I’m sure we’ve all read the wonderful article posted on March 10th by the Associated Press on the presence of pharmaceuticals in our drinking water. I, like many of you, am convinced that it will kill us all. I have stopped drinking all water and I now get all of my liquid directly from maple syrup. Like many of you, I had grown accustomed to the possibilities of raw sewage, motor oil, toxic waste and Mafia victims in our lakes, rivers and drinking water. I needed something new to re-draw my attention.
I do have a few comments.
1) I quote: “Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public “doesn’t know how to interpret the information” and might be unduly alarmed.”
Nonsense. That would never, ever happen.
2) “Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.”
That is a positive thing. That way people will know for sure that the shaking they’re feeling is the Big One, and they’ll be totally calm about it.
3) “A sex hormone was detected in the drinking water of San Francisco, California.”
I can’t think why they would put this in as a highlight. Is this a smack at Giants players? Is HGH just the tip of the iceberg?
4). “Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans.”
By ‘independent,’ do they mean politically, or just unemployed?
5) “Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.”
Who do they think are putting out all of those drugs in the first place?
6) Officials in Emporia, Kansas, refused to answer AP’s questions, also citing post-9/11 issues.”
Because we don’t want to give terrorists the idea that they can spike our water with benodryl and get away with it. Naturally, the first place they would target is Emporia, Kansas.
7) “Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals”
Wait, why am I buying bottled water again?
8) “Some providers screen for only one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.”
That is possible. But how many other pharmaceuticals are there? 20? Maybe 30?
9) “Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe — even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.”
Noted absent on this list is Africa (which has no water) and South America (because the FARC harvests all of the drugs from the river for resale).
10) “Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs. Perhaps it’s because Americans have been taking drugs — and flushing them unmetabolized or unused — in growing amounts.”
Yes, perhaps. I’ll go ahead and treat it as a fact. As a serious question, how many chemicals used in pharmaceuticals occur naturally?
11) “Veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for a wide range of ailments — sometimes with the same drugs as humans.”
Isn’t the premise of the article that drugs are being sent out through the sewer system and recycled? I don’t know how many pets are taking advantage of the city plumbing for their needs, but it has to stop.
12) “Based on what we now know, I would say we find there’s little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health,” said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.”
“In fact, for these chemicals to be really damaging, they would have to be the size of, like, a pill.”
13) “‘We recognize it is a growing concern and we’re taking it very seriously,’ said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”
I just want to point out that the man that was chosen to speak for the EPA is a man named “Grumbles.” I thought this was bad until I found out that the FDA spokesman was Franz Kursenmutter.
14) ” …most treatments do not remove all drug residue.”
Are they saying that there’s a treatment that does? There goes the article.
15) “The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.”
Undoubtedly. We thank you for the foreshadowing and look forward to the sequel.
Comments are closed.