16 ms·
Is there anywhere in the US that you can live without fear or worry of having contaminated water or air?
by BitterSweets 8y ago
Is there anywhere in the US that you can live without fear or worry of having contaminated water or air?
- empath75 8y agoPretty much everywhere. Tap water in the us is perfectly safe in most places.
- dmm 8y agoThe absence of specific dangers is not the same as safety, but the former is all that water supply testing can provide.
- rayiner 8y agoWe test for things that are really dangerous (e. coli, arsenic, heavy metals, etc.). If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now.
- okmokmz 8y ago>If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now. You're right, it is pretty obvious "The chronic biological effects in marine organisms results due to accumulation of microplastics in their cells and tissues. The potential hazardous effects on humans by alternate ingestion of microparticles can cause alteration in chromosomes which lead to infertility, obesity, and cancer." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28815367 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28815367 "Not only is the potential migration of the plastics throughout our body a concern, but the additives in plastics may carry health risks. Many of these additives are known endocrine disrupters. According to Dr. Herbert Tilg, president of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and chair of the UEG Scientific Committee, microplastics could possibly be one of the factors contributing to inflammatory bowel syndrome or even colon cancer, which is on the rise among young adults." https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/10/22/659568662/microplastics-are-turning-up-everywhere-even-in-human-excrement https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/10/22/659568662/mi...
- kodablah 8y agoYou say pretty obviously as dangerous and then provide quotes about "potential hazardous effects", "can cause", "potential migration", "may carry", "could possibly", etc. That's quite different than being pretty obviously as dangerous as the other things mentioned.
- justin66 8y agoIn my view the deeper point of okmokmz's comment is that it's just crazy to only consider the most blatantly obvious health effects of pollutants. We're still learning a lot about the hormonal effects of consuming microplastics and plasticizers (among other things) but it's all pointing in some pretty nasty directions, and until recently we didn't have much awareness of how much of the stuff we were consuming. We have to decide how much of the stuff we're going to try and prevent from entering the environment and our water supply, and I wouldn't want the people making that determination to be informed by ideas like "well, it's not as dangerous as uranium or lead so let's just not worry about it."
- ceejayoz 8y ago> If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now. E. coli, arsenic and heavy metals don't really have the same economic and lobbying power the plastic industry does. Tobacco and climate change give us better models for how easy it is to suppress or cast doubt on pretty solid evidence if there's a profit to be made in doing so.
- mr_toad 8y agoEven the ancient Egyptians knew arsenic was toxic. Plastics haven’t been around nearly as long.
- justin66 8y ago> We test for things that are really dangerous (e. coli, arsenic, heavy metals, etc.). If microplastics were dangerous like those things, it would be pretty obvious by now. Microplastics aren't necessarily dangerous like those things, but they've been shown to be potentially dangerous in different ways. Really acute problems of the sort you're thinking of, like long-term cancer risk and short-term infection risk, can be considered alongside reduced fertility in men and developmental problems in infants and children.
- tshannon 8y agoHa. I live in cottage grove, and I assumed the same thing.
- cronix 8y agoMore and more microplastics are showing up in drinking water because the particles are so small. They seem to be mostly coming from our clothing released during washing, which is increasingly made of synthetic materials. "The US had the highest contamination rate, at 94%, with plastic fibres found in tap water sampled at sites including Congress buildings, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters, and Trump Tower in New York. Lebanon and India had the next highest rates." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-fibres-found-tap-water-around-world-study-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-...
- tshannon 8y agoHas there been any conclusive studies yet that say what impact if any microplastics have on us?
- steve_adams_86 8y agoIt can harm small organisms at the very least. Things like zooplankton can have their bodily processes interrupted by ingesting the materials. This indicates it can result in death: http://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/symposia/zp6/Pages/Effects-of-microplastics-on-zooplankton.aspx http://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/symposia/zp6/Pages/Effect... Other studies indicating harm are available, while others have shown mixed results. For example, one where polystyrene microplastics depress and then appear to stimulate growth of algae: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518310270 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565351...
