Prescription drugs found in drinking water across U.S.

[Whoha]

because that isn't parts per trillion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whoha
because that isn't parts per trillion.

Parts per trillion add up.

[Maniac]

Only when the parts remain in your body forever.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Maniac
Only when the parts remain in your body forever.

Medicine is generally harmfull to you, although it is beneficial in a specific way. Regularly taking medicine that is not any benefit to you is not a good idea.

[Aeson]

Passing by the medicine cabinet (if it's slightly open and any of the bottles have been disturbed lately) may be parts per trillian...

[Elok]

Do you have any idea how big a trillion is, Kid? If I tried to drink enough water to get a standard dose of even the most potent drug, I would die of hyponatremia long before the drug took effect. And drugs do not stay active in one's system for long, which is why they have to be taken repeatedly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Do you have any idea how big a trillion is, Kid? If I tried to drink enough water to get a standard dose of even the most potent drug, I would die of hyponatremia long before the drug took effect. And drugs do not stay active in one's system for long, which is why they have to be taken repeatedly.

Well it should does **** the fish up. You don't really know what you are talking about. You are just making assumptions.

[snoopy369]

Kid, you're once again telling people who actually do know what they're talking about that they don't.

As Maniac said, only the parts that remain in your body forever add up over time. Prescription medicines with as far as I know no significant exceptions do NOT remain in your body over time (or they would be very harmful to take for any reason). They are broken down by your liver and sent on their merry way.

It's certainly something to be aware of, but if it's PPT then it's well below levels that we should worrry about. There is more chlorine than that in water (a HIGHLY toxic chemical).

The frog-concerned hormones are presumably not in drinking water (I certainly don't want frogs in my drinking water )

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Kid, you're once again telling people who actually do know what they're talking about that they don't.

As Maniac said, only the parts that remain in your body forever add up over time. Prescription medicines with as far as I know no significant exceptions do NOT remain in your body over time (or they would be very harmful to take for any reason). They are broken down by your liver and sent on their merry way.

It's certainly something to be aware of, but if it's PPT then it's well below levels that we should worrry about. There is more chlorine than that in water (a HIGHLY toxic chemical).

The frog-concerned hormones are presumably not in drinking water (I certainly don't want frogs in my drinking water )

Why are scientists studying it if it isn't a concern? Excuse me if I go ahead and trust the scientists over Poly mkay.

[snoopy369]

1. Scientists study whatever they can find money to study.
2.

It's certainly something to be aware of, but if it's PPT then it's well below levels that we should worrry about.

3. If you're trusting scientists here then it's the first time you've done that in recent memory

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Well it should does **** the fish up. You don't really know what you are talking about. You are just making assumptions.

Leaving aside what Snoopy said, a fish has much lower mass than a human, has a different physiology, and LIVES in water as opposed to just drinking it. It's constantly taking in and kicking out water through its gills as well as absorbing it through its various membranes.

EDIT: After reading the article carefully, the study on the fish seems to be entirely different from the study involving PPT in our drinking water; it's in the section near the end of the story news orgs typically use to throw in whatever superficially related research they can find to up the scare factor. If it were the same study, or even a related one, they would certainly have mentioned it closer to the front. And, again, what Snoopy said--we don't get our drinking water from an algae-filled trout pond.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, I can think of a lot of possible replies to this.....it's just too easy

QFFT

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


Leaving aside what Snoopy said, a fish has much lower mass than a human, has a different physiology, and LIVES in water as opposed to just drinking it. It's constantly taking in and kicking out water through its gills as well as absorbing it through its various membranes.

EDIT: After reading the article carefully, the study on the fish seems to be entirely different from the study involving PPT in our drinking water; it's in the section near the end of the story news orgs typically use to throw in whatever superficially related research they can find to up the scare factor. If it were the same study, or even a related one, they would certainly have mentioned it closer to the front. And, again, what Snoopy said--we don't get our drinking water from an algae-filled trout pond.

Holy ****. Why the hell isn't it obvious that drugs in our water is bad for us?



a growing body of research indicates that this could harm humans.

[Julian Delphiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Yes, and fish. In fact, it's a big danger to most animals, since animals eat other animals and plants.

Fish and frogs of today are just gender-challenged! There is nothing wrong with them.

[Elok]

You mean a growing body of research indicates that this is bad for FISH. There's nothing in that article about humans being harmed. They make sure to mention that it "could potentially harm humans," in much the same sense that shaving could potentially cause you to slit your carotid artery and die. "Scientists discover some threat to a bunch of fish" doesn't make great copy like "scientists discover potential threat to human race" does.

Some scientists believe it could pose a threat, but as the Kansas school board insists, there are some scientists who doggedly maintain that creationism is a more viable scientific theory than evolution. The trick is how many scientists as a percentage of the whole believe that, and whether that belief is backed up by hard data. Do you have anything indicating a respectable consensus?