Sludge Watch ==> News Week - Rivers of Doubt - where are the male fish?

[Maureen Reilly]

NOTE: This is a long and illustrated story...so you may want to read it on 
line


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881799/site/newsweek/page/0/

Rivers of Doubt
Minute quantities of everyday contaminants in our drinking supply could add 
up to big trouble.

Justin Newhall for Newsweek
Up to His Knees: Schoenfuss captures fish for study in the Grindstone River 
near Hinckley, Minn., \



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Drought, Pollution, Politics Spark Water Crisis
  Rivers of Doubt
  Climate: Get Out Your Handkerchiefs
  How to Design a Healthier Planet


By Anne Underwood
Newsweek
June 4, 2007 issue


- The common white sucker is nobody's favorite fish. It's a bottom feeder 
that trout fishermen in Colorado happily toss back into the water. But it's 
also what scientists call a sentinel¡ªa species whose health (or lack 
thereof) can warn us about problems in the environment. So imagine the 
reaction of environmental endocrinologist David O. Norris of the University 
of Colorado when he discovered some alarming changes in the sucker 
population of Boulder Creek. Upstream, where the water flows pure and clear 
out of the Rocky Mountains, the ratio of males to females is 50-50, just as 
nature intended. Downstream, below the wastewater-treatment plant in 
Boulder, the females outnumber the males by 5 to 1. Even more worrisome, 
Norris found that about 10 percent of the fish were neither clearly male nor 
female, but had sexual characteristics of both. "On the one hand, we were 
excited [to make such a dramatic finding]," says Norris. "At the same time, 
we were appalled."

Story continues below ¡ý
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's something fishy in the nation's water supply. True, its quality has 
improved dramatically since passage of the Clean Water Act in the 1970s. 
Toxic substances and pollutants are now routinely filtered out. But across 
the nation, something's causing disturbing effects on aquatic wildlife. In a 
search for culprits, scientists are zeroing in on a group of compounds they 
call "emerging contaminants," including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and 
antibacterial soaps. Although we like to think that these compounds 
disappear when we wash them down the drain or flush them down the toilet, a 
lot of them are clearly ending up in water. Could they possibly affect human 
health? At this point, no one knows for sure. "We have lots of questions, 
but very few answers," says environmental chemist Christian Daughton at the 
Environmental Protection Agency.

Scientists aren't worried about any one of these chemicals in isolation. 
Most are found in minute doses, if they're found at all. Toxicologist Amy 
Perbeck at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality calculated that 
the levels of ibuprofen in Michigan drinking water were so low that a person 
would have to consume 17,000 gallons to get the amount in one pill. But new 
technology is allowing scientists to screen for mere traces of compounds, 
down to levels that were previously undetectable¡ªand they find just about 
everything they look for. A 2002 study by the U.S. Geological Survey 
detected such compounds in 80 percent of the 139 streams it examined, many 
of which were downstream from urban areas. None of the chemicals on its own 
appears to be toxic at minuscule doses. "But what happens when a person is 
exposed to a whole cocktail of them?" asks Perbeck.

The emerging compounds of greatest concern to most scientists are the 
"endocrine disrupters." These are chemicals in the environment that mimic 
hormones when they get into the body. An astonishing array of chemicals fall 
into this category¡ªnot only natural and synthetic hormones, but also 
chemicals in certain cosmetics, shampoos, shaving lotions, skin creams, 
dishwashing liquids, pesticides, flame retardants, plastics and 
antibacterial soaps. Like actual hormones, "they have effects at exceedingly 
low levels," says Herb Buxton, coordinator of the Toxic Substances Hydrology 
Program at the USGS. Because so many of them bind to a certain type of 
receptor in the body¡ªwhether for estrogens, androgens or thyroid 
hormones¡ªthe effects add up.

Judging by fish populations, the result isn't good. Scientists have found 
"feminized" male fish in the Mississippi, Ohio, Allegheny, Monongahela, 
Shenandoah and Potomac rivers. Unlike the abnormal Boulder Creek fish, which 
had both ovaries and testes, most of these fish are clearly males. But their 
testes contain some ovarian tissue that produces immature eggs, and their 
livers are producing egg-yolk proteins. In lab studies, scientists have also 
shown that male fish exposed to estrogenic compounds during early 
development have lower sperm counts and worrisome behavioral changes. In one 
experiment, Heiko Schoenfuss, head of the aquatic-toxicology lab at St. 
Cloud State University in Minnesota, exposed male fathead minnows early in 
life to estrogenic chemicals called alkylphenols (which come from some 
common industrial and household cleaners)¡ªand discovered that as adults, 
they failed to defend their territory. The result? They were unable to 
reproduce successfully because they allowed other males to invade their 
nesting areas and eat their offspring.

Put it all together, and scientists worry that endocrine disrupters could 
cause declines in fish populations. In a paper last week in the Proceedings 
of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of Canadian and American 
scientists reported the collapse of the fathead-minnow population in a 
Canadian test lake after low levels of a potent synthetic estrogen were 
intentionally introduced. In the first year, researchers saw the same kind 
of feminization of male fish observed in the United States. The next year, 
says lead author Karen Kidd of the University of New Brunswick, they 
documented the "near extinction of this species from the lake."


Justin Newhall for Newsweek
Gone Fishin': Schoenfuss's team taking samples
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


People, thankfully, are less vulnerable than fish, because we don't live and 
breathe in water. To date, there is no conclusive evidence linking emerging 
contaminants to human health problems. But scientists wonder if endocrine 
disrupters in the water are partially responsible for some well-documented 
trends, including earlier puberty in girls and reduced sperm counts in men. 
In fish, sperm problems have been linked to waterborne contaminants, 
including phthalates, which are used in many plastics, cosmetics, skin-care 
products and pesticides. Reproductive epidemiologist Russ Hauser at Harvard 
has found an association in men between certain phthalates in their urine 
and low sperm counts¡ªalthough he notes that there are multiple routes of 
exposure in people, including direct absorption through the skin from 
after-shaves and colognes. Water is only one of many sources. As Devra Lee 
Davis, director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Environmental 
Oncology, sees it, humans are exposed to so many things over a lifetime that 
it's hard to prove connections¡ªbut problems in wildlife should be a 
warning. "We have to stop treating people like lab rats in an uncontrolled 
experiment and start figuring out ways to reduce our exposures," she says.

So how can we keep these chemicals out of the water supply? No one is 
suggesting that we give up medicines or mascara. There are, however, a few 
commonsense measures we could take. Look for phthalate-free deodorants and 
body lotions. The Environmental Working Group has a list on its Web site. 
Stop using antibacterial soaps. Numerous studies have found that washing 
with regular soap is just as effective. And learn how to dispose of drugs 
properly. Most shouldn't be flushed. Some municipalities will even dispose 
of them along with hazardous waste.

If you're truly worried about drinking water, the answer isn't bottled 
water, which in many cases is just bottled tap water¡ªand requires large 
amounts of energy to transport. Consumer devices for removing contaminants 
include charcoal filters, tabletop water distillers and purification units 
that use reverse osmosis. They can all take out a wide variety of chemicals. 
The fish should be so lucky.