
Is drinking tap water bad for you? Wellness influencers say yes, but here's what the experts think
Investigations by The Guardian, Watershed Investigations, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) have revealed the presence of potentially harmful substances – specifically PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as 'forever chemicals ') – in drinking water sources used by 17 out of 18 English water companies. The findings have raised significant questions about long-term exposure to such contaminants and prompted renewed scrutiny of the UK's water infrastructure.
From countertop filtration systems and under-sink reverse osmosis units to purifying showerheads and portable bottles, there are now several ways to filter your tap water at home. Some of these solutions are expensive – costing more than £2000 – but they claim to transform potentially harmful water into safe, drinkable, even health-boosting H2O.
But is the concern around our tap water justified, and do these domestic filtration products offer any meaningful protection?
I grew up in an old house, with my mum telling me never to drink from the hot tap in case there was a dead pigeon in the tank in the loft, or in case the hot water dislodged some slime in the Victorian pipes. We had a filter installed, and I assumed all people had these concerns around tap water – I was met with blank stares when I warned the room about the pigeon risk at a sleepover when I was 14.
I love to drink water, but I've always been sensitive to its flavour – the mineral content, the provenance; as a health writer, these things interest me. For years, I used a Brita filter, but after reading a study about microplastics found in UK tap water – despite claims that treatment facilities are able to remove more than 99 per cent – I switched to some heavier-duty technology: the Skuma countertop water filter. The Skuma uses three-stage reverse osmosis to remove microplastics, chemicals, and heavy metals, and then infuses the water with the helpful, health-giving minerals it stripped out.
I'm not so obsessive that I would start arguing with my dentist if handed a cup of tap water to rinse with, like I have seen some American wellness influencers do on Instagram. I wouldn't turn down a drink if it had been made with tap water, but I am more mindful about what I'm drinking when I can help it.
Though the UK maintains some of the highest regulatory standards for drinking water globally, a growing body of research points to the presence of emerging contaminants – including microplastics, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, and pharmaceutical residues – in our water supply. Many of these substances are still not yet regulated under UK or EU law, despite growing evidence of potential links to hormonal disruption, developmental issues, liver toxicity, and certain cancers.
'I was really focused on microplastics, PFAS, and other substances that weren't being widely reported on,' says Charles Robinson, founder of water filtration company Water2. 'I remember asking scientists at UCL whether, if they were in charge, they would allow this – and the answer was a clear 'no'.'
Robinson funded independent research through labs in Italy and the UK to develop a filtration system capable of removing contaminants at the sub-micron level. His first-generation filter launched in 2023 and was subsequently backed by survivalist and TV personality Bear Grylls.
'A standard filter jug may filter particles down to around 200 microns,' Robinson explains. 'A human hair is about 70 microns for comparison. Our filters work down to 0.1 microns, capturing most microplastics, which typically range from 1 to 10 microns.'
A team of research scientists behind The Water Professor – an organisation offering laboratory water testing kits for home use – explain: 'Smaller particle size may be important for the blood-brain defences against microplastics. In the study on the cognitive decline of mice contaminated with microplastics, the particle sizes were between 0.1 and 2 microns.
'The current understanding of toxicity associated with microplastics suggests that size does matter; smaller microplastics will find it easier to pass through tissue layers and could be absorbed through the stomach and lungs, entering deep into the body.'
They also point to early studies suggesting that particles below 25 microns can pass through biological barriers and accumulate in organs, causing adverse effects. Larger particle sizes are less likely to have toxic effects since they are unable to pass through biological membranes.
Logic then follows that high-tech filters able to sift out smaller microplastics will be better for you than something like a filter jug. The Water Professor's research also suggests that bottled water, on average, contains a higher concentration of smaller microplastics and could be worse for humans than previously thought, which is why opting for glass or metal bottles might also be the healthier choice.
However, filtration is not without trade-offs. It might sound like a perfect solution, but some high-powered systems, such as reverse osmosis units, can also strip water of essential minerals like magnesium and calcium. These nutrients are linked to bone health, cardiovascular function, and even skin health, so their presence in water is important.
'It would be easy to assume that pure H2O is the gold standard,' says Robinson. 'But distilled or over-filtered water can actually be less beneficial if it lacks mineral content. The challenge is reducing harmful contaminants while preserving key elements.'
Many people choose to add electrolytes to filtered water to ensure at least one glass contains a recommended daily allowance of vitamins and minerals. It's a smart workaround – and one that I personally employ every morning. However, there are concerns around these kinds of products too. Nutritionists frequently warn of the dangers of taking too many supplements and overloading the body, so be mindful of whether you actually need electrolytes and how much of a product you're using.
