Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday July 25 2019, @09:57AM   Printer-friendly

Homeowners who rely on private wells as their drinking water source can be vulnerable to bacteria, nitrates, and other contaminants that have known human health risks. Because they are not connected to a public drinking water supply, the homeowners are responsible for ensuring that their own drinking water is safe.

Similar to concerns that public drinking water treatment plants face, groundwater wells may be impacted by another group of contaminants—and they might be part of your daily use!

Ingredients in personal care items, over-the-counter and drink products are introduced into domestic wastewater streams and can persist through treatment technologies. "This causes trace-levels of these chemicals to be found in the environment," says Heather Gall. "Recently developed analytical technologies are now advanced enough for us to detect these compounds in water at increasingly low levels." Gall is an assistant professor at Pennsylvania State University who studies contaminants of emerging concern in surface and groundwater.

A fully-functioning septic system releases the effluent slowly into a septic field. The soil, roots, and soil microbes biodegrade pollutants in the water before it gets back into groundwater. However, in the U.S., 10-20% of septic tanks function poorly. This can increase the chance of these contaminants getting to groundwater, especially those that biodegrade slowly in the environment. After that, they can enter a downgradient household's well water.

The presence of medicines in drinking water raise public health concerns. Impacted water may have harmful effects when consumed, but whether the levels present in private wells are high enough to pose a threat is an understudied area of research.

So, Gall partnered with the Pennsylvania Master Well Owner Network. Twenty-six homeowners volunteered to collect water samples from their private wells. "Since our project engaged private well owners, we wanted to focus on compounds they may be familiar with," says Gall.

Gall's team chose to test water samples for four common antibiotics, two over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs, and one common stimulant. Each reacts differently with soil in the septic field in different ways. These chemicals can bind physically to soil particles. They also can react with soil, soil microbes, and other compounds in the septic field. It's a virtual chemistry experiment when active pharmaceutical ingredients reach the septic tank.

Gall found that medicines' ability to get to groundwater was mostly controlled by two factors: sorption potential and biodegradability.

Sorption refers to the likelihood of the medicine attaching to another substance like soil or water. Medicines with low sorption are not likely to attach to soil in the septic field. That makes them more likely to move quickly through the soil profile and reach groundwater. The medicine most likely to reach groundwater was ofloxacin. This antibiotic was the most frequently detected medicine in the groundwater samples. Naproxen, an anti-inflammatory drug, had the highest sorption, and was most likely to stay in the septic field. This could be the reason it was not detected in any of the groundwater samples of the study.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:34AM (8 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Thursday July 25 2019, @10:34AM (#870974) Journal

    -citizen
    -what
    -you pay for water?
    -no
    -you own a well?
    -yes
    -that's very independent of you
    -thanks
    -that's not a compliment. here, a ton of regulations for your well
    -why
    -because pollutants
    -but could you make polluters pollute less instead of taxing me to check the well
    -no
    -why
    -because the point of pollution is to keep our nose in your well. remember, it's all...
    -... about control

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 25 2019, @12:25PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday July 25 2019, @12:25PM (#871024) Journal

    Have you been drinking nitrated well water again? That explains a lot. Here, try this one downstream of a big carbamazepine plume; it should help immensely.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:50PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 25 2019, @01:50PM (#871056) Journal

    -because pollutants

    Where did pollutants come into this?

    Maybe you consider drugs to be pollutants? So who would be the polluters? People taking drugs? Or people who take drugs and then urinate?

    The reason they want to keep their nose in your well is because:
    1. It looks like they are 'doing something' about the problem.
    2. It's easier than actually trying to do something about the problem.
    Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Your post is prima facie evidence that your well contains pharmaceuticals and therefore MUST be regulated.

    How many pharmaceuticals are in rain water I wonder?

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:27PM (3 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:27PM (#871086) Journal

      -because pollutants

      Where did pollutants come into this?

      Umm, definition of pollutant [merriam-webster.com]: "something that pollutes." Relevant definition of pollute [merriam-webster.com]: "2.a. to make physically impure or unclean; b. to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste."

      Maybe you consider drugs to be pollutants?

