It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Everybody in Los Angeles is a DRUG FIEND

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by Damocles

Originally posted by Damocles
drink up, yer fine.

Sorry I am not as blindly confident as you in regards to the matter.
Truth is studies are just now being formulated about the effects on humans, most science is not even aware of the issue, which means most of the public is even that much more unaware.

Drink up you say? That's what the cigarette lobbyists and cronies told the American public too, 'cept their message was 'Smoke up. May I suggest people not blindly trusting the government consumer and health protection agencies to actually protect our health and welfare.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:47 PM
well, i can respect your apprehension i really can. i wish i was able to share my sources with you on this matter but the fact is that...well, i cant and since id never try to play off as fact something i cant bck up, feel free to take my previous post as an educated opinion. or uneducated if you choose

but, at some point youre going to find something that lists concentrations and when you start thinking of ppb and ppt you'll realize yourself that yorue probably ok

lets put it this drink the water and wouldnt hesitate to let my kids drink it

but since my bloods already full of more drugs than la's water for various medical conditions take that for what its worth. now where i put my smokes?

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:02 PM
►Also of concern is that not only human drugs are found in the water supply, but animal drugs as well. Drugs for livestock, including hormones for increased growth, beef cattle and dairy cattle meds have been found in the water supply. The risks here are that these are drugs that HAVE NOT been approved for humans, and are NOT on any FDA list for human approved ingestion.

In the United States, federal scientists recently began probing another source of drug pollution—large feedlots for livestock. An estimated 40 percent of the antibiotics produced in the United States is fed to livestock as growth enhancers. Geochemist Mike Meyer of the U.S. Geological Survey in Raleigh, N.C., and his colleagues have begun looking for antibiotics in hog-waste lagoons.

SO not only do we have the potential issues of mixing drugs together, along with the exposure of all people, young and old, male and female, pregnant or not, but now exposure to animal meds as well. Also, since these antibiotics (from livestock *slaps head*) are being transported to streams and waterways, the question arises, "What of the bacteria and viruses exposed to this antibiotic on a regular basis, 24 hours a day?"

It is possible, in my mind that, these bacteria and virus may be forming resistances to certain antibiotics, not only from animal meds but human ones as well. These is just yet another issue concerning pharmaceuticals in out water. Genetic mutations of these bacteria and virus can occur as well.

Here's some stuff I found:

Waterways Carry Antibiotic Resistance

By J. Raloff

Wild birds harbor and may transmit drug resistance.

Bacteria that have developed immunity to antibiotic drugs pose a large and growing threat to the success of modern medicine. Three studies now find that U.S. rivers have become a major reservoir of such microbes.

Tainted water probably explains the resistant bacteria in wild Canada geese living year-round in Chicago's suburbs, says Monica L. Tischler of Benedictine University in Lisle, Ill. From goose feces, she isolated 179 types of bacteria, many of which showed strong resistance to streptomycin, erythromycin, vancomycin, tetracycline, and penicillin-family drugs. Resistance rates ranged from 2 to 100 percent, depending on the microbe and antibiotic tested.

Good article, suggested reading..

[edit on 5-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:29 PM
I think this is a rational and great reason to petition the companies we work for, to install filters on the water fountains.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:43 PM
This is just one more example of how everything "healthy" in our modern society is in fact slowly poisoning us. MSG in our fast food (and much of our store bought food as well), Aspartame in our diet drinks, Mercury in our fish, Flouride in our water (which by the way is very bad for your teeth), hormones and ground animal parts fed to cows in our milk... the list is quite literally endless.

Isnt it about time we do something about this?

Why is this story going to become just another footnote to be ignored by the masses (like the other above examples)??

At the very least, dont we live in a time period of 'hightened awareness of homeland security"?? Why isnt this seen as an attack upon our water supply?? (even if it isnt, it cant be counted out as a factor until and unless its checked out and verified).

