A deep dive into tap water quality and filters
Water has shaped human history. The earliest known permanent settlements, Jericho from 8000-7000 B.C., were located near springs and other bodies of water. Traces of wells have been found in ancient Egypt, and stone rainwater channels in Mesopotamia from 3000 B.C.
Quality of water back then was vital to keep populations, cattle and farmland healthy. It was regarded so essential that water has become part of our culture. To this very day, various religions use water to symbolise cleanliness and vitality.
Alcmaeon of Croton (470 B.C.) was the first Greek doctor to state that the quality of water may influence the health of people. The ancient Romans and Greeks were quite aware of the dangers of water coming from hills and mountains where mining was practised, as well as avoiding water from marshy areas.
Like Alcmaeon, I’m going to reinstate the obvious fact that water quality influences peoples’ health. And tap water quality over the last decade or so has unfortunately plummeted.
In the UK, where I am based, tap water quality is becoming increasingly concerning. The reason isn’t due to high amounts of E. Coli or lead, but other substances that have accumulated as a result of a hyper-medicalised, and consumer-hungry society backed by poor public health measures.
There are many toxins in tap water, and most are simply ignored because related disease states secondary to their consumption occur over a period of time. There is a time lag. Toxins require accumulation to take effect. And by the time diseases manifest physically, due to other external variables alongside poor water quality, the root causes of the disease are difficult to attain. And so they are ignored until causality is ‘proven’. Well, I’m saying we don’t have that long to wait for these studies and consequential changes in policy to occur. Take control of your health.
Toxins in tap water that I am particularly interested in removing include:
Fluoride
BPAs
PFAs
Microplastics
Fluoride
Water fluoridation was once heralded as one of the best public health achievements in the twentieth century. But this sentiment is rapidly changing as major concerns over excessive fluoride intake and related toxicity have been raised worldwide, leading several countries to ban fluoridation.
Yes, I can’t deny that there is a known association between low fluoride intake and the risk of dental caries. Fluoride ion is thought to be anticarcinogenic, antimicrobial and reduces oral pH - all thought to contribute to anti-caries affect. Furthermore, fluoride has been shown to enhance the remineralisation and recovery of demineralised enamel.
The issue with fluoride is how we use it. It is all well and good if applied topically, i.e. on the teeth, using conventional toothpaste. But if ingested long-term, fluoride has been linked to neurotoxicity and lower IQ scores in children. Why do they warn us not to ingest fluoride toothpaste?
In other words, drinking fluoride-filled tap water may be making you and your children stupider.
One review of many studies on this subject notes:
“Given the large number of studies showing cognitive deficits associated with elevated fluoride exposure under different settings, the general tendency of fluoride-associated neurotoxicity in children (p < 0.001) seems robust."
And goes on to conclude:
“The recent epidemiological results support the notion that elevated fluoride intake during early development can result in IQ deficits that may be considerable."
Another study notes:
“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment."
Should you stop using fluoride-containing toothpaste too? I’ll leave that up to you. All I’m going to say is that one study noted that fluoride concentrations of 3-11 ppm in drinking water were associated with noticeable cognitive impairment in children. Most commercial toothpaste contains 1,000 to 1,500 ppm of fluoride and mouthwash contains 230-900 ppm of fluoride.
I don’t use fluoride toothpaste, instead, I make sure I eat a diet filled with teeth-protecting nutrients, I don’t consume an excessive amount of carbohydrates/sugar, and I make sure I brush twice a day using non-fluoride toothpaste to remove food matter from in between my teeth.
If you’re adamant about remineralising enamel using something else other than fluoride, then nano-hydroxyapatite has shown some evidence of helping. As this study puts it:
“With regard to restorative and preventive fields, nano-hydroxyapatite has remarkable remineralizing effects on initial lesions of enamel, certainly higher than traditional fluorides used until now for this purpose.”
Though fluoridation of tapwater and reduced IQ scores have been linked; and though we know that topical and not ingested fluoride is where benefits lie - can someone please explain why the UK government feel the need to add more fluoride to tap water.
