GET WET!

High levels of antibiotics and other drugs have been found in water in the country’s most treasured and protected landscapes, raising concerns over antimicrobial resistance

• Photographs by Christopher Thomond

Phoebe Weston Fri 27 Sep 2024 04.00 EDTShare

Nestled within the Peak District national park, the stream known as Brook Head Beck meanders between undulating green hills. It is mossy and dank by the river, surrounded by the gentle trickling sound of water, the smell of leaves starting to rot underfoot, and a weave of branches overhead with leaves turning golden in the autumn chill. This place is renowned for its quaint English beauty, and the government has designated it an ecological site of special scientific interest, meaning it holds some of the country’s most precious wildlife.

Yet within this pristine-looking stream flows a concoction of chemicals that could pose a threat to the freshwater organisms and humans who come into contact with it. Recent testing found it had the second highest levels of chemical pollution in the UK – after a site in Glasgow – with concentrations of pharmaceuticals higher than inner-city rivers in London, Belfast, Leeds and York.

New research, published in August in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, revealed that England’s most protected rivers – those that run through its national parks – were also heavily contaminated by pharmaceuticals. The findings demonstrated how drug pollution now flows into even the most apparently untouched waterways, with transformative, potentially dangerous results for ecosystems and people.

“I don’t think anyone had really looked for pharmaceuticals in national parks,” says Prof Alistair Boxall, from the University of York and lead author of the paper. “The big new thing we’ve shown is that environments you think are pristine are not.”

Antibiotics and the ‘silent pandemic’

Antidepressants, antibiotics, diabetes treatments and anti-inflammatory drugs are among the chemicals flowing in the water – probably flushed down the toilet by someone in the nearby village of Tideswell. Brook Head Beck had 28 out of 54 pharmaceuticals that Boxall’s team tested for, but the greatest immediate risk to humans is posed by the concentration of antibiotics.

In this stream, antibiotic levels tested higher than those thought to promote antimicrobial resistance (AMR), where bacteria develop resistance to life-saving medicines. “If kids played in here, or animals drank it, it’s possible that they could consume bacteria that have acquired resistance,” says Boxall.

AMR has been called a “silent pandemic” by the World Health Organization. Despite low levels of awareness outside specialist circles, AMR kills more than a million people a year, with numbers expected to increase to 10m deaths a year by 2050, according to the UN Environment Programme.

It is usually not possible to locate the source of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and many people will not know they have it in their gut. But there is growing evidence that microbes living in waterways and coastal areas may be developing AMR.

In 2018, the University of Exeter’s Beach Bums study was the first to identify water as a source. It found surfers were three times more likely to have antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their gut than people who didn’t spend time in the water.

We urgently need to know more about how humans are exposed to these bacteria and how they colonise our guts

Dr Anne Leonard

The study looked at 300 regular surfers and bodyboarders (who are particularly vulnerable because they swallow up to 10 times more water than sea swimmers) and found 9% had AMR bacteria, compared with 3% of the general population. The university’s Poo-Sticks project is now recruiting wild swimmers to see if they have the same issues.

Dr Anne Leonard, from the University of Exeter medical school and lead author of the initial study, said there was an increasing focus on how resistance could be spread through the natural environment. “Antimicrobial resistance has been globally recognised as one of the greatest health challenges of our time … We urgently need to know more about how humans are exposed to these bacteria and how they colonise our guts.”

It is not just swallowing water that puts people at risk; you could ingest AMR bacteria via an open cut, or through contact with ears or eyes.

Prof Trisha Greenhalgh, from the University of Oxford, is a regular wild swimmer. She swims with a full wetsuit all year round because she tends to get scratches that get infected. One in 2022 affected the skin on her lower leg.

“I tried some antibiotic cream I had in the cupboard, then another cream, then saw my GP who prescribed first one antibiotic then a different one. So, all in all, four antibiotics before the infection cleared,” she says. Greenhalgh was never formally tested for antibiotic resistance as it is uncommon to test for it outside hospitals, but says: “It was striking how long it took for the infection to heal.”

How do drugs end up in waterways?

Sewage spills often dominate headlines – they are visible and they smell bad – but invisible microchemicals, including pharmaceuticals, are having an equally serious impact on the ecology of our rivers, says Boxall.

Pharmaceutical pollution from human drugs typically ends up in waterways through the sewage system. When people take a medication, not all of it is absorbed by the body. Between 30% and 90% is excreted from the body then flushed down the toilet to be treated at a sewage plant.

In the UK and many other countries, there is no process to test for pharmaceutical pollution, or to remove it from sewage during treatment. Sewage treatment works are designed to deal with organic waste and are much less effective with chemicals. Boxall says: “Some will be very well removed, some will be removed to some degree, and some will be hardly removed at all. It’s really down to how degradable the pharmaceuticals are.”

We know little about the true extent of drug pollution, and humans are not the only source. More than half of the world’s antibiotics are used on farms and there are significantly fewer studies on their effects, but researchers say intensive agriculture “ploughs the way” for AMR because it involves putting so many chemicals in the soil and into livestock. These pollutants leach into the wider environment, often ending up in rivers. For example, a study in Wisconsin found that seasonal spreading of manure on the fields was linked to the presence of antibiotic resistance genes in rivers.

Previous research by Boxall in 2019 showed that concentrations of antibiotics in some of the world’s rivers exceeded safe levels by up to 300 times, with the most polluted sites found in Asia and Africa.

