The new study looked at 258 rivers across the globe, including the Thames in London and the Amazon in Brazil, to measure the presence of 61 pharmaceuticals, such as carbamazepine, metformin and caffeine. The researchers studied rivers in over half of the world's countries -- with rivers in 36 of these countries having never previously been monitored for pharmaceuticals. The study forms part of the University of York-led Global Monitoring of Pharmaceuticals Project, which has expanded significantly over the last two years, with the new study becoming the first truly global-scale investigation of medicinal contamination in the environment. With their latest study, the researchers found that: * pharmaceutical pollution is contaminating water on every continent * strong correlations between the socioeconomic status of a country and higher pollution of pharmaceuticals in its rivers (with lower-middle income nations the most polluted) * high levels of pharmaceutical pollution was most positively associated with regions of high median age as well as high local unemployment and poverty rates * the most polluted countries and regions of the world are the ones that have been researched the least (namely sub-saharan Africa, South America and parts of southern Asia). * the activities most associated with the highest levels of pharmaceutical pollution included rubbish dumping along river banks, inadequate wastewater infrastructure and pharmaceutical manufacturing, and the dumping of the contents of residual septic tanks into rivers. The study revealed that a quarter of the sites contained contaminants (such as sulfamethoxazole, propranolol, ciprofloxacin and loratadine) at potentially harmful concentrations. The researchers hope that by increasing the monitoring of pharmaceuticals in the environment, they can develop strategies to limit the effects potentially caused by the presence of pollutants. The study included noteworthy rivers such as the Amazon, Mississippi, Thames and the Mekong. Water samples were obtained from sites spanning from a Yanomami Village in Venezuela, where modern medicines are not used, to some of the most populated cities on the planet, such as Delhi, London, New York, Lagos, Las Vegas, and Guangzhou. Areas of political instability such as Baghdad, the Palestinian West Bank and Yaoundé in Cameroon were also included. The climates where samples were obtained varied from high altitude alpine tundra in Colorado and polar regions in Antarctica, to Tunisian deserts. While previous studies have monitored active pharmaceuticals ingredients (APIs) in rivers, these have ignored many of the countries of the world, have typically measured only a select few contaminants, and employed different analytical methods. Cumulatively, this has made it difficult to quantify the scale of the problem from a global perspective. The water sample analysis occurred at the University of York's Centre of Excellence in Mass Spectrometry. Co-leader of the project Dr John Wilkinson, from the Department of Environment and Geography, said: "With 127 collaborators across 86 institutions worldwide, the Global Monitoring of Pharmaceuticals Project is an excellent example of how the global scientific community can come together to tackle large-scale environmental issues. "We've known for over two decades now that pharmaceuticals make their way into the aquatic environment where they may affect the biology of living organisms. But one of the largest problems we have faced in tackling this issue is that we have not been very representative when monitoring these contaminants, with almost all of the data focused on a select few areas in North America, Western Europe and China. "Through our project, our knowledge of the global distribution of pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment has now been considerably enhanced. This one study presents data from more countries around the world than the entire scientific community was previously aware of: 36 new countries to be precise where only 75 had ever been studied before." The researchers suggest their approach could also be expanded in the future to include other environmental media such as sediments, soils and biota, and could allow for the development of global-scale datasets on pollution. '' is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). The data for specific rivers will be available in the supplemental information associated with the publication (via PNAS). It will also be published on the Global Monitoring of Pharmaceuticals Project website. The study used 'predicted no adverse effect concentrations (PNECs)' to determine where there may be risk for adverse effects (such as toxicity). If the team measured a concentration in the environment above the PNEC, then there was potential for organisms living there to be adversly affected by the pharmaceutical. This can manifest in many ways largely dependent on what the pharmaceutical is, what organism is being exposed and at what concentration. Examples can include disrupted reproductive capabilities, altered behaviour or physiology and even changes in heart rate. The contaminants found at potentially harmful concentrations include: propranolol, sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, loratadine University of York The Sun Bay Paper Page 26 February 18, 2022 - February 24, 2022 International News Global Study Finds the Extent of Pharmaceutical Pollution in the World's Rivers White popular podcaster Joe Rogan apologized after someone posted a 30-second compilation clip on YouTube of Rogan repeatedly saying the N-word. Rogan described his uses of the word, culled from 12 years of shows, as taken "out of context," but still apologized, now insisting "there's no context where a white person is ever allowed to say that word." Not even if and when it is not used as a racist, derogatory insult? It's not as if society lacks sensitivity about this word when used as a racist insult. How many words are so problematic that we refer to them only by their first letter? What exactly are the rules? Rappers and comedians, provided they are black, can publicly use the word? But whites who enjoy rap music and black comics cannot even sing the lyrics or repeat the joke if doing so means they say the N-word, whether publicly or privately if among friends? So, whites who enjoy Dave Chappelle, a black comedian who uses the word, may laugh at it, but it stops there? In 2017 comedian Bill Maher apologized for using the Nword in a joke. Are we to believe that Maher has never used the word or heard it from his many black friends? But when he uses it in a joke on his uncensored cable show he suddenly becomes racially insensitive? Rapper Ice Cube chastised Maher for the joke. Never mind Cube's repeated use of the Nword in his lyrics. It does get confusing. At a Lollapalooza concert, rapper Kanye West gave white attendees temporary permission to sing the lyrics to his No. 1 hit song "Gold Digger," which included a word that rhymes with "digger." Temporary permission? Did the temporary permission expire when the whites hit the lobby as they left the show, or did it expire when they got to the parking lot or when they drove up to their homes? In his first book, former President Barack Obama rebuked a friend named "Ray" for what Obama considered Ray's frequent baseless claims of racism. Obama told his friend, "Maybe we could afford to give the bad-ssed n----- pose a rest. Save it for when we really needed it." At the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2016, black comedian Larry Wilmore also dropped the NThe Great Joe Rogan N-Word Controversy Cont to pg 27
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA2ODE3