For more on the effects of fluoridation on our cognitive health and how it was introduced in our tap water, I recommend watching the video below.
BPA
Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical used to manufacture polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It is found in common household products like plastic food containers and water bottles. It’s also found in credit cards and DVDs. It has been used since the 1960s to produce strong plastics for food packaging and home kitchen use.
BPA is a worry because it seems like this industrial chemical is leeching into our biological systems causing pathology. Its exposure is so widespread that it is becoming difficult to run away from.
Diet is the predominant source of BPA intake. Baby food seems rife with it too, one study noted BPA detection in infant food is as high as 76%, and in the same study 85% of Korean children had detectable levels of BPA in their urine.
BPA exposure has been linked to a number of health conditions, and it is thought that this is partly to do with the fact that it mimics the structure and function of the hormone oestrogen. BPA along with a few other chemicals are termed environmental oestrogens for this reason.
Being an environmental oestrogen, BPA also falls under the group of ‘endocrine disruptor’. And although initially considered to be a weak environmental estrogen, more recent studies have demonstrated that BPA may be similar in potency to natural estradiol in stimulating some cellular responses.
Furthermore, it is extremely important to note that a lot of endocrine disruptors, BPA included, work in an inverted U shaped dose-response manner. Meaning that extremely high and low doses have minimal effects, whilst mid-range doses are enough to activate receptors. You may find this relationship between endocrine disruptors and receptors described as having a ‘non-monotonic dose response’.
Endocrine disruptors are also thought to cause the most biological damage during specific time windows and specifically to endocrine organs. These time windows include - pre-conception, fetal development, during pregnancy, whilst breastfeeding and puberty. One of the most studied groups of endocrine organs that are affected by BPA are the reproductive organs, but growing evidence is showing that nearly all parts of the body are affected by this chemical.
Several studies conducted in animals and humans have reported that exposure to BPA during the gestational period affects brain development and its behaviour. It has been elucidated that exposure to BPA can induce anxiety, an increased risk of autistic behaviours, impaired memory and learning, as well as changes in social behaviours.
Being an oestrogen-mimicking endocrine disruptor, BPA looks like it affects males and females differently. In one longitudinal study, the BPA concentration in the urine of mothers was associated with increased anxiety and depression in boys, but not in girls, at the age of seven years. Boys who were exposed to higher levels of BPA in utero were also found to have a higher likelihood of shorter anogenital distance, indicating BPA had antiandrogenic effects in utero.
Females are also affected as another study found a positive association between BPA levels in urine and anxiety and depression in children aged 8 to 11 yr. And more recently, a meta-analysis about prenatal exposure to BPA and hyperactivity noted,
"A review of the literature identified 29 rodent and 3 human studies. A random-effects meta-analysis showed significantly increased hyperactivity in male rodents. In humans, early BPA exposure was associated with hyperactivity in boys and girls.".
Other than hyperactivity, BPA has also been shown to potentially negatively affect the memory centres of our brain through epigenetic changes, as another note,
"Overall, we demonstrate that low-dose prenatal BPA exposure induces lasting epigenetic disruption in the brain that possibly underlie enduring effects of BPA on brain function and behaviour, especially regarding sexually dimorphic phenotypes."
The list of pathological effects of BPA is long, so I’ve picked excerpts from various studies to highlight this point easier.
“Exposure to BPA is linked to the hyperandroginism present in polycystic ovary syndrome.”
“Exposure to BPA impairs cardiac performance in a dose-dependent manner, and has a strong negative impact on electrical conduction, intracellular calcium movement, and ventricular contractility.”
“BPA exposure also appears to lower adiponectin levels and increase circulating levels of adipocytokines, such as interleukin-6 and tumour necrosis factor, by favouring the development of insulin resistance in adult male rats”
“Developmental Exposure to Bisphenol A Modulates Innate but Not Adaptive Immune Responses to Influenza A Virus Infection.”
“Exposure to BPA appears to be linked to the higher incidence of various cancer types, namely breast, uterus, ovarian, prostate, and testicular.”