Antibiotic contamination poses one of the most immediate risks to human health, but many other drugs are flowing out into rivers and seas, where scientists warn they pose a growing threat to wildlife, causing changes to their behaviour and anatomy. In one study, scientists found that European perch lost their fear of predators when exposed to waterborne depression medication. In another, contamination from contraceptive pills caused sex reversal in some fish populations. The problem is widespread: Boxall’s recent study, published in collaboration with the Rivers Trust, found pharmaceuticals at 52 out of 54 locations monitored across England’s 10 national parks.

Why are national parks so contaminated?

While drug pollution is a national and international problem, in England, rivers in national parks are among the most contaminated. It’s a counterintuitive result – and an alarming one, given that these waterways are commonly used by wild swimmers, paddlers and holidaymakers.

The reason Brook Head Beck came to register such high levels of contaminant lies a mile up the road in the village of Tideswell.

Wonky lines of stone houses with small windows, hanging baskets and colourful doors line the streets of Tideswell. The village has been here for more than 1,300 years – names such as harvest cottage, the old wool shop and cobbler’s cottage recall the trades that once flourished here.

The way we monitor and regulate chemicals is stuck in the dark ages … we need to think more about where the chemicals go

Prof Alistair Boxall

“What goes down the drain is telling you about the population,” says Boxall. The drugs in the sample collected downstream from Tideswell included diabetes and blood pressure treatments, typically taken by older people, who generally take more pills. This is one of the reasons national park samples contain so many pharmaceuticals – the average age in England is 39, but people in national parks are on average at least 10 years older.

Another reason is that they are tourist hotspots, and the population swells during weekends in the summer. England’s national parks have a population of about 320,000 permanent residents, but they get an estimated 90 million visitors a year. This puts a strain on wastewater treatment infrastructure, potentially leading to increased levels of pharmaceutical discharge.

Older sewage plants, which are more likely to be serving isolated rural communities, are generally even less efficient. National parks also often have “low flow” rivers, meaning there is less water to dilute the pollutants coming from wastewater treatment plants.

The combination of these factors in remote and fragile places makes national parks particularly vulnerable to waterway pollution.

“The way we monitor and regulate chemicals is stuck in the dark ages,” says Boxall, who says authorities should set “safe levels” for some pharmaceuticals, such as antibiotics. The Environment Agency can’t do anything because the chemicals are not regulated. More intense monitoring is also needed at sites such as Tideswell. “As a society we need to think more about where all the chemicals go,” he says.

Change is under way in Europe. Switzerland is the only country which has updated its sewage works to filter out these chemicals, and following the Swiss example, EU member states and the European parliament have approved the final text requiring sewage treatment works serving 10,000 people or more to have micropollutant treatment in place by 2045. Pharmaceutical and cosmetic producers will largely fund the upgrades in line with the “polluter pays” principle, but the UK government says it has no plans to do the same.

I ask Boxall if he’d swim in any of the rivers in England’s national parks, and he quickly shakes his head. “I wouldn’t go swimming in any UK river, knowing what rubbish is in there,” he says.

Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/27/amr-drug-resistance-england-national-parks-hidden-hazards-rivers-pollution-aoe?

This article is more than 6 months old

Exclusive: Researchers find 61% of fresh waters in the UK contain high levels of phosphate and nitrate

The UK’s rivers contain a cocktail of chemicals and stimulants including caffeine, antidepressants and painkillers from water company sewage releases, polluting freshwaters at levels which can pose a risk to aquatic life, testing has found.

Results from three days of testing in rivers by 4,531 volunteers for the environmental research group Earthwatch showed that, in addition to the chemical mix in rivers, 61% of fresh waters in the UK were in a poor state because of high levels of the nutrients phosphate and nitrate, the source of which is sewage effluent and agricultural runoff. England had the worst level of poor water quality in rivers, with 67% of freshwater samples showing high levels of nitrate and phosphate.

“Our rivers have been historically stressed by farming and are being pushed to the brink by outdated and inadequate sewage treatment works,” Earthwatch said.

Earthwatch volunteers tested rivers over three days in September, gathering 2,338 datasets which were tested for high levels of phosphates and nitrates. Ninety-one samples were sent for further testing for the presence of chemicals by Imperial College London. This testing, which is continuing, shows rivers are being subjected to toxic pollutants including nicotine, caffeine, antidepressants, antibiotics and painkillers such as tramadol and diclofenac. The main source of these pollutants is sewage from water company treatment works, said Sasha Woods, head of policy at Earthwatch.

Woods said the UK’s freshwater ecosystems were in a terrible state and that citizen science data was helping to fill in the gaps in testing to expose the true picture. She said the chemical results were shocking, revealing a failure to adequately deal with sewage.

“Caffeine was present in 100% of samples sent to Imperial,” said Woods. “This is alarming because it shows either that sewage effluent is not being cleaned properly by water companies before being discharged into rivers, or that too much raw sewage is going into rivers, or both of those things.”

Volunteers in what was termed the Great UK WaterBlitz collected the thousands of datasets at geographically spread locations across the UK over three days in September. Measurements of nitrates and phosphates taken by the volunteers within a river sub-basin were based on at least five samples per sub-basin.

Acceptable water quality was found where nitrates were under 1 part per million (ppm), and phosphates under 0.1 ppm, aligning with Environment Agency values. England had the worst water quality, with 67% of rivers deemed unacceptable or poor quality, compared with 43% poor quality in Northern Ireland, 29% in Scotland and 21% in Wales. The Anglian and Thames river basin districts have the worst water quality in the UK, with more than 80% of surveys showing unacceptable nutrient concentrations.

