Let’s shed a tear for bottled water. Increasingly, it has come under attack from a number of groups. The criticisms range from environmental impact (Fiji water is the poster child for high carbon footprints) to cost to health concerns.

I’d like to pose this truth…Water is a CHOICE. When drinking water, we’re faced with a myriad of factors to balance (Environmental, Convenience, Cost, Health Concerns, Taste) when making our choice.

Over the next week, I’ll be posting about each of this factors and how it pertains to water. Up first, environmental!

In the meantime, enjoy the gullibility of the American foodie:

In October, I’ll be giving a talk at DtaS titled: Bottled vs Tap: How do we choose? It’ll be an in-depth discussion on the choices behind our water consumption (health, environment, safety, convenience, etc.). I’ve been giving the talk for a while, should be a fun translation to the science cafe format.

This past week on Science Friday, Elizabeth Royte discussed her new book
Bottlemania. The book details the rise of the bottle water industry and the subsequent decline in our public water infrastructure. In 1987, Americans drank about 5 gallons of bottled water per year, now that number has rocketed to 28 gallons. At the same time, consumption of soda and other water-like beverages has increased tenfold.

It’s an interesting dilemma…bottled water offers the lure of safety, health, convenience, and even some style (I’ve been known to buy a bottle of Dasani, owned by Coca-Cola, just because of the pleasing blue tint). Yet, how much safer is it? Is it healthier than tap? What about the environmental impact? Convenience issues can be overcome too, no?

Elizabeth tackles these questions in the most interesting part of the book, the story of Freyburg, Maine. It is home to one of the bottling plants for Poland Spring, the largest bottled water supplier in the U.S.. A town that revolted against bottled water production as it threatens local supplies of freshwater. Seeing pictures of local communities fight against bottled water, yet many see it as salvation (20-30 million in this country don’t have access to consistently safe water without treatment).

The old axiom sticks…you don’t buy water, you just rent it. It’s just a matter of how much you pay.

I was listening to an interesting piece on Mercury’s history in the San Francisco Bay this past two weeks, courtesy of our friends over at KQED QUEST.

It’s an excellent 3 part series, focusing on how the problem has evolved and what lies ahead. One of the more interesting pieces is a short conversation with Dr. Jane Hightower, a doctor in San Francisco who specializes in diagnosing mercury poisoning cases. She published a paper in 2003 that garnered a lot of attention. She gathered a group of 89 individuals who had high fish consumption diets and measured their mercury levels over the course of a year. 89% had levels higher than the EPA reference dose (their guidelines) at 0.1 micrograms/kg of body weight. This study raised quite an alarm about mercury in fish, even though it did not yet indicate the symptomatic effects of mercury.

Back to the story at hand, QUEST interviewed her about Mercury poisoning. Listen to the story.

She admits that more study is needed in the area, but there is much difficulty in getting the study done (Hg is so toxic, it’s hard to get a study of humans approved, also Hg symptoms seem to be very different in different people).

After listening the story, I googled Dr. Hightower. I found an interesting site called MercuryFacts.org. The site essentially slams Dr. Hightower’s work (among others). After some digging, I found this site was established by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit devoted to “defending the right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves.” I personally found the site slanderous bordering on malicious. Their Hg calculator uses a toxicity figure 10 times lower than the EPA’s (they don’t use the Reference dose as the EPA does, instead they take away the built in EPA buffer for their calculator). It’s highly misleading. Here’s a short video they ran against PETA “they want us to all be vegetarians”.

I would suggest looking to Real Mercury Facts, a site run by the University of Maryland, for a little less biased view.

More Info:
Oceana Report on Hg Testing of Fish in Grocery Stores
Center for Consumer Freedom
EPA Guidelines on Hg

On May 8th, the three month discussion on Water in California concludes with a look to the future. With expected water pinches coming from population growth and climate change, the discussion is fairly pertinent. BASF is focused on creating an informed public as key ballot issues on water are pending.

The discussion will focus on the following strategies:

* Increasing surface storage through dam building.
* Desalination of sea water.
* Attempting to match water quality with usage, so that the cost to produce high quality drinking water is only incurred when it is needed.
* Prevention of water pollution, including urban runoff management, to decrease the amount of treatment needed.

The dam issue is key, as the governator is pushing for an 11.6 Billion dollar bond measure to build new dams (exactly where is unknown) and create a canal around the San Joaquin Delta (where there is all that hubbub about a little fish). The push is under great attack by environmentalists for the lack of conservation measures in the bill. And frankly the talk of desalinization as a solution is almost laughable…as discussed in part 1 of this series, the process is so energy intensive, the water produced will be incredibly expensive.

Also, how the heck are we going to pay for 11.6 billion dollar in water upgrades considering the expected $14 billion budget deficit? There are plenty of questions on this topic, I would definitely make this night.

More Info:
Chronicle Article on new dam measure
Cal Water Crisis (group funded by number of California Water Agencies)
Dan Bacher’s Critique of Governators Plan

Last month, we talked about the endocrine disruptor atrazine (it induces formation of aromatase…which plays a role in the conversion of testosterone to estrogen).

The timing was perfect, as the AP concluded a 5 month investigation into pharmaceuticals in national water supplies last month as well. They found trace amounts of pharmas in 24 major metropolitan areas, including San Francisco. In SF, the AP found the sex hormone estradiol present in trace quantities in our water. Scary stuff eh? Let’s break it down.

Let’s start at source: You take drugs. Drugs are designed to flood your system. You pee the extra out.

Pee travels down to the wastewater treatment plant. We went on a tour of a waste water plant….remember how they mentioned they don’t clean a number of organics (including cooking oils)? Well, that fun stuff often gets flushed out into the ocean or lakes unperturbed. Maybe some bacteria break it down along the way. It gets diluted through the water cycle…ends up in minute/microscopic quantities back in our water supply.

Studies have shown exposure to estrogen is part of path to certain cancers, including breast and prostate cancer.

We don’t know what long term exposure to these low levels of pharmas will do. Probably nothing on their own, but they are part of a greater picture of “stress” on our bodies.

If you’re scared, protect yourself by using a carbon filter…it effectively removes most of these pharmas even at low concentrations. And take the time to properly dispose of your drugs.

But let’s back up for a sec…how come these items go untreated at the wastewater plants? I specifically asked for the effluent data on my last visit to the wastewater treatment plant…got the runaround with no luck. And I think that’s the point…how are we “treating” our waste? Where is the transparency of data (the AP mentions how difficult it was to get this data)?

Well, I for one care about what is getting pushed out into the Pacific from my toilet. And I’m going to write my local water authority to ensure they do as well.

More Info:
AP Report on Pharma’s in Water
AP’s Test Results
SFPUC Response to AP Report
Proper Disposal of Prescription Drugs