Navigation Menu

Is Our Drinking Water a Chemical Soup?

-- Problems and Solutions

Author: Jian Gao, PhD

Editor: Mr. Frederick Malphurs

July 4, 2024

The Problems

If you think our drinking water is pure and wholesome, think again. First, where do all the runoff fertilizer and pesticides from residential and agricultural use go? Second, where do all the chemicals discharged from all the manufacturers go? Third, where do all the chemicals ending up in landfills go? Fourth, where do all prescription and over the counter drugs either discarded or metabolized go? Fifth, what contaminants are tested or not tested at your municipal water plant? Sixth, do you know most of the pipes carrying water from the treatment plant to your home in most communities contain lead? Finally, are the chemicals such as chlorine used by water treatment plants for disinfection safe?

As to the first question, here is what USGS (United States Geological Survey), a government agency focusing on biology, geography, geology, and hydrology of the landscape, has to say, “Considerable increases in fertilizer and pesticide use began in the 1960s. In 2010, about 11 billion kilograms of nitrogen fertilizer and 300 million kilograms of pesticides were used annually to enhance crop production or control pests… Fertilizers and pesticides don’t remain stationary on the landscape where they are applied; runoff and infiltration transport these contaminants into local streams, rivers, and groundwater.”1

In just little over 20 years, the fertilizer use has increased by 73% to 19 billion kilograms (41.9 billion pounds), and pesticides increased by 51% to 454 million kilograms (1 billion pounds). And do not forget: Only two thirds of the fertilizer is used by the crops and less than 0.01% of the pesticides are absorbed by the targeted pests (e.g., weeds and insects).2,3  

Regarding the second question, nobody knows how much or how many synthetic chemicals producers and users have dumped into the environment since the 1940s. Among all the manmade chemicals discharged into the environment, PFASs (per- and polyfluorinated compounds) known as “forever chemicals,” especially its two family members PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), have been thrust into the spotlight recently due to numerous incidents of widespread contamination and mounting evidence of toxicity.   

PFAS, a class of over 12,000 different manmade chemicals including PFOA and PFOS, is truly ubiquitous – they find their way into hundreds of common household items such as furniture and carpet, water-repellent clothes, cosmetics, cleaning products, fast food wrappers, nonstick pans, paints, firefighting foams – they are detectable in the blood of 98 percent of us.

Of course, they are in our drinking water. In a recent report, EWG (Environment Working Group) stated, “Based on our tests and new academic research that found PFAS widespread in rainwater, EWG scientists now believe PFAS is likely detectable in all major water supplies in the U.S., almost certainly in all that use surface water… Of tap water samples from 44 places in 31 states and the District of Columbia, only one location had no detectable PFAS, and only two other locations had PFAS below the level that independent studies show pose risks to human health.”4

“I think it’s one of the biggest threats in drinking water that people don’t have a complete understanding of, and it’s been around for decades,” says David Andrews, PhD, a senior scientist at the EWG who was involved with the report. In fact, the number of communities confirmed to be heavily contaminated with PFAS in the US continues to grow at an alarming rate – as of June 2022, 2,858 locations in 50 states and two territories are known to be heavily contaminated.5

One of these locations is close to home – Hoosick Falls, a small town near Albany, New York where I have lived and worked for over 30 years. Despite the danger, nobody knew about the contamination for decades until Hoosick Fall’s resident Michael Hickey launched his own investigation into the town’s water supply since he was concerned about the high rate of cancer in the community. His father, John Hickey, died of kidney cancer in 2013. His father worked for decades at the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics plant using PFOA, a member of PFAS, to make Teflon for non-stick cooking ware.

In 2014, after searching the connection between PFOA and cancer he took samples from the town water and sent them to a lab for testing on his own dime. The results showed high levels of PFOA and caught the attention of the New York State Department of Health which ran further tests revealing PFOA levels as high as 600 ppt (parts per trillion) in sharp contrast to the EPA health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS at 70 ppt individually or combined at the time.4 And the tests also revealed the PFOA contamination reached 18,000 ppt in the groundwater near the Saint-Gobain plant and 21,000 ppt at a nearby dump site.

