Regulatory Compliance

Joe Rogan Wades Into Fluoridated Water

Few public figures bring controversy to otherwise mundane subjects more than Joe Rogan, host of the chart-topping podcast The Joe Rogan Experience, claiming 14.9 million subscribers. A recently released episode of his show touched on a subject most people would flee from had it come up in conversation at a party, lest they be hemorrhaged by boredom: municipal tap water. More specifically the use of fluoride in the vast majority of America’s drinking water.

In the podcast, released early September on his exclusive platform Spotify, Rogan questioned the need, and even the motive behind the use of fluoride in the general public’s main source of hydration. “There’s some real disputes about fluoride in the water” the ex-Fear Factor host remarked “Exposure to fluoride lowers your IQ… it literally makes you dumber. How much better is it than brushing your teeth? We’re forcing people to take care of their teeth and everybody else is going to lose IQ points?”

While he couches these statements with his customary “I’m not entirely informed on the matter” disclaimer, he brings up an issue that’s controversy spans decades.

For years fluoride in water has been igniting debates and inquiries into its efficacy, safety, and ethical implications. Dating back to the mid-20th century, the practice of adding fluoride to public water supplies aimed to enhance dental health, but its controversial nature raises serious questions concerning health risks, ethical considerations, and the overall effectiveness of this intervention.

Several studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride exposure, primarily from drinking water, and cognitive function or intelligence quotient (IQ). Worldwide research, and particularly studies conducted in regions with higher naturally occurring fluoride levels in water, has suggested a potential association between elevated fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children.

Within the realm of water treatment, proponents of fluoridation emphasize its potential to significantly reduce dental cavities and tooth decay, particularly in children. Esteemed organizations like the American Dental Association (ADA) and the World Health Organization support it. But critics voice concerns regarding potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to elevated fluoride levels. Skepticism persists concerning the link between excess fluoride intake and health problems such as skeletal fluorosis, prompting a reevaluation of recommended fluoride levels for water treatment processes.

The debate surrounding water fluoridation hinges on a complex weighing of benefits and potential drawbacks. Critics argue that the practice of fluoridating water, despite its intended dental benefits, raises valid concerns regarding individual autonomy and consent. Adding fluoride to a communal water supply essentially amounts to a forced medical intervention affecting everyone, regardless of age, health condition, or informed choice. The lack of personalized dosage and potential overexposure, especially for vulnerable groups like infants and the elderly, is a worrisome aspect. Moreover, considering the availability of alternative fluoride sources such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, some question the necessity of a mass fluoridation approach. As research suggests potential links between fluoride exposure and cognitive health issues, skeptics emphasize the need for a cautious approach. In weighing these factors, they argue for a reconsideration of water fluoridation, advocating for individual agency, informed consent, and a tailored approach to dental health that respects individual rights and minimizes potential health risks.

As Rogan asks: Can’t you just clean your teeth?

Sources: The Joe Rogan Experience (contains explicit language),
Harvard.edu, PubMed, NIDCR.gov

Drinking Water Contamination Incidents: Is Your PR Team Ready?

Desirée Sykes

Most water treatment professionals are used to the day-to-day analysis of water and maintenance that comes with the job. Howbeit, not all are prepared for a drinking water contamination incident such as E.coli. Is your team ready to respond when an emergency strikes?

Unfortunately, this topic hits close to home for me. As a resident of Tyler and customer of TWU, I was quick to learn about a boil notice issued by the City of Tyler for E.coli contamination, and of course, was mildly horrified. The boil notice didn’t last long, though; the city lifted it the following day at 11 am. After talking with other residents and customers of TWU, to my surprise, this was not the first time the city has had water quality issues. Feeling concerned, I reached out to the City and asked if it was normal after E.coli detection in a water sample to only have a 24-hour boil notice for customers?

The City of Tyler released this statement:

“It is not normal for us to have a water sample test positive for E.coli. We take dozens of samples everyday at various points around the City. Those samples got to the North East Texas Public Heath Regional Laboratory in Tyler to be tested according to TCEQ requirements.

The boil water notice had to be issued as the result of a single routine sample site tested showing the presence of e. coli, followed by a repeat sample at the same site in Central Tyler showing the presence of total coliform. E. coli was only found in one sample site out of many tested.

Tyler water meets and exceeds all State and Federal standards. Our water system is safe.”

Famed environmental activist, Erin Brockovich, has long expressed concerns over the safety of the city’s water. In 2015, responding to another TWU water contamination incident, she posted on Facebook that the City was downplaying the incident. City officials were quick to respond to her post, “Our drinking water is the No. 1 priority of this department,” Assistant City Manager Susan Guthrie said. “We followed exactly what TCEQ requires us to do.”

