
Experts pinpoint shocking cancer trigger in TAP WATER as map shows worst-affected areas of the US
A mixture of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and livestock manure are leaching into the groundwater, creating nitrates - compounds naturally found in the environment that can be harmful in large amounts - which can cause methemoglobinemia, a potentially fatal condition in infants commonly known as blue-baby syndrome.
Long-term exposure to this chemical in water — even below the EPA's maximum safety limit of 10 mg/L — is linked to thyroid, kidney, ovarian, bladder, and colon cancers, DNA damage, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and rising colon cancer rates in young people.
New research from the Des Moines University College of Health Sciences zeroed in on the effects that a pregnant woman's exposure to the chemical has on her unborn baby.
Nitrate levels as low as just one percent of the EPA's safety limit increased the risks of preterm birth and low birth weight, conditions that have been linked to a higher risk of chronic disease, learning disabilities, and mental health struggles in the baby's future.
Dr Jason Semprini, the study's author, said that exposure to nitrate in pregnancy causes about 15 percent as much harm as smoking during pregnancy.
'I do not want to diminish the importance of efforts to prevent smoking during pregnancy,' he said. 'But, I must ask, do we give nitrates 15 percent of the attention we give to smoking?'
An estimated 60 million Americans rely on tap water that is, unbeknownst to them, laced with nitrates. They tend to live in states and rural areas where agriculture is central to the economy, such as Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, central California, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Dr Semprini added: 'Our work adds to the evidence base that the current regulatory threshold (more than 10mg/L) may be insufficient for protecting the in utero transmission of water-based nitrate during the first trimester of pregnancy.'
His research was published in the journal PLOS Water.
Nitrate pollution affects larger cities, as well. An analysis by the Environmental Working Group highlighted the problem in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Miami, and the suburbs of New York City.
Drinking water in 43 states had nitrate levels of 3 mg/L or higher in major water systems, while 39 states had at least one large system with levels at or above 5 mg/L, according to the group's latest report.
While still below the EPA's maximum safety limit, public health experts argue the standards should be stricter.
When the safety limit was first established in the 1950s, scientists discovered that levels as low as 11 mg/L could cause blue baby syndrome.
Blue Baby Syndrome, clinically known as methemoglobinemia, is a rare but serious condition where an infant's blood cannot carry enough oxygen, leading to a bluish skin discoloration, particularly around the lips, fingers, and toes.
The most well-known cause is nitrate contamination in drinking water, which is sometimes mixed with formula.
It's very rare, with fewer than 100 cases reported in the US, but it is more common in parts of the world where well water is not tested.
According to former Wisconsin state toxicologist Dave Belluck, the standard was set at 10, right up to the edge of safety.
'It's akin to a cliff,' he said. 'When you're standing on the edge of the cliff, you're safe. You take one step, and it's just like the Road Runner.'
But Belluck dove deeper into the research that informed safety designation, finding that some infants in the study became sick at nitrate levels nearly 30 times lower, just 0.4 mg/L.
He now believes the EPA's standards should be stricter, arguing that the science clearly shows nitrates are more harmful than previously thought.
Other studies on the subject have come to similar conclusions. Researchers from Nova Scotia, Canada, tracked major birth defects recorded in the area between 1998 and 2006 and found they were twice as likely in areas where drinking water nitrate levels were between 1 and 5.56 mg/L.
Exposure over time to nitrates could also increase a person's risk of a variety of cancers and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified the compounds as 'probably carcinogenic to humans'.
A 2008 study of women in rural Wisconsin found that women drinking water containing 10 mg/l or more were nearly three times as likely to get a deadly cancer that affects the first part of the colon.
Even nitrate levels between one and 5.9 mg/l increased the risk of cancer by 1.4 times.
Meanwhile, in Spain and Italy, scientists identified a connection between nitrates in drinking water and colorectal cancer.
Analyzing nearly 5,400 participants, the study revealed that people who consumed more than 10 mg of nitrate per day from water – roughly equivalent to drinking two liters of water containing 5 mg/L of nitrate – had a 49 percent higher risk of colorectal cancer compared to those who drank half that amount.
In Iowa, researchers uncovered links between nitrate exposure and thyroid cancer in older women. Tracking nearly 22,000 women for decades, researchers found that those who drank water with nitrate levels above 5 mg/L for at least five years faced a 2.6 times higher risk of thyroid cancer.