At long last, EPA has started to realize the gravity of the PFAS problem which extends far beyond the heavily contaminated sites. On April 10, 2024, EPA issued the first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard setting limits for five individual PFAS: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA, as well as four PFAS as a mixture: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS.

Now for both PFOA and PFOS, the EPA sets the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) at 4.0 ppt (parts per trillion), and the goal is zero. Just a few years ago, the EPA health advisory level was 70 ppt.6 Did the EPA experts not know better or was it because the 70 ppt level was politically convenient?

Now the self-congratulatory EPA proclaimed, “The final rule will reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.” This sounds great – finally EPA takes action. On the other hand, EPA has just told us these chemicals have been killing thousands and sickening more but did nothing to stop it for decades.  A reasonable question to ask is, why did EPA drag its feet for so long while people are getting sick and dying? It is never too late, but it is still too little.

In addition to the chemicals for industrial use, chemicals/plastics used in homes are a big problem too. Apart from the poisonous pesticides and toxic cleaning products we use every day, most of the stuff thrown into garbage cans and ending up in landfills are synthetic – they will break down into toxic chemicals over time and find their way into our drinking water.

Pharmaceutical drugs are increasingly becoming a problem too. Let alone the over-the-counter drugs, over 8.7 billion prescriptions were filled in 2021, according to HHS (Human Health Services).7 The ingredients of all the common medications are all detectable in drinking water – they come from landfills (pills thrown away) and sewage systems (pills taken and metabolized) through water treatment plants. Just as USGS explained, “Pharmaceuticals get into the water supply via human excretion and by drugs being flushed down the toilet. You might think wastewater treatment plants would take care of the situation, but pharmaceuticals pass through water treatment.”8

The worst part is we don’t know what we don’t know. Municipal drinking water treatment plants do not test for these chemicals because they don’t know what to test for.

Municipal drinking water treatment plants indeed test for some heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. But the lead levels at homes could be very different from the levels at the water treatment plants because lead in the aged water pipes underground can leach out. That was the cause of the Flint water crisis in Michigan. Lead contamination isn’t unique to Flint – before lead pipes bringing water into homes were banned in 1986 nationwide, most water pipes underground were made of lead or at least contained lead (lead pipes were used because they are stable, flexible, and rarely leak – they can reshape and adapt as the ground moves). Thank heaven, the lead problem will likely be fixed in the future as the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is implemented. But other problems remain.

Some of the problems are self-inflicted. One of them has garnered significant public attention, especially in light of the 2024 presidential election. Adding fluoride to drinking water that is naturally deficient in it can help prevent tooth decay. However, excessive fluoride can be detrimental to health. A recent meta-analysis of 30 studies found that children with high exposure to fluoride exhibited lower IQ levels in a dose-response relationship.9

A more insidious problem is the collateral damage from water disinfection using chlorine. The implementation of drinking water disinfection and filtration is considered as one of the most important public health advances of the last century, which has effectively eliminated waterborne infectious diseases and poisoning. “But the use of chlorine has a dark side: In addition to inactivating waterborne pathogens, chlorine reacts with natural organic matter to produce a variety of toxic disinfection by-products (DBPs),” reported in the prestigious journal Science.10 Studies found an increased risk of bladder cancer after life-long ingestion of chlorinated drinking water.11-14 EPA acknowledges that exposure to DBPs increased 2-17% of the bladder cancer cases.15

 In addition to cancer, DBPs are also linked to other health problems such as birth defects.16-18 The health hazards of DBPs have since been well recognized worldwide. Unfortunately, the full scope of health problems caused by DBPs is yet to be uncovered. Scientists don’t even know how many DBPs are in treated water – at least half of the DBPs are unknown because chlorine is chemically so reactive it reacts with almost everything.14 Among over 600 DBPs that has been identified and reported,13 currently EPA only regulates chlorite, bromate, THMs (trihalomethanes), and HAAs (haloacetic acids). Why only four?