Though food is where we consume the overwhelming majority of BPA, I think the main point to remember with regards to BPA and other endocrine disruptors is that they are found in tap water. In an ideal world, the water we drink ideally shouldn’t have any BPA in it.
If you do a quick Google search, you may feel that I was over-exaggerating our exposure to BPA:
“BPA in drinking water represents a minor component of overall human exposure, and compared with the lowest available oral toxicity benchmark.”
“Exposure to BPA from drinking water is very low and is less than 0.01% of the tolerable daily intake.”
Though seemingly reassuring, I believe we shouldn’t be. Why? Well as this paper titled “Bisphenol A and Hormone-Associated Cancers: Current Progress and Perspectives” notes,
“BPA has been the focus of widespread concern due to the fact that it interferes with endocrine signalling pathways even at extremely low doses.”.
Remember too that BPA may be similar in potency to natural estradiol, as well as having a ‘non-monotonic dose response’, which may mean that accumulated concentrations may reach mid-levels overtime proving increasingly harmful than current lower levels currently seen.
Obviously, if you’re interested in reduced BPA levels other than filtering tap water I’d also recommend you minimise other sources of BPA by:
Limiting packaged foods that aren’t labelled “BPA-free.”
Limiting canned foods or foods packaged in plastic containers (with recycling numbers 3 or 7)
Not microwaving plastic
Drinking only from glass bottles and filter tap water.
To really drive the point about BPA-associated harms, I give you the summary of one review:
“Recent human studies indicate that BPA exposure in adults may be associated with reduced ovarian response and IVF success, reduced fertilization success and embryo quality, implantation failure, miscarriage, premature delivery, reduced male sexual function, reduced sperm quality, altered sex hormone concentrations, PCOS, altered thyroid hormone concentrations, blunted immune function, type-2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (i.e. heart disease, hypertension, and cholesterol levels), altered liver function, obesity, albuminuria, oxidative stress and inflammation, and altered epigenetic markers and gene expression.
Further, exposure to BPA during gestation could result in increased spontaneous abortion, abnormal gestation time, reduced birth weight, increased male genital abnormalities, and childhood obesity. Particularly strong are the associations between early BPA exposure and altered behaviour and disrupted neurodevelopment in children, as well as increased probability of childhood wheeze and asthma.”
PFAs
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals” because they are designed never to break down in the environment, and for this reason, they accumulate in the soil, water, animals and human blood. In fact, extensive human exposure to PFAS in water, food, and air has resulted in quantifiable PFAS in the blood of nearly the entire population in developed countries, with global health impacts recorded.
PFAS are used in industrial and homeware appliances specifically for their grease-repelling properties. They are found in non-stick cookware, fire retardants, stain and water repellents, some furniture, waterproof clothes, pizza boxes and take-out containers, food packaging, carpets and textiles, rubbers and plastics, electronics and some dental floss.
The image below is a good summary of what we currently know about what PFAS can do to our health.
Yeah, it’s not looking good. PFAS negatively impact nearly all parts of our biology. Here are only a handful of interesting and seemingly unassociated biological consequences of PFAS exposure (mostly from this scientific review):
Decreased immunological function
One study assessing the impact of PFAS on vaccine response noted that “2-fold greater concentration of major PFCs [perfluorinated compounds] in child serum was associated with a difference of −49% in the overall antibody concentration”
“A pregnancy cohort study prospectively detected an increased risk of airway and throat infections and diarrhoea in children through age 10 yr, correlated with umbilical cord-blood PFAS measurements.”
A worker study of over three thousand participants found a higher prevalence and incidence of ulcerative colitis with increasing log PFOA serum concentrations.
Interestingly too, the risk of having severe COVID-19 has also been associated with elevated concentrations of PFAS in one’s blood.
Thyroid function
A meta-analysis of 12 child and adult studies that excluded populations with higher exposures noted that PFAS exposure is negatively associated with serum total thyroxine levels and that “PFAS could induce thyroid dysfunction and disease”.