- steve_adams_86 8y agoPeople _really_ need to stop laundering synthetics. The amount of plastic and other material that sheds into our water is stunning.
- blacksmith_tb 8y agoI think that blames the victims a bit too much, it's analogous to "people need to stop buying food in single-use plastics" - I would put the onus on the manufacturers to fix their products and their distribution, rather than the end users. What's the alternative to laundering your clothing, realistically?
- okmokmz 8y agoWrong "Allaire found the amount of violations varied by year, affecting as many as 45 million people in some years, representing about 28% of the U.S. population." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-millions-americans-exposed-unsafe-drinking-water-each-year/330516002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-m... "Tainted tap water isn’t just a problem in Flint, Michigan. In any given year from 1982 to 2015, somewhere between 9 million and 45 million Americans got their drinking water from a source that was in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to a new study" http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-drink-potentially-unsafe-tap-water-how-does-your-county-stack http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-dr...
- kodablah 8y ago>> most places > Wrong [...] 45 million [...] 28% of the U.S. population I don't think it's fair to call the comment "Wrong". If anything, this supposed refutation is saying "Right".
- ptero 8y agoI might be taking words out of context, but 45 million is nowhere near 28% of the US population; this is a little under 15%. I am not arguing for or against the problem of water pollution, but this is just seriously suspect math.
- vertexFarm 8y agoYou've essentially proven their point. Outside a few problem areas, water in the US is remarkably safe and clean. The US population minus "nine to 45 million" definitely qualifies as "most places" in America. And that's not even close to 28%, by the way. Most people in the world have it far worse off than the US. We tend to easily fly into a panic and start drinking bottled water instead, which only pumps ever more plastic and carbon into the biosphere. That exact phenomenon happened in Austin recently. People went into a prepper panic and raided the grocery stores anyway, completely cleaning out all the bottled water in the city. Again. The water was perfectly fine, it turns out. My travels through the third world have made me more aware of how much we take our highly reliable infrastructure for granted. Of course we still have some problems to work out, but acting like most tap water is unsafe is hyperbolic and just not helpful.
- DrJaws 8y agoSadly is not only the US
- rayiner 8y agoYour fear can of course be anywhere. Rational fear, not so much outside maybe Flint Michigan.
- jfrankamp 8y agoI'd say the opposite, but maybe not so much on the fear front. Superfund sites are everywhere, p2.5 is generated by every diesel on the road. A level of human generated poison/contamination is everywhere. Low levels of pesticides, herbicides and microplastics are part of our lives. They have a cost and in many cases the cost is unknown, and maybe unquantifiable without tremendous cost. These are just facts, not things to be feared so much as motivation to answer in the affirmative when there is a policy choice re: "hey should we study why there is a worldwide loss of flying insects, bee colony collapse?, should we incentivize less polluting tech?" etc.
- okmokmz 8y ago>Rational fear, not so much outside maybe Flint Michigan. You're deluding yourself if you believe Flint is the only location in the US where you need to be worried about contaminated or otherwise unsafe water https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-millions-americans-exposed-unsafe-drinking-water-each-year/330516002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2018/02/12/tens-m... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-drink-potentially-unsafe-tap-water-how-does-your-county-stack http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/millions-americans-dr...
- rayiner 8y agoI know a little bit about the subject. (I worked at NU's environmental clinic when they were looking at SDWA violations, though I didn't work on that project.) Although tons of municipalities are out of compliance with regulations, the regulations are very conservative and the water can be out of spec without being something you need to "fear."
- okmokmz 8y agoYou edited your comment and removed the part about third world countries, which was probably smart, but your original point seemed to be that it's fine that millions of Americans are exposed to potentially harmful chemicals/compounds/substances because it's not as bad as third world countries. I don't know about you, but I don't want to drink water that doesn't meet regulatory standards but is maybe technically "safe". If that's the case, why even have standards/regulations at all? Just because you won't immediately die of dysentery doesn't mean there won't be long term negative effects.