Taken together, unless you live in an area where pesticides/fertilizer are not used and far away from industrial sites, and chorine or other chemicals are not used for disinfection, your drinking water is probably full of toxic chemicals like fertilizer, pesticides, forever chemicals, disinfection by-products, and ingredients of prescription drugs, just to name a few. To say our drinking water is more of a chemical soup than anything else is not fearmongering.

The Solutions

Spring Water

The most wholesome drinking water is spring water, which has few pollutants but is full of essential minerals. Bottled spring water is good except that plastic bottles pose a huge environmental problem, and chemicals in the plastic bottles also leach into the water if stored for a long time or in a hot place. To mitigate the problems, try to buy large bottles like 2.5 or 5 gallons (big bottles have relatively smaller surfaces in contact with the water), and don’t store bottled water for an extended time and/or in hot places such as garages during summertime.

Of course, the best solution is to collect spring water with stainless steel or glass contains if you can find a local spring.

 Filtered or Purified Water

You can have a water purification system installed or buy a portable filter for home use. Either way, it is good to understand how water filters work. For decades, activated carbon filters have been the workhouse removing pollutants from water. Nowadays, ion exchange (IX) is increasingly being used in water filters.  

Activated Carbon Filters

Activated carbon, also called activated charcoal, is extensively used in water and air filters. Charcoal is a lightweight black carbon residue produced by heating organic materials such as coal, woodchips, or coconut shells in a low oxygen environment. Charcoal can be directly used in filters, but it is inefficient in removing contaminants because it isn’t very porous (not many holes in it). More holes can be created by a process called activation. Charcoal can be activated by steam or chemicals.

Steam activation is preferred because no chemicals are involved. When you buy activated carbon filters, try to ask the manufacturer whether charcoal is activated by steam or chemicals. If they use chemicals, ask them what chemicals they use and if they test the chemical residuals. Manufacturers care only when you care.

Activated carbon is very effective in absorbing contaminates simply because of its physical property – one pound of activated carbon contains a surface area of approximately 100 acres! Activated carbon is at its best in removing chlorine and improving taste – nothing else equals its ability on this. In addition to chlorine, activated carbon is also pretty good at removing thousands of DBPs like trihalomethanes (THMs), which are proven dangerous to our health as just discussed. 

Activated carbon is effective in removing all kinds of organic compounds – many of them with familiar names, solvents such as benzene, chlorinated aromatics such as PCBs and DDT, gasoline, oil, pesticides, and herbicides.19,20 Activated carbon can also remove 99% of the antibiotics in the water.21

Despite its versatility, activated carbon is not a cure-all. It can only partially remove the forever chemicals and heavy metals such as mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium.22,23 And it is ineffective in removing fluoride, nitrates, sodium, bacteria and viruses.

Ion exchange (IX)

First, what’s an ion? An ion is any atom or molecule having a net electrical charge, either positive or negative, which means the number of electrons (negative charge) is not equal to the number of protons (positive charge). In ion exchange, the harmful ions (chemicals) in water are replaced by the benign ions (e.g., Na+). Here is how the process works: By electrical charge, these benign ions are temporally attached to the so-called functional groups (e.g., sulfonate: RSO3–) that are permanently affixed to the medium (polymers or plastics). When water is going through the medium, the harmful ions (such as heavy metals like lead, cadmium, or arsenic) having a greater affinity with the functional groups (more attractive than Na+) kick Na+ out and take their places. So, the benign chemicals are released to water and the toxic chemicals are glued onto the medium.

IX works for both positively and negatively charged ions (contaminants), but it is contaminant specific – the selected benign ions must be less attractive to the functional groups than the contaminants. And not all contaminants are ions (positively or negatively charged). For instance, IX cannot get rid of benzene which is not an ion. That is why the popular brands use both activated carbon and IX in their water filters, and some of them also use proprietary media to filter out specific chemicals that activated carbon and IX are unable to clean out.  