Rivers in West Glamorgan in Wales and Kirkcudbrightshire in Scotland had the best water quality of those measured.

Earthwatch said there was a pressing need for improvements to wastewater treatment processes and reductions in agriculture and urban run off to reduce threats to vulnerable freshwater systems and species.

“The poor state of many waterbodies in the UK is down to a complex and interconnected range of pollution sources: sewage discharge, agriculture and urban runoff,” their report said. The Earthwatch evidence of the poor state of UK rivers comes after data from the Environment Agency showed a dramatic decline in Atlantic salmon stocks in England and Wales. Salmon are an indicator species, and their rapid decline is considered a warning sign that the natural environment is under extreme stress.

The full analysis of about 300 chemicals will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2025. Initial results are already building a more complete picture of chemical in rivers and lakes.

Many of the chemicals found contained concentrations considered to pose risks to water creatures:

• Of the 91 samples already analysed, 100% contained caffeine, with levels in 80% of these samples presenting some risk to aquatic life, said Woods.
• Nicotine was found in 25% of samples, with concentrations that present some risk to aquatic life found in 7% of samples. The antidepressant venlafaxine was found in 30% of samples analysed, with 13% of samples containing levels that posed a risk to aquatic life.
• The antibiotic trimethoprim was found in 10% of samples, all at concentrations that posed some level of risk to aquatic life.
• Diclofenac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, was in 11 % of samples, all of which showed some level of risk.
• In 5% of samples, the fungicide tebuconazole was present as a result of agricultural runoff.
• The neonicotinoid acetamiprid was present in 19% of samples, all showing some level of risk to aquatic life.
• Earthwatch said the results showed the strong contribution that citizen science played in presenting a clearer picture of the health of rivers.

Owen Lewis, the deputy director for water analysis and reporting for the Environment Agency, said: “The Environment Agency values the contribution of England’s growing network of citizen scientists and welcomes the Great UK WaterBlitz and other initiatives that complement our own research, monitoring and assessment work.

“We are absolutely committed to improving water quality, which is why we are pleased to be working closely with Earthwatch to target research and help find solutions to the complex problems water is facing.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/21/uk-rivers-chemicals-stimulants-phosphates-nintrate-endangering-aquatic-life?

Staff November 20, 2023 Skincare Industry

The beauty and skincare industry, a realm often associated with rejuvenation and cleanliness, harbors a less glamorous facet that significantly impacts the environment, particularly our water bodies. This article delves into the intricate ways in which skincare ingredients contribute to water pollution, unveiling the hidden costs of beauty routines on aquatic ecosystems.

Skincare products, ranging from facial cleansers to exfoliating scrubs, play an integral role in daily hygiene and self-care routines for millions globally. However, beneath their surface of allure and promise of beauty benefits, lies a complex array of chemicals and micro-elements that are less benign than they appear. When these products are rinsed off, their residual ingredients embark on a journey through our plumbing systems, eventually finding their way into rivers, lakes, and oceans.

One of the primary culprits in this environmental narrative is microbeads, tiny plastic particles found in exfoliating products. These beads, though seemingly harmless due to their minuscule size, are not biodegradable. Once they enter water systems, they persist for years, accumulating in the aquatic environment. Marine life, mistaking these beads for food, ingests them, leading to a cascade of ecological disruptions. The beads not only physically harm the organisms but also act as carriers for other pollutants, which adhere to their surfaces and are consequently introduced into the food chain.

Another significant contributor to water pollution from skincare products is the chemical runoff comprising various compounds such as parabens, phthalates, and triclosan. These chemicals, used for their preservative and antimicrobial properties, disrupt hormonal balances in aquatic species, leading to reproductive and developmental issues. Parabens, for example, have been detected in marine mammals, raising concerns about their widespread environmental presence and the long-term effects on biodiversity.

Furthermore, the high concentration of synthetic fragrances and colorants in skincare products adds to the chemical cocktail in water bodies. These additives, designed to enhance the sensory appeal of products, often contain non-biodegradable and toxic compounds. When they enter the aquatic environment, they contribute to the degradation of water quality and pose risks to aquatic organisms and the overall health of the ecosystem.

Beyond the direct impact on marine life, the pollution of water bodies with skincare ingredients has broader implications. It affects the quality of water available for human use, and the persistent nature of these pollutants raises concerns about their accumulation in the environment and potential to enter the human food chain. The treatment of wastewater, though effective in removing certain contaminants, often falls short in fully addressing the complex mixture of chemicals emanating from skincare products.

In response to these environmental challenges, there has been a growing movement towards sustainable and eco-friendly skincare alternatives. The industry is witnessing a shift towards products with biodegradable ingredients, reduced plastic packaging, and a heightened awareness among consumers about the environmental footprint of their skincare choices. Regulatory measures, such as the ban on microbeads in several countries, also reflect a growing recognition of the need to protect water bodies from the inadvertent consequences of beauty routines.

In conclusion, the intersection of beauty and environmental conservation presents a complex and pressing challenge. The skincare industry, consumers, and regulatory bodies must collaboratively work towards mitigating the impact of skincare ingredients on water pollution. The path forward involves not only reformulating products to be environmentally benign but also fostering a collective consciousness about the unseen consequences of our daily routines on the planet’s most precious resource – water.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION https://education.aethic.com/the-ripple-effect-unveiling-the-environmental-impact-of-skincare-ingredients-on-water-bodies/?