And a long-term study of over 28,000 postmenopausal women in 2015 found that those with the highest nitrate levels in their public water supply (2.98 mg/L or above) had twice the risk of developing ovarian cancer compared to those with the lowest levels.
Private well users also saw a moderately elevated risk – 1.5 times – due to agricultural runoff contaminating groundwater. In total, researchers found 315 cases of ovarian cancer over 24 years of follow-up.
Nitrate is highly soluble in water, making it difficult and expensive to eliminate. Individual homes or municipal water supply systems could be fitted with reverse osmosis and ion exchange filters to remove toxins from their drinking water. Still, those are expensive and out of reach for many.
In addition to stemming from agricultural run-off, leaky septic systems can release untreated wastewater containing nitrates. Landfills, factories, and food processing plants can also leach nitrates over time.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
Seles reveals myasthenia gravis diagnosis
Nine-time Grand Slam champion Monica Seles has revealed she was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis - a neuromuscular autoimmune disease - three years 51-year-old has chosen to go public with the rare long-term condition, which causes muscle weakness, to raise awareness before this month's US first noticed symptoms of the condition, which can affect most parts of the body - including the muscles that control the eyes, around five years ago."I would be playing [tennis] with some kids or family members, and I would miss a ball," former world number one Seles told The Associated Press."I was like, 'Yeah, I see two balls.' These are obviously symptoms that you can't ignore."It took me quite some time to really absorb it, speak openly about it, because it's a difficult one. It affects my day-to-day life quite a lot."Seles decided to reveal her condition in the hope of using her platform to educate people about the disease, for which there is currently no American won eight major titles by the age of 19, after capturing her first aged 16 at the 1990 French she won just one more after she was stabbed with a knife by a fan during a match in Hamburg in 1993 and took time away from the sport to played her last match in 2003 having won 53 tournaments and spent 178 weeks at number one.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
A moment that changed me: I resolved to reduce my screen time – and it was a big mistake
I unlocked my iPhone screen at the precise moment that my weekly screen time notification appeared – accidentally dismissing it before I could take a screenshot – and promptly erupted into a rage. I had spent an excruciating week resolutely not looking at my phone, part of a month-long effort to whittle my daily screen time down from more than four hours a day to less than an hour, with the hope of improving my mental wellbeing (and possibly carving out a career as an inspirational speaker). But my efforts felt futile without being able to post evidence online about how offline I had become. I frantically Googled how to retrieve notifications (you cannot) and – briefly – considered re-creating my screen time report in Photoshop. Over the past decade or two, my efforts at self-improvement have taken various forms: the year where I read 105 books; the period during which I gave up all forms of sugar including, misguidedly, fruit; and a dalliance with shamanism that, I'm sorry to say, included interpretive dance. Some might suggest I would be better off learning to cook, or drive, or type with more than one finger, but they can't reach me because I no longer look at my phone. 'Project Screen Time' began after I listened to a podcast in which a comedian claimed that you shouldn't look at social media within two hours of waking up, because it messes with your dopamine, or something. This is my favourite kind of advice: uncited, from the mouth of a layperson who can't remember how they acquired it. But I gave up opening Instagram first thing in the morning and … it worked. Miraculously, choosing not to sandblast my brain with pictures of other people's abs before I was fully conscious did improve my mood. Even better, I found that if I didn't look at my socials first thing, I could often resist until after lunch. As is typically the case when I embark on a new regime, this brief moment of clarity quickly became a frenzy. I traded one obsession (looking at my phone) for another (not looking at it). In my second week, I was down to two hours of screen time a day. By my third, it was an hour and a half – and I became determined to get it below 60 minutes. Part of me was impressed that I could appear normal while quietly (nobly?) wielding this superpower. However, I was unable to keep my gift a secret. I soon began boring friends, acquaintances and service workers with tales of my herculean discipline. Before long, my quest was disrupting my day in new ways. I resented having to open Maps on my phone, so I found myself getting lost while cycling to appointments. If I wanted to show someone a picture or a meme, I would ask to Google it on their phone, rather than my own. I refused to order Ubers after nights out (the painstaking process of watching a cab crawl towards my location while the minutes of screen time racked up was torturous) and instead offered to transfer the money (later, on my laptop) to whoever did. I became increasingly frustrated that my screen time wasn't