How we treat catchment water to make it safe to drink
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Most of us are fortunate that, when we turn on the tap, clean, safe and high-quality water comes out.
But a senate inquiry into the presence of PFAS or “forever chemicals” is putting the safety of our drinking water back in the spotlight.
Lidia Thorpe, the independent senator leading the inquiry, says Elders in the Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay in New South Wales are “buying bottled water out of their aged care packages” due to concerns about the health impacts of PFAS in their drinking water.
So, how is water deemed safe to drink in Australia? And why does water quality differ in some areas?
Here’s what happens between a water catchment and your tap.
Human intervention in the water cycle
There is no “new” water on Earth. The water we drink can be up to 4.5 billion years old and is continuously recycled through the hydrological cycle. This transfers water from the ground to the atmosphere through evaporation and back again (for example, through rain).
Humans interfere with this natural cycle by trapping and redirecting water from various sources to use. A lot happens before it reaches your home.
The quality of the water when you turn on the tap depends on a range of factors, including the local geology, what kind of activities happen in catchment areas, and the different treatments used to process it.
How do we decide what’s safe?
The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines define what is considered safe, good-quality drinking water.
The guidelines set acceptable water quality values for more than 250 physical, chemical and bacterial contaminants. They take into account any potential health impact of drinking the contaminant over a lifetime as well as aesthetics – the taste and colour of the water.
The guidelines are not mandatory but provide the basis for determining if the quality of water to be supplied to consumers in all parts of Australia is safe to drink. The guidelines undergo rolling revision to ensure they represent the latest scientific evidence.
From water catchment to tap
Australians’ drinking water mainly comes from natural catchments. Sources include surface water, groundwater and seawater (via desalination).
Public access to these areas is typically limited to preserve optimal water quality.
Filtration and purification of water occurs naturally in catchments as it passes through soil, sediments, rocks and vegetation.
But catchment water is subject to further treatment via standard processes that typically focus on:
- removing particulates (for example, soil and sediment)
- filtration (to remove particles and their contaminants)
- disinfection (for example, using chlorine and chloramine to kill bacteria and viruses)
- adding fluoride to prevent tooth decay
- adjusting pH to balance the chemistry of the water and to aid filtration.
This water is delivered to our taps via a reticulated system – a network of underground reservoirs, pipes, pumps and fittings.
In areas where there is no reticulated system, drinking water can also be sourced from rainwater tanks. This means the quality of drinking water can vary.
Sources of contamination can come from roof catchments feeding rainwater tanks as well from the tap due to lead in plumbing fittings and materials.
So, does all water meet these standards?
Some rural and remote areas, especially First Nations communities, rely on poor-quality surface water and groundwater for their drinking water.
Rural and regional water can exceed recommended guidelines for salt, microbial contaminants and trace elements, such as lead, manganese and arsenic.
The federal government and other agencies are trying to address this.
There are many impacts of poor regional water quality. These include its implication in elevated rates of tooth decay in First Nations people. This occurs when access to chilled, sugary drinks is cheaper and easier than access to good quality water.
What about PFAS?
There is also renewed concern about the presence of PFAS or “forever” chemicals in drinking water.
Recent research examining the toxicity of PFAS chemicals along with their presence in some drinking water catchments in Australia and overseas has prompted a recent assessment of water source contamination.
A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) proposed lowering the limits for four PFAS chemicals in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFBS.
The review used publicly available data and found most drinking water supplies are currently below the proposed new guideline values for PFAS.
However, “hotspots” of PFAS remain where drinking water catchments or other sources (for example, groundwater) have been impacted by activities where PFAS has been used in industrial applications. And some communities have voiced concerns about an association between elevated PFAS levels in their communities and cancer clusters.
While some PFAS has been identified as carcinogenic, it’s not certain that PFAS causes cancer. The link is still being debated.
Importantly, assessment of exposure levels from all sources in the population shows PFAS levels are falling meaning any exposure risk has also reduced over time.
How about removing PFAS from water?
Most sources of drinking water are not associated with industrial contaminants like PFAS. So water sources are generally not subject to expensive treatment processes, like reverse osmosis, that can remove most waterborne pollutants, including PFAS. These treatments are energy-intensive and expensive and based on recent water quality assessments by the NHMRC will not be needed.
While contaminants are everywhere, it is the dose that makes the poison. Ultra-low concentrations of chemicals including PFAS, while not desirable, may not be harmful and total removal is not warranted.
Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University; Antti Mikkonen, Principal Health Risk Advisor – Chemicals, EPA Victoria, and PhD graduate, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, and Minna Saaristo, Research Affiliate in the School of Biological Sciences, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Ideal Blood Pressure Numbers Explained
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝Maybe I missed it but the study on blood pressure did it say what the 2 numbers should read ideally?❞
We linked it at the top of the article rather than including it inline, as we were short on space (and there was a chart rather than a “these two numbers” quick answer), but we have a little more space today, so:
Category Systolic (mm Hg) Diastolic (mm Hg) Normal < 120 AND < 80 Elevated 120 – 129 AND < 80 Stage 1 – High Blood Pressure 130 – 139 OR 80 – 89 Stage 2 – High Blood Pressure 140 or higher OR 90 or higher Hypertensive Crisis Above 180 AND/OR Above 120 To oversimplify for a “these two numbers” answer, under 120/80 is generally considered good, unless it is under 90/60, in which case that becomes hypotension.
Hypotension, the blood pressure being too low, means your organs may not get enough oxygen and if they don’t, they will start shutting down.
To give you an idea how serious this, this is the closed-circuit equivalent of the hypovolemic shock that occurs when someone is bleeding out onto the floor. Technically, bleeding to death also results in low blood pressure, of course, hence the similarity.
So: just a little under 120/80 is great.
Share This Post
-
Teen Daily Delivery Requested
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
I thoroughly enjoy your daily delivery. I’d love to see one for teens too!
That’s great to hear! The average age of our subscribers is generally rather older, but it’s good to know there’s an interest in topics for younger people. We’ll bear that in mind, and see what we can do to cater to that without alienating our older readers!
That said: it’s never too soon to be learning about stuff that affects us when we’re older—there are lifestyle factors at 20 that affect Alzheimer’s risk at 60, for example (e.g. drinking—excessive drinking at 20* is correlated to higher Alzheimer’s risk at 60).
*This one may be less of an issue for our US readers, since the US doesn’t have nearly as much of a culture of drinking under 21 as some places. Compare for example with general European practices of drinking moderately from the mid-teens, or the (happily, diminishing—but historically notable) British practice of drinking heavily from the mid-teens.
Share This Post
-
The Gut Revolution – by Dr. Christine Bishara
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
You may be wondering: what sets this apart from other books about gut health?
And one answer is: the author discusses her own published study, with regard to the connection between a deficiency in Bifidobacterium sp., and COVID infection risk/severity. However, this is not an entire book to say “supplement Bifidobacterium sp.”; rather, there are many other things at hand too.
And indeed, supplementing with probiotics will be useless if your gut is not an environment conducive to them thriving. If you take probiotics on an otherwise “Standard American Diet”, then this is approximately the equivalent of paradropping firefighters naked into a raging fire. It will not help. It isn’t the thought that counts.
Instead, Dr. Bishara talks us through what is required for beneficial gut bacteria to thrive, and how to go about making our gut an ideal place for them. In return, they will produce important biochemical metabolites for us, they will improve our immune response, regulate our emotions, help us maintain a healthy weight, heal our skin, and make us smell nice too. In short, they’re a trillions-strong clean-up and maintenance team, if only we treat our workforce well.
Another thing that Dr. Bishara brings of value here that’s not found in a lot of gut health books is the benefits (for gut health) of intermittent fasting, and specifically, a very useful timeline of what happens when, to ensure we do not sabotage our efforts by breaking our fast too early or too late.
The style is easy-reading pop-science, albeit with scientific references throughout for those who want to delve deeper.
Bottom line: this is a gut health book that stands out from the crowd in several ways, and is well worth the investment of reading it!
Click here to check out Gut Revolution, and help yours to help you!
Share This Post
-
Pistachios vs Brazil Nuts – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing pistachios to Brazil nuts, we picked the pistachios.
Why?
In terms of macros, pistachios have more protein, carbs, and fiber, while Brazil nuts have more fat. The fats are mostly healthy, although it is worth noting that Brazil nuts have not only more total saturated fat, but also more saturated fat proportionally to total fats. All in all, Brazil nuts’ macro balance isn’t bad, but we say pistachios have it better.
When it comes to vitamins, pistachios have a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, and C, while Brazil nuts have more vitamin E. An easy win for pistachios here.
In the category of minerals, it gets interesting: pistachios have more iron and potassium, while Brazil nuts have more calcium, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc. Sounds great, but… About that selenium:
- A cup of cashews contains 38% of the RDA of selenium. This will go towards helping your hair be luscious and shiny (also important for energy conversion).
- A cup of Brazil nuts contains 10,456% of the RDA of selenium. This is way past the point of selenium toxicity, and your (luscious, shiny) hair will fall out.
For this reason, it’s recommended to eat no more than 3–4 Brazil nuts per day.
We consider that a point against Brazil nuts.
