Human drugs in water making nature sick?By JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the second in a three-part series that's a result of an Associated Press investigation. LAKE MEAD, Nev. — On this brisk, glittering morning, a flat-bottomed boat glides across the massive reservoir that provides Las Vegas its drinking water. An ominous rumble growls beneath the craft as its two long, electrified claws extend into the depths. Moments later, dozens of stunned fish float to the surface. Federal scientists scoop them up and transfer them into 50-quart Coleman ice chests for transport to a makeshift lab on the dusty lake shore. Within the hour, the researchers will club the seven-pound common carp to death, draw their blood, snip out their gonads and pack them in aluminum foil and dry ice. Drugs in the waterInteractive AP graphic on drugs in the water. The specimens will be flown to laboratories where aquatic toxicologists are studying what happens to fish that live in water contaminated with at least 13 different medications — from over-the-counter painkillers to prescription antibiotics and mood stabilizers. More often than not these days, the laboratory tests bring unwelcome results. A five-month Associated Press investigation has determined that trace amounts of many of the pharmaceuticals we take to stay healthy are seeping into drinking water supplies, and a growing body of research indicates that this could harm humans. But people aren't the only ones who consume the water. There is increasing evidence some animals that live in or drink from streams and lakes are seriously affected. Pharmaceuticals in the water are being blamed for severe reproductive problems in many types of fish: The endangered razorback sucker and male fathead minnow have been found with lower sperm counts and damaged sperm; some walleyes and male carp have become what are called feminized fish, producing egg yolk proteins typically made only by females. 
Jae C. Hong/AP Biologist John Umek (right) hands electrically stunned fish to Danelle Wiersma, hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, on Nevada's Lake Mead last year while studying effects pharmaceuticals in water have on fish. Meanwhile, female fish have developed male genital organs. Also, there are skewed sex ratios in some aquatic populations, and sexually abnormal bass that produce cells for both sperm and eggs. There are problems with other wildlife as well: kidney failure in vultures, impaired reproduction in mussels, inhibited growth in algae. "We have no reason to think that this is a unique situation," says Erik Orsak, an environmental contaminants specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pulling off rubber gloves splattered with fish blood at Lake Mead. "We find pretty much anywhere we look, these compounds are ubiquitous." For example: -- In a continuing study, fish collected in waterways near or in Chicago; West Chester, Pa.; Orlando; Dallas; and Phoenix have tested positive for an array of pharmaceuticals — analgesics, antibiotics, antidepressants, antihistamines, anti-hypertension drugs and anti-seizure medications. -- A 2003 study in northern Texas showed every bluegill, black crappie and channel catfish researchers caught living downstream of a wastewater treatment plant tested positive for the active ingredients in two widely used antidepressants. -- In several recent studies of soil fertilized with livestock manure or with the sludge product from wastewater treatment plants, American scientists found earthworms had accumulated those same compounds, while vegetables — including corn, lettuce and potatoes — had absorbed antibiotics. Elsewhere, snails, fish, even antelope, are showing signs of possible pharmaceutical contamination. For example, fish and prawns in China exposed to treated wastewater had shortened life spans, Pacific oysters off the coast of Singapore had inhibited growth, and in Norway, Atlantic salmon exposed to levels of estrogen similar to those found in the North Sea had severe reproductive problems. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in surface waters throughout the world. "It's inescapable," said Sudeep Chandra, an assistant professor at University of Nevada, Reno who studies inland waters and aquatic life. "There's enough global information now to confirm these contaminants are affecting organisms and wildlife." While some researchers have captured wildlife and tested it for pharmaceuticals, many more have brought wildlife into their laboratories and exposed them to traces of human pharmaceuticals at levels similar to those found in water, aquatic plants and animals. The results have been troubling. In a landmark, seven-year study published last year, researchers turned an entire pristine Canadian lake into their laboratory, deliberately dripping the active ingredient in birth control pills into the water in amounts similar to those found to have contaminated aquatic life, plants and water in nature. After just seven weeks, male fathead minnows began producing yolk proteins, their gonads shrank, and their behavior was feminized — they fought less, floating passively. They also stopped reproducing, resulting in "ultimately, a near extinction of this species from the lake," said the scientists. While the Canadian study was prompted by human intervention, similar die-offs have occurred