What Are Experts Saying About Chloramine Water And Cancer?

While there are lots of chlorine filters on the market, there aren’t many effective chloramine water filters to choose from.  Only recently have facilities started switching from chlorine to chloramines for disinfection purposes.

Crystal Clear Water Systems

They made the switch because chlorine tends to dissipate, as it makes its way through the pipelines.  Chloramines, on the other hand, remain active.

In terms of killing bacteria and other germs in the pipelines, that’s a good thing.  But, there are some drawbacks.  Public healthcare organizations consider the drawbacks minor, because controlling waterborne illnesses is much more important to them.  To the individual, the drawbacks are scary.

Researchers have shown that cancer-causing byproducts are created when chloramines react with organic material.  In Canada, it has been estimated that every year, there are 700 new cases of cancer caused by exposure to those byproducts.

This is not exposure that occurs when handling the chemicals, as one would in a facility, although that is a health risk.  It is exposure that occurs when we drink, cook with and shower in unfiltered water on a daily basis.  Since the chloramines remain active, they react with bacteria on our skin to form those cancer-causing byproducts.

If we make an effort to reduce our exposure to these chemicals, whenever possible, we reduce our risk of cancer, which is currently the number one cause of death in the United States.  Installing an effective chloramine water filter that also traps the disinfection byproducts is an easy and inexpensive step to take towards better long-term health.  Systems are available for the kitchen, the showerhead and even the whole house.

An effective filter will include multiple steps.  Granular activated carbon reduces cancer-causing chemicals.  A carbon and multi-media block further reduces them to a point that they are practically non-existent.

The best systems also include an ion exchange step, because that removes lead and other metallic particles.  It balances the mineral content and improves the pH level.

Chloramine water filters are always recommended for home aquariums, because the chemical is toxic to fish and plants.  Filters for aquariums actually cost more than those that can be mounted on a kitchen tap.

Treating cancer is expensive, which is why socialist countries like Canada are interested in the number of annual cases associated with exposure to disinfection byproducts.  They want to know how much it is costing them. 

Perhaps the best thing that they could do is supply all homes with an effective chloramine water filter.  It would probably save them money, in the long run.

Why is bottled water waste a concern? Here are just a few reasons…

Americans used 50 billion water bottles in 2006 and sent 38 billion water bottles to landfills, the equivalent of 912 million gallons of oil.1, 2, 3, 4 If laid end to end, that’s enough bottles to travel from the Earth to the Moon and back 10 times.5 If placed in a landfill or littered, those bottles could take up to 1,000 years to biodegrade.2

• The energy we waste using bottled water would be enough to power 190,000 homes.6
• In 2006, the average American used 167 disposable water bottles, but only recycled 38.1
• Americans used about 50 billion plastic water bottles in 2006. However, the U.S.’s recycling rate for plastic is only 23 percent, which means 38 billion water bottles — more than $1 billion worth of plastic — are wasted each year.1

Pollutants in Bottled Water

Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, all annual water quality reports (Consumer Confidence Reports) issued by community water suppliers must (EPA 2006b) report:

• Levels of all regulated contaminants, any unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is required, and any disinfection by-products or microbial contaminants for which monitoring is required.
• Likely source(s) of all detected contaminants, to the best of their knowledge.
• Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (federal drinking water standards) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (theoretical federal standards if only health concerns were taken into consideration and economic concerns and technical feasibility were not considered) for each contaminant detected.
• Extensive statements on contaminants and their likely sources, including microbial contaminants, inorganic contaminants, pesticides and herbicides, organic chemical contaminants, and radioactive contaminants.
• Potential health effects associated with arsenic, nitrate, lead, and the disinfection byproducts known as trihalomethanes if detectable levels are below the MCL but above certain health-based thresholds of concern.

These rules cover all public water systems with at least 15 service connections or that regularly serve 25 year-round residents (EPA 2006c).

In contrast, bottled water companies, which sell their products to thousands or millions of people, are not required to make public any of this.

Because of the California law that recently went into effect, a few more bottled water companies seem to be making available more water quality information. However, EWG’s analysis shows that these companies remain in the minority. EWG found that none of the 163 labels dating from 2008 indicated the availability of water quality reports were available, but 14% of the 2009 labels contained such information.

Only 20% of bottled water company websites indicated that water quality testing had been conducted. Just 18% – including Poland Spring, Nestlé Pure Life and Perrier – showed current bottled water quality reports, including contaminant testing results, on websites.

Study says even ‘safe’ drinking water poses risks to elderly

From Press Democrat:

Using extra water filters can reduce the number of stomach illnesses experienced by the elderly in Sonoma County, even though the drinking water meets all standards, according to a UC Berkeley study.

The difference, 12 percent, could be significant because the elderly tend to be less tolerant to pathogens and get gastrointestinal illnesses more severely, said John Colford Jr., the principal researcher for UC’s School of Public Health.

“It is statistically significant, it is larger than you expect to see by random chance,” Colford said. “It is important.”

Colford, however, said the study is not an indication that Sonoma County Water Agency water, which meets all state and federal standards, is unsafe.

Full news account here.