4. Floating in a Sea of Chemicals - Superman's Not Coming: Our National Water Emergency and What We the People Can Do About It

4. FLOATING IN A SEA OF CHEMICALS

When water flows out of your faucet into a glass of drinking water, it could be filled with any number of toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, herbicides, pesticides, and even toxic byproducts that come from disinfecting the water itself. Of course, water treatment systems are supposed to filter out these harmful and disgusting substances, yet reports from across the country show that a lot of unwanted substances are slipping through. Our water quality is declining every single day. How is it happening?

The first thing to understand is that more than 70 percent of the earth’s surface is covered in water, and while that might sound like a lot, about 96 percent of it is saline—or saltwater found in the ocean. Less than 1 percent of the water on our planet is drinkable. We drink from two main sources: (1) surface water such as creeks, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, and (2) groundwater, which is water found under the earth’s surface in cracks and spaces in soil, rock, or sand. All this water must be treated before we drink it.

Our waterways are impacted by many different contaminants, but you can put them into three main categories: organic, inorganic, and bacterial. Organic contaminants are substances that contain carbon and its derivatives, which is everything from dirt to petrochemicals to herbicides like atrazine. Inorganic contaminants are man-made industrial and agricultural chemicals such as chromium, lead, and trichloroethylene (TCE). Biological (or microbial) contaminants refer to organisms in the water, such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites. We’ve specifically seen a rise in bacteria like Legionella, which can be fatal. We’re seeing a surge in outbreaks of Legionnaire’s disease, a severe form of pneumonia caused by the waterborne bacterium Legionella, across the country—as well as brain-eating amoebas. The U.S. Water Quality & Health Council describes Legionella as “public health enemy number 1.”

Since the Industrial Revolution, factories and manufacturers have used freshwater sources as a convenient spot to dump their waste. Add on top of that waste from agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, and stormwater runoff, and you can see why we’ve got so many substances floating around in our water systems. We add all these chemicals to the environment without knowing a whole lot about them.

For years, we’ve followed the adage that “the solution to pollution is dilution.” But the toxins have only increased with time, and we have reached a point where even large bodies of water can’t possibly dilute the constant barrage of toxins. We allow chemicals in the water first, making everyone who drinks the water guinea pigs, and then years later science finds that these chemicals cause cancer and other serious health problems. Meanwhile, we’ve been drinking it for more than twenty years. I think a better system is to know what a chemical is capable of before it goes into our water supply. I’d like to see more businesses being good neighbors, testing their own products for safety, acting with integrity, and working with substances that won’t harm people or the environment.

We also have problems when it comes to treating the water. We have more than 151,000 public water systems in the U.S., and no two drinking water qualities are the same. No two systems treat the water the same way, and no two systems pump to your tap the same quality of water. Every single chemical aspect of your water supply impacts water treatment techniques. There’s no one magic bullet for cleaning up our drinking water supplies. No one size fits all.

We continue to hear the lulling use of the phrase “Your drinking water is safe,” which is misleading and false. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) does not define “safe”; it barely establishes federal standards for drinking water. My water quality treatment expert, Bob Bowcock, is the first to emphasize that water treatment professionals are trained to say, “This water meets or exceeds all federal and state safe drinking water requirements.” Yes, the water might be “compliant” when they tested it one day, but is it safe drinking water? Even if drinking water meets federal standards, it might not be safe if it is contaminated with an unregulated substance or tainted with contamination through some other scenario (for example, contamination resulting from residential piping). Last amended in 1996, the SDWA proposed a scientific, risk-based process for identifying, assessing, and managing health risks from contaminants in drinking water. Since 1975, the EPA has only developed drinking water regulations addressing ninety-one contaminants.

Bob also says that water treatment is as much about waste management as it is about treatment. Water treatment operators are waste managers. The $64,000 question is how are we going to dispose of our waste? We need to figure out responsible ways to manage all this waste. To solve this massive problem, we also need to be connected to the bigger issue of toxins today.

We are living in a hyper-toxic time. We’re aren’t just dealing with the toxins themselves, but the fact that they have accumulated in the environment for long stretches of time. American children are growing up exposed to more chemicals than any other generation in history and it shows. Rates of chronic disease for children, especially those living in poverty, are on the rise. Nearly half of U.S. adults (or 117 million people) are living with one or more chronic health conditions. We assume watchdogs are in place and that regulatory agencies and government standards are keeping us safe. But our health records show a different story. Big businesses rule the roost, dumping their leftover chemicals wherever they like with little regard for our safety. These chemicals affect our water, our health, and our future, and we need more transparency and education.

