As if pharmaceuticals, veterinary medicines and toiletry chemicals weren’t enough nasties lurking in our drinking water, here is another potential pollutant: perchlorate.

Perchlorate is an industrial pollutant used in gunpowder, rocket fuel, high explosives, fireworks, military munitions and other manufacturing processes. It has been linked to thyroid ailments.

An article from WebMD (Pollutant affects women’s thyroids) highlights a 2006 study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the US. The study found that exposure to perchlorate hinders thyroid function in women who consume daily doses in food and water. This finding surprised scientists, who expected to find only a trivial effect on human health. Instead, they found perchlorate had “a small to medium effect” on thyroid functioning in women (the study found no effect on thyroid functioning in men).

Perchlorate partially blocks absorption of iodide in the thyroid, which can alter hormone levels. This can lead to hypothyroidism — an underactive thyroid — and goiter in adults.

A dysfunctional thyroid during pregnancy can have serious consequences for the unborn sprog, potentially leading to abnormal brain development and preterm birth. This was confirmed by a 2007 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), which was the subject of an article in The Telegraph (Common water pollutant could harm babies).

Perchlorate was discovered in California drinking water supplies over a decade ago, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added perchlorate to its Contaminant Candidate List in 1998. Two American states (California and Massachusetts) regulate perchlorate in drinking water.

However, perchlorate levels are not monitored in the UK. The DWI (Drinking Water Inspectorate) and Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) recently commissioned a study to assess the prevalence of perchlorate in both raw and drinking water in England and Wales. Even if UK drinking water supplies are found to be contaminated with perchlorate, the DWI may be as dismissive about this pollutant in our drinking water as they are with pharmaceuticals.

Incidentally, the DWI is also studying potential drinking water contamination by brominated flame retardants, “compounds of human health interest because of their endocrine disrupting potential, toxicity, and potential for bioaccumulation”. As the DWI recognises, “It is becoming increasingly clear that these chemicals are widely distributed in the environment”.

As we all know, public water supplies undergo treatment (clarification, filtering, disinfection) at water works facilities before flowing magically from our taps. The result is water that is safe to drink. At least that’s what we are told.

A couple of articles in The Telegraph report on chemical residues that remain in our drinking water even after treatment:

Cancer drugs found in tap water

Discarded cosmetics ‘threat to drinking water’

These articles discuss three separate documents: a report compiled for the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI); a study by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; and a report by the Royal Society of Chemistry, all of which raise questions about the safety of our drinking water.

1. Drinking Water Inspectorate report

The DWI report says that purification processes used at water works “are not specifically designed to remove pharmaceuticals and several compounds have been reported in drinking water”.

The report goes on to reassure: “Even in the worst-case situation, there is no significant risk to health from the intake of pharmaceuticals via drinking water”.

They base this assumption on comparison of the minimum therapeutic dose of a drug versus the estimated intake from drinking tap water. But no mention is made of the possible synergistic effect of tiny amounts of many drugs.




The next document is rather more cautious on the issue of pharmaceutical residues in water.

2. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology study

Studied here were the risks posed by chemotherapy drugs that escape into the environment via sewerage (and therefore ultimately end up in drinking water). Researchers estimated a very low risk for an adult drinking water containing these drug residues — between 300 and 30,000 times lower than recommended safety levels — although, again, there is no mention of the possible synergistic effect of a combination of drugs.

However, researchers did express concern over unborn babies being exposed to these drugs in the womb.

Lead scientist Andrew Johnson said: “In the foetus, which is rapidly growing and comparatively tiny, the dose would be relatively higher and any damage to its cells could be far more serious.

“There is not evidence to show that drinking water treatment removes all these drugs, so while we are not wanting to alarm people, it would be foolish to assume there is no risk.”

The third document raises concerns not only about pharmaceuticals, but other chemical residues that may be in our drinking water.

3. Royal Society of Chemistry report

This report warns that drinking water safety in the UK is under threat from drugs and cosmetics being flushed down household drains. These chemical contaminants are typically either neurotoxins (poisons that act on the nervous system); pharmaceutically active; or endocrine disruptors (foreign substances that alter function of the endocrine system).

The report calls for more research into the effects of these contaminants, and makes recommendations over steps it believes should be taken on this issue.