in the wild. In Pakistan, the entire population of a common vulture virtually disappeared after the birds began eating carcasses of cows that had been treated with an anti-inflammatory drug. In November, 30 new studies were presented at the annual Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry meeting in Milwaukee, ranging from hormones found in the Chicago River; to abnormalities in Japanese zebra fish; to ibuprofen, gemfibrozil, triclosan and naproxen in the lower Great Lakes. Many of those studies refer to the research at Lake Mead. There, on a recent morning, Steven Goodbred struggled to hold a large wriggling carp that looked fine on the outside, but the U.S. Geological Survey scientist assumed the worst. "Typically we see low levels of sex steroids, limited testicular function, low sperm count, that kind of thing," he said slipping the fish into a holding tank and closing the lid. "We'll have to wait and see about this fellow." These carp live, eat, reproduce and die at the mouth of what amounts to a 30-mile-long drainage system that starts within the toilets and sinks of the casinos, hotels and homes of Sin City. Some 180 million gallons of effluent are discharged into the channel each day from three wastewater treatment plants. The daily sewage discharge is expected to increase to 400 million gallons a day by 2050. The USGS and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service tracked the channel from its origins, before the inflow from the sewage plants, to where it empties into Las Vegas Bay in the lake. Their findings: The amount of endocrine-disrupting compounds (including hormone treatments and other chemicals affecting reproduction) increased more than 646 times. Not far from the mouth of the drainage channel — amid the fishing boats and sightseeing tours — water is sucked into a long pipe, destined for a drinking water treatment plant, then Las Vegas — thus beginning the cycle all over again. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 34 comment(s)
Posted by crankyyankee on March 11, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What I gather from this series of articles is that we are drinking each others waste. Beautiful!
Posted by theronce on March 11, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I did not hear much fear yesterday about this, but I can see that this will not go away. It won't be long, and we will live in fear of this along with a host of other common, ordinary things. Life is a risk, and something will kill you. Gee.
Posted by ColdBeer on March 11, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree theronce. Fear mongering. Perfectly pure water can easily kill you if you drink too much. Sitting in a chair too long can kill you. Driving, flying and even walking can kill you. The P&C has run how many articles about this issue? 5 yesterday and 4 today that I found. Have they ever run an article about how having babies when you cannot properly raise them is nothing more than breeding criminals that will, sooner or later, kill innocent people?
How many people in the Low Country died from drinking water last year? How many died at the hands of young men that grew up in households with 6 or 7 brothers and sisters, absent a father and living on welfare?
If the P&C wants to do some REAL reporting, they should do some research on all of the people arrested for murder last year. Find out how they were raised. Hey, here’s a though; the P&C could then look and see what kind of discipline problems those kids had in school. They might find out that kids raised by single moms with 8 children, no father at home, living in government subsidized housing and trying to live on welfare have a higher rate of disciplinary issues in schools than the rest of the population. They might find out that they end up, because of those discipline problems, being punished more often in school than the rest of the population. They might find out that those punishments are not based on race at all.
It’s easier to run AP stories about the miniscule amount of contaminants in our water supply. You can get a scary headline without any real reporting.
Posted by FindingMyself on March 11, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I personally don't think that it's so much about fear-mongering as it is bringing awareness to how much we are damaging the environment around us, and seeking ways to remedy that. Sometimes, unfortunately, it takes a little fear before people will do something about a problem.
Posted by crankyyankee on March 11, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Want to help have another another kid!
Posted by ImplantedYankee on March 11, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are federal standards that outline the safe levels of "contaminants" in the water. If levels ever even remotely approach these thresholds, THEN we should be concerned. These levels are only detectable with the very most sophisticated equipment. I'm going to get another glass of water right now. Water is a solvent. It's always going to have things in it. Moreover, the water on this planet cycles naturally. What you drink today may have been dinosaur urine (or likely more recently). The water drank by astronauts in space is recycled waste. It goes in, it goes out, and back in again - so ad infinitum. That's just a microcosm of how all water works.
