This news article is the result of extensive reporting by the New York Times. Reporters analyzed the compliance of U.S. drinking water systems with the Safe Drinking Water Act over the past five years. According to the analysis, over 20% of local water treatment systems have violated key portions of the act. The water provided to over 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of substances such as arsenic, uranium, and harmful bacteria often found in sewage. The majority of the drinking water violations occurred in water systems serving under 20,000 residents. Fewer than six percent of these water systems were punished. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has overall responsibility for enforcing standards, is expected to announce a new enforcement policy for policing the nation’s 54,700 water systems. Current and former EPA interviewed by the Times said that they had tried to get the agency to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act, but had been discouraged from pursuing such actions by officials higher up. The Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on some contaminants are relatively weak to start with. For example, water systems are permitted to deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1 in 600 risk of developing bladder from arsenic exposure.
Findings confirm doubts about EPA water quality enforcement
The Times article confirms what has been suspected, namely that the EPA has not been enforcing the already low U.S. standards for clean drinking water in recent years. However, most of the reported water violations were for water systems serving fewer than 20,000 people. Such communities are more likely to be served by wells (which are far more likely to deliver water contaminated with uranium or radon) or subject to unique sources of contamination such as local manufacturing, military, landfill, sewage treatment or agricultural operations.
Contaminated drinking water has been linked to cancer in numerous studies. Some of the most harmful contaminants that have been widely studied include arsenic (bladder, kidney, liver, lung and skin cancer), nitrates (bladder, pancreatic, stomach, ovarian, rectal, uterine), chlorine (bladder, brain, colon, chronic myeloid leukemia), and asbestos (gallbladder, lung, pancreatic, peritoneal). The most important potential contaminant contributing to increased breast cancer risk appears to be cadmium, which has also been shown to increase the risk of pancreatic cancer. Certain chemicals, including alkylphenolic compounds such as 4-octylphenol, and persistent organochlorine compounds such as perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene), can also increase risk, however such contamination is typically not widespread.
What to do
As mentioned by the Times, the risk appears concentrated in smaller systems which have fewer resources to improve water quality and whose populations may not be as vigilant in monitoring local water quality. However, parts of some major population centers are served by wells or source their water from areas that may be polluted. We would suggest doing some research on local water quality. Possible sources of information are local newspapers, websites of environmental advocacy groups, and the EPA itself. If you are not satisfied with the level of detail available for your area, it might be worthwhile to order a kit to have the water in your house tested.
If your water is contaminated, using bottled or filtered water is the obvious option. If you have already been diagnosed with breast cancer and there is a possibility that your drinking water contributed to its development, it makes sense to remove this trigger. Avoid any water disinfected with chlorine or sold in plastic bottles made using polycarbonates. Bottles manufactured with polycarbonates normally are marked on the base with a triangle containing the number 7. The safer plastics are marked with a 1, 2, 4 or 5.