So is tap water safe to drink?

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), the government body who regulates public water supplies in England & Wales, says it is.

The DWI have set maximum allowable levels of certain contaminants in drinking water. Yet it would seem that maximum allowable levels of many other contaminants have not been set, including:

• Human pharmaceuticals (examples: beta-blockers, anti-epileptics, painkillers, antibiotics, hormonal substances such as steroids and birth control tablets, antidepressants)
• Veterinary medicines (examples: antibiotics, coccidiostats, parasiticides, growth hormones)
• Personal care product chemicals (examples: methyl paraben, sodium lauryl sulphate, triclosan)

The DWI does not publish information on the issue of water contamination by veterinary medicines (used in animals raised for food) or personal care product chemicals.

Their statement on “Pharmaceutical residues and endocrine disruptors in water” confirms that not all drug residues are removed by treatment: “Ozone treatment is shown to be effective against pharmaceuticals, and many that were insensitive to ozone were removed by activated carbon treatment”.

(Note the statement says that “many” — but not “all” — drug residues were removed by ozone and carbon treatment.)

Furthermore, not all water works utilise these purification methods: “Ozone and carbon treatment are now installed at many water works in England and Wales to remove pesticides.”

(Again, at “many” water works, not “all”!)

The statement concludes: “For these reasons the Inspectorate is confident that neither ED [endocrine disruptors] nor pharmaceutical residues will [be] detectable in tap water”.

This confidence seems misplaced. In light of the above information, it’s quite possible that pharmaceutical residues, as well as other chemicals, could be present in our drinking water, and could pose a threat to our health.

Drug residues have also been found in American drinking water supplies, and scientists there are not so quick to dismiss the possible effects:

“While researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies — which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public — have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.

“‘We recognise it is a growing concern and we’re taking it very seriously,’ said Benjamin H Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the US Environmental Protection Agency.”

One of the problems with solar energy is that it cannot be efficiently stored… once the sun goes down, it’s lights out.

Now a couple of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Daniel Nocera and Matthew Kanan, have found a way to simply and cheaply store excess solar energy captured during the day for use at night. The discovery could transform solar power from a marginal alternative into a mainstream energy source.

The technique centers around the discovery of an inexpensive, non-toxic catalyst capable of producing oxygen gas from water. (The catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. When electricity is run through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.)

.

Another catalyst, such as platinum, can produce hydrogen gas from water. This splitting of water into its components is done at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and is easy to set up. This is in contrast to current techniques for splitting water, which are expensive, use harsh chemicals and need carefully controlled environments in order to work.

During the day, excess energy from solar panels would be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which would then be stored. At night, the hydrogen and oxygen could be recombined into a hydrogen fuel cell, which would in turn produce electricity to power a home or recharge an electric car.

This is a HUGE discovery. James Barber, a researcher at Imperial College London, said of the scientists’ work: “This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind. The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem.”

The idea was inspired by photosynthesis, a process in which plants convert light energy into chemical energy.

“There’s a lesson to be learned from nature,” Nocera said.

Further reading: ‘Major discovery’ from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

Windstream Power markets a Human Power Generator that uses a proprietary pedal device to charge a 12V battery or contribute to a 12V system. It is able to produce about 65 watts continuously when pedaled, and 40 watts when the hand-crank option is used. The same company also produces a Bike Power Generator, which is a frame plus DC generator designed to be used in conjunction with your own bicycle. Also available is a Portable Power Pack that can be used with either generator; it converts the DC energy produced by the generators into AC energy, enabling appliances to be plugged directly into the power pack.

Transforming movement of the human body into electricity is a great idea. Fueled by the food you eat, a human-powered generator is the pinnacle of generating power locally.

But the prices of the Windstream devices are steep: $550 for the human power generator, $595 for the bike power generator, and $475 for the portable power pack. Human-powered generators shouldn’t cost that much.

Enter David Butcher and his Pedal Powered Generator.

David is passionate about pedal power; he built his first human powered pedal generator in 1976. His new improved pedal generator, which he’s called the Pedal Powered Prime Mover (PPPM), is an impressive invention.

Each morning, David gets on his PPPM to generate electricity that not only charges batteries, but also powers LED lights, a computer monitor, mobile phones, and many other small battery-powered devices.