No matter your opinion on the safety of Tyler’s water, the fact remains that the city was quick to respond in both situations. When disaster strikes, water facilities need to be prepared to react assuredly and quickly to ease customers’ minds. To avoid being caught unprepared, the EPA offers this guidance on how to react in situations like these. The City of Tyler followed the guidance of The Distribution System Contamination Response Procedure (DSCRP) outlined by the EPA, does your facility have a plan in place to do the same?

Sources: EPA.gov, City of Tyler, Tyler Morning Telegraph

Flood on the Water: What Increased Flooding Means for Water Treatment Facilities

Nate Talley

In recent years, water treatment professionals across the globe have faced an alarming surge in the frequency and severity of flooding events. These rising tides are causing significant challenges for wastewater treatment facilities. As the demand for effective and resilient wastewater management grows, it is crucial to understand the profound impact flooding has on these critical infrastructure components.

Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, torrential rainfall, and storm surges, have surged over the last decade. These events have made flooding an increasingly common occurrence in both coastal and inland regions. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States has experienced a 20% increase in heavy rainfall events over the last century, with the North East region seeing up to a 55% increase.

One of the most immediate and tangible effects of flooding on wastewater treatment facilities is damage to critical infrastructure. Floodwater can inundate treatment plants, causing electrical systems to short-circuit, damaging pumps and motors, and compromising the structural integrity of facilities. The repair and replacement costs can be astronomical, straining budgets and resources.

Flooding events can overwhelm treatment systems, leading to the release of partially treated or untreated wastewater into water bodies. This discharge can contain a cocktail of pollutants, including bacteria, chemicals, and nutrients, posing significant health and environmental risks. The contamination of water bodies can lead to the spread of waterborne diseases, harm aquatic ecosystems, and impact drinking water sources downstream.

Wastewater treatment plants often rely on a delicate balance of biological processes, chemical treatments, and mechanical components. Flooding can disrupt this delicate equilibrium, leading to operational failures. In some cases, plants may need to be shut down temporarily to prevent further damage, which can lead to service interruptions and reduced capacity during flood events.

As water treatment professionals grapple with the mounting challenges posed by flooding to wastewater treatment facilities, it is imperative to adopt proactive strategies and invest in resilient infrastructure. In doing so, we can safeguard public health, protect the environment, and ensure the continued provision of clean water for our communities. The collective efforts of the water treatment industry will play a pivotal role in addressing this critical issue.

Sources: Tampa Bay Times, Climate.gov

Something’s Rotten in the State of California

Nate Talley

Over the last few years in the heart of the United States-Mexico border region, an international crisis has been steadily gaining momentum, casting a shadow of concern over communities on both sides. The Tijuana River sewage crisis has thrust water treatment professionals into a pivotal role in safeguarding public health and the environment.

For years, the Tijuana River Valley has grappled with sewage pollution. However, recent developments have elevated this issue into a full-blown crisis. Last Tuesday, California Senators Alex Padilla and Dianne Feinstein called on the senate to fund the river’s clean up in an upcoming emergency funding bill, which includes $4 Billion for border issues, as well as $24 Billion for Ukraine and 12 billion for FEMA.

As Tijuana’s population grows, its aging water treatment infrastructure simply cannot keep up with the trash and sewage, as well as heavy rainfall events that can overwhelm the system. Contaminated waters from the Tijuana River flow from Mexico into the United States, affecting San Diego County in California. The sewage pollution in the Tijuana River brings with it an array of health risks. Exposure to harmful. pathogens, toxins, and pollutants in these contaminated waters can lead to a variety of health issues, particularly for those residing near the affected areas. This crisis not only jeopardizes the well-being of residents, but also poses a grave threat to coastal ecosystems, including delicate estuaries and the vast Pacific Ocean.

Governor of California Gavin Newsom has also asked President Joe Biden to free up $300 million of the estimated $650 million it will take to solve the problem; however, he stopped short of declaring an official emergency. “I want to thank President Biden, U.S. EPA, and the IBWC for their commitment to move this critical project forward on expedited timelines. This has been an issue that San Diego communities have dealt with for far too long. It’s an important step forward that the work on this critical project will finally begin.” Newsom said in a Press Release Friday.

Sources: CA.gov, The San Diego Union-Tribune

1 2 34Page 4 of 4

New Study Finds PFAS Contamination Threatens Rural Latinx Communities

PFAS Contamination: A Costly Crisis with a Path to Recovery

The Future of Flow: AI, IoT, and Greener Water Treatment

The Importance of Innovation in the Water Industry: Overcoming Reluctance to Adopt New...

Understanding EPA Effluent Guidelines

Regulatory Compliance

Joe Rogan Wades Into Fluoridated Water

Drinking Water Contamination Incidents: Is Your PR Team Ready?

Flood on the Water: What Increased Flooding Means for Water Treatment Facilities

Something’s Rotten in the State of California