      Yes.

      So who would be the polluters? People taking drugs? Or people who take drugs and then urinate?

      Yes.

      I have a feeling those are not the answers to your (likely rhetorical) questions that you were expecting. I'm not sure what your point was here. Individuals can pollute just as much as corporations. Pollution does not have to be intentional or with knowledge that it might cause harm, as we've seen in many, many historical incidents when corporations assumed pollution would "dissipate" or would be harmless.

      Yes, people taking drugs are causing pollution. It is a serious problem. Yet another reason perhaps to cut down on unnecessary use of widespread drugs like antibiotics in situations where they are unwarranted (i.e., most situations they are currently used for). Other drugs may not be optional, in which case we need to find other solutions to the serious pollution danger they cause.

      Next question?

      (And no, I don't agree with GP's paranoia that the government is deliberately polluting water to regulate wells. But I don't understand your argumentation strategy either.)

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:39PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday July 25 2019, @03:39PM (#871093) Journal

        Also, I would note from previous reading on the subject that it's not just people urinating out drugs that is causing problems with antibiotics in water supplies. Antibiotics are massively overused in the food industry, for example, to keep livestock healthy (even when they're not sick, or as an alternative to providing more sanitary/reasonable conditions for livestock to grow) and to promote growth, etc. In 2011, 80% of antibiotics [wikipedia.org] sold in the U.S. were sold to livestock producers. The majority of those drugs were antibiotics also "medically important" for human use.

        Repeated attempts at government regulation have failed (likely due to lobbying from the pharma industry coupled with the food industry, etc.). The FDA has had a directive in place in the last few years attempting to address the issue, but sales of antibiotics to livestock producers have only declined 33%, implying that the majority of antibiotics used in the U.S. are NOT being used by humans, nor urinated out by them.

        This is a serious regulatory issue, even beyond humans. And yes, while I disagree with the paranoia of OP, it's a serious problem our government is failing to take serious action on.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:16PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 25 2019, @06:16PM (#871175) Journal

        I think it turns on the definition of drugs as pollutants. I understand the dictionary definition you provides. So technically, drugs are pollutants. As are many other ordinary things.

        > But I don't understand your argumentation strategy either.

        The idea that the government should regulate safety. If drugs are pollutants, and various pollutants are getting into well water, then that is something which people should be concerned about. Especially if they are unaware they are drinking it.

        I'm all for trying to stop it at the source rather than at the drinking well. (government nose in my well) But not if people are being unknowingly endangered.

        So about drugs. You're unlikely to stop people from taking them. Probably the solution is better sewage treatment. But again, as I argue it is easier for a politician to look like they are doing something to pick on people with wells rather than spend money on better sewage treatment.

        I'm all for stopping over use and unnecessary use of antibiotics. Very much so. But use is not overuse necessarily. As an example, I occasionally use narcotic pain killers. For over a decade now. I don't over use them. I avoid them. None the less, they are a reality for me. Similarly sometimes people need antibiotics. I've had them myself from time to time.

        I take your point, and agree, about finding solutions to serious pollution dangers.

        I don't buy the government should never put its nose in my business, I can do whatever I want, to whomever I want with impunity.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday July 26 2019, @12:13PM

        by Bot (3902) on Friday July 26 2019, @12:13PM (#871423) Journal

        > the government is deliberately polluting water to regulate wells
        nah the government is about pushing an agenda and fighting the other side while pretending to have a different agenda. Who makes and undoes politicians? media. Who owns media?

        --
        Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:00PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 25 2019, @07:00PM (#871196) Journal

    -but could you make polluters pollute less instead of taxing me to check the well
    -no
    -why

    Because guys like Bot are opposed to regulating businesses and they're in charge of two branches of the government right now.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday July 26 2019, @08:29AM

      by Bot (3902) on Friday July 26 2019, @08:29AM (#871376) Journal

      Nice straw bot we got here. It is funny that you put me on the spectrum of American politics which is faulty as any other. Free market does not exist so I cannot be for a deregulated one. Once you drop all laws the law of the stronger remains.

      --
      Account abandoned.