We have more than eighty-five thousand chemicals in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory and more than forty thousand chemicals actively in use on the market today in all kinds of products from shampoos and baby lotions to cell phones and Tupperware. Each one of us interacts with these chemicals every day, but we are just beginning to uncover what this constant exposure means for our health. We have studied only about two hundred, or 1 percent, of them for safety. How much of any toxic substance can a human body ingest and still be well?

In 1975 John Quarles, then deputy administrator of the EPA, said that legislation to prevent the spread of dangerous chemicals in our environment was “one of our most urgently needed environmental laws” and that “existing federal laws fail to deal evenly and comprehensively with toxic substances problems.” He also said that the Safe Drinking Water Act, then recently enacted, dealt with “the problem at a point when contaminants are very difficult to control.”

He advocated requiring premarket notifications on all chemicals so that we would understand the risks new chemicals posed to human health and the environment. Back then, six hundred new chemicals were being introduced each year for commercial use. Today, about two thousand new chemicals are introduced each year, and we still don’t know their impact on our health despite our widespread exposure to them. When it comes to protecting public health, we need to understand the general effects of these chemicals and the level of exposure that is considered hazardous to human health.

Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976. Before that we had no records of what chemicals were manufactured, used, or released into the environment and no means of regulating them. This law gave the EPA authority to help regulate new and existing chemicals with reporting, record-keeping, and testing requirements, and restrictions on chemical substances used commercially. It also gave the EPA authority to maintain a master list of chemicals and keep an inventory of them.

This law has been considered one of the least effective environmental laws we have. The EPA has little capacity to prevent a company from bringing chemicals to market. When the law was signed, more than sixty thousand chemicals already in use became grandfathered into the system with no toxicity testing. The TSCA also made the EPA responsible for gathering data on safety rather than the companies producing the chemicals. The agency had to demonstrate health or environmental risks before requiring companies to test these chemicals. It’s basically an “innocent until proven guilty” approach, which is a huge burden for any agency, and especially an overworked and underfunded one. The EPA has not routinely assessed the risks of chemicals already in use. On the rare occasion that they do, it’s a legal hassle that can take years. The law also contains provisions allowing certain chemical information to be protected as trade secrets, helping preserve competitive advantages for the manufacturers. It’s just another way the law has fallen short—keeping companies thriving, while our health remains at risk.

The TSCA is a law with good intentions that has been virtually unenforceable. In 2009 testimony before the Senate’s Committee on Environmental and Public Works, John Stephenson, director for Natural Resources and Environment, simply said, “EPA lacks adequate scientific information on the toxicity of many chemicals. One major reason is that TSCA generally places the burden of obtaining data about existing chemicals on the EPA rather than on chemical companies.”

Only six chemicals have been regulated under the TSCA: PCBs, asbestos, radon, lead, mercury, and formaldehyde. Meanwhile, the list of substances known to cause cancer in humans, also called carcinogens, is more than twenty, and when you meet the top toxins in your water, you will see overlap with this list, including chromium, TCE, and PCBs. Companies know these substances cause harm, they know they are in the water supply, and yet we don’t fix the problem. P.S.: The list of suspected or anticipated carcinogens is much longer and the list of chemicals we simply don’t have data on is even longer still.

In 2016, we attempted to reform the nation’s outdated toxic chemical laws. After many years of initiatives in Congress, former president Barack Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act on June 22. I remember the date because it’s also my birthday. The amendment was intended to help increase public health protections from toxic chemicals, but it was still too lenient on industry and didn’t account for budgeting—in other words, how the EPA can fund costs associated with new regulations. It also weakened the states’ ability to pass their own, stricter legislation. The agency has promised a review of existing chemicals with ten of them listed as a priority, but we know that many thousands still need review. Even with updates to the law it could be decades before we see any major reviews of these toxins or changes that could positively impact our health and well-being. Bottom line: We should know what these chemicals do before we put them on the market.

Working on toxic legislation reform with New Jersey senator Frank Lautenberg, who died in 2013. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act) was signed into law on June 22, 2016.

