Bottled water versus tap: Which is safer to drink?

Email Picture

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Bottled and tap water come from essentially the same sources and are subject to the same contaminants. Some products on store shelves are, in fact, tap water, filtered and treated for taste.

By Elena Conis, Special to The Times

Those ubiquitous plastic water bottles have been increasingly vilified in recent years. Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Barbara, among others, have banned them from purchase with city funds. A few trendsetting restaurants, and even some markets and hotels, have banned them too.

The trend has left many consumers wondering: Isn't bottled safer than tap?

"Bottled water isn't any safer or purer than what comes out of the tap," says Dr. Sarah Janssen, science fellow with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, which conducted an extensive analysis of bottled water back in 1999. "In fact, it's less well-regulated, and you're more likely to know what's in tap water."

Bottled and tap water come from essentially the same sources: lakes, springs and aquifers, to list a few. In fact, a significant fraction of the bottled water products on store shelves are tap water -- albeit filtered and treated with extra steps to improve taste.

It's not news to anyone that tap water can taste funky (too much chlorine, usually) or look discolored (from air bubbles or rust in pipes). But generally, that doesn't mean it isn't safe to drink, says Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The great majority of the tap water in the country meets the EPA's drinking-water standards, which regulate the levels of roughly 90 different contaminants, including germs such as giardia, heavy metals such as lead and dozens of industrial chemicals.

"If a utility is doing its job and it's well funded, they can take all this stuff out," says Elizabeth Royte, author of "Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It."

Different states do face different contaminants, of course, and the national standards don't cover everything that could possibly get into public water supplies. California, for example, has its own standards to regulate levels of the gasoline additive MTBE and the industrial chemicals called perchlorates.

But even state standards can't account for aging pipes that carry water from public lines into those of people's homes, which can leach copper and lead. Plus, there are certain contaminants water treatment plants just aren't designed to take out, such as medications that wash into the sewers via human excretion or drugs being dumped down the drains. An investigation by the Associated Press this year found traces of pharmaceuticals in drinking-water supplies that serve more than 41 million Americans.

In light of such facts, bottled water may seem preferable. But coming as it does from many of the same sources as tap, bottled water is subject to many of the same contaminants, Grumbles notes. It's held to essentially the same standards as tap water, albeit by the Food and Drug Administration and not the EPA.

And while large public water supplies are often tested for contaminants up to several times a day, the FDA requires private bottlers to test for contaminants only once a week, once a year or once every four years, depending on the contaminant.

Tap water suppliers are also subject to broader scrutiny; they're required by law to publish and circulate an annual Consumer Confidence Report, which states their sources of water and any contaminants found. The FDA doesn't require this of bottled-water makers, and though inspectors can drop in on water-bottling plants, such visits are assigned low priority, FDA press officer Michael Herndon says. Companies also aren't required to share any contamination episodes with their customers.

In its favor, bottled water isn't subject to contamination from lead in residential pipes. But it may contain chemicals that leach out of plastic bottles, which are often made of PET, or polyethylene terephthalate.

The chemical is distinct from the phthalates that have been linked to birth defects in newborn boys, but recent studies have shown that PET can release minuscule amounts of the toxic chemical antimony into water. The amounts are well below toxic levels, but microwaving a bottle or leaving it in the sun or a hot car can accelerate the process.

Bottled water hasn't been vilified for its health risks, however. Rather, it's the environmental toll of mass consumption (Americans have consumed more than 9 billion gallons so far this year) that's driving some consumers back to the tap.

In California alone, more than 1 billion water bottles are thrown out annually, according to the California Department of Conservation. Nationwide, just 15% of the tens of billions of bottles consumed each year are recycled. The Pacific Institute, a research group based in Oakland, calculates that in 2006, manufacturing those billions of bottles required 17 million barrels of oil.

Which relates to the final argument against bottled water: cost. Price it by the gallon, and water in those single-serve bottles is more expensive than even today's high-priced gasoline.

Tap water, on the other hand, "is one of the best bargains American consumers can find," Grumbles says.

Original here

One in 10 iPod users risks going deaf, experts warn

By Daniel Martin

In parks, on trains and even pounding the pavement, we are permanently wired for sound.

But our love affair with our iPods and MP3 players could cost us our hearing.

