lucgreedye-blog
lucgreedye-blog
Untitled
2 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
lucgreedye-blog · 5 years ago
Text
survival
We installed a technologically advanced drinking water system in our home, to eliminate any worry we may have had regarding exactly what is in our drinking water. You may wish to consider a similar solution for your home.
We considered this to be part of our responsibility in insure the present and future health and well-being of our family. We have car insurance, health insurance, life insurance; we have fire detectors all over the house and fire extinguishers in our kitchen.
We avoid overly processed foods with all those preservatives in them and decided a drinking water system to purify our water was just another way for us to protect our health.
However, prior to buying our system, we did some research and were alarmed to find the number of contaminants in our water. USA Today, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and other reliable news organizations have printed numerous articles revealing the limitations of our public drinking water systems.
Those articles did not include the discovery that prescription drugs are contaminating our drinking water.
In our area, seven different prescription drugs, including those drugs prescribed for heart problems, mental disturbances and birth control were found in our city's water holding tanks. Water samples were taken from water that had supposedly already been processed through the water purification plant and fit for human consumption.
New agencies downplayed the importance of emergency water  this discovery saying the trace contaminants were "minute." I don't know about you, but for me, consuming any amount of an unknown, man-made chemical is scary and unacceptable.
Keep in mind, when the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), reports what is in our drinking water is within acceptable limits, they're basing their statement in the assumption that there is but one chemical contaminant present at any given time.
Studies have shown that most municipalities have at least two and often four pharmaceutical contaminants in their water.
We also know the chemical reaction of medicines do not necessarily react well to each other. Just take a look at any medicine bottle and read the warning label.
Oh, the FDA also assumes that the only people ingesting that minute chemical in acceptable levels, is an adult. No consideration has been given for children drinking these contaminants and no thought about the ramifications of the 40,000 or so mothers using contaminated water to mix their baby's formula in!
We know that drugs interact with each other and cause unwanted results. We also know that the overuse of antibiotics has caused resistant strains of deadly bacteria to develop. Nobody really knows the long-term effects of drinking these pharmaceutical contaminants, but one thing is for sure, it can't be good.
Officials do not want to reveal what is in our drinking water for fear we will over react and demand costly improvements to our drinking water systems. Our esteemed officials might better serve our communities if they would reveal the truth about our water and then offer tax credits to those households who do install a home drinking water system.
After researching what is in our drinking water we purchased a drinking water system that removes lead, chlorine and practically all other chemical or non-chemical contaminants, including cysts.
You know as bad as chlorine tastes, it's worse for your digestive system. It also releases byproducts called THM's that have been known to cause cancer in the bladder or colon.
With THM's, the greater the exposure, the higher the risk. So, if you swim, drink and shower in chlorinated water, your risk goes up.
0 notes
lucgreedye-blog · 5 years ago
Text
survival
There are drugs in our drinking water.
This is a fact, and I can explain in just 15 seconds how they get there.
You take some medication. Quickly part of it is absorbed into your bloodstream and body cells. But the rest is not absorbed and stays in you bowel, so next time you use the toilet the unused drugs are flushed into your local city sewage system. City water officials treat it and discharge it "clean" into lakes and rivers. Where some of it is again taken, treated once more, and piped to your tap.
This cycle is unavoidable and unbreakable.
You have only one line of defense against these drugs. And that is the city water officials in charge of treating your water supply. How good is their defense? Well, I have some alarming news for you -- not very!
The Ralph Nadar organization recently prized some alarming facts out of the government, using freedom of information legislation, and we now know from the government's own records that more than 2000 known, toxic, cancer-causing chemicals have been found in public water supplies in this country. That's drugs in our drinking water.
Even more recent, independent study has shown there are drugs in our drinking water in 24 metropolitan areas in the US. These areas are spread right across the country. It seems nowhere is safe from this drug cycle.
In Philadelphia, for example, officials admit they have discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in city tap water. Things like medication for epilepsy, heart conditions, high cholesterol, asthma and pain relief. Even more were found in the hills and water catchments areas around the city, just waiting to find their way into the city water intakes.
Those officials were forthright. Local city water officials are usually reluctant to tell us about the drug danger in the water they give us, citing the technical nature of water purity tests. In other words, we might not understand what the tests report and may become unduly alarmed about drugs in our drinking water.
They also would point out that these pharmaceuticals in our water are present only in minute quantities -- in "safe" emergency water  quantities, measured in parts per billion. But I for one would be asking why any parts of prescription drugs in my drinking water can be deemed OK and regarded casually. I mean, some dirt and physical contaminant is one thing. Children at play eat organic matter all the time. But we are talking here about pharmaceutical drugs in our drinking water. And this is quite different.
Never-the-less, even though it is inevitable that an examination will find drugs in our drinking water, federal government doesn't require local water authorities to test for them. As a result of this lax regulation, it seems that something like half of our major city water is tested for drugs after it has been treated and before it goes to our taps.
Do you live in New York city, for instance? Then your tap water is not tested for drugs. Or Chicago? Same. Miami also. Half of our big cities do not test for drugs in drinking water.
So what should you and I do about this?
Drink bottled water? No way! Because it is usually nothing more than untreated tap water, in spite of the inspiring labels and marketing. Federal regulations require bottled water be only as safe as tap water. And we've just see how "safe" that is.
There is only one thing we can do. We must treat our tap water ourselves. Sure, our city water has been treated, and any treatment is better than none. But it seems half our cities don't check to see if their treatment has removed the drugs found in US drinking water. And studies regularly find chemicals and drugs in public water supplies.
There are several small, moderately priced home water purification systems that can remove the drugs which water officials don't worry about.
Different systems approach the problem in different ways and all of them have good points.
California and some other states require that these systems be sold with Performance Data Sheets, so from these, or manufactures' web sites, we can discover what contaminants each system is certified to remove and to what degree they are removed. So we can locate a purification system that will meet our needs and take out the drugs in drinking water simply by comparing things like the contaminant reduction capabilities, cost and ongoing cost per gallon.
1 note · View note