Women in the highest quartile of PFAS reported clinical hypothyroid disease.
“Studies measuring PFAS in the first trimester have also found associations between PFAS exposure and altered TSH levels in newborns, including nonmonotonic patterns of dose-response that mirror the marked alterations of thyroid hormone levels during pregnancy”
Organ dysfunction
The liver is a primary target organ for long-chain PFAS storage, and experimental evidence shows liver associated toxicity secondary to PFAS exposure.
“Population studies demonstrate significant associations of long-chain PFAS (>6 fluorinated carbons) exposure to higher liver enzymes, such as alanine aminotransferase in adults and adolescents”
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has also been linked to PFAS exposure.
The extended biological half-lives of long-chain PFAS are attributed to active kidney reabsorption. Due to this reason, PFAS and associated chemicals have been found to be heavily concentrated in kidney tissues - causing a greater risk of disease.
Cancer
Though per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are not known to be directly mutagenic, there is evidence that PFAS can induce DNA damage, such as strand breaks, and other genotoxic effects, secondary to oxidative stress.
Animal studies have noted - in adult-exposed rodents and fish, PFOA and PFOS have been shown to induce tumours. And following gestational and chronic exposure to PFOA, more than half of male rats demonstrated pancreatic tumours at the lowest dose administered.
Reproductive and developmental outcomes
“Exposure to PFOA impairs human sperm motility and sperm penetration into viscous media and is longitudinally associated with lower sperm concentration and count and higher adjusted levels of luteinizing and follicle-stimulating hormones in young men.”
“Women on birth control and who do not menstruate or with poor cyclicity because of age, activity level, or disease may have elevated PFAS levels in comparison with menstruating women.”
FAS have been found in follicular fluid. They appear to alter endometrial regulation such as progesterone activity in young women.
A systematic review reported that PFOA exposure was associated with a small decrease in infant birth weight; the meta-analysis estimated that a 1-ng/mL increase in PFOA was associated with an approximately 19-g reduction in birth weight
Recently, PFAS are getting the much-deserved attention that they need probably fueled by a landmark legal case in the US made famous by the Mark Ruffalo film Dark Waters. Following this trial, PFAS was connected to high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid illness, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension in a large epidemiological investigation.
Since then, the link between PFAS and associated disease states has been growing. But it seems like the UK government again does not care, as the 2021 Guardian article, screenshotted above, highlights that PFAS levels are not tested in UK drinking water. In essence, we have no idea how much of this poison is in our tap water.
And you may want to stop using non-stick pans too by the way.
Microplastics
Microplastics are defined as “synthetic solid particles or polymeric matrices, with regular or irregular shape and with size ranging from 1 μm to 5 mm, of either primary or secondary manufacturing origin, which are insoluble in water.”.
Just like the other toxins already mentioned, the distribution and abundance of microplastics in the world are becoming increasingly extensive. So extensive in fact that many scientists are using them as key indicators of the recent and contemporary period defining a new historical epoch: The Plasticene. Sad right?
Though UK tap water has recently been touted as being 99.9% free from microplastics, the quality of river water is entirely another story. And it seems like water companies themselves are the cause of microplastic river water contamination.
I have trust issues when it comes to what the government and associated large organisations have to say. And with images like the one below, shot of plastic micro-fragments that have been mixed in with the sedimentary curly of a canyon bed, I worry that simply being reassured by a tap water company may be unwise.
To understand the impact of microplastic on the environment and our health, we have to get that microplastics can contain two types of chemicals, (1) additives and polymeric raw materials originating from the plastics, and (2) chemicals absorbed from the surrounding environment.
Additives are chemicals intentionally added during plastic production to give plastic qualities like colour and transparency and to enhance the performance of plastic. Additives of concern include:
BPA
Our friend (not)
Phthalates
These are “plasticizers that are added to basic plastic material to impart specific qualities such as flexibility, pliability, and elasticity to plastic polymers.”