While I was writing this book, the first study of plastic pollutants in our tap water came out, showing that 94 percent of thirty-three tap water samples from across the U.S. tested positive for the presence of plastic fibers. Those sample sites included the U.S. Capitol complex and the headquarters of the EPA in Washington, D.C. We produce more than 300 million tons of plastic in the world each year, and about half of all plastics are created for disposable items such as water bottles. We don’t have any long-term studies about the effects of ingesting these tiny plastic fibers, which are essentially fragments of larger pieces of nonbiodegradable plastic. One thing we do know is that endocrine-disruptors like bisphenol A (BPA) and di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), two chemicals widely used in plastics, are now part of this new toxic mix in our water.

BPA is a chemical that highlights one of the major problems with evidence-based science and toxicity. In the 1930s, a British scientist discovered that BPA mimicked human estrogen, but this lab research didn’t slow down production of this new technology and for generations BPA was the gold standard in plastics. In the 1990s, Stanford University researchers made a new discovery—that tiny amounts of BPA could leach out of plastic. The question then became whether those trace amounts of BPA could cause harm. Recent studies show that more than 90 percent of Americans tested have BPA in their system. Yet, we still don’t have a regulation in place and the risks of BPA contamination are still in dispute. One reason is that studies have produced conflicting and/or inconclusive results, in part because alterations in the endocrine system can be subtle, take years to fully understand, and are generally hard to pinpoint. Academic scientists do not have clout with the regulators who ultimately must determine the kinds of studies that can help oversee these chemicals and their impact on human health.

The point is that we shouldn’t be drinking polluted water. Period. We certainly should not be drinking plastics, and we don’t have any safety standards in place to protect our health.

Another huge symptom of our toxic buildup is seen in the thousands of Superfund pollution and contamination cleanup sites across the country that are invading our homes, businesses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, you name it, every minute of every day with toxic vapors causing illness, and most of us have been told nothing. The EPA’s Superfund program began in 1980 to help clean up some of the country’s worst hazardous waste sites and to respond to local and national environmental emergencies. But since then, how many areas have been thoroughly cleaned? How many people are even aware that they exist?

A Superfund site is any land that has been contaminated by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health and/or the environment. Most of these sites are “discovered” when the presence of hazardous waste is made known to the EPA—meaning communities usually find them first because people get sick. These sites get placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). We have almost 33,000 Superfund sites in the U.S., and the number is growing. About 1,400 of these sites are on the NPL, they are full of asbestos, lead, radiation, and other hazardous materials, and they are not getting cleaned up fast enough.

I posted on Facebook in 2015 about a site near Torrance in Los Angeles County, where the EPA has been working for decades to clean up two adjacent Superfund sites: Del Amo Superfund and Montrose Chemical Superfund. Several large-scale industrial companies left a toxic footprint that is still being cleaned up today. The Los Angeles Times reported that the sites are two of the worst chemical dumps in the nation. The companies had dumped trichloroethylene (TCE), benzene, and chlorobenzene into open unlined pits, which subsequently leached into the groundwater and migrated into the environment.

The U.S. government owned the 280-acre Del Amo site during World War II, and it also hosted a synthetic rubber plant and manufacturers of styrene and butadiene. The land was sold to Shell Oil Co. in the 1950s. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Dow Chemical Co., Shell, and others dumped their wastewater sludge into six unlined pits and three unlined evaporation ponds on a four-acre disposal site from 1943 to 1972, when the facility was shut down. At that point, any open pits and ponds were filled in with dirt. It was declared a Superfund site in 2002.

The neighboring Superfund site, spanning some thirteen acres, was the former home of a Montrose Chemical Corp. plant that manufactured the pesticide DDT from 1947 to 1982. Once closed, the company demolished the factory and paved everything over with asphalt. The property was declared a Superfund site in 1989. In addition to contaminating the local groundwater, the plant dumped chemicals into the ocean from the Palos Verdes Shelf.

By the 1990s, discoveries of bowling-bowl-size chunks of DDT led to tearing down sixty-three homes, according to the Los Angeles Times. Subsequent ongoing remediation measures to reduce contamination include capping waste areas and treating soil and water. Ongoing monitoring of sites and surrounding areas has detected disturbing growth in TCE concentrations underneath homes.

At least fourteen thousand people who live within a mile to the south and thirty-four thousand people within four miles drink from a deep aquifer there. It’s just one example of these sites and one that’s not far from my own backyard. About 53 million Americans live within three miles of a Superfund site, including 17 percent of all U.S. children under the age of five.

You can search for your community here: www.epa.gov/​superfund/​search-superfund-sites-where-you-live. I’m working to put this map right next to my own Community Healthbook and see how closely the disease clusters match these toxic areas.

