Drugs on tap; Keeping Pharmecuticals Out Of Our Water Supply

There is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to contaminants in our water supplies. One of the biggest concern in recent years has been the discovery of measurable concentrations of  Pharmaceutical drugs in public water supplies. Improvements in our ability to test for such contaminants has lead to the realization that  these drugs are present and in concentrations that are concerning to say the least. The EPA ha funded a Pilot "Mail-Back Program" in an effort to asses the viability of preventing consumers from disposing of leftover prescription medications in ways that allow them to get in into the water supply systems. With the amount of prescriptions being improperly disposed of, there is real cause for concern, especially for young children and the elderly. Below is a press release that came out today about the EPA funded program.
 

ENVIRO NEWS:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2010

Report Released on Pharmaceutical Mail-back Pilot Program Funded by EPA

Agency provided $150,000 grant to University of Maine's Center on Aging
to undertake study

WASHINGTON -Through a grant awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the University of Maine's Center on Aging has completed
the first statewide mail-back pilot program for managing pharmaceutical
waste from consumers. Studies show that pharmaceuticals are present in
our nation's waterbodies and that certain drugs may cause ecological
harm. EPA is currently evaluating the potential risks associated with
pharmaceuticals and personal care products on public health and aquatic
life.

"This pilot is important because it has filled research gaps about the
volumes and types of medications that can end up in our waters, and
affect our ecosystems," said Peter S. Silva, assistant administrator for
EPA's Office of Water. "The pilot also gave residents a way to serve as
environmental stewards to reduce water pollution."

The program included the use of mailers to return unused and unwanted
medications, both prescription and over-the-counter, from households.

Maine Care (Maine's Medicaid program) established a limit for certain
drugs on the quantity that can be filled with an initial prescription.
This policy is targeted at reducing the supply and accumulation of
unused medications and to prevent pollution. The Maine legislature also
recognized the value of the take-back pilot and enacted legislation to
continue the program for an additional two years. As part of the EPA
grant, the University of Maine's Center on Aging  developed a handbook
on the project and collected data on the type and amount of unused
medications.

The grant is part of EPA's larger efforts to protect the health of older
adults and encourage older adults to engage in environmental stewardship
in their communities. Older adults were actively involved in the design
and implementation of the safe medicine disposal; for Maine pilot
program.

To view the executive summary of the report:
http://www.epa.gov/aging/RX-report-Exe-Sum/


CONTACT:
Enesta Jones
jones.enesta@epa.gov
202-564-7873
202-564-4355


Pharmaceuticals in my water is very bad news.

AP

www.AskAquaPro.com AquaPro@AskaquaPro.com  www.AquaProSolutions.com, www.AquaEnvi.org, www.AshevilleGreenPlumbing.com,

Poison in our tap water??!!

It’s one of those things we just take for granted; water from our tap is safe to drink and shower or bathe in. The truth is it may be a leading contributor for the increase of cancer, birth defects, heart disease and many more of the health scourges rampant in society. It’s not the “water” mind you, but what’s in it that is the problem. When considering the situation, it is evident that the “deciders” of the world knowingly chose the “lesser of two evils”. The chemical treatment of water began some 100 or so years ago as a means to remove or at least manage known viruses & bacterium. Chlorine, the most commonly used chemical in Water Treatment Facilities world wide, is also one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet. So basically it was decided to that it would be better to expose the public to low levels of a very toxic chemical and deal with the unknown consequence later rather than continue the know risk of mass illnesses and deaths associated with water borne diseases. Now don’t get me wrong I believe the intention was right, but I also believe the method was poorly considered. Chlorinating was the easy and inexpensive choice. A choice that is returning to haunt the ghosts of those who made it, and those of us that are left to deal with the consequences; many of which are only beginning to be recognized. There is an irony here in that the chemical treatment of water supplies allowed societies to stabilize and grow, which promoted advancements in medicine and technology. Through these advancements we gain an understanding of what the chemicals are doing to us and to the environment.

There is certainly a lot more to be said about the state of our water, and Chlorine is not the only contaminant to be concerned about, but we have to start somewhere. The list of know contaminants in public water supplies gets longer every year. The statement “if you don’t use a water filter you are the filter” is a scary reality. Use a filter-Don’t be the filter!

That’s what I think-what do you think?