

Tipsy Fish: When Anti-Anxiety Meds Get Into Rivers - AdamFernandez
http://science.time.com/2013/02/15/tipsy-fish-when-anti-anxiety-meds-get-into-rivers/?hpt=hp_t3

======
newbie12
The presence of pharma in our water supplies is a huge problem. None of the
U.S. clean water rules address this. We don't even really know the extent of
the problem, because there is no testing regime. Here on the upper Potomac my
town dumps all sorts of pharma and endocrine disruptors into the water that
communities downstream drink from. Our town considered improving our
wastewater treatment but because of the cost, won't stop until the law
requires it.

~~~
mfsch
Let me give some more information on that: It is true that pharmaceuticals,
personal care products and endocrine disruptors are not really addressed by
clean water rules, but that doesn’t mean that they are ignored. The reason
that they aren’t regulated is, to quote EPA: “To date, scientists have found
no evidence of adverse human health effects from PPCPs in the environment.”

Of course there are a lot of substances in the water, their concentrations are
rising and it is difficult to assess their effects on humans. However, there
is also a lot of dilution in the water system and the concentrations found in
drinking water are still far from the concentrations where we would expect any
adverse effects on human health. In fact, one of the reasons that PPCPs have
become an issue is that improved measurement technologies make it possible to
detect them at the small concentrations (some parts per trillion) that they
are at.

Some PPCPs have now entered the EPA contaminant candidate list (CCL), which
means that they are evaluated in more detail and a maximum contaminant level
(MCL) might be enforced in the future. The issue is not as simple as adding
more regulation, doing a bit more treatment and be safe. There are hundreds of
different substances and most of them are difficult to remove. The most
effective treatment method, reverse osmosis, is extremely energy intensive and
thus very expensive. It is also important to know that “removal” doesn’t mean
that we pick the molecules out of the water and disassemble them into their
atoms, it usually means that we transfer them from one medium into another.
They still have to go somewhere and likely they still end up in the
environment.

So, to sum it up: PPCPs are found in water at low concentrations which are a
problem for aquatic life and this problem cannot be solved easily. There is
not a lot of evidence pointing to human health problems at the moment, so
expensive, somewhat effective treatment methods aren’t enforced at the moment.
The problem is not ignored however, the EPA regularly reevaluates the issue
and research is being done on possible health effects.

~~~
mercuryrising
If we know it affects animals, why do we wait until it starts affecting people
to change our actions?

~~~
mfsch
The impact on aquatic life and on humans can’t be compared directly. First of
all, toxicity is often related to body mass, i.e. the lethal dose is
approximately proportional to the weight. This means, that a lot more of a
substance is needed to have the same effect on a human than for a tiny fish.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, aquatic animals are immersed in water
and they are so from the very beginning. While we drink for water intake, fish
“breathe water”, i.e. they constantly have water flowing into and out of their
body. This makes them more susceptible to contaminants in water.

------
eli
It's surprising that such a low dose of drugs can have such a noticeable
impact on fish.

------
judah
Totally reminded me of Sad Shark: <http://bit.ly/14WZrIN>

