First World Problems
No Description
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
I say water quality,
you say....?
What do you think of when I say poor water quality? Undeveloped nations? Africa? The "Third World"?
Current situations like Flint, Michigan should serve as a warning to us that our "First World" is not as safe as we're lead to believe.
Although American water may be cleaner than most, it is far from clean. Consider that, "The medical community and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have determined that lead poisoning is the primary environmental threat to children (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1997)."
Current situations like Flint, Michigan should serve as a warning to us that our "First World" is not as safe as we're lead to believe.
Although American water may be cleaner than most, it is far from clean. Consider that, "The medical community and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have determined that lead poisoning is the primary environmental threat to children (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1997)."
Photo by shaire productions
ASSUMPTIOMS
- Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 = no toxicants
- All contaminants are regulated
- All U.S. systems are adequate
We make many assumptions that our utilities are well regulated and capable of protecting us from the unseen contaminants of the modern world.
For decades, the overall feeling has been perpetuated that American water is superbly safe, despite occasional contaminations.
For decades, the overall feeling has been perpetuated that American water is superbly safe, despite occasional contaminations.
Photo by dantekgeek
TRUTH
- CLEAN = LOW/UNDETECTABLE LEVELS OF REGULATED TOXINS
- APPROX. 90 OF 100,000 TOXINS ARE REGULATED BY THE EPA
- EPA REGULATES IF PUBLIC UTILITY CAN COMPLY
In fact, the definition of clean water simply, "means the water has low or undetectable levels of a limited number of chemicals and pathogens the utility is required by law to monitor."
"There are around 100,000 potential drinking-water contaminants, according to the National Academy of Sciences and analytical methods don’t exist to monitor the whole universe. Instead, the EPA regulates specific substances it has determined are prevalent, dangerous to public health and both feasible and cost-effective to remove from drinking water."
Perhaps most enlightening, the EPA partially determines which of these make the regulatory list based on the ability of public utilities to comply - not on public safety.
(McGinty, 2016)
"There are around 100,000 potential drinking-water contaminants, according to the National Academy of Sciences and analytical methods don’t exist to monitor the whole universe. Instead, the EPA regulates specific substances it has determined are prevalent, dangerous to public health and both feasible and cost-effective to remove from drinking water."
Perhaps most enlightening, the EPA partially determines which of these make the regulatory list based on the ability of public utilities to comply - not on public safety.
(McGinty, 2016)
Photo by CharlesFred
Current System Adequacy
These claims are indeed dramatic, and a certain amount of credit should be given.
- Requirements do exist to keep the public informed.
- Americans do enjoy a sophisticated network of public utilities.
But are the systems the best they can be? New science, new toxins, new discoveries ... Have our safety standards kept pace?
- Requirements do exist to keep the public informed.
- Americans do enjoy a sophisticated network of public utilities.
But are the systems the best they can be? New science, new toxins, new discoveries ... Have our safety standards kept pace?
"Only one contaminant, perchlorate, has been added to the regulated list in the past 20 years; 24 others were reviewed, but the agency decided against regulating them."
(McGinty, 2016)
I would argue there is immense room for improvement.
Photo by KJGarbutt
CONSIDER ARSENIC...
REGULATED, BUT EFFECTIVELY?
Arsenic is a known carcinogen which also affects the human liver, respiratory, and immune systems.
Photo by fdecomite
"The World Health Organization has recommended that the levels of iAS in drinking water should not exceed 10ppb."
(Bailey, et. al., 2016)
100 million people world-wide are believed to be exposed to levels exceeding this.
Rural areas and developing countries are often particularly impacted based on their reliance on groundwater as a source of drinking water.
(Bailey, et. al., 2016)
Rural areas and developing countries are often particularly impacted based on their reliance on groundwater as a source of drinking water.
(Bailey, et. al., 2016)
Photo by jenny downing
ARSENIC
- Current EPA limit is exposure of 50ppb
- California experts: this level = 1/100 cancer risk
- Asian studies: 6-10x greater risk of diabetes mellitus
- (Bailey, et. al., 2016)
current EPA standard -- unchanged since 1942 -- of 50 ppb).
It has been estimated, however, that 25 million people in this country are exposed to at least 25 ppb of arsenic in their drinking water and that as many as 350,000 people may be exposed to levels greater than the 50 ppb standard.
California state experts found that water containing arsenic at the level of the EPA's current drinking water standard (set in 1942 before arsenic was known to cause cancer) presents a risk of more than one cancer in every one hundred people exposed -- 10,000 times higher risk than the EPA's standard "acceptable" cancer risk of one in one million.
(Bailey, et. al., 2016)
It has been estimated, however, that 25 million people in this country are exposed to at least 25 ppb of arsenic in their drinking water and that as many as 350,000 people may be exposed to levels greater than the 50 ppb standard.
California state experts found that water containing arsenic at the level of the EPA's current drinking water standard (set in 1942 before arsenic was known to cause cancer) presents a risk of more than one cancer in every one hundred people exposed -- 10,000 times higher risk than the EPA's standard "acceptable" cancer risk of one in one million.
(Bailey, et. al., 2016)
Photo by Gabriel 'Briel' Rocha
GENERATIONAL CONSEQUENCE
- Children take in 2.5 x more water than adults
- EPA estimate: 45mil. drank contaminated water from 1994 to 1995
- Expert estimate: 560,000 each year become ill from contaminated water
- (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1997)
"William K. Reilly, Administrator of the EPA under the Bush Administration, classified drinking water contamination among the top four public health risks posed by environmental problems (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1997)."
The New York Times article by McGinty shows this is still the case. What more of a common issue can there be to rally around?
The New York Times article by McGinty shows this is still the case. What more of a common issue can there be to rally around?
Photo by sciencesque
What Now?
Legislative Review
Consumer Action
How can we change the future?
- The political landscape needs to change. There is much time to debate so many issues, but when is the last time we heard outrage over clean drinking water?
- As consumers, we have a certain power to encourage change. Learn about the water quality in your area and take local action to draw attention and advocate change.
- The political landscape needs to change. There is much time to debate so many issues, but when is the last time we heard outrage over clean drinking water?
- As consumers, we have a certain power to encourage change. Learn about the water quality in your area and take local action to draw attention and advocate change.
Photo by einalem