David calls the PPPM “a universal Human Power Generation Platform”. The PPPM can be used to power widely-used items like a laptop computer, TV and DVD player. It also has many other applications, for example to create power for: an emergency generator used during power outages; a portable “jump start” unit (example here); a backup generator for solar or other off-grid power systems; a pump and watering system when combined with a rainwater cistern; an emergency sump-pump, and so on.

Best of all, David has DIY plans available for purchase at a cost of $50 that will enable you to build your own PPPM. It isn’t expensive to build, especially if you recycle an old bike for parts.

Another creative idea from the pool of human innovation!

When people think of harnessing the power of the wind, most probably call to mind those giant three-bladed devices dotted here and there across the landscape.

Now Dutch scientists have come up with a way of harnessing the power of the wind using kites.

The scientists used a 10 square metre (108 square foot) kite tethered to a generator to produce 10 kilowatts, enough electricity to power 10 family homes. Plans to test a 50kw version, dubbed the Laddermill, are underway.The main difference between Laddermill-generated wind power and traditionally-generated wind power is that the Laddermill would take advantage of high-altitude wind, which is more abundant and reliable than wind closer to the ground.

The UK (along with the Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark) is especially suited to make use of kite-generated power because of the location of the jet stream. (Jet streams are narrow fast flowing “rivers” of air. More info here.)

The cost estimate for kite-powered electricity is less than 4p per kilowatt-hour. This is comparable to the cost of electricity from coal power, and less than half the cost of that from standard wind turbines.

Lead researcher Wubbo Ockels said that if money was made available, commercial systems of kite power could be operational within five years.

It will be interesting to see if the government has the political will to fund kite energy development, though they seem far more interested in pushing nuclear energy than in finding clean, renewable energy solutions… like wind, solar and wave.

As Ockels notes: “We need to use all the energy supplies that are offered to us by nature”.

Further reading: Giant kites to tap power of the high wind

Ever consider the environmental impact of your clothing choices?

The website Ecotextile News features a “Household Textile Environmental Impact Calculator”, which tallies your household’s clothing (and other textile) purchases over the past year, typical laundering practices, and whether you recycle/reuse, or bin, your worn-out (or out-of-fashion) apparel.

The Calculator doesn’t get into a lot of detail, such as whether you buy clothing new or second-hand, but it will give a general overview on how many Environmental Damage Units (EDUs) your household incurs.

A lot of people already know that both tumble-drying and ironing are energy hogs, but they may not realise that:

• The manufacture,  consumption, care and disposal of clothing and textiles is among the most environmentally damaging industries
• The industry produces 2 million tons of waste, 3.1 million tons of CO2 and 70 million tons of waste water every year
• The dyeing process uses from 80 litres to 800 litres of water per kilo of fabric
• Fabrics containing Lycra can’t be recycled as the Lycra melts and sticks to the yarn of the fabric
• It’s also difficult to recover the fibre from fabrics with a non-iron finish “because they’re covered in glue”

Further reading: My fashion footprint: Is your wardrobe bad for the planet?

American company Sapphire Energy has come up with a process to turn algae into a carbon-neutral fuel (which means that when burned, it releases into the air the same amount of carbon dioxide that it absorbed during its growth). The algae could produce almost 100,000 litres of biodiesel a year per hectare of land, which compares very favourably to the mere 6,000 litres a hectare for oil palm (currently the most productive biofuel).

Other advantages: the fuel refined from this “green crude” is fully compatible with existing vehicles; it does not have contaminants (eg. sulphur, nitrogen, benzene) that are contained in standard crude oil; it doesn’t displace food crops because it is grown on non-arable land using non-potable water; and its price would be comparable to fossil fuels.

So what’s the catch?

Steven Skill, a researcher at Plymouth Marine Laboratory who is familiar with Sapphire’s work, thinks they are probably using genetically-modified cyanobacteria (the life-form formerly know as blue-green algae) to make the green crude.

Genetically-modified anything is cause for concern. The long-term effects of introducing made-in-the-laboratory life-forms onto this planet are unknown. Certainly Monsanto’s GM crops have failed to live up to the hype.