On a less serious note: Where is PETA on this? I'm surprised they aren't protesting this abuse of the poor defenseless fish, considering that they have called my dad and I both murderers:
http://www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKi...
Posted by TP on March 11, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Damn, why did I waste my money on a college degree? I could have learned everything there is to know about the world from ImplantedYankee. Do some more research, Yank (Wikipedia doesn't count).
I love the double standards and flip-flopping from all the traditionally conservative posters out there. 'Stay out of my life, big government' you say all the time...but now let's rely on the Federal government to protect us from environmental health risks? Really? Do some research on EPA, Yankee, and I think you'll find they're one of the most inefficient and fundamentally flawed bureaucracies the govt. has to offer. Now, you'll excuse my while i return to my breakfast of dinosaur urine and pterodactyl testicles.
Posted by LowcountryMoose on March 11, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Too bad fish don't have money. The pharmaceutical companies would be scrambling to train trout as sales reps. They could even land a giant Medicarp contract. Then the Seven Seas would be doing just as swimmingly as our health care system.
Posted by ImplantedYankee on March 11, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TP -- it does sound like you wasted your money on that degree. Every second-grader knows how the water cycle works (except, perhaps, the ones in SC public schools), and I bet most fifth-graders can tell you about how astronauts drink their own waste. I don't dispute that the EPA is a bloated waste of space, but it does have established standards (as well as state standards) which are tested annually by our water providers. That doesn't come from wikipedia, it comes from the test results that are published and mailed out to every customer every year. I understand that they don't emphasize reading in this state, but go ahead and take a look anyway. You call it flip-floping -- I call it being an informed citizen.
Posted by TP on March 11, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tell it, Yank! LOL!!
Posted by TP on March 11, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You got me, Yankee. I should have known better than to mess with you. I just did some research and found out about some other naturally occurring cycles. Have you heard of these? The acid rain cycle; seems pretty straightforward. Mt. Mitchell's looking good due to this cycle. I also found out about the mercury cycle, and the benefits to consumers of fish. Then there's the naturally occurring DDT cycle. Duh, you already know about these no doubt. If it's so harmless, will you drink my recycled waste, Yankee?
Posted by ImplantedYankee on March 11, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now you're going to tell me that we're drinking acid rain, DDT, and mercury? Funny -- I don't see you or I dead yet. It must be because any trace elements are in too small a quantity to matter. I suppose you also know that rain naturally IS acidic. Some human processes do lower the pH of rain, but so do many natural ones also. With just a little care (and a lot less fear mongering) it's possible to limit the effects of such activity to make them a non issue (until the next volcanic eruption or other natural event -- then all our efforts come to nothing).
Case in point -- since you mentioned it: DDT. DDT was vilified as being responsible for the near extinction of the bald eagle. Headlines screamed that the use of this chemical was destroying our national and natural heritage. Oddly, however, when studies proved that, in order for DDT to have any effect on shell thickness, it had to be administered in such quantities that it actually killed the bird before it had a chance to lay any eggs, I don't remember seeing it on the front page. Now, when fear mongering has succeeded in eliminating the use of this chemical, scores are dying of malaria in Africa that could benefit from its use.
Posted by archdude on March 11, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With human drugs in the water supply, does that mean the mob will be able to start billing their dumps as medical services?
Seriously, when the marine life starts getting MRSAs because of our lack of vision we will know that the food chain on this planet is close to breaking.
For an "intelligent" species we are often so damn stupid.
Posted by TP on March 11, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
....fear mongering, huh? Interesting concept. Is that when the government manipulates information to scare the general public into thinking that the government needs more powers and the public needs fewer freedoms, and that the constitution is essentially meaningless and can be manipulated at will? Are you against fear mongering, Implanted? Don't tell me about fear mongering.
Posted by archdude on March 11, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yankee,
Have you noticed how much cancer rates have increased since we became industrialized and started mass pollution? Yes, some of the chemicals serve a good purpose but getting rid of them is the problem. You just can't hide everything under the bed or shove it in the closet hoping it will be better later. If so, maybe you will go drink some of the heavy water around Chernobyl.
Eventually, even our deep aquifers will get polluted as the soil can only filter so much over time. With every act of infiltration there is percolation that leaves not only water being absorbed into the soil, but also what is in the water.
