Neon Tommy - Annenberg digital news

LA Tap Water: To Drink Or Not To Drink

Benjamin Gottlieb |
November 20, 2011 | 10:12 p.m. PST

Senior News Editor

A Sparkletts man delivers water in Los Angeles (Photo obtained under Creative Commons license).
A Sparkletts man delivers water in Los Angeles (Photo obtained under Creative Commons license).
Ask the average American to visualize a quintessential 1950s panorama, a Back to the Future-like glimpse of the nation’s self-proclaimed “Golden Age,” and odds are they’ll paint a similar setting.

Scenes from Gary Ross’s Pleasantville instantly come to mind. Corner diners, packed to the brim with sociable, young teens, gorging themselves with cherry-topped chocolate malts, sporting pink poodle skirts and t-bird leather jackets. Automobiles of a feel-good era – the embodiment of the American Dream. The Chevy Corvettes and Starliner Coupes of a bygone era. The drive-through movies and drive-through diners. Suburbia in its infancy.

And of course, the neighborhood milkman, hand delivering quarts of cream-topped milk to the eagerly awaiting, and overtly oppressed, American housewives.

Growing up in the Los Angeles suburbs, the 21st century milkman that came to my parent's house carried something a bit less nostalgic and arguably, somewhat absurd: gallons of bottled water.

As a young boy, I would watch intently from the family living room couch for the arrival of the Sparkletts man, hauling blue-capped water jugs into my quaint two-bedroom home in Sherman Oaks. His big, green truck, laden with shinny blue reflector panels and construction vehicle tires, would pull up like clockwork, dropping off a few five gallon containers and then putter away begrudgingly to the next neighborhood subscriber.

I never asked questions. Water from the sink was bad for me, my parents said, packed full of toxic chemicals that could make me sick.

So it was bottled water for me.

After all, high levels of cancer-causing agents from industrial and refrigerants waste – such as total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids – have been found in Los Angeles’ main water supply, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report found. These levels, measured in 2001, were worse in East and Central Los Angeles – 80 parts per billion of TTHMs.

Although these levels are not illegal, they are risk factors for cancer, the report said.

But these waterborne pathogens are not the only concern for Angelenos intent on drinking from the tap. Radon was detected in county water wells at levels above federal recommendations. Perchlorate, an unregulated contaminant from rocket fuel, has also been found in the city’s water.

Los Angeles’ tap water is also loaded with Arsenic, at about 4 parts per billion, posing “a lifetime cancer risk exceeding 1 in 1,000—more than 10 times worse than the highest cancer risk the EPA usually allows from tap water,” the NRDC report said.

To clean up these pollutants, Southern California’s consortium of 26 water-governing bodies, the Metropolitan Water District, began pouring fluoride into local tap water supplies last decade.

But scientific research backed by the public health and dental researchers are not so sure the health risks of fluoride outweigh the benefits of tap water fluoridation, such as improving dental health. 

At the recommended dosage of water fluoridation, the only clear side effect is dental fluorosis, or a discoloration of one’s teeth.

The fear, however, is that unsafe levels of fluoride could be applied to tap water supplies, according to the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit public health organization. 

Children are most at risk, the group said.

But here’s the thing: Just because your water comes in a bottle doesn’t mean it’s void of these pollutants.

A separate NRDC report found that about one-third of the bottled water tested during their study contained levels of contamination, “including synthetic organic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic.”

The tap water debate continues to be a hot topic in the council chambers and town forums of this country. Recently, a group of concerned residents of Pinellas County in Florida championed a campaign against the use of fluoride in their county’s water supply. The county plans to remove all fluoride from its water supply by the end of the year.

While no such measure is in the books in Los Angeles, many clean water advocates continue to push a fluoride-free water table.

Myself? I drink right out of my corroded, 1950s copper pipes that supply my dumpy apartment in Little Armenia proudly. I’m not part of the crowd terribly troubled with the city’s water.

Bottled water is harmful to our planet, period. The plastic waste involved in packaging and transporting flats of Arrowhead or COSTCO water, for example, is a nasty side-effect of one of the biggest corporate scams of our generation.

And at healthy levels, fluoridation’s biggest side effect is yellow teeth. When used effectively, the chemical has been shown to dramatically clean up tap water and combat cancer-causing pathogens.

So, at $20 an invoice for the 21st century version of the milkman, I’m going to take my chances with our city’s finest.

---

To reach Benjamin Gottlieb, click here.

Follow him on Twitter @benjamin_max.

Best way to find more great content from Neon Tommy?