Public health authorities continue to assert that UK mains water is safe to drink. But as Robinson and The Water Professor point out, 'safe' does not necessarily mean optimal, particularly given the pace at which chemical pollutants, synthetic compounds, and microplastics are entering the global water cycle.
The Water Professor researchers explain that the most common plastic materials contributing to micro- and nanoplastics in water are polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS) and polyethylene (PE), along with toxic chemicals such as per-and poly fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS ) and BPA. PFAS are commonly associated with non-stick cookware, as well as cosmetics, food packaging and outdoor clothing.
These chemicals are also known as 'forever chemicals' because they don't break down easily and can build up in the environment, leading to potential risks for both wildlife and humans.
Last year, researchers at Birmingham University found that the combined effects of PFAS with microplastics led to greater harm. After studying their effects on water fleas, they noted delays in sexual maturity and stunted growth. Their study paves the way for future research on how these chemicals might affect gene function, providing crucial insights into long-term biological impacts not only on aquatic species but on humans too.
Menstrual health brand Asan recently reported that 2.4 million tampons are flushed down UK toilets each day, some of which end up in wastewater systems. Trace fibres and fragments from hygiene products, pharmaceuticals, and plastics are increasingly being detected in tap water, and while the long-term health impacts of these exposures are still under investigation, their ubiquity is raising alarm among environmental scientists and public health researchers.
Stephanie Metzger, policy advisor at the Royal Society of Chemistry, has said: 'Here in the UK, we monitor for a long list of PFAS, but we're lagging far behind the US and the EU when it comes to the amount allowed in our drinking water and what is considered healthy.
'We know that PFAS can be filtered from drinking water – the technology exists – so increasing the level of filtration is just a matter of expense and political will.
'In [the regulator] Drinking Water Inspectorate's own words, levels above 10 nanograms per litre pose a medium or high risk to public health. We're seeing more and more studies that link PFAS to a range of very serious medical conditions, and so we urgently need a new approach for the sake of public health.'
A 2024 study of London boroughs showed that in Harrow, a water sample had a PFOS (a type of PFAS) level of 14 nanograms per litre (ng/l) – 1.4 times the maximum limit for its presence in tap water under proposals put forward by the RSC.
The answer as to whether you should be filtering your water largely depends on the level of risk you are willing to accept. For many, the regulated standard of UK tap water is sufficient. But for those concerned about cumulative exposure to emerging contaminants – or managing specific health conditions – additional filtration may be worth considering.
'It's about making informed choices,' says Robinson. 'Not everyone can afford an expensive system, but a well-made filter that costs under £100 a year can reduce your exposure significantly.'
That said, experts caution against assuming that all filters are created equal. Filtering technologies vary significantly in their efficacy. While standard pitcher filters can improve taste and remove some chlorine, only high-performance filters operating below one micron are likely to capture smaller contaminants such as microplastics and certain PFAS. Consumers should look for independently verified performance data, consider the filter's lifespan and replacement costs, and weigh potential losses in mineral content against reductions in harmful substances.
Of course, some people resort to filtration to soften hard water, which contains elevated levels of calcium and magnesium. These minerals not only cause the build-up of limescale on appliances and surfaces, but may also affect skin and hair.
According to Karlee Oz, founder of Hello Klean, showering in unfiltered water may 'leave residue, contribute to dryness, and exacerbate conditions like eczema,' she explains. 'In addition, hot showers can vaporise chlorine and other disinfectant byproducts, increasing the risk of respiratory exposure and irritation.'
Hello Klean's shower filters use KDF (Kinetic Degradation Fluxion) technology to convert chlorine into gentler compounds. Oz emphasises the importance of using filters that are clinically tested and certified for efficacy. 'Filtering reduces the burden on the skin and hair barrier and may improve tolerance over time.'
Of course, not all areas in the UK have a hard water problem – and in some cases, softer water may be better for skin and hair – but a filter can still remove heavy metals like lead and cadmium and traces of harmful bacteria like E. coli.
For the consumer, it can be complicated. UK tap water meets legal safety standards: it undergoes multiple filtration rounds and was ranked joint first for drinking water quality and sanitation in Yale University's 2022 Environmental Performance Index, along with Finland, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
However, that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. Research suggests that trace levels of PFAS, microplastics, and other contaminants are present in some supplies. Filtration can reduce exposure to these substances, but must be balanced against the potential loss of essential minerals.
Research is still ongoing, but personally, I'll always reach for filtered water, glass bottles, and avoid ice if I can. A filter in my shower has made a noticeable difference too. It's a personal choice – but with microplastics now found in human blood, remote Antarctica, tea bags, and at the bottom of the ocean, I'll do what I can to avoid them in my morning glass of H2O.