- Spooky23 8y agoYes, you need to be aware of things though, especially if you aren’t using municipal water. Look for superfund sites, former dumps, former military facilities, etc and avoid them. Even things like army depots and train depots. If you’re in an area with well water, understand what’s upstream. In an old city, test the soil if you grow vegetables in the yard, you may have coal ash or other nasties.
- hammock 8y ago>Look for superfund sites, former dumps, former military facilities, etc and avoid them Sorry Bay Area....
- ryanmercer 8y agoThere isn't anywhere in the world where you can live without fear or worry of contaminated water or air. Microplastics for example have been found in: sea salt - https://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/sea-salt-contains-alarming-amount-microplastics https://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/sea-sa... water - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/15/microplastics-found-in-more-than-90-of-bottled-water-study-says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/15/micropla... air - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/09/people-may-be-breathing-in-microplastics-health-expert-warns https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/09/people-m... poop - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/microplastics-found-lurking-human-stool-first-time-180970613/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/microplastics-foun... And of course thanks to all of the atomic/nuclear weapons we've detonated, everyone alive right now holds radioactive evidence from those detonations in their bodies https://www.businessinsider.com/bomb-pulse-radiation-decay-cells-2016-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/bomb-pulse-radiation-decay-c... Then there's the ozone damage we've done and the fact someone in China is still using, or has recently been anyway, CFCs - https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/27/investigators-china-illegal-cfc-emissions/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/27/investigators-china-ille... And mercury from coal smoke - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1309104215304451 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S130910421... Lead in soil from: leaded paints, past use of leaded gasoline, lead water-supply piping in the US until the 1920's, lead in in plumbing solder in the US until 1986...
- TylerE 8y agoThis sounds very fear mongery. I bet you'd get more radiation from eating a Banana than the residual radiation of every nuclear test combined.
- ryanmercer 8y agoYou selected one of several points and took it entirely out of context adding your own bias. The point is, we've contaminated the entire planet with various things as a direct result of our actions.
- amelius 8y agoWhat kind of equipment would you need to check your drinking water for any kind of contamination? What would it cost? Just curious.
- darpa_escapee 8y agoDepends on what you're looking to detect and what kind of facility you have access to. A few hundred dollars will get you a lab test for common contaminants, but the cost rises exponentially for anything beyond that.
- sjg007 8y agoYou can probably take a sample and send it off to an analysis lab. Some things have simple tests but you'd probably want the full spectrum.
- Buttons840 8y agoSlight change of topic, but this is one reason I believe we're overly fearful of nuclear energy. Nobody seems to give a damn about dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer and are nearly impossible to detect. But everyone is scared to death about radioctive materials that can cause cancer and are easily detected (Geiger counter).
- rsync 8y ago"What kind of equipment would you need to check your drinking water for any kind of contamination? What would it cost?" You need to send it away for testing - it would be impractical to home test for all of the things you'd want to test for. It's likely that your local municipality has a testing service that you can send water into for $50 or $100 and have rough testing done for lead and e-coli and crypto and so on. A more extensive (and expensive) test will test for essentially everything, including VOCs and chemicals and all manner of manufacturing byproducts, plastics, phthalates, etc. That would cost you $600 or $800 ...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 8y ago
- kayhi 8y agoMany places in Alaska and would image other remote areas of other northern states as well.
- quasse 8y agoMany places in AK unfortunately have a history of barely-regulated mining [1], which is now being joined by a push to expand and deregulate the oil and gas industry in those areas [2]. Unfortunately remote is no guarantee of clean and in some cases might even mean the opposite because being out of the public eye allows companies to ignore externalities that they would otherwise have to take responsibility for. [1] https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/most-toxic-town-us-kotzebue-alaska-red-dog-mine/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/most-toxic-town-... [2] https://www.npca.org/articles/1721-offshore-leasing-plan-threatens-national-parks-wildlife-and-coastal https://www.npca.org/articles/1721-offshore-leasing-plan-thr...
- kayhi 8y agoGreat point, but the articles mentions extremely small areas compared to the entire state over the period of decades.