The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
100 Cancer-Causing Contaminants Found in U.S. Drinking Water
By Robert Coleman
The Environmental Working Group's (EWG) just-released Tap Water Database shows that a startling number of cancer-causing chemicals contaminate the nation's drinking water. Of 250 different contaminants detected in tests by local utilities, 93 are linked to an increased risk of developing cancer.
We analyzed the tap water data for 48,000 water utilities nationwide for the years 2010 to 2015, and found that more than 80 percent of the utilities detected contaminants linked to cancer in levels exceeding health-protective guidelines. According to a recent study published in the journal Cancer, counties with the highest rates of pollution also have higher cancer rates and contaminated drinking water likely plays a role in this.
Here's a list of the five most pervasive drinking water contaminants linked to cancer nationwide:
Found in the drinking water supplies for 90 million Americans, this contaminant can come from hazardous waste sites, industrial spills and discharges from municipal wastewater plants. It is linked to liver, gall bladder and respiratory system cancers.
Found in the drinking water supplies of 70 million people, this notorious poison is a naturally occurring mineral that causes bladder, lung and skin cancers.
The "Erin Brockovich" chemical contaminates drinking water for 250 million people, and can come from industrial pollution or natural sources. Chromium-6 is linked to stomach cancer.
Detected in the drinking water served to more than 250 million Americans, these contaminants form when disinfectants such as chlorine interact with plant and animal waste in source water. Disinfection byproducts have been linked to bladder, liver, kidney and intestinal cancers, and may harm fetal development.
Nitrate is a fertilizer chemical that comes from agricultural and urban runoff, as well as discharges from wastewater treatment plants and septic tanks. High levels of nitrate in drinking water have been linked to colon, kidney, ovarian and bladder cancers. EWG has defined a health guideline for nitrate at 5 parts per million or ppm, based on studies by scientists at the National Cancer Institute and other independent researchers. This health guideline protects against cancer and harm to fetal growth and development. In 2015, 7 million Americans received tap water with levels of nitrate greater than 5 ppm. The federal drinking water regulations allow up to 10 ppm nitrate in drinking water.
Arsenic, chromium-6 and nitrate are also common in private wells. The federal government does not require private well water monitoring, so it falls to individual homeowners to test the water in their wells.
The odds of having one of these contaminants in your water above the established health-protective guidelines are high, but it's not all doom and gloom. For all of these contaminants except 1,4-dioxane, there are water filters certified to remove the chemical from water. Simple countertop filters will reduce but not eliminate many contaminants. In the case of 1,4-dioxane, reverse osmosis will not remove it completely, but can reduce the amount of the chemical. If you have any of these contaminants in your water, check out EWG's Water Filter Buying Guide.
Follow the links below for filters that remove:
No American should have to settle for drinking water that puts them and their loved ones at risk. EWG urges concerned citizens to reach out to their local officials and press for answers to vital questions on water quality.
Until federal and state regulators take action to protect Americans from drinking harmful contaminants in tap water, EWG will be on the front lines, arming people with the information they need to protect themselves and their families from water contamination, and advocating for better safeguards for water quality and human health.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.
Last week we received positive news on the border wall's imminent construction in an Arizona wildlife refuge. The Trump administration delayed construction of the wall through about 60 miles of federal wildlife preserves.