Or join our email list below to enjoy Neon Tommy News Alerts.



 

Live On Twitter

Buzz

Mini Desserts: The Restaurant Industry's New Big Trend

Mini desserts: the restaurant industry's next big thing. 

Battle Of The Summer Animated Movies

Here are NT's predictions for animated-movie hits and misses of the summer.

 


Comments

Anonymous (not verified) on April 21, 2013 2:24 PM

It's a bit insensitive to say that the only side-effects of too much fluoride, is some yellow spots on the teeth. Would you like to have that!? It's a disease. And, it's called fluorosis. And, it disproportionately affects the poor. In our Country, that usually implies, People of Color. And, studies and statists show, this is consistent with rates of fluorosis. Purchasing bottled water is often cost prohibitive for those living at Poverty or bellow. And effective filters are beyond affordability for a good number of even work class & middle class people. Reverse Osmosis Filtration renders water nutritionally void. So, mineral water must be supplemented. There are far greater risks associated with over exposure to fluoride. I would ask that you, and your readers look into it. Start by looking-up hydrofluorosilicic acid. That's what municipalities are putting into water. And I will add, less and less Ai these days. Modern and contemporary science, not science from around the time margarine was invented, shows many health risks associated with over fluoridation. Use of fluoride to treat a medical condition, because that's what dental health is, ought to be an individual's choice. And, it should be discussed and decided with his or her Medical professional on an individual or family basis. Someone here has mentioned Fluoride Action Network. Great source for information. Look it up.
Thanks for writing this, and bringing attention to the issue of our public water.

Your rating: None
Anonymous (not verified) on January 4, 2013 11:10 PM

fluoride is a waste product from chemical manufacturers.
they sell it to make more money.
it has no place in our water supply.

Your rating: None
Anonymous (not verified) on December 11, 2011 3:29 PM

It is not just a choice of BOTTLED or TAP. You can filter your own water with a high grade Reverse Osmosis or a Distillation machine. Reverse Osmosis is by far easier, but distilled is cheaper. I agree on every point you made EXCEPT that it is 'either or' between two evils. You DO have a choice of something better.

Your rating: None
jwillie6 (not verified) on November 22, 2011 10:23 PM

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. It is one of the most poisonous substances on Earth. It cures nothing and heals nothing and has never been tested or approved by FDA (in the USA) as safe and effective for human ingestion.

Read the truth produced in the best scientific information on fluoridation here: (www.fluoridealert.org). You will see a petition signed by almost 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.
There are many large scientific studies there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and other health problems.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
midtowngeo (not verified) on November 22, 2011 11:11 AM

Parts of this article are very misleading and inaccurate. The author cites a study by the NRDC that reviewed historical water quality results/records. It should be noted that when water systems are tested, in particular groundwater wells, that the samples are most likely taken before any treatment (e.g. raw water). FYI, the use of the word pathogen should only be used to reference biologic contamination, not total trihalomethane or halocetic acid or the like.

The article also tries to institute a general sense of fear. The NRDC reported that arsenic concentrations at 3 ug/L (ppb) result in the probability of a 1 in 1000 chance of cancer. Your article states 4 (not a big difference, but at least cite the report correctly). Also, your use of "loaded with Arsenic"? If this was an editorial, sure use whatever words you want, but this doesn't appear to be an editorial, so stick with facts and don't interject strong language that implies the doom of LA becasue of Arsenic. By the way, the State of California, and Federal, MCL for Arsenic is 10 ug/L (ppb). The number cited in the NRDC report is well under the MCL. Should have mentioned that in the article.

Your rating: None
waterblondie (not verified) on November 21, 2011 11:50 AM

I fully agree with your sentiment, U.S. tap water is rigorously tested for public health safety and regulations are constantly evolving to enhance protection. I just wanted to mention that I believe a few of the facts are not correct (and dont want it to detract from the overall thrust of the commentary). "When used effectively, the chemical has been shown to dramatically clean up tap water and combat cancer-causing pathogens." There is no reference for this. Also, using the term pathogen is usually reserved for microbiological contaminants, not chemical disinfection byproducts (DBPs).

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)
Anonymous (not verified) on December 11, 2011 3:31 PM

Rigorously tested for bacteria, living organisms, viruses, and pathogens. Not rigorously tested for thousands of chemicals, heavy metals, or excess minerals. Clean = Disinfected. You want PURE water, not CLEAN water. For those w ho want minerals in their water, start first with pure water (by either Reverse Osmosis or Distilled) and then add your own minerals in the right amounts to it from there.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Leave a comment

Name
E-mail*
URL
Comments*