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by battlestargalactica

I hear ya! But drug fiend to me implies that people are desiring of drugs and actively seeking them out. That was the point I was trying to illustrate. I do have to agree with goosedawg about Venice, California! Its pretty bad in several areas. It was just the blanket statement that got to me.

Was this your way of attraction attention to your brilliantly researched thread?

I would love some links on natural resources as I am trying to convert my health back to nature's intention.

Also as I said I do not seek out pharmaceutical drugs or street drugs...Just an FYI

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:02 PM
This idea that "these drugs are in such minute amounts not to affect people or animals."

These [color=gold]fish have an issue with that statement..

Here's what the fish have to say in a Colorado Fish study conducted in 2004 on three stream systems there,, what they found was shocking to the researchers:

• Fish display both MALE and FEMALE characteristics

• Male fish developed female sex organs

• Female fish seen to outnumber male fish 5 to 1 and..

• 50% of those lonely males (from above) also had some female traits.

These are fish from a Colorado study in 2004. A study of three different stream and river systems. Researchers have found lots these male to female fish and other anomalies there as well in their study.

...And scientists have found lots of them in three Colorado rivers, all of them downstream from sewage treatment plants.

Researchers say the cause is too much estrogen in the water, a natural female hormone that is found in every sewer system. But also, they say, certain chemical compounds in detergents and soaps can mimic estrogen.

Barbara Biggs, of Denver's largest sewage plant, says most of the nation's sewage plants simply can t remove all the estrogen in the water.

Researcher John Woodling:

"I've done a lot of studies throughout my career which extends back to 1973," says research associate John Woodling. “This is the very first time that what I've found scared me."

Question is are we ingesting these compounds that turn males to females? Yep (said that with a high voice).

Here is a video of the report:

[edit on 5-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:03 PM
reply to post by Grock

well about the attack on our watersupply...i also see your concern but regardless of the govts fearmongering our water supply is the last thing we'd need to fear of attack.

to poison the water they need something that can withstand the filtration and still be viable but they need something that 1ppb will kill you.

they'd need to drive dozens of tanker trucks to a resevoir to even get it to make anyone nice to think someone would notice that

its all about concentrations

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:11 PM
I don't know if this has already been posted or not, but also the nation's fish population is being effected as well.

Pharmaceuticals in the water are being blamed for severe reproductive problems in many types of fish: The endangered razorback sucker and male fathead minnow have been found with lower sperm counts and damaged sperm; some walleyes and male carp have become what are called feminized fish, producing egg yolk proteins typically made only by females.

Meanwhile, female fish have developed male genital organs. Also, there are skewed sex ratios in some aquatic populations, and sexually abnormal bass that produce cells for both sperm and eggs.

There are problems with other wildlife as well: kidney failure in vultures, impaired reproduction in mussels, inhibited growth in algae.

After just seven weeks, male fathead minnows began producing yolk proteins, their gonads shrank, and their behavior was feminized - they fought less, floating passively. They also stopped reproducing, resulting in "ultimately, a near extinction of this species from the lake," said the scientists.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by spec_ops_wannabe]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by Damocles

Consider this concerning toxity levels and concentrations of a compound (in this case pharmaceuticals) in water (or any ingestion item by humans):

Aflatoxin toxicity
Aflatoxin levels greater than 20 ppb constitute contaminated corn by the FDA. This is the maximum level that grain can contain when fed to dairy cattle. The aflatoxin level acceptable in milk is 0.5 ppb.

But the problem with pharmaceuticals in water is not toxicity, because these drugs were MEANT to be ingested by humans (regulated by physicians and with a prescription). So the toxicity numbers are for people that are approved as supposedly being safe for. Trouble of course occurs when people NOT approved for a certain drug are given it, as well as drugs interacting in unknown ways with this cocktail of other drugs (including meds meant for animals).

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

now this isnt too far of a are smaller than humans so smaller concentrations are going to be bad...additionally they are constantly in it so the concentrations are going to pass through them more rapidly than any of us would consume them.

this is IMO more an area of concern than for us to drink the water

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

Good post have not seen that, will check it out. I did find the White Suckerfish study in Colorado that I posted above..