Algae has covered large amounts of unique 4,000-year-old maerl beds, which are crucial to marine life and carbon storage

Irreplaceable 4,000-year-old coral beds off the Cornish coast could be killed after being smothered in algae caused by sewage pollution and run-off from farms.

Marine scientists and conservationists were left shocked by the state of the ancient beds of rare pink calcified seaweeds, known as maerl, which are crucial to supporting fragile underwater ecosystems and act as a nursery for commercial fish and shellfish.

The rose pink of a maerl bed is a very rare sight in English waters, with few thought to exist outside Cornwall, where it particularly thrives in clear waters, estuaries and tide-swept bays.

Maerl are a critical habitat, food source and carbon sink

CORNWALL WILDLIFE TRUST

The maerl beds of the Fal and Helford estuaries in Cornwall were designated as a Marine Protected Area in 2005 but a recent dive revealed a “worrying deterioration” in the ecosystems in the Fal estuary, Cornwall Wildlife Trust said.

Matt Slater, a marine conservation officer at the trust, said what they found was “a massive concern” and improvement to the water quality in the Fal estuary was needed urgently.

“It was a shocking sight,” Slater said. “The area, which was previously purple and beautiful, is now covered with a thick layer of brown, fluffy algae.

“We’ve surveyed here regularly for the past eight years and I have never seen the maerl beds looking like this. It was a very sombre atmosphere.

• Water firms must be more open about river pollution, says watchdog

“It’s a massive concern and shows, yet again, why it is urgent that we do all we can to improve water quality in the Fal estuary.”

Although often referred to as a coral, maerl is a red seaweed, best described as a coralline algae. Each nodule is hard to the touch due to a calcium carbonate skeleton. Maerl nodules are very fragile and very slow growing — just 1mm per year.

The beds, which also act as a carbon store, were recently classified as irreplaceable marine habitats by Natural England because of their almost complete inability to recover from damage. If they are hit by high levels of pollution and start to wither and die, nothing can save them.

The deteriorating state of the maerl beds in the Fal estuary was discovered last month at the end of the UK Maerl Forum, the first international event of its kind where European experts came together to create an action plan to protect Cornwall’s maerl beds.

In 2021, the same maerl was much healthier, but pollution has worsened

CORNWALL WILDLIFE TRUST

An organised dive took place at the end of the forum to see the densest maerl bed in English waters, which scientists at Exeter University have found to be genetically unique from other maerl in UK and European waters.

“Maerl is a coralline seaweed and this algae could potentially harm or kill the maerl bed,” Slater said. “There have been small amounts of algae on them in the past but this was completely covering the entire maerl bed. It was devastating to see.

“In Milford Haven [in Pembrokeshire] they have seen this kind of algae bloom damage maerl. It’s down to nutrient levels in the water.

“The Fal has a very large catchment. We can’t point fingers at people but if something is going to be done it’s going to have to be a big project working in multiple ways.”

Cornwall Wildlife Trust said mobile fishing gear was also damaging maerl beds, as was a deterioration in water quality.

Scallop dredges and beam trawls, which could destroy up to 70 per cent of the live maerl nodules, were of “particular concern”.

The Fal estuary is protected from damaging fishing equipment

WILL PERRETT/GETTY IMAGES

In other parts of the UK, such as Lamlash Bay on the Isle of Arran, fishing has been banned to protect maerl beds.

The trust said it was working with farmers to reduce agricultural run-off and with fishers on sustainable management practices.

Mobile fishing gear and maerl extraction are both banned in the Fal estuary. However, the conference highlighted that water quality was also a key threat.

In other areas, such as Milford Haven and Brittany, algal blooms caused by raised nutrient levels have reportedly led to severe decline, and in some cases complete loss, of maerl habitats.

The Times is demanding faster action to improve the country’s waterways. Find out more about the Clean It Up campaign.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/pollution-maerl-beds-fal-estuary-clean-it-up-m2fhwbtr9?utm_source

September 3, 2024

It’s exciting to get upgrades! Everyone always seems to want the latest and greatest model, addition, version…of their favorite electronic device. Because of this, the lifespan of these devices is diminishing, leading to a surge in electronic waste, commonly known as e-waste. This growing concern impacts not only landfills but also the purity of our water bodies. At NewTech Recycling, we understand the critical importance of the proper disposal of e-waste, ensuring that hazardous materials are not leached into our environment. Our commitment to e-waste recycling services is not just about sustainability; it’s about protecting our water for future generations. Join us as we explore the journey of e-waste to water bodies, its detrimental effects, and how responsible recycling practices can make a significant difference.

Understanding E-Waste

E-waste encompasses a broad range of discarded electronic devices, from smartphones and computers to refrigerators and LED bulbs. These items, rich in metals and other materials, become e-waste when no longer functional or desirable. The challenge with e-waste lies not only in its volume but in its composition. Many electronics contain hazardous substances like lead, mercury, and cadmium, which can pose significant risks when not disposed of properly. At NewTech Recycling, our e-waste recycling process is designed to manage these risks, transforming potential environmental hazards into opportunities for resource recovery and reuse.

E-Waste’s Journey to Water Bodies

The path of improperly disposed e-waste to water bodies is a complex one, involving several stages and actors. Often, e-waste is initially dumped in landfills, where it may be exposed to natural elements or inadequate containment measures. Over time, rainwater leaches toxic chemicals from this waste, carrying them into the groundwater, rivers, and eventually oceans. Illegal dumping exacerbates the issue, with e-waste often directly abandoned in or near waterways. This not only pollutes the water but disrupts aquatic ecosystems and the communities relying on these water sources. Understanding this journey underscores the urgency of adopting proper e-waste disposal and recycling practices to safeguard our water resources.