Posted by zmysticman on March 11, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not to long ago 15 or 20 years ago I remember reading the paper and it saying frogs and small animals are starting to go EXTINCT all around the world from pollution, and everyone said cant do much about it, its just a frog, pollution is everywhere and we cant stop progress. Now every day hundreds of animals are going EXTINCT on this earth do to pollution. And we the polluters sill say its just fear being spoken by environmentalist, or it every where what can be done. Well now its not just the animals that are getting ready to go EXTINCT its the humans, and all the humans could say is its happening everywhere, and what could we do, the government says its safe, they are just trying to scare us, those fear mongering environmentalist. WAKE UP HUMANS!!!
Posted by ColdBeer on March 11, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have plenty of frogs on my property. Animals were going extinct long before man graced this Earth.
Yes, we're having an impact on the planet and yes, that impact is negative. Show me any living thing on this Earth that doesn't have a negative impact on the planet?
All we can do is try and minimize that impact. Regardless, ALL species will die at some point. The Earth itself will die at some point. Are you going to sit in the middle of the floor in an empty room waiting for that day, afraid that if you do anything at all you might speed up the process? No. You live your life. You try to do the right thing. You move on.
The only other option is to be a hypocrite. How much jet fuel has Al Gore pumped in to the atmosphere as he travels the world lecturing on global warming? How many trees have been cut down so that the P&C can tell us that there are contaminants in the water?
Live your lives. Try and minimize your impact... above that... quit sweating the load and sure as hell quit bothering me about it.
Posted by crankyyankee on March 11, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since I'm a bit older than most on this site I'll fill you in on a little secret and I want TP to pay close attention. In the 1940's the media said we were all doomed from the proliferation of nuclear capabilities. Rachael Carson won a Nobel Prize for her book "Eternal Spring" that documented the total destruction of the earth by Nuclear Winter. According to her theory the bombs were going to cause massive clouds to form which were going to cool the earth and eradicate most life. The scientists swooned, the media hailed Rachael as the Al Gore of her day. About 1950 polio was an epidemic and the entire population of the world was teetering in the balance as the doctors worked feverishly to find a cure and the media printed big headlines every day about the future of mankind. Along came 1955 and the Russians were eating children and nuclear winter became a real possibility. We school kids huddled in bomb shelters hoping the next provocation would not be the end of the world.
The 1960’s it was the depletion of the ozone layer that grabbed the media headlines and spurred politicians to pass massive legislation that not only restored the ozone but produced a glut of it that brought it’s own problems. In the 1970’s it was the SAR’s virus that threatened mankind with total extinction. The 1980’s it was Avian Flu and other flesh eating microbes that brought us to the brink as the media so aptly reported. The 1990,s finished with a flourish as Y2K loomed on the horizon. The media and our leaders made plans for our inevitable doom. Now it’s global warming that the media has targeted as our undoing with Al Gore and a long list of scientists and media whores as the cheerleaders. With all do respect for the scientific community and the media I think I’ll sit this one out!
Posted by archdude on March 11, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cranky
Check your dates a little better. I think your Alzheimer's is getting the best of you.
SARS was recognized at the end of February 2003 not the 1970s.
Confirmed human cases of avian flu have been reported since 1997 and deadly outbreaks occurred in 2003/2004.
The ozone hole has not been restored.
Rachel Carson's book was "Silent Spring", not "Eternal Spring" and it was originally released in 1962.
Please, check at least one fact before making yourself look totally ignorant of the situation.
FYI...we are currently in a mass extinction event (Holocene mass extinction event) larger than that of the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event.
I really hope you do not try to teach this misinformation to many. You are about as wrong as a person can be.
Posted by archdude on March 11, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cranky
Here is the editorial statement from Amazon.com regarding "Silent Spring"
"Silent Spring, released in 1962, offered the first shattering look at widespread ecological degradation and touched off an environmental awareness that still exists. Rachel Carson's book focused on the poisons from insecticides, weed killers, and other common products as well as the use of sprays in agriculture, a practice that led to dangerous chemicals to the food source. Carson argued that those chemicals were more dangerous than radiation and that for the first time in history, humans were exposed to chemicals that stayed in their systems from birth to death. Presented with thorough documentation, the book opened more than a few eyes about the dangers of the modern world and stands today as a landmark work."