lower. I would get to 2pm having barely glanced at my phone and yet the data would claim I had used it for 36 minutes. I began to think conspiratorially. My screen time was displayed in a graph split into blue (social), turquoise (entertainment) and orange (productivity and finance). But the vast majority of the chart was made up of undelineated grey. What was the grey?! Eventually, screen time was added to the list of subjects (including the music and lore of Taylor Swift and my attraction to Ron DeSantis) that I was forbidden from discussing at home. My lowest point arrived as I was showing a friend my weekly stats, which gives you a breakdown of how long you've spent on each app. He queried why 'Settings' was my third most-used application – and I had to admit it was because that was how I compulsively checked my screen time. My tantrum over being unable to memorialise my lowest-ever screen report (51 minutes a day!) was a wake-up call; reducing my screen time had become its own form of phone addiction. Rather than escaping the need to seek validation from strangers online, I had happened upon a new way to earn their approval. But all was not lost. The realisation nudged me towards acceptance that I will probably never be a moderate person; I can't rely on any form of self-regulation (my latest regime – skincare – revolves around an LED mask that automatically switches off after 10 minutes, otherwise I fear I would be wearing it to the office like a DayGlo Hannibal Lecter). In the end, I stopped trying to recapture my screen-time report, instead screenshotting the less aesthetic chart in my settings to post online. Within minutes, DMs flooded in from people congratulating me on my self-restraint and asking how I had managed to quit my phone. I replied to them all, dopamine flooding my brain's starved reward centre. That day, my screen time was three hours and 36 minutes. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Man accidentally poisons himself after following diet recommended by ChatGPT that made him hallucinate
A man in Washington accidentally poisoned himself after following a diet made by ChatGPT. The unnamed man, 60, rushed to his local emergency room with suspicions that his neighbor was poisoning him. About a day after being admitted to the hospital, he also suffered paranoia and hallucinations and attempted to escape from the hospital. The man later revealed he had several dietary restrictions, including distilling his own water and following an 'extremely restrictive' vegetarian diet. He told doctors after reading about the harms of sodium chloride, or table salt, he asked ChatGPT about eliminating it from his diet. The chatbot reportedly advised him it was safe to replace salt with sodium bromide, which was used as a sedative in the early 20th century and is now found in anticonvulsants for dogs and humans. He ended up following this recommendation for three months and eventually developed bromism, or bromide poisoning. Bromide can accumulate in the body and impair nerve function, a condition called bromism. This leads to confusion, memory loss, anxiety, delusions, rashes and acne, which the man also had. Doctors treating the man, from the University of Washington in Seattle, replicated his search and got the same incorrect advice. They warned that the case highlighted 'how the use of artificial intelligence can potentially contribute to the development of preventable adverse health outcomes.' They said ChatGPT and other chatbots could 'generate scientific inaccuracies, lack the ability to critically discuss results, and ultimately fuel the spread of misinformation.' The anonymous case study, published earlier this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine, comes one week after OpenAI claimed one of the chatbot's newest upgrades could be better at answering health-related questions and 'flagging potential concerns.' However, ChatGPT's guidelines state it is not 'intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of any health condition.' The patient appeared to have an earlier version of the software. After attempting to escape from the hospital, the man was put on an involuntary psychiatric hold and given large amounts of fluids and electrolytes to help flush the bromide out of his system. His bromide level was at 1,700 mg/L, while the normal range is between 0.9 and 7.3 mg/L. Bromide was used as a sedative in the 19th and 20th centuries and was once widespread in prescription and over-the-counter drugs. However, as research uncovered the risk of chronic exposure, regulators gradually began removing them from the US drug supply. As a result, cases today remain few and far between. The man reported acne and small red growths on his skin, insomnia, fatigue, muscle coordination issues and excessive thirst. It took three weeks for his bromide levels to stabilize and for him to be weaned off psychiatric medications before he was able to be discharged. The doctors treating him wrote: 'While it is a tool with much potential to provide a bridge between scientists and the nonacademic population, AI also carries the risk for promulgating decontextualized information. 'It is highly unlikely that a medical expert would have mentioned sodium bromide when faced with a patient looking for a viable substitute for sodium chloride.' They also emphasized that 'as the use of AI tools increases, providers will need to consider this when screening for where their patients are consuming health information.'