immune systems that are able to prevent IBD in adulthood. ...
===

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian

"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]