I gave some money last week to Clean Water Action. I think we should all do the same thing.

* * *
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910526011851511.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

What's Coming
From Your Tap?

America's latest drinking problem isn't about alcohol.

Concerned about the cost of bottled water -- and its environmental consequences -- many people are turning back to tap water to quench their thirst. But as evidence mounts of contaminants in public systems, unease about the water supply is growing.

Engineers say that U.S. water quality is among the world's best and is regulated by some of the most stringent standards. But as detection technology improves, utilities are finding more contaminants in water systems. Earlier this year, media reports of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in water across the country drew attention from U.S. senators and environmental groups, who are now pushing for regulation of these substances in water systems.

Of particular concern, experts say, are endocrine-disrupting compounds -- found in birth-control pills, mood-stabilizers and other drugs -- which are linked to birth defects in wildlife. Also alarming are antibiotics, which if present in water systems, even in small amounts, could contribute to the rise of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, or so-called super bugs.

Many pharmaceuticals taken by humans are excreted into urine, or are flushed intentionally down the toilet. Even though wastewater is treated, trace amounts of the drugs are often not eliminated. Also, drugs found in the waste of animals treated with hormones and antibiotics can eventually end up in groundwater.

The actual health effects of drugs in water systems are unclear. The levels that have been detected are relatively small compared with those of other regulated contaminants, such as mercury and benzene. A 2008 study funded by the Denver-based Awwa Research Foundation -- a nonprofit research group that was established by the American Water Works Association -- concluded that it is "highly unlikely" that pharmaceuticals will pose a threat to human health.

But many medical experts argue that more studies need to be done -- and note that the amount of drugs in the water matters less than who drinks it. Some drugs, even in small amounts, can be especially harmful to infants, pregnant women or those with chronic health conditions, for example.

The publicity has frightened many consumers. Laura Pfeil, 39, a stay-at-home mother with four sons in Mason, Ohio, says it does concern her, "especially when thinking of my children's welfare."

She says she started using bottled water at home 15 years ago when she was pregnant with her eldest son because she thought it was safer than tap water. Three years ago, though, her family switched to a PUR Water Filter System, made by Procter & Gamble Co., to save money and to reduce the waste resulting from plastic bottles. (Environmentalists also point to the energy wasted in transporting bottled water.)

Now, says Ms. Pfeil, she has concerns about consuming trace amounts of pharmaceuticals that the filter may not eliminate. A spokeswoman for P&G's PUR division says it "cannot confirm the reduction of pharmaceuticals in water with carbon filters."

Sales of PUR filters are at an all-time high, says the spokeswoman, an indication of tap water's new popularity. U.S. consumers spent $16.8 billion on bottled water in 2007, up 12% from the year before, according to Beverage Digest, a trade publication. But growth has slowed over the last three years.

Drugs are only one category of contaminants found in tap water. A 2005 study released by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based research group, found that tap water in 42 states is contaminated with more than 140 unregulated chemicals, including MTBE, perchlorate and industrial solvents.

Protesting a Disinfectant

Even chemicals used to clean and disinfect drinking water are causing worry. Citizens' groups in states such as California, New York and Vermont are protesting the increasing use of chloramine -- a combination of chlorine and ammonia -- to disinfect drinking water. Utilities are using chloramine because of Environmental Protection Agency limits on chlorine byproducts.

Citizens Concerned About Chloramine in the San Francisco Bay Area, an activist group, says that hundreds of residents have had reactions, such as rashes and respiratory problems, to the disinfectant. Some byproducts of chloramine can be more toxic than chlorine byproducts, says Michael Plewa, a professor of genetics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied disinfection byproducts.

The EPA says chloramine is safe in drinking water and has been used for decades.

In the absence of federal regulation of certain chemicals in water systems, some states have stepped in. California, for one, has set standards for various compounds that are not regulated by the EPA, including perchlorate, an ingredient used in rocket fuel that was spilled into groundwater during the Cold War and has been found in many water systems. Massachusetts has set standards for perchlorate and requires that water utilities in the state test for MTBE, a gasoline additive.

"What you see in many states is a reaction to the lack of action at the federal level," says Suzanne Condon, director of the Bureau of Environmental Health at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

Tap Versus Bottled

Health concerns extend to bottled water, says Sarah Janssen, a science fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group based in New York. "A lot of bottled water is actually tap water, so there is no assurance that what is coming from the bottle is any safer than what is coming from the tap," she says.

In fact, experts say tap water is held to more stringent standards by the EPA, and tested more often, than bottled water, which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Utilities are required by law to send annual reports to their customers detailing contaminants found in water systems and whether they exceed levels set by the EPA. They are not required to list unregulated contaminants in these reports.

If a contaminant exceeds the EPA's "maximum contaminant level," the report should detail the potential health effects of the contaminant and a summary of actions the utility is taking. If you do notice a contaminant that exceeds EPA levels in your utility's report, consider installing a tap-water filter, experts say.