Hashtags

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


Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Huge breast cancer breakthrough as scientists discover key way to prevent deadly disease
Scientists have discovered how breast cancer spreads to other parts of the body—and it could revolutionise how the disease is treated in its earlier stages. Scottish researchers discovered that cancer changes the metabolism—the way cells make and use energy—of specific immune cells. They found that they release a certain sort of protein, called uracil, which can be used as a 'scaffold' by cancerous cells, allowing them to grow on other organs. Scientists were able to block the uracil-powered scaffold from forming in mice. This restored the ability of the creatures' immune systems to kill secondary cancer cells, and stop the cancer from spreading. The scientists achieved this by blocking an enzyme called uridine phosphorylase-1 (UPP1), which produces uracil. They hope that detecting uracil in the blood may help spot early signs the cancer spreading—and blocking UPP1 with drugs could stop the spread before it even starts. The findings of the study, which was carried out in the labs of Professor Jim Norman and Professor Karen Blyth, were published in the Embo Reports journal. Lead author of the study, Dr Cassie Clarke, said: 'This study represents a major shift in how we think about preventing the spread of cancer. 'By targeting these metabolic changes as early as possible we could stop the cancer progressing and save lives.' Meanwhile, Dr Catherine Elliot, director of research at Cancer Research UK, said: 'Metastasis—when cancer spreads—is a major factor in breast cancer becoming harder to treat, especially if the cancer returns months or even many years later. 'This discovery gives us new hope for detecting and stopping metastasis early and ensuring people have many more years with their families and loved ones.' The research may also help stop the spread of other cancers to other parts of the body, too added Simon Vincent, chief scientific officer at Breast Cancer Now. 'Now we need more research to see if this new insight can be turned into new drugs that stop secondary breast cancer, and potentially other secondary cancers,' he said. The team of researchers at from the Cancer Research UK Institute and University of Glasgow are now testing the ability of drugs to prevent cancer occurring. It comes amid an alarming prediction earlier this year that breast cancer deaths in the UK will soar by more than 40 per cent by 2050. By the same year, globally, another study estimated there will be 3.2million new cases and 1.1million breast-related deaths per year if current trends continue. The disease is far more prevalent in those over 50, which is the age women typically experience the menopause. It is the most common type of cancer in the UK, taking the lives of around 11,500 Britons and 42,000 Americans each year. Early signs of the disease are a lump in the breast, swelling or lump in the armpit, change in size or shape of breasts, discharge of fluid from the nipple. Others include dimpling, a rash or redness on skin, as well as crusting, scaly or itchy skin on the nipple. Despite years of pleas from cancer charities, more than a third of women in the UK still do not regularly assess their breasts. However, it should be part of your monthly routine, so you can notice any unusual changes, charity CoppaFeel previously said. You can check in the shower, when you are lying down in bed or in the mirror before you get dressed. Because breast tissue isn't just found in your boobs, it's also important that men and women check the tissue all the way to their collarbone and underneath their armpit. There is no right or wrong way to check your breasts, as long as you know how your breasts usually look and feel, says the NHS. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world and affects more than two MILLION women a year Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. Each year in the UK there are more than 55,000 new cases, and the disease claims the lives of 11,500 women. In the US, it strikes 266,000 each year and kills 40,000. But what causes it and how can it be treated? What is breast cancer? It comes from a cancerous cell which develops in the lining of a duct or lobule in one of the breasts. When the breast cancer has spread into surrounding tissue it is called 'invasive'. Some people are diagnosed with 'carcinoma in situ', where no cancer cells have grown beyond the duct or lobule. Most cases develop in those over the age of 50 but younger women are sometimes affected. Breast cancer can develop in men, though this is rare. Staging indicates how big the cancer is and whether it has spread. Stage 1 is the earliest stage and stage 4 means the cancer has spread to another part of the body. The cancerous cells are graded from low, which means a slow growth, to high, which is fast-growing. High-grade cancers are more likely to come back after they have first been treated. What causes breast cancer? A cancerous tumour starts from one abnormal cell. The exact reason why a cell becomes cancerous is unclear. It is thought that something damages or alters certain genes in the cell. This makes the cell abnormal and multiply 'out of control'. Although breast cancer can develop for no apparent reason, there are some risk factors that can increase the chance, such as genetics. What are the symptoms of breast cancer? The usual first symptom is a painless lump in the breast, although most are not cancerous and are fluid filled cysts, which are benign. The first place that breast cancer usually spreads to is the lymph nodes in the armpit. If this occurs you will develop a swelling or lump in an armpit. How is breast cancer diagnosed? Initial assessment: A doctor examines the breasts and armpits. They may do tests such as a mammography, a special x-ray of the breast tissue which can indicate the possibility of tumours. Biopsy: A biopsy is when a small sample of tissue is removed from a part of the body. The sample is then examined under a microscope to look for abnormal cells. The sample can confirm or rule out cancer. If you are confirmed to