Impact on Water Quality and Ecosystems

The infiltration of e-waste into our water systems introduces a host of toxic substances, including heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium, alongside a variety of chemicals from plastics and coatings. These contaminants pose severe risks to water quality, directly affecting aquatic ecosystems. Heavy metals can accumulate in the food chain, leading to bioaccumulation in fish, which not only endangers wildlife but also threatens human health through the consumption of contaminated seafood. Furthermore, the chemical runoff from e-waste disrupts the delicate balance of aquatic ecosystems, leading to decreased biodiversity and the alteration of habitats. Our efforts in e-waste recycling services at NewTech Recycling aim to curb the release of these hazardous substances, demonstrating our role in preserving natural water resources and supporting the health of aquatic ecosystems.

Human Health Implications

The repercussions of e-waste contamination in water extend significantly to human health. Communities relying on contaminated water sources may suffer from a range of health issues, including kidney damage, neurological disorders, and developmental problems in children, all linked to the toxic substances leached from improperly disposed of electronics. The importance of clean, uncontaminated water cannot be overstated, not only for drinking but also for agriculture and everyday hygiene. Ensuring the proper disposal of e-waste is a critical step towards safeguarding public health, highlighting the indispensable service provided by facilities like NewTech Recycling in mitigating these risks.

The Role of Proper Disposal and Recycling

Addressing the challenges posed by e-waste requires a comprehensive approach to disposal and recycling. Proper e-waste disposal involves separating hazardous materials from recyclable components, ensuring that toxins are not released into the environment. Through professional e-waste recycling services, materials such as metals, plastics, and glass can be safely recovered and repurposed, reducing the need for new raw materials and decreasing the environmental footprint of new products. At NewTech Recycling, our commitment to advanced recycling processes not only aids in preventing water pollution but also contributes to a circular economy, where the value of electronic materials is maximized. By choosing responsible recycling paths, individuals and businesses can play a pivotal role in protecting our water resources and promoting environmental sustainability.

Let’s Save Our Water

The journey from awareness to action in the proper disposal of e-waste is crucial for the health of our planet and its inhabitants. As we’ve explored, the consequences of negligence are far-reaching, affecting water quality, ecosystems, and human health. However, through informed decisions and the support of professional e-waste recycling services like those offered by NewTech Recycling, we can mitigate these impacts. We invite you to join us in this vital effort to protect our water by responsibly recycling your electronic waste. Together, we can forge a path towards a cleaner, safer environment for future generations. Visit New Tech Recycling to learn more about how you can contribute to the solution

CLICK FOR MORE INFORMATION https://newtechrecycling.com/the-effects-of-e-waste-on-water/

This article is more than 8 months old

More than half classed as very toxic, toxic or harmful to aquatic life, with 20 categorised as ‘substances of very high concern’

Almost 500 different chemicals, some of which are banned, have been found in various mixtures across all 171 river and groundwater catchments tested in England in 2024, according to data from the Environment Agency, analysed by the Guardian and Watershed Investigations.

More than half of them are classified as very toxic, toxic or harmful to aquatic life, according to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and a banned, carcinogenic “forever chemical” was among 20 “substances of very high concern” found.

“What this shows is that the way we monitor and manage chemicals in our rivers is completely unfit for purpose,” said Alistair Boxall, professor in environmental science at the University of York.

“Although it depends on the concentrations, a lot of these are very toxic. We know they target algae, invertebrates and fish. If you’ve got a mixture of a few hundred substances, they are potentially working together and exacerbating the effect,” explained Boxall.

Environmental groups have called chemical pollution the silent killer in our waterways. The world has lost 83% of its freshwater aquatic life in 50 years and in UK waters, the sturgeon and the burbot have vanished and Atlantic salmon is endangered.

“Our invertebrate monitoring shows clear evidence of significant chemical impact across all the 100-plus rivers we monitor,” said the WildFish CEO, Nick Measham. “It ties together chemical presence with widespread ecological impact. It makes poo in rivers look like a second-order problem.”

Neonicotinoid pesticides are banned in the UK and EU for use on all outdoor crops because of the high risk to pollinators. However, the data shows all three banned neonics across 29 river and groundwater catchments, including thiamethoxam, which the UK government has continued to allow for sugar beet crops. The Environment Agency said policies were being changed to prevent this use.

Another neonic, imidacloprid, is still legally used as a flea treatment for dogs and cats, which experts say is nonsensical.

“Imidacloprid is like novichok for insects,” said Dave Goulson, professor of biology at Sussex University.

“A single teaspoon of this pesticide is enough to deliver a lethal dose to 1.25 billion honey bees. It’s concerning that our rivers should be awash with a potent insecticide.”

The majority is found downstream of sewage outlets, suggesting that they are coming primarily from owners washing their pets and bedding at home. These chemicals are more toxic to insects than vertebrates, but there are health concerns and research in Switzerland found neonics in the cerebral spinal fluid of children.

The most widespread chemicals found are classic markers of road runoff, where pollutants from car exhaust pipes and tyres, for example, build up on roads and then get washed into streams and rivers when it rains. Fluoranthene, which is very toxic to aquatic life, and pyrene, were found in 80% of water catchments. Both are substances of very high concern because they are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, meaning they don’t break down easily and can build up in our bodies.