When it comes to chemicals, we desperately need more testing for their safety, and we need to err on the side of caution when it comes to bringing them to the marketplace. I would like to see continued monitoring and testing of Superfund sites, both old and new. We also need to bring “polluter taxes” back to industry. Up until 1995, the Superfund program was funded mostly from taxes on crude oil, imported petroleum products, hazardous chemicals, and imported substances that use hazardous chemicals as a feedstock, and on corporate modified alternative minimum taxable income. Those taxes expired, and since 1996, oversight and cleanup of Superfund sites has been largely paid for with our tax dollars.

Ultimately, many of these toxins are making their way into our water. If there’s a substance in my water that’s a poison, then I’m concerned, and you should be too. When I work with communities, I help bridge the gap between the people who live there and what may be going on with any agencies or in politics. I don’t like getting involved in politics because it doesn’t matter what your party affiliation is, if you are rich or poor, or the color of your skin; we all need access to clean water. If there’s one agenda across the board that I think everyone needs to be united on, it’s making sure we all have safe drinking water. Period.

You need to know the facts about what’s in your water, where to go, and who to turn to when you have concerns. You can’t make good choices if you don’t have the information. You deserve to know if your water is safe to drink. Does it meet state and federal drinking water standards? And what’s the true cost of compliance? What’s the true cost for you as the consumer buying a product from your municipal or public drinking water system? That’s the real question. The next chapter will cover the top toxins that I have concerns about, so you can start to learn more.

I know it can seem daunting to get started so here are a few simple actions that will help you understand where your water comes from and what pollutants might be in it.

WHO IS CLEANING YOUR WATER?

Not sure who is responsible for cleaning your water? Find out. Unfortunately, there’s not an app for it yet. But the EPA provides a map that will help you find your local water utility. Or ask a neighbor or elder in your community who might know. If you live in an apartment building, speak to your management company to find out who supplies water to your taps.

Find Your Water Report

Do you know what toxins are in your water? Knowledge is power. The first step is to get a copy of your Consumer Confidence Report (sometimes called a Water Quality Report) from your water company. This annual water report is provided to customers by July 1 each year and will give you details about contaminants that have been detected in your water system. It should come in the mail with your water bill. If you pay your bill online, you should be able to go directly to the water utility’s website and get a copy or request a downloadable PDF.

Water Report Elements

Each report should list your water source—whether it’s a lake, river, or public well. It will also list the contaminants found in your source water and tell you what levels have been detected. Contaminants found to have a higher level than what the EPA recommends should be listed. Be sure to take note of any violations—meaning the contaminant has been detected at a higher level than the EPA laws allow. If violations are listed, the report should also include how those contaminants may affect your health and how the water utility is working to address the problem.

Well Water

If your water comes from a private or community well rather than a municipality, then it’s up to you to maintain the safety of your water. The EPA does help with information on how to maintain your well here: www.epa.gov/​privatewells. If you can’t find what you need, try contacting your local health or environmental department and request a list of the state-certified (licensed) laboratories in your area that test water. Get to know your watershed and be aware of the industrial and agricultural businesses located nearby that might pose risks to the quality of your well water.

Go DIY

You can get your water tested on your own and see what you find. The EPA has a Safe Drinking Water Hotline: 1-800-426-4791. Call and find a water testing agency in your area or ask friends and neighbors if they have recommendations. You can also use the Environmental Working Group’s Tap Water Database: www.ewg.org/tapwater. Plug in your zip code and the report will show which contaminants have been found in your city’s water system that exceed federal or state regulations.

Research Toxins

A simple Google search of any contaminant will get you started on the journey to understanding the basics of a chemical substance. The next chapter outlines some of the top toxins I’ve dealt with and gives you details about where these contaminants come from, how they are regulated, and some of the health hazards they might pose.

Get Connected

You may already have a local community group or nonprofit working to improve the water quality in your neighborhood. Join them! Search for local groups or contact national organizations like the Clean Water Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, or Clean Water Action and ask how you can get involved and help. Let these groups know if there’s a company you suspect might be polluting or tell them about local issues and see how they can help put pressure on the right organizations to follow laws and help make change happen.

Don’t Contribute to the Problem

Think before you dump. Your sink and toilet are not safe places to deposit paints, chemical cleaners, used oil, unused pharmaceuticals, or other potential contaminants that can pollute the water supply. Contact your local sanitation, public works, or health department to get information about how to properly dispose of hazardous waste. Work to reduce the amount of single-use plastics in your life as best you can by buying more items in bulk and skipping plastic containers whenever you can.