Adding up the sections gives us an overall win for pistachios. Of course, enjoy Brazil nuts too if you will, but in careful moderation please!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
What To Leave Off Your Table (To Stay Off This Surgeon’s)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Why we eat too much (and how we can fix that)
This is Dr. Andrew Jenkinson. He’s a Consultant Surgeon specializing in the treatment of obesity, gallstones, hernias, heartburn and abdominal pain. He runs regular clinics in both London and Dubai. What he has to offer us today, though, is insight as to what’s on our table that puts us on his table, and how we can quite easily change that up.
So, why do we eat too much?
First things first: some metabolic calculations. No, we’re not going to require you to grab a calculator here… Your body does it for you!
Our body’s amazing homeostatic system (the system that does its best to keep us in the “Goldilocks Zone” of all our bodily systems; not too hot or too cold, not dehydrated or overhydrated, not hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic, blood pressure not too high or too low, etc, etc) keeps track of our metabolic input and output.
What this means: if we increase or decrease our caloric consumption, our body will do its best to increase or decrease our metabolism accordingly:
- If we don’t give it enough energy, it will try to conserve energy (first by slowing our activities; eventually by shutting down organs in a last-ditch attempt to save the rest of us)
- If we give it too much energy, it will try to burn it off, and what it can’t burn, it will store
In short: if we eat 10% or 20% more or less than usual, our body will try to use 10% to 20% more or less than usual, accordingly.
So… How does this get out of balance?
The problem is in how our system does that, and how we inadvertently trick it, to our detriment.
For a system to function, it needs at its most base level two things—a sensor and a switch:
- A sensor: to know what’s going on
- A switch: to change what it’s doing accordingly
Now, if we eat the way we’re evolved to—as hunter-gatherers, eating mostly fruit and vegetables, supplemented by animal products when we can get them—then our body knows exactly what it’s eating, and how to respond accordingly.
Furthermore, that kind of food takes some eating! Most fruit these days is mostly water and fiber; in those days it often had denser fiber (before agricultural science made things easier to eat), but either way, our body knows when we are eating fruit and how to handle that. Vegetables, similarly. Unprocessed animal products, again, the gut goes “we know what this is” and responds accordingly.
But modern ultra-processed foods with trans-fatty acids, processed sugar and flour?
These foods zip calories straight into our bloodstream like greased lightning. We get them so quickly so easily and in such great caloric density, that our body doesn’t have the chance to count them on the way in!
What this means is: the body has no idea what it’s just consumed or how much or what to do with it, and doesn’t adjust our metabolism accordingly.
Bottom line:
Evolutionarily speaking, your body has no idea what ultra-processed food is. If you skip it and go for whole foods, you can, within the bounds of reason, eat what you like and your body will handle it by adjusting your metabolism accordingly.
Now, advising you “avoid ultra-processed foods and eat whole foods” was probably not a revelation in and of itself.
But: sometimes knowing a little more about the “why” makes the difference when it comes to motivation.
Want to know more about Dr. Jenkinson’s expert insights on this topic?
If you like, you can check out his website here—he has a book too
Why We Eat (Too Much) – Dr. Andrew Jenkinson on the Science of Appetite
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Doctor’s Kitchen – by Dr. Rupy Aujla
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We’ve featured Dr. Aujla before as an expert-of-the-week, and now it’s time to review a book by him. What’s his deal, and what should you expect?
Dr. Aujla first outlines the case for food as medicine. Not just “eat nutritionally balanced meals”, but literally, “here are the medicinal properties of these plants”. Think of some of the herbs and spices we’ve featured in our Monday Research Reviews, and add in medicinal properties of cancer-fighting cruciferous vegetables, bananas with dopamine and dopamine precursors, berries full of polyphenols, hemp seeds that fight cognitive decline, and so forth.
Most of the book is given over to recipes. They’re plant-centric, but mostly not vegan. They’re consistent with the Mediterranean diet, but mostly Indian. They’re economically mindful (favoring cheap ingredients where reasonable) while giving a nod to where an extra dollar will elevate the meal. They don’t give calorie values etc—this is a feature not a bug, as Dr. Aujla is of the “positive dieting” camp that advocates for us to “count colors, not calories”. Which, we have to admit, makes for very stress-free cooking, too.
Dr. Aujla is himself an Indian Brit, by the way, which gives him two intersecting factors for having a taste for spices. If you don’t share that taste, just go easier on the pepper etc.
As for the medicinal properties we mentioned up top? Four pages of references at the back, for any who are curious to look up the science of them. We at 10almonds do love references!
Bottom line: if you like tasty food and you’re looking for a one-stop, well-rounded, food-as-medicine cookbook, this one is a top-tier choice.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