Reverse Osmosis (RO)

RO is not widely used in portable water filters, but it is good to know its pros and cons. The mechanism of RO is simple – pushing the water with contaminants through a semipermeable membrane with very tiny pores not allowing any particles larger than water molecules (H2O) to pass – the result is almost-pure water going through and contaminants being left behind.

Compared to other filtration systems, the greatest advantage of RO is it removes almost all contaminants, from bacteria and viruses to all kinds of chemicals. It can be readily deployed where the water is heavily contaminated or only salt water is available.

However, RO does come with some downsides: First, for daily household use, it wastes a lot of water; for each gallon of clean water produced, two to four gallons are discharged as non-drinkable water. Second, it requires pressure to push the water through. So, it does not work for pitchers relying on gravity. Finally, and most importantly, RO also removes most of the beneficial and even essential minerals such as Iron, calcium, and manganese from water, which could have deleterious effect on health. Studies have shown using demineralized water for cooking cause losses of all essential minerals from food such as vegetables, meat, cereals. Such losses can reach up to 60% of magnesium and calcium, 66% of copper, 70% of manganese, and 86% of cobalt.24-28

What Filters to Use?

Unless you use RO, which also filters out most beneficial minerals, no filters can get rid of all the toxic chemicals. So, there is no perfect solution here, but you can greatly reduce toxic chemicals in your drinking water. The first step is to know what the main contaminants are in your drinking water, which vary greatly from one area to another. The best source of information on water contamination is EWG’s Tap Water Database, where you can enter your zip code, select your water district, and find the main contaminants that are harmful.

EWG also provides a guide for you to select countertop water pitchers. EWG scientists independently tested 10 of the leading brands/models for the most common and harmful contaminants (e.g., PFAS, and hexavalent chromium) and reported the test results on their website. Overall, ZeroWater, Epic, Clearly Filtered, and PUR are the best filters, but not all of them are created the same. Some are better than others in removing specific chemicals. For instance, researchers at Dartmouth college independently tested five brands and found only ZeroWater removes 100% of arsenic.29

In short, with a little learning, you can select the pitcher to meet your needs based on the contaminants in your tap water and the performance of different filters.

About the Author and Editor: Jian Gao, PhD, is a healthcare analyst/researcher for the last 25 years who devoted his analytical skills to understanding health sciences and clinical evidence. Mr. Frederick Malphurs is a retired senior healthcare executive in charge of multiple hospitals for decades who dedicated his entire 37 years’ career to improving patient care. Neither of us takes pleasure in criticizing any individuals, groups, or organizations for the failed state of healthcare, but we share a common passion — to reduce unnecessary sufferings inflicted by the so-called chronic or incurable diseases on patients and their loved ones by analyzing and sharing information on root causes, effective treatments, and prevention.

Disclaimer: This article and any contents on this website are informational or educational only and should by no means be considered as a substitute for the advice of a qualified medical professional. It is the patients and caregivers’ solemn responsibility to work with qualified professionals to develop the best treatment plan. The author and editor assume no liability of any outcomes from any treatments or interventions.

