Soma
Tools of the Path => Action [Public] => Topic started by: Ke-ke wan on January 04, 2011, 04:09:34 AM
-
Pharmaceutical Drugs, Hormones, and Chemicals in the Water
We read more and more all the time about more and more pharmaceutical drugs, hormones, perchlorate, mtbe and other chemicals in the water, and more and more people are getting really concerned. We won't spend a lot of time here talking about the risks. You are probably reading this because you already are concerned about the risks of drugs in the water - and you want to know what you can do about it.
One illustration of how much pharmaceuticals have infiltrated our water supplies, however, came from testing of fish caught in water downstream from sewage plants in five U.S. cities. They all contain traces of many pharmaceuticals. In the fish from one location, Chicago's North Shore Channel, the breakdown showed:
Dilitiazem, an antihypertensive - 0.13 nanograms per gram of fish
Diphenhydramine, antihistamine - 1.4 nanograms per gram
Carbamazepine, antiseizure - 2.3 nanograms per gram
Norfluoxetine, an antidepressant by-product - 3.2 nanograms per gram of fish
Now a nanogram is a very tiny amount, and it is reported that you'd have to eat tons of such fish for such small concentrations to effect human health. But what about if you drink the water with all these drugs in it?
We all love those charts that has a long list of all the contaminants that a given filter will remove and that show the exact percentage that each metal, chemical, etc. is removed. Such test results can serve some purpose and provide an indicator about the effectiveness of a particular filter. You will find some test results like that on this site. However, there are some things that really limit their usefulness. One is that testing a filter at one stage - likely when it is new or almost new - doesn't really tell you how well it will work after three, six or twelve months of usage. It's pretty easy to set up a test to show a large percentage of contaminants filtered out by a newer filter, but have its performance tail off dramatically because there isn't enough filtration material for it to continue at that level for long. Another particularly relevant issue as regards the every-growing stew of small amounts of chemicals and pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs in the water is that it is hard to do a realistic test.
What is in your water supply one day could vary a lot from what is there a month later. How the chemicals and drugs in your water supply combine is simply unknown. How can it be known exactly what a filter will remove when you don't know what is in the water to begin with - and when it varies by variety and time and place and amount?
Should We Be Concerned About Drugs in the Water Supply?
We think so, yes.
On the topic of drugs in the water, an AP study has reported that a vast array of pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones, have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans.
It appears that the 41 million number is a result of the partial survey they did. Many areas were not tested. So we can be sure that there are drugs in the water in many other ares too. There are also small amounts of over-the-counter medicines including acetaminophen and ibuprofen Some wonder how concerned we should be.
Friendsofwater.com hears from many customers who are quite concerned. We share that view.
In the United States, the problem isn't confined to surface waters. Drugs also permeate deep underground aquifers which provide 40 percent of the country's water supply. Human drugs are the not the only source, they also come from cattle and pet drugs.
At this point science tells us that we don't yet know the impact of ingestion of low levels of drugs. And the concentrations are tiny (at least so far). One concern is that the AP study has shown that water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings. Of those areas tested, fewer than half of the large metropolitan, and almost no smaller providers, even test the water for drugs. A California provider suggested that the impacts aren't known yet, and the information might unduly ause alarm. Well, we think it might just cause appropriate alarm! The view that Americans can't handle information is offensive, and we've heard it too many times before. (Thanks to AP for doing this study.)
HOW MUCH RISK IS THERE?
The EPA has said they "recognize it is a growing concern [about drugs in the water] and we're taking it very seriously." Reecent studies which have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.
Drugs in water ways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting what are called sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life - such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.
Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They also express however, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.
Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation.
There's growing concern in the scientific community, meanwhile, that certain drugs - or combinations of drugs - may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day. And, unlike many other contaminants found in water, drugs are designed to have an impact on biological functions!
Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount taken in continuously over a many years. Impacts might stimulate allergies or cause nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more at risk than most (as usual).
"These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That's what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects," says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs.
While drugs are tested to be safe for humans, the timeframe is usually over a matter of months, not a lifetime. Drugs also can produce side effects and interact with other drugs at normal medical doses. There are no controls over which drugs are taken in this way, so negative interactions are certainly possible. That's why, except for fluoride, pharmaceuticals are prescribed to people who need them, not delivered to everyone in their drinking water.
