quote:Originally posted by Sterling: But I don't see an easy way to test these things. How can you really be absolutely sure that the difference between the consumers of two different water supplies is the result of pharmaceutical contaminants, rather than, say, trace amounts of arsenic, lead, benzene, or any of a hundred other natural and unnatural contaminants that are likely to be found in any water supply (and likely to differ between any two water supplies?) It's not like anyone's water is entirely pure H20, even if you take the pharm aspect out of the equation.
Thanks. This is what I have been rather spectacularly failing to communicate. (I've been doing a fair bit of that lately.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Since we are essentially saying the same thing, which is that further study is necessary, I don't see why you seem to need to try and make me sound and/or feel stupid (which is what your posts responding to my posts by saying that further study is necessary essentially repeating what I have said in mine is doing regardless of your intent). I am not being alarmist, not out in the streets (or even the forum) screaming about how drugs in the tap water is causing all kinds of medical problems in teens, tweens and baby fish.
Perhaps you are merely not reading the sections in both of my posts where I state quite clearly that further study seems to be warranted. At any rate this particular thread seems to come to a standstill, and I will likely not be back in it for a while so, you can continue to tell me that I'm not understanding your posts which are advocating further study, even as my own say the exact same thing to your hearts content without me.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: But how do you know? Really, if it's someone who's highly allergic to EVERYTHING (and there are people like that out there) it could be attributed to possible exposure to something else, particularly if the end result isn't death but a trip to the emergency room and a treatment. Never mind the fact that daily regular exposure to something you are allergic to can't be healthy, even if it's not a large enough amount to actually cause a reaction. ... Gradual long term exposure to trace amounts of drugs has not been studied ...
Just for reassurance, an allergic reaction sufficient to take one to the ED has pathognomonic signs and symptoms that will make it recognizable. If there is a serious reaction, the person can (and often is, at least where I trained) be tested to determine the specific allergen by assay or skin test.
Also reassuring may be the understanding that antibiotic allergies can be treated by serial, measured, small doses of the drug under controlled circumstances. For some people, a cure for the allergy can be effected.
---
Edited to add:
That is to say, giving minute doses of antibiotics over time has been studied to some extent, and under certain contexts, it is actually quite helpful. Of course, this isn't license to just try taking things you are allergic to at home -- physicians do this under very controlled circumstances.
However, being exposed to it is not necessarily and always a bad thing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