Heavy metals
These are used primarily with plastic as additives in polymer products (e.g., colourants, flame-retardants, fillers, and stabilizers)
Flame-Retardants
Flame retardants (FRs) are chemical compounds that are capable of raising the flashpoint (definition: the temperature at which a particular organic compound gives off sufficient vapour to ignite in air.) of the materials in which they are added.
Other than drinking it, we are also exposed to microplastics via breathing it in and through our skin. It has been speculated that microplastics cause oxidative stress and cell death, but there is a massive gap between microplastics and human health impacts.
The image below from a 2020 review on the subject, gives an overview of what we know so far.
Another more recent review of microplastics and human health includes this image (below) in their study.
Though extensive evidence is lacking, it would be unwise to think microplastic ingestion is not harmful to human health. The evidence just needs catching up.
Furthermore too, it is emerging that our response to the recent pandemic has made our environment sick. One study showed that more than eight million tons of pandemic-associated plastic waste had been generated globally, with more than 25,000 tons entering the global ocean. 87% of this waste came from hospitals – including plastic gloves, gowns and masks – with only about 8% of the waste generated by individuals.
Those face rags aren’t helping too, a study from the University of Portsmouth found mask litter increased by 9,000% in the first seven months of the pandemic and could have led to further spread of the virus.
And nanoplastics and other harmful pollutants found have been found in disposable face masks that are released when submerged in water. The other pollutants found included lead, antimony, and copper, within the silicon-based and plastic fibres of common disposable face masks.
Not so innocent masks.
Filtering water
Gone are the days when the ruling class made sure water quality was optimum to keep populations, cattle and farmland healthy. The only way to look after your health now is to do it yourself.
With environmental pollutants growing every day, taking an active approach to our health is paramount. One way to reduce the consumption of tap water toxins is to stop drinking tap water. Obviously. And for you guys, I’d go for high-quality glass bottled mineral water instead.
I though, due to the long term costs and environmental impact of purchasing bottled, am in the process of purchasing a water filter instead.
In the table below I have outlined the pros and cons of various types of water filters that I have researched.
|
Filter type |
Tech |
Pros |
Cons |
Examples |
|
Pitcher filter |
Most use activated carbon to reduce contaminants and impurities. Some include a material called an ion exchange resin. Note: your water pitcher filter label should indicate it’s NSF-certified |
Removes metals like lead, copper and mercury, chemicals like chlorine and pesticides and organic compounds that affect the taste and smell of water. Ion exchange resin can remove “hardness” from water - calcium and magnesium ions. Cheap |
Does not remove fluoride , PFAs , hormones , nitrates, dissolved minerals or bacteria or viruses. Filter needs to be replaced every 2-6months depending on brand and usage. An old filter can harbour more bacteria than tap water. |
Brita |
|
Faucet filter |
Filters are attached to the faucet Note: look for ANSI/NSF certification |
Provides filtered water on demand. Some activated carbon faucet filters can remove PFAs Removes more contaminants than most pitched filters (due to increased water pressure). Lasts longer than pitcher filters (3months) Pur Advanced is able to remove71 contaminants including lead, mercury, multiple pesticides, BPA, and estrone. |
Does not remove fluoride, bacteria or viruses. They cannot be installed on faucets with integral pull-out sprayers—only on traditional one-piece faucets. Slow and can leak. Can be damaged if you accidentally run hot tap water through the filter. |
Pur Advanced |
|
Gravity filter |
Composed of two chambers. Contaminated water is poured into the top and runs through filters to the bottom using gravity. Berkey filters are a type of gravity filter with the addition of Black Berky Filters, using including ion exchange and activated carbon technology. Gravity allows water to take several minutes to pass through the filter elements. |
Removes PFAs, PFCs, 97% fluoride, heavy metals, nitrates, pesticides, hormones, pathogens (including viruses) , and most likely microplastics. Keeps essential minerals Does not need electricity. Low maintenance (depending on brands) some only need filter replacing once or twice a year. Filters need changing every 2-5 years (or 22,700 litres) Aesthetically pleasing (personal opinion) |
