as the highest concentration of phenols permissible in drinking water, but
because concentrations of phenols in water samples were not reported, it is
impossible to say how the phenol discharge in pounds at the various plants re—
lates to what appears
in river water downstream or to what runs out of the
taps in homes supplied with drinking water from the river.
Phenols are used extensively in the synthesis of organic chemicals, which
accounts for their appearance
in the effluent of chemical plants. The PHS
permissible phenol concentration is set at a level intended to prevent taste
and odor problems, and toxic effects are thought to occur only at far higher
concentrations, partly because phenols are probably largely detoxied in the
mammalian body. As much as 1000 mg/l—a million times higher than the
standard—has been fed to rats with no observable effect [9].
Organic Chemicals.
Many organic chemicals were also identied in the
Mississippi discharges—88 in all were found either in streams receiving indus—
trial efuent or in raw or treated drinking water supplies, or both. The con—
centrations of these chemicals were not measured. These trace organics were
estimated to be present in parts per million or even in concentrations a thou—
sand times lower—in parts per billion. Insignicant as these concentrations
may appear, however, we cannot assume that even in such small amounts,
singly or in combination, these chemicals are safe either for aquatic life or for
human consumption. EPA analysts listed 36 organic chemicals found in water
that had been treated at the Carrollton Water Plant in New Orleans and were
ready for distribution to domestic users [10]. Some of these compounds, and
others as well, were also found in tap water at the PHS Hospital at Carville,
south of Baton Rouge.
In summarizing the results of the Lower Mississippi study, EPA scientists
point out that while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the au—
thority to ban food additives shown to cause cancer, data on the carcinoge—
nicity of contaminants in water has not been used in setting water quality
standards. They also noted that toxicity tests are made on healthy laboratory
animals. What the data derived means to people—some of whom are elderly,
sick, or very young—has yet to be ascertained. The EPA analysts concluded:
.
.
.
there may be a myriad of organic chemicals, not yet isolated and identi—
ed, such as the pesticides, that could be present in these water supplies,
which are carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic. . . . It is mandatory to
smgle out potentially harmful substances and prevent them from entering
those bodies of waters that Will be used for drinking or food sources until it is
ÊÎîy
demonstrated that they pose no threat to human health or aquatic life
Another EPA study related to these concerns involved a search of the lit—
erature to determine what organic chemicals are found in the water, what
known industrial chemicals are probably in the water but
not been iso—
154
Drinking Water
because concentrations of phenols in water samples were not reported, it is
impossible to say how the phenol discharge in pounds at the various plants re—
lates to what appears
in river water downstream or to what runs out of the
taps in homes supplied with drinking water from the river.
Phenols are used extensively in the synthesis of organic chemicals, which
accounts for their appearance
in the effluent of chemical plants. The PHS
permissible phenol concentration is set at a level intended to prevent taste
and odor problems, and toxic effects are thought to occur only at far higher
concentrations, partly because phenols are probably largely detoxied in the
mammalian body. As much as 1000 mg/l—a million times higher than the
standard—has been fed to rats with no observable effect [9].
Organic Chemicals.
Many organic chemicals were also identied in the
Mississippi discharges—88 in all were found either in streams receiving indus—
trial efuent or in raw or treated drinking water supplies, or both. The con—
centrations of these chemicals were not measured. These trace organics were
estimated to be present in parts per million or even in concentrations a thou—
sand times lower—in parts per billion. Insignicant as these concentrations
may appear, however, we cannot assume that even in such small amounts,
singly or in combination, these chemicals are safe either for aquatic life or for
human consumption. EPA analysts listed 36 organic chemicals found in water
that had been treated at the Carrollton Water Plant in New Orleans and were
ready for distribution to domestic users [10]. Some of these compounds, and
others as well, were also found in tap water at the PHS Hospital at Carville,
south of Baton Rouge.
In summarizing the results of the Lower Mississippi study, EPA scientists
point out that while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the au—
thority to ban food additives shown to cause cancer, data on the carcinoge—
nicity of contaminants in water has not been used in setting water quality
standards. They also noted that toxicity tests are made on healthy laboratory
animals. What the data derived means to people—some of whom are elderly,
sick, or very young—has yet to be ascertained. The EPA analysts concluded:
.
.
.
there may be a myriad of organic chemicals, not yet isolated and identi—
ed, such as the pesticides, that could be present in these water supplies,
which are carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic. . . . It is mandatory to
smgle out potentially harmful substances and prevent them from entering
those bodies of waters that Will be used for drinking or food sources until it is
ÊÎîy
demonstrated that they pose no threat to human health or aquatic life
Another EPA study related to these concerns involved a search of the lit—
erature to determine what organic chemicals are found in the water, what
known industrial chemicals are probably in the water but
not been iso—
154
Drinking Water