Cosmetics ingredient tainting state lakes

  • Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 22, 2013 - 3:22 PM

Toxins created by popular antibiotic are widespread and worrisome, study says.

  • 21
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mgs5150Jan. 21, 1310:48 PM

There is no Need for these types of soaps, period. All they are doing is making super strains of bacteria. Now we find out they are polluting our lakes. I very much doubt anyone that shoves their Eco ideology on the rest of us will stop using them though.

bosshogJan. 21, 1311:52 PM

Perfect example of how in the USA we wait until after it is a proven problem before we attempt to take any action. By then it is too late and the damage is already done. The companies make all the profits then the taxpayers turn around and have to clean up their mess.

ruphinaJan. 22, 1312:22 AM

you have to be VERY careful when reading an article like this written by a "journalist". Remember, they didn't go to school in ANY discipline that teaches anything about how he physical world works; they went to learn how to write. They routinely fail to ask any relevant questions. It does not matter if this anti-bacterial is responsible for 100% of the dioxins in a lake or stream UNLESS the level is high enough to cause harm. This article is completely useless to determine if there is actually a problem. The reporter has done a truly remarkable job of creating much ado about (maybe) nothing, but we would never know from a piece of fluff like this. BTW, the editors have proven their incompetence by printing such a useless waste of paper. Bill G.

orpheus90Jan. 22, 13 2:26 AM

Ruphina writes: "Remember, they didn't go to school in ANY discipline that teaches anything about how he physical world works; they went to learn how to write"..."This article is completely useless to determine if there is actually a problem." ... So what are you saying, Ruphina? Journalists shouldn't write about environmental issues? That's seems a bit overblown if not plain specious. Marcotty, the reporter, certainly seemed to convey the fundamental issue with lucidity: that there's a concern among environmental scientists, the people who DO KNOW, that there may be a growing environmental problem stemming from the use of a commercially available antibiotic that's in broad use. Simply, the author of the article did her job. Or perhaps that is the real problem: conservatives always politicize science they don't like - and they surely don't like environmental science. Killing the messenger would be the obvious first step, right?

elind56Jan. 22, 13 6:31 AM

bosshog said: "Perfect example of how in the USA we wait until after it is a proven problem before we attempt to take any action."-------------------------------A proven problem? There's nothing in this report that would indicate there's any real problem whatsoever. Just a bunch of scary sounding insinuations. If we waited for some government agency to declare any and every new product to be "safe" before allowing it on the market, there would be no new products.

doorstopJan. 22, 13 7:02 AM

elind56: Government agencies don't declare products to be safe. The FDA, for example, requires manufacturers to make a convincing case that their product is safe. If the FDA is convinced, they will clear the product to be sold. And somehow we do manage to have lots of new products released every year. In this particular case, my guess is that no one - not the manufacturer or the FDA - even considered that there might be an environmental impact of the antibiotic. They were concerned with whether it was safe for human use.

csjohn1Jan. 22, 13 7:08 AM

When we we understand the world is not to be treated as our cess pool? Just because we can does not mean we should. Great article and will change my behavior.

wooodyJan. 22, 13 7:24 AM

“Triclosan was first registered as a pesticide in 1969 aka agent orange. And is also known as Microban and Biofresh... Read between the lines people, Triclosan is a dangerous toxin. Stop using it and wearing it, etc... Please do the research~!

a1to1newsJan. 22, 13 7:43 AM

Just be glad that Minnesota is the start of the drinking water on the Mississippi River. The amount of chemicals prescription and over the counter drugs that gets tossed into the toilet, bathtub and sinks all collect before it gets to the gulf. People use way to much of these products whether they really need it or not.

tindoctorJan. 22, 13 8:33 AM

Shame on your guys! There are NO toxins in your story. The contaminants you refer to may be toxic, but they are definitely NOT toxins. Toxins are poisons made by biological organisms--as in bee venom, snake venom, the damoic acid produced by some harmful algal blooms, or the blistering agents released by some insects. (Check any Webster's dictionary if you need to confirm this.) They are NEVER a synthetic chemical--such as a pesticide, combustion byproduct--such as dioxin, or flame retardant. They are NEVER natural inorganic minerals such as asbestos, or elements, such as lead, mercury, and arsenic. Toxic is an adjective meaning harmful, even poisonous. EPA refers to pesticides and other harmful agents with the inelegant term "toxics"--in recognition that they are not toxins but are toxic. It's their short-hand for the more accurate but boring mouthful: toxic substances. Please, as wordsmiths, it's your job to use language correctly.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters






question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question