More than a million Britons could go deaf because they listen to their music too loud and too long, experts warn.

Young people are at risk from permanent deafness caused by listening to their iPods at high volumes, a new report shows

Up to 10 per cent of iPod and other MP3 users across Europe are risking deafness if they listen for more than an hour a day for at least five years.

That means about 10million could end up sacrificing their hearing simply because they can't stop listening to music.

The warning comes from the EU's scientific committee on emerging health risks.

It carried out a study into the soaring numbers routinely exposed to high noise volumes through personal music players.

An EU safety standard already exists restricting the noise level of such players to 100 decibels.

But the scientists warn that the danger level is much lower than this.

They say music pumped into the ears above 89 decibels for long periods of time is actually louder than currently allowed in factories. Their report will be welcomed by campaigners for the deaf - and the fed-up commuters who have to endure loud music leaking from the earphones of neighbours on packed buses and trains.

Emma Harrison, head of campaigns at the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, said: 'Decision makers and opinion formers are finally waking up to the hearing loss time bomb threatening many young MP3 users.'

She said the institute had started a Don't Lose the Music campaign, which raises awareness of the dangers of listening to MP3 players too loudly.

'Our research revealed that 58 per cent of 16 to 30-year-olds are completely unaware of any risk to their hearing from MP3 players,' she said.

'The announcement that further action is needed is a vindication of this work.

'We want to see the Government and industry taking decisive action to save the hearing of future generations.'

The committee said users should turn down the volume on their music players, or, if possible, set the machine's maximum usable volume at a lower level.

Between 50million and 100million people across the EU are thought to listen to portable music players on a daily basis - equivalent to between six and 12 million in Britain.

EU consumer affairs commissioner Meglena Kuneva said a conference early next year would bring governments, the music industry and consumers together to discuss the way forward.

'I am concerned that so many young people who are frequent users of personal music players and mobile phones at high acoustic levels may be unknowingly damaging their hearing irrevocably,' she said.

'The scientific findings indicate a clear risk and we need to react rapidly.

'Most importantly we need to raise consumer awareness.

'We need also to look again at the controls in place to make sure they are effective and keep pace with new technology.'

Original here

Brain boost drugs 'growing trend'

The drugs are normally used to treat people with mental illness

Increasing numbers of people are using prescription drugs like Ritalin to boost alertness and brain power, say experts.

Up to a fifth of adults, including college students and shift workers, may be using cognitive enhancers, a poll of 1,400 by Nature journal suggests.

Neuropsychologist Professor Barbara Sahakian of Cambridge University said safety evidence is urgently needed.

Experts gather to debate this topic at a meeting in London on Monday evening.

The use of these cognitive enhancing drugs is spreading to younger and younger people. That's a concern Neuropsychologist Professor Barbara Sahakian

Professor Sahakian's own work shows 17% of students in some US universities admit to using the stimulant Ritalin (methylphenidate) - a drug designed to treat hyperactive children - to maximise their learning power.

One in five of the 1,400 people who responded to the Nature survey said they had taken Ritalin, Provigil (modafinil) or beta-blockers for non-medical reasons. They used them to stimulate focus, concentration or memory.

Of that one in five, 62% had taken Ritalin and 44% Provigil - a drug normally prescribed to alleviating daytime tiredness in people suffering from the rare sleep disorder narcolepsy.

Unchecked

Most users had somehow obtained their drugs on prescription or else bought them over the internet.

Although these are only snapshots of use, Professor Sahakian says it does suggest these drugs are becoming more popular.

Professor Sahakian said given the increasing use of these drugs outside of their intended clinical setting, safety trials were urgently needed.

"We do not really have long-term efficacy and safety data in healthy people. These are studies that really need to be done.

"The use of these cognitive enhancing drugs is spreading to younger and younger people. That's a concern.

"Methylphenidate does have substantial abusive potential so we have to be worried about substance abuse problems and the use of these drugs in the developing brain in children."

John Harris, professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester said people should be allowed to make their own minds up about these drugs.

He said: "If these cognitive enhancing drugs make our lives better and make us better able to concentrate and better able to perform, this would surely be a good thing."

The debate will be heard at Kings Place, London.

Original here