“I found fluoranthene at levels over 100 times above the maximum allowable concentration in samples of runoff from the M6,” said Jo Bradley, a former Environment Agency officer who heads the Stormwater Shepherds nonprofit. She says road runoff often exceeds statutory standards.

“National Highways identified fluoranthene and pyrene as potentially significant pollutants way back in 2002, so it is desperately sad that they have not delivered treatment schemes at their highway outfalls to control this pollution in the last 20 years.”

National Highways says it is “committed to improving water quality, and our water quality plan sets out a high-level programme of work to address all our high-risk outfalls by 2030.”

Farm runoff was another major source of contamination, with approximately 30% of the substances commonly used as insecticides, fungicides, pesticides and medicines for livestock. Around 34% of substances detected are pharmaceuticals, caffeine and sweeteners, which are probably discharging from sewage treatment works.

Sewage is the main reason the Medway catchment fails to meet good status followed by agriculture, according to the Environment Agency. Together with the Tees estuary, it has the highest number of different chemicals in its waters. The highest concentrations of the recreational drug ketamine was found here, as well as of an insecticide used to control aphids on crops.

“We have parts of the River Medway that are no-go areas, where the river is devoid of life and we don’t fish there,” said Ian Tucker, of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Angling Society.

Sewage works could install tertiary treatment to remove many chemicals, but it is expensive.

“We’ve had a lack of investment in wastewater treatment and we’ve not progressed to removing chemicals,” said Chris Gardner at the South East Rivers Trust. “We need a regulator to drive improvements.”

Water UK, the water industry body, points out that water companies are not responsible for these pollutants being in the water system and supports a “polluter pays” principle.

“Water companies want to invest nearly £12bn to stop sewage spills from storm overflows and remove chemicals during the treatment process,” a Water UK spokesperson said. “We now need Ofwat to approve these plans in full so we can get on with it. However, prevention is better than cure and we need greater action from government and other sectors to stop this material entering the environment in the first place.”

In the country’s chemical manufacturing capital, the Tees estuary, the site of a series of crustacean mass die-offs in 2021, seven out of the top 10 highest sum concentration chemicals found are very toxic, toxic or harmful to aquatic life. For example, the highest levels found in all the samples in England is of a pesticide that is 200 times over the predicted no-effect concentration and is very harmful to aquatic life.

“As this study confirms, the extent of chemical pollution of our waterways is staggering, impacting upon aquatic life and raising implications for human health”, said Rob Collins, of the Rivers Trust. “It is imperative that we see a robust chemicals strategy from the government as a matter of urgency, where tackling chemical pollution at source is prioritised.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “Our analytical techniques are highly sensitive and allow us to detect over 1,500 compounds at low levels to support our work on managing chemical risks in the environment. This testing is specifically targeted at sites where we want to better understand the chemical risk.

“We are working closely with other regulators and the water industry on a series of chemical investigation programmes to better understand how chemical compounds affect our water environment.”

But experts remain concerned.

“The big picture is that from conception we’re all being exposed to a cocktail of synthetic toxins,” warned Goulson. “The impact of the mixtures is totally unknown … and it’s inescapable.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/06/almost-500-chemicals-found-in-englands-rivers-and-groundwater?utm_source

Here’s why you should never, ever drink the rain.

by Benji Jones Mar 10, 2025, 6:00 AM EDT

Benji Jones is an environmental correspondent at Vox, covering biodiversity loss and climate change. Before joining Vox, he was a senior energy reporter at Business Insider. Benji previously worked as a wildlife researcher.

In the 1970s, acid rain was one of the most serious environmental threats in North America and Europe. The air was so laden with pollution from coal power plants and cars at the time that it turned the rain toxic. Downpours killed fish, destroyed forests, eroded statues, and damaged buildings, sparking public outcry.

“Acid rain is a particularly alarming demonstration of the simple adage that what goes up must come down,” former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart said in 1979. “With acid rain,” he said, “what comes down is much worse than what went up — worse in its potential damage to trees and crops, worse in its potential damage to freshwater lakes and fish and tourism.”

A few decades later, acid rain had largely disappeared.

A statue on the side of a building that’s been weathered, in part, by acid rain, seen in Leipzig, Germany in 1990.Richard Baker/In Pictures via Getty Images

A forest in Poland that’s been killed off by acid rain.Christopher Pillitz/Getty Images

Beginning around 1990, the US and Europe passed legislation that limited the amount of acid-forming pollutants — such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides — that power plants could emit. Laws requiring car manufacturers to put catalytic converters into new vehicles, which reduced harmful emissions, were also taking effect. That brings us to today: While precipitation in some regions is still unnaturally acidic, on the whole, acid rain is largely a problem of the past and a major environmental success story.

Related

• The ozone hole shrank last year. Here’s how the world solved an environmental crisis.

Now, however, there’s another problem with our rain — and it’s even more alarming.

While precipitation has become less acidic, a growing body of evidence suggests that it’s now full of many other pollutants that pose a risk to public health, including microplastics. And unlike the compounds that cause acid rain, these pollutants are almost impossible to get rid of.

The new pollutants in our rain

As government regulators focused on reigning in air pollution, companies were busy generating new sources of pollution, including plastics and PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals. PFAS, which stands for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a large group of compounds used, among other things, to make fabric stain-resistant and pans nonstick.

Over time, these modern-era substances — which famously take decades to millennia to degrade — have leached into the environment, reaching every corner of the planet, no matter how tall or deep. Microplastics, PFAS, and some other compounds, such as pesticides, are now so widespread that they’ve essentially become part of our biome, not unlike bacteria or fungi.