EDIT:Got an access denied message on that link, you have another one?
This one works:

[edit on 5-4-2008 by battlestargalactica]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by battlestargalactica

Snipped from your OP:

• Arlington, Texas: 1 (unspecified pharmaceutical)
• Atlanta: 3 (acetaminophen, caffeine and cotinine)
• Cincinnati: 1 (caffeine)
• Columbus, Ohio: 5 (azithromycin, roxithromycin, tylosin, virginiamycin and caffeine)
• Concord, Calif.: 2 (meprobamate and sulfamethoxazole)
• Denver: (unspecified antibiotics)
• Detroit: (unspecified drugs)
• Indianapolis: 1 (caffeine)
• Las Vegas: 3 (carbamazepine, meprobamate and phenytoin)
• Long Beach, Calif.: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin)
• Los Angeles: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin)
• Louisville, Ky.: 3 (caffeine, carbamazepine and phenytoin)
• Milwaukee: 1 (cotinine)
• Minneapolis: 1 (caffeine)
• New Orleans: 3 (clofibric acid, estrone and naproxen)
• Northern New Jersey: 7 (caffeine, carbamazepine, codeine, cotinine, dehydronifedipine, diphenhydramine and sulfathiazole)
• Philadelphia: 56 (including amoxicillin, azithromycin, carbamazepine, diclofenac, prednisone and tetracycline)
• Portland, Ore.: 4 (acetaminophen, caffeine, ibuprofen and sulfamethoxazole)
• Riverside County, Calif.: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin)
• San Diego: 3 (ibuprofen, meprobamate and phenytoin)
• San Francisco: 1 (estradiol)
• Southern California: 2 (meprobamate and phenytoin)
• Tucson, Ariz.: 3 (carbamazepine, dehydronifedipine and sulfamethoxazole)
• Washington, D.C.: 6 (carbamazepine, caffeine, ibuprofen, monensin, naproxen and sulfamethoxazole)

It would appear to me that an army is being prepared. Certain areas are given "amphetamines/stimulants" and others are given "depressants/relaxants"

My paranoid and conspiratorial mind is telling me we are going to be pitted against each other at some point. Perhaps my reading between the lines is not very healthy for my ability to formulate an opinion. Something tells me I am getting the picture though.

What do you think?

PS- I love your thread about Businesses being prepped for martial law:

Also of note is the fact that businesses who do not comply or show interest seem to go out of business a lot these days- and they are really good businesses too!

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by battlestargalactica

Edit: Yeah, that was the article that I found originally. The one you listed yourselfon Google.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by spec_ops_wannabe]

[edit on 5-4-2008 by spec_ops_wannabe]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:25 PM
reply to post by dk3000

Yes it is interesting, but in some cases you can sort of correlate the drug in that city to the citys attributes. For instance San Francisco has a high concentration of gay/lesbian residents, hence the estrogen hormone.

On the other hand you can also argue that the city being exposed to the estrogen is what causes and continues to affect the population and the high number of gay/lesbian people there.

I have not compiled a list from the cities there of all of the drugs and their uses yet because I'm researching effects and toxicity and such, want to try your hand at it? Anyone?

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:06 PM
Still nothing on the concentration. Can't you just get a water quality report? (I got mine a couple weeks ago)

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Johnmike
Still nothing on the concentration. Can't you just get a water quality report? (I got mine a couple weeks ago)

A water report will list things like:

Sodium, chlorine, copper, flouride (if you're lucky)..basically salts and metals in the report. Possibly contaminants such as pcb's pesticides, petroleum etc.

What it won't have are pharmaceuticals. Can you post a copy of your report (with person data blanked out)?

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by battlestargalactica
reply to post by dk3000

I have not compiled a list from the cities there of all of the drugs and their uses yet because I'm researching effects and toxicity and such, want to try your hand at it? Anyone?

