Estrogen in our tap water

[Kaninchen]

It’s the estrogen pollution.

Well, yes, but there are many sources of estrogen other than contraceptives and the machinations of naughty, naughty Liberals and Socialists.

 

[Kaninchen]

We shouldn’t forget the windmills, of course.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

[PPCP’s]

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m still pretty convinced by the windmill argument.

 

[Dale_M]

They are delicately referred to as PPCP’s. Isn’t that cute? So delicately avoiding the issue…

I’m not sure that is avoiding the issue so much as directly addressing it. According the the US Food and Drug Administration, the phrase was coined in 1999 in the following paper:

During the last three decades, the impact of chemical pollution has focused almost exclusively on the conventional “priority” pollutants, especially those acutely toxic/carcinogenic pesticides and industrial intermediates displaying persistence in the environment. This spectrum of chemicals, however, is only one piece of the larger puzzle in “holistic” risk assessment. Another diverse group of bioactive chemicals receiving comparatively little attention as potential environmental pollutants includes the pharmaceuticals and active ingredients in personal care products (in this review collectively termed PPCPs), both human and veterinary, including not just prescription drugs and biologics, but also diagnostic agents, “nutraceuticals,” fragrances, sun-screen agents, and numerous others. These compounds and their bioactive metabolites can be continually introduced to the aquatic environment as complex mixtures via a number of routes but primarily by both untreated and treated sewage. Aquatic pollution is particularly troublesome because aquatic organisms are captive to continual life-cycle, multigenerational exposure. The possibility for continual but undetectable or unnoticed effects on aquatic organisms is particularly worrisome because effects could accumulate so slowly that major change goes undetected until the cumulative level of these effects finally cascades to irreversible change

epa.gov/ppcp/pdf/errata.pdf
Estrogenic chemicals in water is just one concern, and not necessarily the most important. And, as Kaninchen’s link mentions, oral contraceptives are a small source for such chemicals in water (at least in the US.)

 

[nordskoven]

“Their analysis found that EE2 has a lower predicted concentration in U.S. drinking water than natural estrogens from soy and dairy products and animal waste used untreated as a farm fertilizer. And that all humans, (men, women and children, and especially pregnant women) excrete hormones in their urine, not just women taking the pill. Some research cited in the report suggests that animal manure accounts for 90 percent of estrogens in the environment. Other research estimates that if just 1 percent of the estrogens in livestock waste reached waterways, it would comprise 15 percent of the estrogens in the world’s water supply.”

Oy. High estrogen levels, not high testosterone levels, are associated with violence in men, especially against women, as a recent Japanese study showed. Phyto-estrogens (plant estrogens) like soy and marijuana give men “moobs.” Nice dish of prairie oysters should neutralize that effect, hehe.