Berkeys are large - but all come in various sizes - the smallest 7.5inch diameter x 19inches high, largest is 11inches diameter by 31inches high. Does not remove all fluoride. Expensive from $345 - $984 |
Berkey |
|
Under-the-sink / Reverse Osmosis |
Forces water through a semi-permeable membrane for filtration. The reverse osmosis process essentially sifts out particles that are larger than 0.01 micrometres or larger in size, which can include many types of sediment, bacteria, and even fluoride and lead particulates. |
Removal of 95% of fluoride and mercury, 97% of chlorine and arsenic, 99% of lead and asbestos plus 82 additional contaminants (Aquasana OptimH2O® Reverse Osmosis + Claryum® Filter) Other RO filters can remove 100s of substances from tap water with a 99% or higher filtration efficiency rate. Some high-pressure professional RO filters such as Blue Water even claim 99.99%. Removes PFAs and hormones. Filters need replacing every 12months. |
Uses a lot of water - Reverse osmosis units use approximately three- six times as much water as they treat. Removes healthy minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium and sodium - will need readdition. Requires professional maintenance to ensure effectiveness and safety. Expensive -$400 and $8000+ Needs electricity socket underneath the sink and can be noisy. |
Aquasana OptimH2O |
|
Distillation filters |
Water is boiled, and then the water vapour enters a cooling system, where it is cooled and converted into water. This water then passes through an active charcoal filter. |
Removes all fluoride and chlorine from the water, as well as a host of other organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals and biological contaminants, including hormones. |
Information about removing PFAs lacking. The filter is designed to be used for four weeks if you are doing one distillation a day. For the distiller heating system to work properly, it is recommended to clean the boiling tank once a month (or more often, depending on the frequency of use) from limescale and other deposits. Needs electricity. Expensive $600 |
WaterLovers Advanced Design Water Distiller Megahome |
|
UV filters |
UV bulb is submerged in drinking water and UV radiation eliminates pathogens. |
Effectively eliminates pathogens. Uses no filter, and thus no need to change the filter. |
Are infective against all other toxins and impurities apart from pathogens. Uses electricity. Water needs to be pre-filtered and clear first. Expensive - $400 |
Finerfilters |
Berkey a scam?
Just before going out and purchasing my very own Berkey filter, I was told by @ResilientDad on Twitter to read a website called - https://truthaboutfluoride.com/berkey-water-filter-scam/ . On this page, the author does some independent testing of water after going through the Berkey filter and notes that the level of aluminium increased after filtering water. They note that to remove fluoride, Berkey uses a type of aluminium called aluminium oxide, also known as activated alumina. They also note that aluminium oxide is not natural for human consumption, is not tested enough, needs more research and may not be good for our health.
I was a little bummed out hearing this news. So to find out answers from the other side I gave Berkey an email.
They emailed back quickly and verified that their filters use aluminium oxide (aka activated alumina) - however, they have noted that aluminium oxide is not water-soluble; it is inert, is very stable and is not associated with negative health effects.
A quick read-through of a scientific review agrees with their claims.
Obviously, a company will refute claims made against them, so do your own research before purchasing. Though a hassle, it may even be worth testing the water professionally before and after filtration (and multiple times) whichever filter you go for.
I think I personally will be going for a Berkey filter for all the reasons mentioned above. Though not independently certified to NSF/ANSI standards like other filters, the manufactures claims are undeniably impressive. Plus Berkley has a strong international following too.
I also give thanks to @BioavailableNd, who advised increasing the consumption of ascorbic acid, and flavonoids like Quercetin which support aluminium chelation. Additionally, aluminium can interact and mimic zinc, so make sure to improve any zinc deficiency.
We’ll see how it goes, and I will make sure to keep you updated if I face any problems.
If you enjoy my content, wish to learn more and would like to support me, why not become a Patron? For £5 a month you’ll get exclusive membership-only evidence-based content and even behind-the-scenes info too. Our growing community would love to have you. To sign up, click the button below. Thank you.