Amazon.com description: Product Description:

Prior to the 1900s, the dominant chemical pollutants were inorganic and coal-derived organic chemicals. As chemical manufacturing blossomed during the mid-1900s, a wide variety of synthetic petroleum-based chemicals were produced and released to the environment. Today, our nation's chemical manufacturers produce approximately 87,000 different chemicals. Current estimates predict the manufacture of some 2,000 new chemical compounds each year. With so many chemicals being produced and used, it is no wonder that a significant portion of the nation's lakes, rivers and groundwater contain a wide range of industrial inorganic and organic compounds, including pesticides and pharmaceuticals. These same water resources serve as the source for community drinking water systems and private groundwater wells.

In 1925, the United States Public Health Service's Primary Drinking Water Standards required that the concentration of three trace metals not exceed certain limits in drinking water. This requirement could be considered to have been as the first step in controlling chemical pollution. By 1962, nine trace metals and inorganic compounds were included in the drinking water standards. Today, in compliance with the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments, the Primary Drinking Water Standards still only limit the concentration of a very small number of inorganic chemicals, industrial organic compounds and organic pesticides. These regulated compounds represent the major sources of pollution from chemical usage between the 1930s and the1980s. Since this time period, the number of industrial chemicals, pesticides and pharmaceuticals that have been produced and are now found in our waters has increased dramatically. Thus, many of the chemical pollutants found in our waters today are not regulated by current standards.

In 1998, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed adding 50 chemicals to the current list of Primary Drinking Water Standards. Yet pharmaceuticals do not even appear on this list of 50. Given the number of chemicals being used in the United States today and the apparent inability of drinking water standards to rapidly adapt to these changes, it is clear that drinking water standards, as currently implemented, are incapable of keeping pace with the unregulated chemicals that are currently found in our drinking water. Until the US Geological Survey published the results of their 2000 river sampling program for toxic chemicals, the general public was not even aware of the presence of this vast array of unregulated organic chemicals. Yet, because the concentrations of these chemicals are very low, the public was told that it was unlikely that these chemicals would have any impact on their health.

Approximately 50 years ago, the National Agricultural Chemicals Association argued that pesticides in low concentrations would have no effect on wildlife and that cancer, which had afflicted mankind for centuries, could not be shown to be caused by pesticides. After decades of research, these opinions have both been proven to be wrong. Today, one of the main reasons the public is told that these new chemicals are unlikely to affect their health is because quantifying the effects of such low levels of chemical contamination is nearly impossible. We believe that the likelihood of adverse health effects is far greater than advertised but that it will take decades of research before this link is proven.

Thus, it may not be in the public's best interest to assume there are no health effects from the consumption of low levels of man-made chemicals. Indeed, a January 2002 report by the Environmental Working Group entitled, "Consider the Source, Farm Runoff, Chlorination Byproducts, and Human Health," concluded that chemical pollutants in drinking water pose a serious health threat to the American public in general and pregnant women in particular. As a result, this report recommends that a national health tracking system be set up to better quantify the health impacts of drinking water pollutants. This recommendation, however, skirts the real issue, which is that drinking water in many parts of the United States is polluted by both regulated and unregulated chemicals. Thus, the safety or the purity of drinking water is not guaranteed even if the standards are met.

Indeed, when attempting to determine the government's approach toward protecting public health, one is confronted with a bewildering web of regulatory programs and a sea of acronyms. For example, the quality of water delivered to a consumer is dependent upon whether the water comes from a Community Water Systems (CWS), Nontransient-Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWS) or Transient-Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWS); and depending upon the size of the system, the chemical monitoring requirements may vary substantially. In addition, some water systems must comply with the enhanced surface water treatment rule (Stage 2 D/DBPR and the LT2ESWTR), the Groundwater Disinfection Rule (GWDR), and the Information Collection Rule (ICR) when attempting to meet 'primary' standards. To further complicate the issue, the USEPA has established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for various chemicals as well as nonenforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs). They also recommend a Best Available Technology (BAT) by which water systems can try to meet these MCLs and MCLGs. The artificial complexity and cost of this compliance system alone is reason enough for why a new system is needed.

Given this situation, the only reasonable recommendation is to treat drinking water across the board with a combination of the best available technologies in order to produce a product with the greatest purity possible. By adopting this approach, pollutant monitoring using chemical fingerprinting methods to ensure that treatment systems are operating properly can be used in lieu of drinking water standards.

Because there is a real threat to America's drinking water, this book attempts to show why we need to make a fundamental change in our approach toward protecting this essential resource. In doing so, it presents (1) factual and circumstantial evidence that shows the failure of current drinking water standards to adequately protect human health, (2) the extent of pollution in our water resources and drinking water, (3) the currently available state-of-the-art technologies which, if fully employed, would remove pollutants in drinking water to levels much lower than required by today's standards and (4) the technical means by which we can attain the goal of de-minimus pollution of our drinking water. With this information, the American public will have the means to decide whether or not to demand drinking water of the greatest level of purity possible.