Water that is tested by utilities is generally tested at the plant. It still has to travel through your pipes to get to your tap, so if you have pipes that are a couple of decades old, it may be a good idea to get the water from your tap tested in a lab -- especially if you are pregnant, nursing or have small children, says the NRDC's Dr. Janssen. People who get their water from private wells should have their water tested annually.

Water filters aren't foolproof. Those that are certified by NSF International -- a nonprofit group that tests food and water products -- can get rid of unwanted chemicals to EPA's standards, but consumers should be aware that trace amounts of chemicals may still be left in their water.

Carbon filters, which come in the form of a faucet mount or a pitcher, are the most commonly used and cost about $30, says Rick Andrew, operations manager of the drinking water treatment unit program at NSF. These can be fairly effective in removing many contaminants, but need to be replaced about every two months.

Other options -- such as reverse-osmosis systems, which use a semipermeable membrane to remove contaminants, or ultraviolet light treatment, which prevents micro-organisms from reproducing -- can be more effective, but they cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Some consumers have found the cost is worth it, especially if members of the family have certain health conditions.

Last April, Elizabeth Beyer, 47, purchased a Kinetico Inc. K5 Drinking Water Station for her father, who had a liver transplant in February. Doctors had advised him to drink only filtered water. The system, which cost $2,100, is meant to remove contaminants ranging from lead to chlorine sediment using reverse-osmosis technology and two additional filters.

Ms. Beyer, who lives in Venice, Fla., says it was worth it. Her water is clearer and crisper. "I can definitely taste the difference," she says. "You can see the difference."

Write to Anjali Athavaley at anjali.athavaley@wsj.com

True, their dollar is stronger than ours, but I almost don't mind, because they help us see what products to avoid, since our own crappy government doesn't see fit to prohibit most of the toxic ingredients in our everyday products.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/08/18/f-health-chemicals-batch3.html

IN DEPTH

Environment

Next, federal government will weigh in on safety of printer inks, cosmetics

Last Updated: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 | 4:51 PM ET

Yet more bull**** about the bird flu pandemic that's supposedly coming our way. Scientists have found that people who survived the 1918 flu pandemic still have very strong antibodies against the 1918 flu. Now scientists think that adding these antibodies to a vaccine against the bird flu will make the vaccine stronger and more effective. They are missing two huge points: (1) The 1918 survivors developed these antibodies naturally as a response to natural exposure to the actual disease, not forced intramuscular injection of a manipulated form of the disease; (2) the bird flu only spreads from birds to humans when the humans are immunocompromised by dioxin poisoning (like the dioxin in Southeast Asia from Agent Orange and from industrial waste). The money spent on developing the vaccine would be far better spent on cleaning up Southeast Asia's massive dioxin contamination, because that would help prevent all future animal diseases from infecting humans in this poor, poisoned corner of the world.

Here is the link to (and an excerpt from) my previous blog entry on the subject:
http://theresma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!80EE15D075B65A13!196.entry

Dioxin, influenza and humans: a connection?
In May 2006, Indonesia reported a cluster of human bird flu cases that involved eight family members, seven of whom died. All but one person in the family appeared to have contracted the virus from another family member. This became the first reported incidence of H5N1 spreading from one person to another, and then another. Alarmed officials feared that the bird flu virus had acquired characteristics that would soon allow easy passage from human-to-human.

The members of the deceased family lived in a small village in Karo district located in the Indonesian province of North Sumatra. The Karo highland borders on Lake Toba, the world's largest volcanic lake. The largest lake in Southeast Asia, Toba has been deteriorating since 1998, defenseless against Indorayon, a paper, pulp and rayon manufacturer owned by multinational companies and funded by the World Bank. Untill it was shut down, Indorayon was the largest polluter of Lake Toba in the past decade, dumping tons of chlorine and dioxin into the waters.

Interestingly, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of individuals with H5N1 influenza have not been sick enough to require medical care, as confirmed by Dick Thompson, spokesperson for the WHO in March, 2005.(7) However, between 2003 and April, 11, 2007, there have been 291 cases and 171 deaths, with 61% of the deaths in Vietnam and Indonesia. An investigation, perhaps including a fat biopsy, should be undertaken to determine if those who died had significantly higher concentrations of dioxin in their body than those who have been exposed to H5N1 and remained well or fully recovered.

What can be done?
A global pandemic is brewing, but not because a virus may “jump species” and rapidly circumnavigate the globe, wiping out everyone in its wake. It appears that only those most at risk will be affected. But critically important information is missing: What is each person’s individual level of risk? Beyond spending billions on global bureaucratic preparedness, true prevention is in order through developing tests and detoxification methods for humans.

Instead of funding the development a vaccine that as a marginal chance of being effective, billions of dollars would be better spent funding international environmental clean up programs. Legislative initiatives that put enforcement teeth into international treaties that are already on the books may be the best way of aborting disaster.

(7) 23 Roos, Robert. “Relatives of avian flu patients have asymptomatic cases,” CIDRAP News, 9 March 2005.