That does not look like it "documented the total destruction of the earth by Nuclear Winter" as you so wrongly state.
Please, if you respond, do not spout any more fallacious BS.
__________________________
You know what, those chemicals are there. I can look at a skeleton and various isotopes in the bones and teeth can tell me where a person grew up and where they migrated to because they stick with us.
Posted by TP on March 11, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please, Yankee, before you sit this one out, can you enlighten us about fear mongering in the 21st century? My daddy says George Bush and his wonks are using the media to spread fear and to give the president more power than he should have, and that he's ignoring the constitution and using fear to keep the idiot majority signing off on his bull crap. He said that conservatives won't respond to this, and that their only response will be to attack you in some other area. He said when i get older, i'll understand.
He also said that a reasonable moderate could admit that what Al Gore did was hypocritical, but that the religious right wing is so delusional and stubborn that they can not admit they have ever been wrong about anything. I just nodded my head and said, "ok, dad."
Enough of this nonsense, i'm off to read Rachel Carson's 'Eternal Spring'. Can I borrow your copy, Yankee? I can't seem to find that one in the library.
Posted by 512c on March 11, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cranky... you sound like my uncle Jim...
R. Carlson's book drew attention to the use of DDT, and the possibility of nuclear winter... Preventing one maybe? And helping to stop the use of DDT... What's wrong with that?
Posted by 512c on March 11, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cranky... you sound like my uncle Jim...
R. Carlson's book drew attention to the use of DDT, and the possibility of nuclear winter... Preventing one maybe? And helping to stop the use of DDT... What's wrong with that?
and her book is still scary, because, if you haven't noticed, we are having sick bees dying off everywhere... And her book says, in the season before the silent season, the bees die off... Then the chain reactions ensue... So!
Posted by LowcountryMoose on March 11, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
archdude, your comments about isotopes and human migration made me think about another great scientific initiative out there. I encourage all people of Earth to participate in The Genographic Project by National Geographic. The link to their site is https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/geno....
I took part and found out where my way-back ancestors came from. It would be refreshing for other South Carolinians to do the same. Maybe it would shed light on, let's say, Strom Thurmond's affinity for females of African descent.
Science is glorious!
Posted by theronce on March 11, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The devil is in the details. Generally speaking, the media has reported one thing or another that is going to kill us since the mid 50's (as far as I can remember). I thought my dad who was in the army before 1941 and spent his 19th birthday on Guadalcanal was a dummy for not being worried about all the stuff in the news. The earth has been here awhile before we got here and will be fine when we are gone. The earth has survived a lot worse things than people. Considering that the fires that move the plates of the earth have not blown up the earth, does anyone really believe that a few ten thousands of a-bombs will blow up the earth. Now for myself and based on my religeous beliefs, I do not think that this earth is going to last anyway. As our culture declares on one hand that we can do such things as destroying the earth, it also declares that we can stop global warming...or cooling. Bull. Fear loves company.
Posted by archdude on March 11, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
theronce
Ignorance loves company as well.
Posted by ColdBeer on March 11, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As for me... I'm going fishing. I'll burn up some gas and oil in my boat. I'll smoke a few cigarettes and drink a few cold Bud Lights... the empty cans will go in the regular trash. I'll most likely, at one point or another, urinate in the river. I'll have my daughter drive my wife to the boat ramp so that my wife can drive me and my buddy home. I'll clean the fish out at the end up my driveway, washing the smaller pieces of guts in to the sewer (we usually bag the big pieces and hide them in a neighbors yard somewhere... we are a funny bunch!). I'll cook and eat the fish... while drinking a few more cold Bud Lights. Tomorrow I'll work on my '61 Chevy truck. It has no EGR valve or catalytic converter. It sure is a pretty truck though.
If any of this reduces my life span, or yours, by a few millionths of a second, I apologize. In the end... a man has got to do what a man has got to do.
Do I hate the environment? No. Am I going to stop living because EVERYTHING we do harms the environment? Not a chance!