They’re so common, in fact, that they’re even found in the rain.

A number of studies, for example, have documented microplastics in rain falling all over the world — even in remote, unpopulated regions. For one 2020 analysis in the journal Science, researchers documented microplastics in rainwater that fell on several national parks and wilderness areas in the Western US. Most of the plastic bits were microfibers, such as those shed from polyester sweaters or carpeting on the floor of a car. The researchers estimated that more than 1,000 metric tons of plastic from the atmosphere fall on parks in the West each year, including both as rainfall and as dry dust. That’s equivalent to roughly 120 to 300 million plastic water bottles, according to the study.

The largest source of those microplastics was highways, said Janice Brahney, a biogeochemist at Utah State University who led the Science study. Roads are often littered with plastic waste that gets broken down by cars and kicked up into the air. Those particles are typically lighter than soil, so once they become airborne, they can easily move around in the atmosphere and get grabbed by rain as it falls.

A gull carrying a piece of trash along the San Gabriel River in Southern California.Mark Rightmire/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images

Another important source of plastic rain is the ocean, Brahney said. Several million tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, much of which breaks down into microplastics. When waves crash on the beach or bubbles burst on the sea surface, it sends microscopic plastic particles into the air.

Plastic rain is an environmental threat that’s harder to fix than the last one. “It’s much worse than the acid rain problem,” Brahney said. “With acid rain, we could stop emitting acid precursors and then acid rain would stop falling. But we can’t stop the microplastic cycle anymore. It’s there and it’s not going away.”

The story of PFAS is similarly bleak: Researchers have detected these chemicals in rain across the planet from the US and Sweden to China and even Antarctica, often at levels above drinking water guidelines. For a study published in 2024 — titled “It’s raining PFAS in South Florida” — researchers analyzed rainwater that fell around Miami and found more than 20 PFAS compounds, including PFOS and PFOA. Although these two PFAS were phased out in the US years ago due to public health concerns, the researchers still found them at concentrations beyond government health advisory levels for drinking water, underscoring the remarkable persistence of forever chemicals.

For another article, published in 2022, scientists reviewed studies of PFAS in rainwater and similarly found concentrations of these chemicals at levels above what US and Danish regulators say is safe for drinking water. The authors concluded that, based on health advisories, no untreated rainwater would be considered safe to drink.

“For us to get rid of PFAS, we probably have to go back in time,” said Natalia Soares Quinete, a chemist at Florida International University who was involved in the 2024 study. Even though the government is increasingly regulating PFAS, she said, “I don’t see us completely getting rid of those chemicals.”

Is the rain dangerous?

The good news is that most people — especially in wealthy countries like the US — don’t rely on untreated rainwater. What is concerning is that rain ends up in groundwater, rivers, and reservoirs that feed into municipal water systems.

Treatment plants help a lot, typically removing upward of 70 percent of microplastics in water, but some still pass through. A study published earlier this year, for example, found a small amount of microplastics in bottled water and tap water in France. Similarly, typical filtration plants for municipal water remove some but not all PFAS. Authors of a 2023 study by the US Geological Survey, a federal agency, estimate that at least 45 percent of the country’s tap water has at least one type of PFAS present.

Treatment facilities don’t have the technology to treat all of the microplastic compounds, let alone the technology to measure them, Brahney said. “There are tens of thousands of chemicals involved, and we only understand a fraction of them,” she said.

Whether or not you’re at risk from microplastics, PFAS, and other chemicals is all about exposure — how much of those substances you’re breathing in or consuming. There’s not much of them in a single glass of tap or a bottle of water. The problem is that there are many other pathways that these pollutants can take to enter your body, such as through food. And over time they add up.

A recent study found that the human brains contain as much as a typical plastic spoon’s worth of microplastic, by weight. Scientists still don’t understand what impact that might have on human health, but they suspect that microplastics could be linked to cancer, heart and kidney disease, and Alzheimer’s.

Meanwhile, nearly all Americans have a measurable amount of PFAS in their blood, according to US health officials, though concentrations of some of them — including PFOA and PFOS — are declining. On the whole, forever chemicals are associated with a range of ailments including increased cholesterol, decreases in birth weight, and kidney cancer.

All of these contaminants can also be harmful to wildlife, which unlike most of us, do rely on untreated water. One study, for example, linked exposure to PFAS to impaired immune systems in alligators. “If we have these contaminants in our rainwater they’re getting into our groundwater,” Brahney said. “They’re infiltrating our soils. Every organism is interacting with rainwater.”

Ultimately, what all of this research reveals is that the planet is dirty, even if the filth can be hard to see. These chemicals are in the rain because they’re abundant in the environment — and they’re in the environment because they’re in the rain. And while there’s ongoing research, we don’t yet fully understand how those pollutants impact our bodies and our ecosystems. We just know they’ll be around for a very, very long time.

“To be honest, I cry, because there’s no walking this back,” Brahney said of microplastic pollution. “These particles don’t break down at a time scale that would be relevant. So yeah, we’re not escaping that.”

How to protect yourself from polluted rain

Avoid drinking untreated rainwater and eating snow, no matter how pristine it looks! If you can afford to filter your water, you should.

Standard filters like reverse osmosis — which runs water through a semi-permeable membrane — typically remove a large portion of microplastics and PFAS.

Some countertop pitcher filters also remove at least some PFAS (e.g., Zero Water) and microplastics (e.g., LifeStraw), though they vary a lot. Consumer Reports also has a great guide to getting PFAS out of your water.