According to Skill, it seems likely that the byproducts of green crude would have to be utilised in order to make the fuel commercially viable. “You can probably derive 40% of the algae’s weight in oil and you’ve got 60% of other stuff and there’s a lot of valuable components in that in terms of chemical feed stocks.”

These byproducts could be used for animal feeds, or as a replacement for petroleum products used in, for example, plastics or cosmetics.

Which means that if Sapphire is using GM algae to make green crude, and their production plans come to fruition, GM algae could become widespread throughout the environment.

Cyanobacteria is a “significant component of the marine nitrogen cycle and an important primary producer in many areas of the ocean” and therefore an important part of the food chain.

If laboratory-modified basic life forms were introduced into the environment, it could change life on the planet as we know it.

Given the other alternatives for renewable energy, it seems a risk not worth taking.

Further reading: ‘Oil from algae’ promises climate friendly fuel

Remember when aspartame (brand name: NutraSweet) first came out? It promised to have none of the aftertaste of other artificial sweeteners on the market, and virtually zero calories. You could lose weight by simply swapping aspartame for sugar… in your coffee, tea, soft drinks and so on. A drawback was that aspartame wasn’t stable and lost its sweetness over time, but that was merely a minor inconvenience. At least the product was safe (we were told), having been approved by those guardians of public health, the FDA (in the US) and the Food Standards Agency (in the UK).

However, if you do a bit of reading, you’ll find there are a lot of concerns about the safety of this supposedly innocuous sweetener, and the road to its approval… well let’s just say those pesky bumps were ironed out by some pretty high-profile names. A 2005 article which appeared in The Guardian detailed some aspartame concerns:

Safety of artificial sweetener called into question by MP

There is also this very revealing video on aspartame produced by a Fox news station in Washington DC, which was never shown outside its local broadcast area.

A short article on aspartame reactions can be found here.

As for the claims that aspartame helps people lose weight, a study at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that people who drink diet soft drinks don’t lose weight, they gain it.

If you’ve decided to avoid aspartame, it’s not as straightforward as you may think.

Aspartame is now added to a whole raft of food products, both diet AND “regular” ones which also contain sugar. You’ll also find it in products that you may never imagine would have sweeteners in them at all, like crisps and cider.

So what’s a would-be aspartame avoider to do?

1. Look for the words “no added sugar”, “sugar-free”, “diet” or “light” on packaging. This MAY indicate the presence of artificial sweeteners. However, some products which are sweetened naturally may also have the words “no added sugar”, so there is no need to avoid ALL products labelled as such.

2. Don’t assume that just because a product is sugar-sweetened, it is free from artificial sweeteners. An increasing number of products are sweetened both with sugar AND artificial sweeteners. One product commonly containing both sugar and aspartame is chewing gum. In fact, it is now quite difficult to find any chewing gum without aspartame.

Another product containing both sugar and aspartame is Robinsons Fruit Squash.

Here is a picture of “no sugar added” Robinsons Fruit Squash. Note the presence of the artificial sweeteners aspartame and saccharin in the ingredients list.



Now here is a picture of “regular” Robinsons Fruit Squash. It not only contains sugar, as you would expect, but ALSO contains aspartame and saccharin.

3. Be aware that the statements “no artificial flavours” and “no artificial colours” have nothing to do with whether a product has artificial sweeteners like aspartame in it.

4. Also be aware that a product labelled “suitable for vegetarians” may still contain aspartame and/or other artificial sweeteners.

5. Don’t assume that all products in a health food shop are free from aspartame. They probably aren’t.

6. Look for products which are certified organic; such products are prohibited from containing aspartame. Click here and here for more info on organic standards.

7. Be aware that some products which wouldn’t logically contain sweeteners, may contain them. As an example, the following flavours of Walkers crisps contain aspartame: prawn cocktail, Sensations Thai sweet chilli, Sensations caramelised onion & sweet balsamic vinegar.

8. Realise that some vitamins and medicines contain aspartame. It seems that current UK laws require that this be mentioned on the labelling.

9. Read the ingredients list. This encompasses all of the above guidelines into one easy-to-remember one. For most products, the ingredients list will indicate the presence of aspartame, which may also be listed as “NutraSweet” or by its E-number, E951.