WAITING FOR SCIENCE TO DECIDE?
We like to use the information available to us and reach our own conclusions. We remember that the medical industry in not-so-distant decades told us that tobacco was good for us, that lead and asbestos were not dangerous, and that human activity was not impacting the climate. Many still argue that fluoride has no risk in our water supply, despite that fact that we now intake fluoride at 4 times the level we did when they started adding fluoride to the water supply. We now ingest it from other sources too, including our food and drinks. We are baffled as to why so many put common sense behind what science has proven. We're not anti-science, we love it. But it shouldn't replace our ability to think for ourselves.
Our preference is not to wait for science to declare when something is dangerous, but to use our own common sense. This leads us to the following conclusion:
Taking drugs intended for others is a bad idea!
Don't let your body be an unintended science experiment.
WILL FILTERS REMOVE PHARMACEUTICALS?
Most filters have not yet been tested to determine if and to what extent drugs will be removed. We also know that people don't like to hear it, but test results can be misleading. Tests are naturally enough done with new filters. The tests normally often don't indicate how long that level of filtration will last when the filters are put to work.
The filters sold by friendsofwater.com are designed to remove contaminants, and do so very effectively. This includes not only those contaminants that were identified at some past time, but the new ones showing up in our water. In our standard single-canister kitchen filter, whether countertop or undercounter, there is kdf which removes chemical contaminants, and granulated carbon which removes organic contaminants. The drugs found in our water are either one or the other. Some specific additives to the water require additional filtering; that's why we add an extra canister for fluoride or for chloramines or nitrates.
-
When my mother died, we had an elaborate protocol to follow in getting rid of her meds. We couldn't just "flush them down the toilet" or throw them in the trash can. They had to be ground up with a mortar and pestle and placed in a sealed-tight can, taped up - then disposed of. California tends to be "environmentally conscious", in its own way, so I don't know if that was a "state" law or federal.
We did it, but there was no one to really check on whether we did it.
-
When my mother died, we had an elaborate protocol to follow in getting rid of her meds. We couldn't just "flush them down the toilet" or throw them in the trash can. They had to be ground up with a mortar and pestle and placed in a sealed-tight can, taped up - then disposed of. California tends to be "environmentally conscious", in its own way, so I don't know if that was a "state" law or federal.
We did it, but there was no one to really check on whether we did it.
I just wonder, for every one responsible drug user that disposes of their scripts in a proper way, how many don't care and just flush or dump in the garbage? Probably quite a few.
Also, I wonder too, about the amounts that end up in our water supply, from urine.
-
Also, I wonder too, about the amounts that end up in our water supply, from urine.
It's huge I believe, but mostly through the sewerage, then into the sea. Large quantities of vitamin supplements. Also, there is an enormous amount of gold in the sewerage.
-
To reach concentrations shown above, these substances need to be disposed on an industrial scale. How many drugs reach their 'best before' in drugstores every month? How many hormones and vitamins are added to the food and then disposed with it? The US and Canadian agricultural products are pretty horrible with regard to various hormone concentrations (added to accelerate the growth of the animals, etc.).
-
To reach concentrations shown above, these substances need to be disposed on an industrial scale. How many drugs reach their 'best before' in drugstores every month? How many hormones and vitamins are added to the food and then disposed with it? The US and Canadian agricultural products are pretty horrible with regard to various hormone concentrations (added to accelerate the growth of the animals, etc.).
Good points. :(
-
The more things change, the more they stay the same. So it seems with regard to Erin Brokovich's exposure PG&E's contamination of Hinkley, California's drinking water with the cancer-causing chromium 6.
The movie's old news, but a plume contaminating groundwater with the probable carcinogen is currently expanding, forcing PG&E to offer to buy residents' homes.
And it turns out that chromium 6 (also known as hexavalent chromium) was found in 31 U.S. cities' water supplies in a sampling of 35 cities. Among them, and in order of the severity of the contamination, are Riverside, San Jose, and Sacramento, California.
California has proposed a safe level of of .06 parts per billion, a limit that 25 of the city water supplies — including all of those in California — exceeded.