Opt for tap over bottled water to avoid ingesting microplastics. Tap water is also way better for the planet.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION https://www.vox.com/climate/401600/pfas-microplastics-pollution-rain?utm_source

With sewage and plastic pollution the world is poisoning its most important resource. When will we start to respect our rivers and seas?

Liam Fox

Sunday April 14 2024, 12.01am BST, The Sunday Times

Access to clean water is the most basic human right of all. That means the competition for water with a burgeoning human population is a threat to our wider security. And our present levels of global pollution are a collective crime against nature and a betrayal of our duty to conserve our natural environment for the generations to come after us.

Any society can only achieve good rates of public health, economic productivity, gender equity, educational attainment and a host of other desirable outcomes when all its members enjoy their rights to water and sanitation. Water, in all its aspects, is crucial to the safe and effective functioning of the world in which we live.

The discussion over the unacceptable discharge of untreated water into our rivers takes us back (perhaps guiltily) to one of the proudest achievements in our own history. During the first half of the 19th century, London’s population was ballooning and the capital’s booming economy also meant that an ever-greater amount of additional waste from factories and slaughterhouses heaped pressure upon a failing system. The scorching summer of 1858 brought things to a crisis as the river levels dropped to such a low level that raw effluent from the city sewers lay on the riverbanks.

It was the beginning of what became known as “the Great Stink”. Charles Dickens wrote, “I can certify that the offensive smells, even in that short whiff, have been of a most head and stomach-distending nature.” The recently rebuilt Houses of Parliament received the full force of the river’s foulness. New legislation allowed the Metropolitan Board of Works to borrow £3 million, which was to be repaid from a threepenny levy on every London household over the following 40 years (not a million miles in principle away from what Thames Water appears to want today). It is arguable that this one project did more to save lives than any other, dramatically improving sanitary conditions in the capital and striking a huge blow against waterborne diseases.

But today, dreadful though they are, we must keep the problems of Britain’s water pollution in perspective. The Danube, for example, has high levels of chemical, particularly pharmaceutical, waste and extremely high levels of farming pesticides, and there has been increasing scrutiny of the role Serbia plays in the pollution of Europe’s second-longest river. About a third of Belgrade, Serbia’s capital city of 1.6 million, has no connection to drainage systems and relies instead on septic tanks that are emptied straight into the river. The rest of the population spew their unprocessed waste into the waterway through about 100 sewage drains. In all, this is over 13,000 times the unacceptable volume of wastewater dumped into the Thames last year.

This one example is part of a wider horror story about how the human population is trashing global waters. Perhaps the most shameful fact is that 80 per cent of the sewage produced globally makes its way into the world’s oceans untreated. This can be deadly for delicate marine habitats, like seagrass beds and coral reefs. When healthy, these habitats act as carbon sinks, produce oxygen and allow marine flora and fauna to develop and thrive.

In 2021 a global study by geographers at Columbia University used a new high-resolution geospatial model to measure and map nitrogen and faecal indicator organisms from human sewage in watersheds around the world — areas of land that channel rainfall, snowmelt and runoff into a river. The researchers found that just 25 watersheds — out of 135,000 — contributed nearly half of all wastewater nitrogen, but that 58 per cent of coral reefs and 88 per cent of seagrass beds were exposed to it.

Along with the Danube, the watersheds that carry the most pollution to the ocean include the Yangtze, the Nile, the Mississippi and the Parana in South America, which ultimately empties into the Atlantic. It indicates the global nature of the problem resulting from the activities of large and small, rich and poor countries alike.

This is all before we come to one of our greatest horrors — the scourge of plastics. The facts on plastic pollution are shocking. At the present rate of accumulation, plastic is expected to outweigh all the fish in the sea by 2050. In the first decade of the 21st century, we made more plastic than had been made in the whole of history up to that point, and there are now somewhere between 15 and 50 trillion pieces in the world’s oceans. There is nowhere on the planet that is plastic-free. Microplastics have now even been found in Antarctic snow.

Four countries — China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam — dump more plastic into the sea than all other countries combined. Of those, China is by far the worst culprit. Of the 60 million tonnes of plastic waste produced in China every year, only about 16 million tonnes are recycled, and the Yangtze River pours more plastic into the world’s oceans than any other.

Our precious marine life is hugely threatened by plastic, which can entangle it, suffocate it or block its digestive tracts. Seabirds and turtles have been found with bottle tops in their stomachs, and countless numbers have died from respiratory obstruction or plastic ingestion. Fish in the North Pacific are estimated to ingest between 12,000 and 24,000 tonnes of plastic each year and studies suggest that a quarter of all the fish sold at California markets contain plastic in their guts.

Yet only two of the UN’s 17 goals for sustainable development mention water at all. Goal 14 is to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”. Targets for 2025 will be missed by a considerable distance. Goal 6 is: “By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.” This prerequisite for health and human wellbeing, as well as economic and social development, comes — bizarrely, in my view — behind other goals such as education and gender equality.

Those of us who are fortunate enough, despite the recent lapses by UK water companies, should seek to ensure that everyone is able to benefit from the advantages that we take for granted. Pushing the case for clean water and worldwide agreements on the pollution of our oceans is a global crusade that we, as a country, should champion with relish. It is an issue that must be put above the pettiness of our domestic politics. It is time to lift up the level of our national discourse, shift our time frames and recognise the irreversible nature of the damage we, as a species, are inflicting on our precious blue world.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION https://www.thetimes.com/article/water-will-write-the-21st-century-we-must-clean-up-our-act-p6h5pqz5r?utm_source