10. Be very careful with alcoholic beverages, which do NOT have to list ingredients unless alcohol content is UNDER 1.2%. There appears to be no requirement under the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) guide “Labelling requirements for alcoholic drinks” to list artificial sweeteners. However, the FSA guidelines on aspartame labelling state:

As well as the general requirement for foods to carry a list of food additives and other ingredients, products containing sweeteners such as aspartame must show the statement ‘with sweetener(s)’ on the label close to the main product name. Foods that contain both sugar and sweetener must carry the statement ‘with sugar and sweetener(s)’. In addition, foods that contain aspartame must be labelled with a warning ‘contains a source of phenylalanine’.

It would appear that alcoholic beverages which contain sweeteners therefore do have to indicate this on the label.

Another point on cider: you may have read something about the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), which “is an independent, voluntary, consumer organisation which campaigns for real ale, real pubs and consumer rights”. Although CAMRA’s Definition of Real Draught Cider & Perry states that the beverages may contain neither added flavourings nor colourings, this is not, unfortunately, the case with sweeteners:

Sweetener may be added to fully fermented Cider/Perry to make it sweet or medium.

Therefore, cider brands jumping on the CAMRA bandwagon are not necessarily free from aspartame or other artificial sweeteners.

If you want to avoid aspartame, you’ll need to become a label-reader. You may have to squint to read those tiny ingredients lists, but at least you won’t be buying blindly.

Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.
-Samuel Taylor Coleridge, “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”

In Coleridge’s classic poem, a sailor adrift at sea is struck by the irony of being surrounded by water yet having none to drink. (He never should have killed that albatross…)

Here in the 21st century, our water is in ever-decreasing supply and ever-increasing expense. Most people don’t give a thought about where their drinking water comes from, content to simply let others handle this basic need.

But it’s prudent to consider the viability of a personal water supply… one partially or even wholly free from dependence on government agencies and associated fees.

Rainwater collection is an obvious one, although in some parts of the world (certain American states, for example), the government has deemed rainwater collection illegal.

Here in the UK, collection of rainwater is not only legal but encouraged: having a rainwater harvesting system in place will add to your home’s eco-rating. The simplest rainwater harvesting system is a waterbutt attached to your house’s guttering. This needn’t be expensive, and an old oak whiskey or wine barrel is an attractive alternative to plastic.

If you have the space and want to become more water-independent, there are companies which offer ready-made rainwater harvesting solutions, but they are expensive. Those keen to explore a DIY alternative may find Water Storage: Tanks, Cisterns, Aquifers, and Ponds for Domestic Supply, Fire and Emergency Use by Art Ludwig an interesting read. More information is available from the UK Environment Agency’s publication Harvesting rainwater for domestic uses: an information guide.

Rainwater needs to be purified if it’s to be used for drinking. There are several purification methods that render water suitable for drinking, including ultraviolet light or filters.

It’s also possible to set up a system to collect greywater (water from laundry, dishwashers, baths, showers, hand-washing etc… NOT water from toilet flushing however) which is then used to water your garden (though not any vegetables you’re going to eat raw). Some interesting info on this can be found here.

Another option is to collect water from the atmosphere. Those familiar with bushcraft techniques know how to rig a simple setup for collecting dew overnight, but this is a very small-scale operation.

A large scale dew collection system is on the commercial horizon: two Israeli architects have come up with an ingenious dew-harvesting contraption, with a portable version currently being developed. You can read about the WatAir device here and here. It’s a great invention which hopefully will not get quashed by Big Industry.

Sometimes the simplest solutions really are the smartest. The parents of two local schoolboys who were faced with a transportation problem: getting their boys to school every weekday without it costing a fortune. The boys’ school is over six miles away… too far for walking. Bus fares were costing the parents almost £30 per week. It wasn’t an option for the parents to drive their offspring to school, a “solution” many would opt for.

Instead, the parents offered their boys £5 a week each if they cycled to school. The children agreed, and their parents bought them decent lightweight bikes. Now they cycle to school along a dedicated cyclepath.

Result? Boys are earning extra dosh, have nice new bikes and are getting fitter; and the parents will have extra cash in their pockets as soon as the bikes are paid off. Of course environmentally, the idea is a winner as well.

So there you have it, three winners and only one loser (the bus company). Kudos to these parents for coming up with a very smart and practical solution to their transportation problem.