Industrial use of chromium 6 has dwindled since the Erin Brokovich's time, and, as a strange footnote that shows how difficult it is to conclusively tie a contaminant with specific health effects, later studies have suggested that there is no cancer cluster in Hinkley.
Even so, I'm certainly going to stay tuned to see if the next round of tests includes San Francisco
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=79476#ixzz1AB3fHPu4
The plume, which is 2 1/2 miles long and 1 mile wide, is laced with hexavalent chromium, a toxic metal that can cause breathing problems and cancer.
-
The thing is that there's nothing to do about it. Microelements, pollution of all levels of ecosphere, etc. - it's just a matter of time when it will become a personal thing.
-
The thing is that there's nothing to do about it. Microelements, pollution of all levels of ecosphere, etc. - it's just a matter of time when it will become a personal thing.
Aaah, but there are a couple of things we can do about it.
Number one, be aware, that's a huge step toward change, especially compared to ignorantly going on about our day.
Number two, voice our concerns to the people on top.
And Number three, it's controversial, but we can bless our drinking water before we drink it. There are several ways we can do this. We can charge it, before drinking, with sun or moon light, we can charge it with crystals or colours. Or we can do something that came into focus after the movie "What the bleep do we know?"
In the movie,a scene showed photos of water molecules that had been blessed by a spiritual leader next to photos of water molecules that were not. The non-blessed water molecules looked like blobs, whereas the blessed molecules were colourful and shaped like snowflakes. Ones that were cursed were ugly, dirty images.
We don't need a spiritual leader, though to bless our drinking water for us. All of us have, within, our own power to bless and bestow positive energy upon our drinking water or anything else we choose, for that matter.
:)
-
Masaru Emoto writes in The Miracle of Water that positive energy changes the molecular structure of water, making it cleaner and more pure, and even giving it healing properties. This doesn't refer to some kind of
electric device sending vibrations into water, but loving thoughts directed at the water.
He conducted experiments in which water molecules were studied under a microscope. The water came from various places, including tap water. The water didn't have crystals in it when frozen. Then, the water was exposed to positive intention. This intention was sent to the water in various ways. One group mentally thanked the water, sending loving thoughts to the water. Other samples of the water were placed into containers and affixed with positive words written on paper: love, peace, gratitude, hope, let's do it, together, etc. Still other samples were exposed to various Classical music recordings. All of the samples of water were frozen and checked under a microscope. All of the samples had grown beautiful formations of crystals, directly as a result of the positive energy it had received.
How do we know the change in water was due to the thoughts, words and music? Different samples of water were exposed to negative energy. One sample was exposed to people directing mean, angry thoughts at it. Another set of samples had negative words written on paper and taped to the containers, words like: you fool, hate, war, do it, and sorrow. A third group of water samples were exposed to heavy metal music. All of these samples, when frozen and examined under a microscope, had developed either broken and randomly scattered crystals, or none at all.
Masaru Emoto found that when people drank water that had been treated with positive energy, the water helped the people to become healthier.
more: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/901745/study_positive_energy_and_thinking.html?cat=68
-
Our leaders will change the world?
Never.
Magic will change the world?
It will change our fellow humans transfixed on consumerism?
So far it has consistently failed to do it.
From Atlantis onward.
-
Builder, that's an intwresting (mis)interpretation of what
I wrote. What I said was that you can change (charge) the water you consume. :)
-
Builder, that's an intwresting (mis)interpretation of what
I wrote. What I said was that you can change (charge) the water you consume. :)
And I say that it won't save you.
You can't change/magically manipulate the world. Maybe it will work to a limited effect with water, but there is much more than that that will get to you.
-
Just water, Builder. Just talking about the water. :)
-
Just water, Builder. Just talking about the water. :)
Try it and see if it works. Eventually there is only one test - your own life.
-
Try it and see if it works. Eventually there is only one test - your own life.
Charging the water most certainly works. I've done it numerous times. I don't know if there are any Wiccans here in Soma, but they charge their water quite often, too using the moon light. Actually I made a powerful batch of Moonwater on the lunar eclipse and drank it each morning as a charge up, instead of coffee. Worked wonders.
I think you may be mis-understanding what I am saying though if you think I said that positively charging the water is going to 'save' me. However, it's not a bad idea to start small and make changes little by little.
