Seeing that Utah is the highest per capita user of anti depressants, I now know why I have been feeling so good and I thought it was the sweet salient mountain air.

Most Utah municipalities get their water either from wells or mountain streams, both of which are unlikely to be contaminated by pharmaceuticals.

This is more of a problem in the Missisippi basin, where some cities get their water downstream from the sewage treatment plants of other cities.

TO: This isn't even a problem here

You're wrong. You didn't read the original study. Well water and streams are certainly a part of the source of these drugs in the water... not just treated water from treatment plants.

The problem is that hormones don't "die" or decay over time. They stay in the environment as they pass through us, then to the water cycle, then to animals, then back to us as we drink the water and eat the fish. It's a problem that will only get worse over time.

The number of dogs and people that I've seen swimming around in Utah's "pristine" water supply doesn't assure me that there's nothing to worry about.

Have to agree with previous post, these hormones are persistent and have been found to have increased in water since for example oestrogen was introduced in oral contraception in the last 40 years. The Epa is not at the forefront of environmental protection internationally on water quality issues, look to Europe for standards and research examples.

Utah has a reputation for being the slowest to react on pollution issues. This is just another reminder that we need to speak out and let our government know when the public wants action taken.

How about we tackle the problem where it starts--by educating people who flush their pills down the toilet or down the sink. Good grief. Most of our problems wouldn't be problems if we'd just educate people and have some sort of sense of personal responsibility. But I suppose that is too much to ask of an individual? Responsibility.

It would be too hard for a pharmacist to hand out a written notice with your prescriptions and also a verbal reminder to not dispose of unused drugs in this manner (AND WHY) and tell a person how to do it properly? And post a sign on the drug aisle so you don't throw your Tylenol down the drain? And with all these drug commercials on TV, it would be too hard to add a blurb? We make laughably simple things so hard!

This puts a whole new light on the saying, "there's something in the water."

Want the hormones out of the water, then lets stop birth control pills altogher. Thats the biggest source of supply of hormones. Woman have been taking them since at least the mid 1960's that I personally can remember. Its been close to 45 50 years the drug has been building up. Now people are screaming, about the drugs, but how many are ready to give up the pills to insure safer water for the future?

It's not just flushing pills, a significant percentage of the medication we take is not metabolized and passes in our waste no matter what we do. That is the main source according to the article. Somehow I don't think we want people to stop using the toilet for the purpose intended...

Pharmaceuticals will be in any/all treated wastewater. People take medications, and excrete medications. Removing these from the wastewater is either impossible, or extremely costly and difficult, yet it is also very much required. This is a difficult dilema.
Reductions in pharmaceuticals in wastewater can and must be made however, through preventing placement/disposal of unused medications down drains or toilets. These medications should be either placed in sealed containers for placement in a municipal landfill, or they should be incinerated if this can be done so as not to release toxins into the air.

I have a few comments: I think that it's important to do as much voluntarily to control chemicals in the water supply when they are present. First of all dispose of them through incineration or in an engineered landfill. Second of all realize that when substances are in the water supply in the parts per trillion that would require the most expensive removal because the water is truly 99.9999999% clean since the concentration is minute. The smaller the amount of pollutant the higher the cost to remove it. In the meantime it might be more feasible and less expensive to only ingest potable water that has gone through a more rigorous treatment (i.e. reverse osmosis). For bathing, flushing the toilet, cleaning and sanitizing use the water as presently available from the tap. When I'm in California visiting family it seems that they usually purchase water they are going to drink whether out of a bottle or a 5 gallon jug. This water has been through a more rigorous treatment procedure. Another point is that our water comes from freshly fallen snow melt and the wastewater treatment plants are way downstream adjacent to the Great Salt Lake.