References

  1. Agricultural Contaminants. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/agricultural-contaminants?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
  2. Ritchie H. Excess fertilizer use: which countries cause environmental damage by overapplying fertilizers? Published online at OurWorldInData.org. 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/excess-fertilizer.
  3. Pimentel D. Amounts of pesticides reaching target pests: Environmental impacts and ethics. J Agric Environ Ethics 8, 17–29 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02286399.
  4. PFAS Contamination of Drinking Water Far More Prevalent Than Previously Reported. https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/
  5. PFAS Contamination in the U.S. (June 8, 2022) https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/
  6. FACT SHEET PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/drinkingwaterhealthadvisories_pfoa_pfos_updated_5.31.16.pdf
  7. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Trends in Prescription Drug Spending, 2016-2021. Sep. 30, 2022. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/88c547c976e915fc31fe2c6903ac0bc9/sdp-trends-prescription-drug-spending.pdf
  8. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/pharmaceuticals-water
  9. Veneri F, Vinceti M, Generali L, et al. Fluoride exposure and cognitive neurodevelopment: Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Environ Res. 2023 Mar 15;221:115239. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115239. Epub 2023 Jan 10. PMID: 36639015.
  10. Sedlak DL, von Gunten U. Science. Chemistry. The chlorine dilemma. 2011 Jan 7;331(6013):42-3.
  11. Hrudey SE, Fawell J. 40 years on: what do we know about drinking water disinfection by-products (DBPs) and human health? Water Sci. Technol.: Water Supply. 2015, 15(4), 667-674.
  12. Cantor KP, Villanueva CM, Silverman DT, et al. Polymorphisms in GSTT1, GSTZ1, and CYP2E1, disinfection by-products, and risk of bladder cancer in Spain. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Nov;118(11):1545-50.
  13. Hrudey SE. Chlorination disinfection by-products, public health risk tradeoffs and me. Water Res. 2009;43(8):2057-2092.
  14. Villanueva CM, Cantor KP, Cordier S, et al. Disinfection byproducts and bladder cancer – A pooled analysis, Epidemiology. 2004;15(3):357-367.
  15. Odom R, Regli S, Messner M, et al. Benefit-cost analysis of the stage 1D/DBP rule, J. – Am. Water Works Assoc.1999;91(4):137-147.
  16. Hwang BF, Jaakkola JJ, Guo HR. Water disinfection by-products and the risk of specific birth defects: a population-based cross-sectional study in Taiwan. Environ Health. 2008 Jun 2;7:23. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-7-23.
  17. Hattersley JG. The negative health effects of chlorine. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. 2000;15(2):89-95.
  18. Zeighami E, Watson A, Craun G. Chlorination. water hardness and serum cholesterol in forty-six Wisconsin communities. Int J Epidemiol. 1990;19 (1):49-58.
  19. Franks G. Carbon Filtration: What It Does, What It Doesn’t. http://www.purewaterproducts.com/articles/carbon
  20. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=49879
  21. Zhang X, Guo W, Ngo HH et al. Performance evaluation of powdered activated carbon for removing 28 types of antibiotics from water. J Environ Manage. 2016 May 1;172:193-200.
  22. Karnib M, Kabbani A, Holail H, Olama Z.Heavy Metals Removal Using Activated Carbon, Silica and Silica Activated Carbon Composite. Energy Procedia. 2014;Vol50:113-120.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.06.014.
  23. Herkert NJ, Merrill J, Peters C, Bollinger D, et al. Assessing the Effectiveness of Point-of-Use Residential Drinking Water Filters for Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2020 7 (3), 178-184. DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00004.
  24. Verma KC, Kushwaha AS. Demineralization of drinking water: Is it prudent? Med J Armed Forces India. 2014 Oct;70(4):377-9.
  25. Kozisek F. Health Risk from Drinking Demineralized Water. Rolling Revision of the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 2004 pp. 8–9.
  26. Working Group Report. Health Effects of the Removal of Substances Occurring Naturally in Drinking Water, with Special Reference to Demineralized and Desalinated Water. EURO Reports and Studies 16. Copenhagen. WHO; Geneva: 1979.
  27. Haring BSA, Van Delft W. Changes in the mineral composition of food as a result of cooking in “hard” and “soft” waters. Arch. Environ Health. 1981;36:33–35.
  28. Oh CK, Lücker PW, Wetzelsberger N, et al. The determination of magnesium, calcium, sodium and potassium in assorted foods with special attention to the loss of electrolytes after various forms of food preparations. Mag Bull. 1986;8:297–302.
  29. Barnaby R, Liefeld A, Jackson BP, Hampton TH, Stanton BA. Effectiveness of table top water pitcher filters to remove arsenic from drinking water. Environ Res. 2017 Oct;158:610-615. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.018. Epub 2017 Jul 15. PMID: 28719869; PMCID: PMC5571974.
Scroll to Top