And again, awareness that there is a problem is key!
-
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Crestwood's water scandal betrays public trust
"You've been drinking contaminated water for the past twenty years ..."
This story about the city of Crestwood hiding from its residents that the water they were drinking was contaminated for decades takes my breath away. Crestwood's borders are less than a mile away, and the town's recently retired Mayor Chester Stranczek arrogantly reigned over his tiny south suburban kingdom for over thirty years, beloved by his subjects. This unspeakable public trust scandal is just unfolding -- and if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. The Southtown Star's Phil Kadner writes today:
When I called and asked IEPA officials how they could have allowed the problem to exist for so long without stepping in, a spokeswoman at first said the IEPA did its job by making sure that the contaminated well was capped in 2007.
But the IEPA first detected perchlorethylene (PCE), a cleaning solvent, in the well water in the mid-1980s.
"Crestwood officials told us the well had been shut down and that only Lake Michigan drinking water was being used," the IEPA spokeswoman said. "We trusted them. They lied to us. We trust public officials to tell us the truth, and 99 percent of the time they do. What are we supposed to do? Assume they are lying?"
This is Illinois. So yes, I assume public officials may lie. ...
From the Illinois Review:
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/
~~~~~~~
Death on Tap: The Poisoning of Walkerton
In May 2000, bacteria seeped into Walkerton's town well. The deadly E. coli then slipped quietly through a maze of pipes and into the homes of Walkerton, Ont. Unsuspecting residents thirstily drank the polluted water and bathed in their bacteria-ridden tubs. But soon after, they began experiencing common symptoms of infection; bloody diarrhea and throbbing cramps. Seven people would eventually die and another 1286 would fall ill. The investigation which followed exposed an alarmingly unstable waterworks system made fragile by government cuts.
Broadcast Date: May 24, 2000
Four people are dead and hundreds of others are sick in Walkerton, Ont. A strain of the powerful E. coli bacteria has polluted the town's drinking water. Residents first began experiencing symptoms one week earlier on May 17, 2000. Hospitals have since been flooded with patients complaining of stomach cramps and diarrhea. It remains a mystery how this happened. Schools and daycares are closed. Restaurants and bars are open for business but there are but a few brave patrons.
Orange emergency helicopter ambulances descend on the town to airlift critically ill patients to a larger, specialized hospital in neighbouring London, Ont. Walkerton residents are distressed and demand to know why they weren't told earlier. Town officials are on the defensive and medical officers are baffled by this growing epidemic, as reported in this CBC News report. [/i]
CBC News Archives
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
-
When you manage to bless water clean of, say, cyanide (a stuff that kills in seconds) and dare to drink it - let me know.
-
When you manage to bless water clean of, say, cyanide (a stuff that kills in seconds) and dare to drink it - let me know.
I would never say it is impossible.
-
I would never say it is impossible.
Of course you wouldn't. I would be interested in seeing you actually do it.
Do you actually know how many times we have been at the very same spot: you claiming healing everyone is possible, claiming blessing water clean of chemicals is possible, etc?
But I am yet to see any facts, any deeds of yours in support of these claims.
Another infinite pattern that just goes on and on. Infinitely.
Can you give me any reason why bother? For what I am talking about, is what one actually can do, not what one builds groundless hopes on.
Apparently, you need hope more than anything.
-
Of course you wouldn't. I would be interested in seeing you actually do it.
Do you actually know how many times we have been at the very same spot: you claiming healing everyone is possible, claiming blessing water clean of chemicals is possible, etc?
Again, you misread me. I have never once said I have done this or could do it. I've blessed my own drinking water. That is all.
Yes, we have been here many times, you think you know me. You only know what you allow yourself to see. Have a good day, Builder. I'm off to do some pre-birthday party shopping. Should be fun!
-
Again, you misread me. I have never once said I have done this or could do it. I've blessed my own drinking water. That is all.
Yes, we have been here many times, you think you know me. You only know what you allow yourself to see. Have a good day, Builder. I'm off to do some pre-birthday party shopping. Should be fun!
I was about to say ciao as well.
There simply isn't anything to talk about any more.