Here is the new article about the 1918 flu:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080818/ap_on_he_me/sci_flu_protection;_ylt=AtBQxGsbm7ePLeCLl7hlMxtZ24cA

Blood protects against long-gone killer 1918 flu



By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Mon Aug 18, 7:35 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Nearly a century after history's most lethal flu faded away, survivors' bloodstreams still carry super-potent protection against the 1918 virus, demonstrating the remarkable durability of the human immune system.
Scientists tested the blood of 32 people aged 92 to 102 who were exposed to the 1918 pandemic flu and found antibodies that still roam the body looking to strangle the old flu strain. Researchers manipulated those antibodies into a vaccine and found that it kept alive all the mice they had injected with the killer flu, according to a study published online Sunday in the journal Nature.

There's no pressing need for a 1918 flu vaccine because the virus has long since mutated out of its deadly form and is extremely unlikely to be a threat anymore, experts said. What's more important in this research, they said, is that it confirms theories that our immune system has a steel-trap memory.

"It's incredible. The Lord has blessed us with antibodies our whole lifetime," said study co-author Dr. Eric Altschuler at the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey. "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."

This is the longest that specific disease-fighting cells have lasted in people, said study lead author Dr. James Crowe, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

But these antibodies don't just survive; they have mutated tremendously and now bind tighter to disease cells than other antibodies. That makes them more potent, he said.

Crowe said he hopes to use similar techniques to boost the potencies of vaccines that would be more useful now against newer bird flu strains that could become epidemics.

The 1918 flu killed about 50 million people worldwide and nearly everybody else was exposed to the virus, Crowe said. The specific 1918 virus was lost to the world for decades, until it was reconstructed about three years ago using genetic material from victims. When scientists tested the antibodies from survivors on infected mice, they did so in a high level biosecurity lab at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

The idea for the new study came from an old TV show, said Altschuler. In an episode of the since-cancelled TV series "Medical Investigation," a town improbably gets infected with the 1918 flu and the doctors treat everyone with the reluctantly donated blood of an old butler who survived the original pandemic, he said.

That prompted Altschuler, a professor of rehabilitation medicine who doesn't normally study flu, to look into the idea of testing people more than 90 years old for antibodies. The National Institutes of Health, which paid for much of the study, connected Altschuler with experts in the field and he found the elderly antibody donors.

The findings make sense, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md., who wasn't involved with the study. Recent studies have estimated that the human immune system should last many decades, but this gives real proof, he said.

"This is the mother of all immunological memory here," Fauci said.

___

On the Net

Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature

After all the griping from celebrities like Michael J. Fox about how scientists need to use human embryonic stem cells (in other words, pieces of babies) to develop cures for diseases like Parkinson's, it turns out that stem cells trigger an immune response that would likely prevent their being used as treatments. Now there's a shocker--that something scientists barely know anything about, turned out not to work after all! I'm sure Michael J. Fox is looking for the next Brooklyn Bridge to buy from the biotech industry...

http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/08/18/daily11.html

Stanford scientists suggest stem-cell monkey-wrench

San Francisco Business Times - by Steven E.F. Brown

http://www.forbes.com/markets/economy/2008/08/18/amylin-byetta-death-markets-equity-cx_lal_0818markets30.html

FDA: Amylin's Byetta Killed 2
Lisa LaMotta, 08.18.08, 4:30 PM ET

The worst thing that you can tell a pharmaceutical investor is that the company's biggest revenue driver might be more harmful than the disease it is meant to treat.

This was the news that Amylin Pharmaceuticals (nasdaq: AMLN - news - people ) shareholder received Monday when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to doctors and patients via its web site stating that six patients taking the company's diabetes treatment, Byetta, have been affected by hemorrhagic or necrotizing pancreatitis since the agency last reviewed the post-marketing material in October. All of the patients required hospitalization; two died.

The news caused investors to pull away from the stock. Shares of Amylin dropped 14.5%, or $4.92, to $29.29, in late-afternoon trading. The FDA said it is working with the company to add stronger warnings to the labels and encourages patients experiencing symptoms of pancreatitis to discontinue use of Byetta, also known as exenatide. Byetta is jointly marketed with Eli Lilly (nyse: LLY - news - people ). Shares of Lilly dropped 1.7%, to $47.95.

Byetta, a twice-daily injection, was approved in 2005 for the lowering of blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes. The industry has been awaiting the long-acting release formula that was set to hit the market in 2010. Amylin released positive data from a 52-week study on Byetta Longer-Acting Release at the American Diabetes Association Meeting in June. Yet, analysts fear that a longer-acting drug could lead to harder-to-treat complications. At the least, that would delay the new formula's introduction.

In October, the FDA reviewed 30 reports of pancreatitis in patients being treated with Byetta. Amylin then agreed to add information about the risk to its drug label and to alert doctors about the problem. Prior to the recent report, no one had died from the complication.

Pancreatitis is the inflammation of the pancreas that can cause bleeding. It can also lead to toxins being released into the bloodstream that will negatively affect other organs in the body. It rarely leads to death.

More than 200 million people have diabetes worldwide and between 90.0% to 95.0% have type 2 diabetes, a disease that generally affects overweight people late in life. Byetta had sales of $636.0 million in the United States in 2007, with only $14.2 million elsewhere.