The graphic shows the state of community water systems in America. Most people in the U.S. are served by community water systems. Since 1993, the number of people served by such systems rose and the number of systems reporting health violations decreased. However, in the year 2001, the health of more than 24 million people was still at risk due to contaminated drinking water in the U.S.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), two of the key chemicals that must be regulated for safe drinking water are arsenic and fluoride. Both are naturally occurring substances, although they also enter the water via runoff from manufacturing plants, farms, and orchards. In the United States, safe levels of arsenic and fluoride in drinking water have been in dispute recently.
In October 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the maximum contamination level standards for arsenic from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb. What was the reasoning behind this? The National Academy of Sciences reported that 3 ppb of arsenic puts 4 to 10 people per 10,000 at risk for bladder and lung cancer. Therefore, the lower standard should save 1.5 to 11.4 million people a year. But, not all are convinced that this lower standard is going to show such dramatic results. No one disputes the health effects of high levels of arsenic in drinking water. In 2000, the WHO warned of mass arsenic poisoning of 35 to 77 million people in Bangladesh. 100,000 had already developed debilitating skin lesions and more were at risk for developing cancer, neurological disorders, and diabetes if continually exposed to drinking water with high arsenic levels (but higher than 50 ppb, surely).
The new standard mostly affects community water systems in the West where arsenic occurs naturally in the water. And the solution is not simply to filter the water. One option to extract the arsenic, called ion exchange filtering, creates wastewater that can be considered hazardous and would be costly to dispose of. Regardless of treatment option, some customers' monthly water bills could triple to pay for the equipment, treatments, and employees needed to implement the new standard. Many wonder if the old standard was good enough. "Paul Ritzma, deputy secretary of the [New Mexico] Environment Department, said department officials know of no New Mexico illnesses directly linked to arsenic in drinking water, and he expressed doubt that the new rules will lead to a drop in cancer" (Clark). Only time will tell if the new standard will save lives, or will be an unnecessary costly burden on community water systems and consumers.
Fluoride. Naturally occurring fluoride in water is less than 1 part per million (ppm) in most places. In 1945, the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health, studied the effects of adjusted fluoride levels (between 1.0-1.2 ppm) on children in 8 cities in the U.S. and Canada. They found that after 13 to 15 years, tooth decay was reduced 50 to 70% among children in communities with fluoridated water and the incidence of fluorosis (discoloration, pitting of enamel) was low. In 1962, the United States adopted standards that set the optimal range for fluoride concentrations at 0.7-1.2 ppm; by May 2001, the level had been raised to 4.0 ppm. After seeing the dramatic results (68% drop in tooth decay among 12-year olds since 1966), the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the WHO, and other professional and scientific organizations endorsed fluoridated water. Soon, fluoride was added to some brands of toothpaste and mouth rinses.
But, by the mid-1980s, children in communities with fluoridated water only had 18% less tooth decay than those in communities without. This was attributed to the widespread use of fluoridated water in bottling and packaged foods. By 1992, 56% of the population of the U.S. was receiving fluoridated water.
Although support of community fluoridation is high, the expansion of the program has been slow in recent years. Why? Some people, scientists, and policymakers may think that tooth decay is no longer a major health problem. Unlike early in the 20th century, people now take for granted that they will retain all or most of their teeth for a lifetime. (But, 94% of those 18 years old and over have tooth decay.) A second problem may be cost. Most of the water systems that are not fluoridated are small and per capita costs may be prohibitive for the consumers. A third problem: opponents to fluoridation, such as Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, who make claims that earlier research neglected to study the side effects of adding fluoride to drinking water. They claim that fluoride in the water, even at EPA "safe" levels, causes cancer, Down syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer's disease.
And some cities are listening to their claims. From 1990 to 2000, nearly 80 cities and counties in the U. S. and Canada (and one in Australia) stopped fluoridating their water. Some, such as Kelowna and Campbell River, British Columbia fluoridated their water for 42 and 33 years, respectively, before deciding to quit the practice. In the United States, Western Nassau County, New York quit fluoridating its water after 23 years.
Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Factoids: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics, 1998-2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary Inventory, Violations, and GPRA MS Excel PivotTables. All EPA data retrieved June 28, 2002 from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/. U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001. 2000 and 2001 total population data: U.S. Census Bureau. "Your Gateway to Census 2000." Retrieved June 28, 2002 from http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Population Division. U.S. Census Bureau. "Table US2001EST-01-Time Series of National Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2001," December 27, 2001. Retrieved June 28, 2002 from http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/populartables/files/national01.pdf. World Health Organization. Water for Health: WHO's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. World Health Organization. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. Retrieved June 28, 2002 from http://www.who.int. Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases. Centers for Disease Control. Disease Information. Retrieved June 28, 2002 from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/. Division of Parasitic Diseases. Centers for Disease Control. "Fact Sheet: Schistosomiasis." Retrieved June 28, 2002 from http://www.cdc.gov/. World Health Organization "Researchers Warn of Impending Disaster from Mass Arsenic Poisoning," September 8, 2000. Retrieved June 28, 2002 from http://www.who.int. Heather Clark. "Small community water associations oppose new arsenic standards." The Nando Times, June 25, 2002. Retrieved June 27, 2002 from http://www.nandotimes.com. Centers for Disease Control. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, October 22, 1999. "Cities Rejecting Fluoridation." Retrieved June 27, 2002 from http://www.nofluoride.com/CitiesRejecting.pdf. Emily Richmond. "Dentists spent $50,000 on Mtn. View campaign." Palo Alto News, August 7, 1999. Retrieved June 27, 2002 from http://www.nofluoride.com/50k_vote.htm. Springs/Portsmouth Water Quality Report-2001.
User Comments Add a comment…