-
I don't know about the science, although I recall research being done on salt crystal formations. But personally I adopt the 'blessing' approach to everything in my life.
-
I don't know about the science, although I recall research being done on salt crystal formations. But personally I adopt the 'blessing' approach to everything in my life.
Me, too. After all, what harm could it possibly do?
You know, Tenzin Palmo, the Buddhist nun, who spent 12 yrs (and then some) in a cave, she practiced blessing her food and drink, each little mouthful, before putting it in her mouth. I think it's a powerful practice and imagine what we could do on a global scale if we applied that to our own personal lives, globally.
-
On the other side, we have the currently popular view that stuff is just stuff. I had this discussion only recently with an old acquaintance. He espoused the view that cars are just machines, and shouldn't have any personal feelings attached to them. I have seen this attitude applied to everything in a person's life.
I prefer to extend my inner love to every object in my life - I bless it by a special affection. I take the view that my life is precious, and thus everything in my life is precious. It's not just a passive attitude - I actively initiate things.
Some things in life are not always a matter of choice. So I adopt the view of, "If you're not with the one you love, love the one you're with." For example with food, when I realise it's not prepared or chosen the way I like, I will never sit there complaining about it as I eat it. My only option is to induce it into my 'world' by loving it by choice. Doesn't mean I forget it is somehow wrong, and thus to avoid in future, but I never reject it emotionally if I am accepting it physically.
I recall the old American Indians saying no one ever got cancer from smoking in their day, because their attitude to smoking was totally different - it was a sacred thing. I witnessed the same with the physical fitness men on the Ganges at Varanasi - they swam and drank the putrid water, but were as healthy and fit as you could be.
I don't go for believing I can remove cholera by treating something as sacred - it may be possible, but realistically it's better to clean up the river if you love it. However I do hold for treating everything as sacred. Not because it may change the quality of the thing, but because that is my predilection towards my world, which will disappear when I disappear.
One problem with discovering something wrong with the environment we live in, is that we start to reject it emotionally while remaining in it. First try to do something about it, but if that is not possible, then love it.
-
Excellent post Michael.
-
Some things in life are not always a matter of choice. So I adopt the view of, "If you're not with the one you love, love the one you're with." For example with food, when I realise it's not prepared or chosen the way I like, I will never sit there complaining about it as I eat it. My only option is to induce it into my 'world' by loving it by choice. Doesn't mean I forget it is somehow wrong, and thus to avoid in future, but I never reject it emotionally if I am accepting it physically.
Yes! Exactly.
I recall the old American Indians saying no one ever got cancer from smoking in their day, because their attitude to smoking was totally different - it was a sacred thing. I witnessed the same with the physical fitness men on the Ganges at Varanasi - they swam and drank the putrid water, but were as healthy and fit as you could be.
I don't go for believing I can remove cholera by treating something as sacred - it may be possible, but realistically it's better to clean up the river if you love it. However I do hold for treating everything as sacred. Not because it may change the quality of the thing, but because that is my predilection towards my world, which will disappear when I disappear.
I agree here, too. First step, awareness, then action. And treating everything as sacred.... because everything is. Thanks for this reminder. I've become a little curious, since speaking on this subject of what kinds of things could be done on a global scale. Similar to a Global Meditation, we could do a Global Blessing. We could focus on the water maybe, or the air or water, the fish and birds, to affect a change. I know this is happening all around us already, but I'm feeling like I want to become more a part of this.
One problem with discovering something wrong with the environment we live in, is that we start to reject it emotionally while remaining in it. First try to do something about it, but if that is not possible, then love it.
Thank you so much for saying this better than I ever could have!
-
Similar to a Global Meditation, we could do a Global Blessing.
I don't have anything against such things, but I tend to not do it myself - at least not in that way. I'm sure it all helps, but too often in life I've seen people who go in for such things, have much they could do in their own life first. It is like those who complain about pollution in the world but still smoke tobacco. First begin at home, then that energy will naturally permeate outwards.
Yet as I have said before, the old Aust Aboriginals would do increase ceremonies for a specific animal or plant "all over the world".
-
Nothing that I can do will change the structure of the universe. But maybe, by raising my voice I can help the greatest of all causes - goodwill among men and peace on earth.
--Albert Einstein