have breast cancer, further tests may be needed to assess if it has spread. For example, blood tests, an ultrasound scan of the liver or a chest X-ray. How is breast cancer treated? Treatment options which may be considered include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone treatment. Often a combination of two or more of these treatments are used. Surgery: Breast-conserving surgery or the removal of the affected breast depending on the size of the tumour. Radiotherapy: A treatment which uses high energy beams of radiation focused on cancerous tissue. This kills cancer cells, or stops them from multiplying. It is mainly used in addition to surgery. Chemotherapy: A treatment of cancer by using anti-cancer drugs which kill cancer cells, or stop them from multiplying. Hormone treatments: Some types of breast cancer are affected by the 'female' hormone oestrogen, which can stimulate the cancer cells to divide and multiply. Treatments which reduce the level of these hormones, or prevent them from working, are commonly used in people with breast cancer. How successful is treatment? The outlook is best in those who are diagnosed when the cancer is still small, and has not spread. Surgical removal of a tumour in an early stage may then give a good chance of cure. The routine mammography offered to women between the ages of 50 and 71 means more breast cancers are being diagnosed and treated at an early stage. For more information visit or call its free helpline on 0808 800 6000 But one of the most popular methods online involves using the pads of your fingers. Examining your entire breast and armpit area, simply, rub and feel from top to bottom of the breast. You should also feel in semi-circles and in a circular motion around your breast tissue to feel for any abnormalities, according to a guide shared in a blog post by the University of Nottingham. Then look in the mirror for any visual lumps, skin texture and changes and changes in nipple shape or abnormal discharge. If you spot any changes, you should get it checked out by your GP. Women aged between 50 and 70 should also be attending routine breast cancer screenings.


BBC News
5 minutes ago
- BBC News
Date set for 24-hour stroke treatment rollout at Royal Preston
A potentially life-saving stroke treatment will be available around the clock in Lancashire by early next year, according to the region's health board. The Royal Preston Hospital already offers the procedure, known as a thrombectomy, to suitable patients in Lancashire and South Cumbira – but only between 08:00 and 18:00 BST. The hospital was set to start offering the procedure at all hours of the day by September 2024, but the plan had to be pushed back because of difficulties recruiting staff. A meeting of the NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board (ICB) heard that the treatment would be offered 24 hours a day from 1 February 2026 at the latest. A thrombectomy is only utilised to treat strokes caused by a blood clot in a large artery in the brain. The procedure involves surgically removing the clot, but it has to be done soon after a stroke occurs to be Christopher Long recently warned that limited access to the procedure posed a life-threatening risk to patients in Lancashire and South Cumbria, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS). He issued the warning at an inquest earlier this year into the death of Michelle Mason, 45, who died at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary in June 2024 after suffering a treatment was "considered" in her case, but would not have been available at the time she needed it, the coroner heard. The ICB's acting medical director, Dr Andy Knox, told the meeting the hospital had now recruited enough interventional radiologists "to be able to fulfil the rota requirements" of 24-hour he said more time was needed to bring in a new consultant. Dr Knox said the ICB was pushing for the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the Royal Preston Hospital, to roll out the 24-hour programme by October. However, he acknowledged it would place the hospital under additional pressure, adding: "We know that things will be in place by 1st February."He said co-operation had improved with other trusts within north-west England meaning patients from Lancashire and South Cumbria could be transferred elsewhere for a thrombectomy when required in the meantime. The LDRS has approached the trust for comment. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Lancashire on Sounds and follow BBC Lancashire on Facebook, X and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.


BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
German pharma firm signs deal worth up to $1bn with QUB spin out
A medical technology company founded by Queen's University academics has signed a licensing agreement with a major pharmaceutical firm which could ultimately be worth up to $1bn (£744.1m).Re-Vana Therapeutics, which was set up in 2016, develops products to improve the delivery of drugs for chronic eye diseases, increasing the quality of care for major benefit of its technology is that it reduces the number of eye injections patients require making them more likely to follow their Ingelheim, a German pharmaceutical firm, is licensing the drug delivery system to combine it with its eye medications. The German firm will take responsibility for regulatory approvals and global commercialization of products developed using the Re-Vana Ingelheim said the deal involves "upfront, development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments to Re-Vana, with total potential deal value exceeding $1bn for the initial three targets, in addition to royalty payments on net sales".Re-Vana was founded by Professor Raj Thakur and Professor David Jones with investors including Qubis, the commercialisation arm of Queen's company is now based in the US but still has its research base in O'Rourke, Re-Vana's Chief Executive Officer, said the collaboration with Boehringer Ingelheim is a "transformational moment".The deal has also been welcomed by NI Secretary of State Hillary Benn who said it "represents a huge vote of confidence in Northern Ireland's innovation and skills".