Posted by saltlyck on March 11, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It only makes you wonder. Did the dinosaurs ignore all their warnings? Or did their extinction just happen by chance. Any way you look at it they were probably a lot less stressed about it.
Posted by LowcountryMoose on March 11, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer, the only person you should apologize to is yourself for drinking Bud Light. You could at least step up to PBR.
Posted by majorjohnson on March 11, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can tell you what was wrong with banning DDT. It was very effective in mosquito eradication. At the time it was banned the use of DDT had almost stopped malaria totally. Since it was banned millions of people, mostly children, have died as malaria became an epidemic disease again. Once the evidence was actually in it was determined that DDT is not harmful to humans at all. It was a mass hoax that resulted in the deaths of millions of children, and the hoax was so ingrained that it still persists to this day.
Here's another scientific hoax for you. Plastic bags kill millions of birds and fish. That plastic bags thing came about from a study on nets, not plastic bags, but got hooked around so that now there is are cities banning plastic bags. While I'm no plastic bag fan or opponent this entire thing is based on what the DDT ban was based on, bad misinterpreted politically used misinformation. It's resulting in factories (those are the places where people earn a living) shutting down.
How about the lead hoax we just went through? Paint with high concentrations of lead in paint being eaten by children? Yeah, that's a problem. A Barbie doll with lead in the paint that her eyes are painted with? Not really a problem unless your kid is eating pretty massive numbers of Barbie eyes, and then the indigestible plastic would kill the kid long before the lead affected their system. That one sucked massive dollars out of industry (those are the folks that pay workers salaries you know), panicked large numbers of parents and created a huge waste disposal addition.
Polar bears dying and becoming extinct? Polar bear numbers are the highest they have ever been and increasing. People want to put them on the endangered list for some reason, but lets ask the Inuits how they feel about that...polar bear is a large portion of their diet. You can't eat endangered species now can you. Lets starve some Inuits to save an increasing species that is not endangered just to prop up the old global warming hoax, which has been changed to the global climate change hoax as the warming trend is going into a cooling trend.
If you really want to be afraid, check out dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff is responsible for more deaths than guns!
Posted by ColdBeer on March 11, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PBR? I haven't even seen one of those since my dad was stationed in Illinois... that was oh... 35 years ago? Hell, if it's an American beer and it's cold, I'll drink it. When I'm buying though, I buy Bud Light.
Posted by archdude on March 11, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
major
Your water jokes are getting way too old. I guess you think no one ever took chemistry...I guess you could have also said hydrogen hydroxide (good old HOH)...
ColdBeer
Bud Light is OK, PBR is not so much (too 1970s). Try Yuengling or Sam Adams. Heck, get ambitious and try a Newcastle Brown Ale (London). Point being, step away from the weak, watery rice lagers (genetically engineered rice at that) and go to a real beer if you are going to have one.
Posted by TP on March 11, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(...sigh) My brains pooped out, full of new knowledge about the role of drugs in the natural water cycle, the harmlessness of persistent chlorinated pesticides, and astronauts drinking their own urine (BTW, astronauts ain't right; they wear diapers and have love triangles and try to kill each other).
Enough posting for the day. Me and Client 9 have a couple of high-class whores to bang! LOL!
Posted by cinnabar on March 11, 2008 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since getting involved in work involving analysis of water and air contaminants 30 years ago, my observation is that benchtop analyzers have lowered detection by a factor of 10 to 100 every 5-7 years. This means if you have the right instrument, you can take a dixie cup of water and determine contaminants in some cases to the PPB or PPT levels with benchtop equipment. Low detection limits have played into the hands of the alarmists. PPB is 'parts per billion' and is a very minute quantity. This is important because...the same water you have been drinking for years now has contaminants that are detectable. 20 years ago you didn't know what levels you consumed.
Botulism toxin will kill you but you can also use it to chemically alter your face. Many of the people who shun modern medicine for natural herbs get Botox injections. However, if you consume this naturally occuring substance from a can of spoiled mushrooms, you will stop breathing immediately and permantly. Bottom line, concentration level is a key factor.
Now that you know that your water is contaminated with trace levels, you can spend your life in fear of something that will not harm you if you so wish. Or you can marvel at modern science and live your life knowing average life expectancy increases every year.