Safe drinking water

Safe drinking water is a human right, yet millions of people drink water unknowably contaminated with dangerous substances. With the prevalence of toxic tap water, questions about the water governance and the capacity of regulatory agencies to protect public health are critical. Excluded people, especially low-income communities and communities of color, frequently suffer outdated water management practices and have disproportionate water quality risks (Deen A et al.). Besides, emerging contaminants like agricultural runoff, skincare, and pharmaceuticals increasingly contaminate drinking water supplies and hinder the efforts to maintain clean water (Crane et al.). The complex relationships involving socio-economics, environmental justice, and water quality bring us to question the real situation of our drinking water. This essay aims to explain the multifaceted problems of toxic tap water with a focus on its health and equity effects.

The availability of clean drinking water is essential for preserving health, but still it is not guaranteed for every community in the world. However, people are consuming tap water generally believed to be safe and convenient. However, tap water quality issues might be concealed. Studies show that “improved sources” of water, including regions with municipal tap systems, are generally associated with lower fecal contamination compared to unimproved sources. Still, serious risks exist with these improved sources. Indeed, such sources of drinking water have more than a 25% of samples with harmful bacteria, explaining the regional and setting differences in the feeling of tap water safety (Bain et al.). Besides, microns of nutrients and dietary intake also influence the body’s ability to cope with drinking water contaminants, bringing to attention the complex connections between water quality and general health (Monroy-Torres et al.). Thus, therefore, analyzing the critical state of drinking water requires examining what really happens in the palaces of tap water consumption.

The scope of contaminants in tap water is vividly illustrated by two types of studies, namely, those that show risk to human health and those that focus on sources of contamination as either farms or urban areas. More and more emerging organic groundwater contaminants (EGCs) like pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products appear in the statutory anthropogenic sector of drinking water supplies. Remarkably, a vast number of the identified contaminants, including caffeine and nicotine, are small polar molecules and are very difficult to remove using traditional treatment procedures (Crane et al.). The adverse effects of the contaminants are not limited to fears exclusively believed to exist in the aesthetic value of water but also affect humans’ health and environmental impacts. Organic chemicals in water are associated with potential health problems. Water contamination with organic chemicals can also trigger environmental problems (“Drinking Water Quality in the United States.”). The brunt of this water safety issue falls mainly upon poor communities and people of color, who experience systemic obstacles in accessing uncontaminated water because of unequal water governance. Thus, the need to address this issue with appropriate policy measures becomes even more urgent (Deen A et al.).

Prevalence of Contaminants in U.S. Tap Water

Harmful substances contoured in drinking water is a global health issue without borders. Among the range of poison provoked, the emerging organic groundwater contaminants (EGCs) are top concern problem due to the increasing numbers and detection complex problems. The EGCs are found commonly in pesticides, drugs, and skincare maintenance products that are not easy to remove through traditional water extraction methods due to the small polar molecules (Crane et al.). Moreover, heavy metals such as nickel also act as a vital contaminant driver. Because nickel is necessary for several biological functions, higher concentrations were observed from food and water sources, which can potentially lead to hilights socio-economic groups. Thus, removal of these contaminations through water purification is important to clean the drinking water and potentially reduce public health risks.

People take access to clean drinking water for granted. Yet, this does not prevent the triggering of the public health crises. Toxicant exposures that probably affect human reproductive health are well the example of PFAS. Records suggest the decrease in the number of oocyte viability in female mice that are subjected to the contaminated water with suspected toxicants. Moreover, lead in drinking water is alarmingly associated with children following cognitive deficit in childhood. IQ and academic performance are significantly decreased and problem-solving skills are lowered as well as attention disorder, aggression, and hyperactivity in children are raised due to childhood lead exposure (Flint Water Crisis). Such health burdens are intensified in underexposed communities, which are vulnerable to contaminated water due to the existing systemic discrimination and structures. Thus, water management process should be planned in such a way to promote community participation and protect the health of people.

The chart illustrates the public health risks posed by PFAS contamination and lead paint in the United States. It highlights that 99 percent of the population has detectable levels of PFAS, 80 percent of military bases exhibit PFAS contamination, and 30 percent of housing built before 1978 contains lead-based paint. This representation emphasizes the widespread nature of these environmental hazards that impact public health.

The effects associated with poor water conditions have repeatedly been shown to affect people well beyond their enemies; hereby revealing the true impact on public health. When short-term contamination of running water countries exhibits gastrointestinal disorder and skin irritations as symptoms to expect; however, a chronic exposure leads potentially to risk factors with worse consequences. Rise of lead in drinking water and arsenic in human body through periodic contamination leads to severe public health issues like neurodevelopmental delays in children and a higher incidence of cancer as adults. For instance, the case study of Flint, Michigan, the lead exposure crisis exposes the negligence of the governmental body, which can accentuate the risks and produce permanent consequences for the people affected (Bayon et al.). The presence of lead in drinking water systems across 42 states presents a problem that demands a permanent solution to support those affected. The realization of immediate and chronic health effects of toxins in drinking water acquires a tremendous role in policy formulation and shielding public health.

So, the timeframe in which the policy effect is measured is critical in judging policy performance. For example, the Flint water crisis and the widespread existence of arsenic in Texas are typical experiences that nourish the need for utmost public awareness of pollutants presented in drinking water. Failure to make citizens aware of the dangers will consequently result in impacts on their health and loss of trust in governments (Russ A et al.). Innovation, for example, adoption of silver ions in purification processes, proves that there are sustainable methods that work effectively; however, this should be a thing that is widely applied and accessible to at-risk population (Adler et al.). In the end, the combined effort from both the political structure and the general public with the aim of providing everyone with a basic human right, access to safe and clean water, will resolve the challenging problems that drinking water face.

Safe drinking water accessibility is one of the most important challenges that the existential world faces today. Since the quality of water is correlational to public health, it is important to understand the impact of water quality on people’s health. Several studies show that while access to sources of better drinking water almost eradicated the risk of contamination, still the truth is appalling; above 25% samples from sources classified as improved have still a fecal contamination problem, especially in rural and low-income neighborhoods (Bain et al.). This situation emphasizes the importance of enough advocacy work to be done for the improvement of the drinking water standards, which not only classify the sources as improved or unimproved but also consider the quality of the drinking water supply as a critical component. For instance, the growing number of toxicants like PFAS, using better monitoring and controlling code will help lobby to the higher degrading of local communities’ health. This continuous effort is necessary to protect the people from the imminent dangers to these systems as a whole and also develop long-term public faith in water systems (N/A).

Mirabelle Lu