No thank you, sir. I am concentrating my efforts in other endeavors. I rely on your data as being accurate for me. I truly appreciate the work you are doing

My glib entry into this thread was to build up steam to glean a readers digest view which was backed up by your data- also to let you know that blanket statement headlines might throw off a member who could use this information.

I would change the headline to American city water supplies are turning people into drug fiends without them realizing it.

But that's just me trying to help.

Hell, I even thought you were the new Conspiracy Master at one point- I didn't post it- but I thought it!

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:24 PM
Found a source report for an EXTENSIVE water testing study conducted during 2 1/2 years in 42 states on over 22million samples tested. Finding are that 141 chemicals have no health limits set by the org that is meant to protect population in the US, the EPA. These are not harmless chemicals either, some are serious threats to humans in any concentration, others are cancer causing compounds.

A National Assessment of Tap Water Quality
More than 140 contaminants with no enforceable safety limits found in the nation's drinking water

Utilities need more money to monitor for contaminants
and protect source waters

Environmental Working Group
December 20, 2005

Executive Summary

Tap water in 42 states is contaminated with more than 140 unregulated chemicals that lack safety standards, according to the Environmental Working Group's (EWG's) two-and-a-half year investigation of water suppliers' tests of the treated tap water served to communities across the country.

In an analysis of more than 22 million tap water quality tests, most of which were required under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, EWG found that water suppliers across the U.S. detected 260 contaminants in water served to the public. One hundred forty-one (141) of these detected chemicals — more than half — are unregulated; public health officials have not set safety standards for these chemicals, even though millions drink them every day.

The 141 remaining chemicals without health-based limits contaminate water served to 195,257,000 people in 22,614 communities in 42 states.

The statistics reported here represent an underestimate of the scope of consumers' exposures to unregulated contaminants in the nation's tap water.

• Of the 141 unregulated contaminants utilities detected in water supplies between 1998 and 2003, 52 are linked to cancer, 41 to reproductive toxicity, 36 to developmental toxicity, and 16 to immune system damage, according to chemical listings in seven standard government and industry toxicity references. Despite the potential health risks, any concentration of these chemicals in tap water is legal, no matter how high.

• For 64 of the unregulated contaminants found in tap water, the government has not yet recommended unenforceable, health-based limits in tap water, let alone set an enforceable safety standard. For 46 of these chemicals, no health information whatsoever is available in standard government and academic references.

• Altogether, the unregulated chemicals that pollute public tap water supplies include the gasoline additive MTBE; the rocket fuel component perchlorate; at least 15 chemical by-products of water disinfection; four industrial plasticizers called phthalates linked to birth defects and reproductive toxicity; 78 chemicals used in industrial and consumer products; and 20 chemical pollutants from gasoline, coal, and other fuel combustion.

Will it get any better in the near future the way things are?

According to the EPA, the nation's water utilities will need an estimated $53 billion in investments for water treatment over the next 20 years, to meet safety standards for water polluted with the chemicals that EPA has failed to control upstream (EPA 2005e). This investment is not designed to vastly improve tap water qualityit's set to ensure that water suppliers can continue to meet current standards.

List of contaminants:

Unfortuneatley no pharmaceuticals look to be on that list, due to the study not testing for these at the time (2005).
That said, the concentrations of some of the compounds show that even small amounts in the parts-per-bilion range are charge for failure of the test samples.

For instance, Prometon, used in farming, factory farms and such, runs off and enters the water table. This is an unregulated compound, meaning NOT that it's safe, but that NO limits have yet been set by the EPA. Measured amounts found in test samples are on average UNDER 1.0 ppb (parts-per-billion). A minute amount, yet cause for concern to be found in our drinking water.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:35 PM
If I both found it and had a scanner.

But it did list agricultural waste products or something if I remember correctly. Really though we need to find the concentration of these drugs before we do anything else.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by Johnmike]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in