
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
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Save 60% on the 28-day fasting challenge helping thousands of midlife women shed stubborn pounds fast
Daily Mail journalists select and curate the products that feature on our site. If you make a purchase via links on this page we will earn commission - learn more At any age, weight loss can be a challenge. Throw in the hormonal and physiological changes that occur during perimenopause and menopause, though, and it can seem almost impossible. With the right program, you can actually find your way to success. That's what thousands who joined the Reverse Health 28-day fasting challenge discovered. At 60 percent off (just 56 cents a day!), it's an amazing value. Reverse Health 28-Day Fasting Challenge Four weeks to a healthier, fitter, and more confident you! This program is designed to meet the needs of midlife women. Hormonal fluctuations can make weight loss a challenge, but through a carefully scheduled fasting plan, coupled with delicious recipes and invaluable support and education, you can feel better than ever in just 28 days. The benefits of fasting are unmatched! Your body shifts from burning glucose to burning stored fat, helping you lose weight. It can also stabilize blood sugar and even improve your mood and sleep quality. Sign up today for 60 percent off (that's just $15.65, or 56 cents a day). Save 60% Shop It's time to feel your best, and there is no time like now to get started on the Reverse Health fasting challenge Designed specifically to help women in midlife, the program takes a personalized approach to helping you shed unwanted pounds and improve your overall health. It's the combination of the two that is so vital to your wellbeing, especially during this transitional period of life when the body undergoes so many dramatic changes. Intermittent fasting can play a significant role in helping your body handle them. Fasting doesn't have to be a challenge thanks to this manageable program that's tailored to your specific needs Studies have found that by fasting, you can manage your weight more efficiently. It's not even just a theory. Centuries ago, people wouldn't eat for hours upon hours while they hunted and gathered for their next meal. Between the larger portions and the tempting snacks at every turn, though, food culture has obviously evolved. But fasting still exists, and it can be a great way to control how your body responds to your food intake. Under normal circumstances, your body uses glucose as its primary source of energy. When there's no more glucose left to burn though, your body shifts to mobilizing your stored fat. That's the key to weight loss — but there are other benefits to fasting, too, like reducing blood sugar, supporting heart health, and even boosting memory and sleep. The beauty of the Reverse Health is that it's tailored specifically to your body's changing needs during perimenopause and menopause. Packed with features, the Reverse Health app has all that you need to enjoy a successful challenge, including meal tips, reminders, trackers, and more Because estrogen drops during this time, it can affect how you respond to fasting. That's taken into account when creating your schedule, which is specifically designed to help you meet your personal goals. And you get a built-in support system, with helpful features like timers to help you stick to good habits and useful videos that teach you all about fasting and its impact on hormonal inflammation, along with access to the Reverse Health community. That's on top of other extras, like healthy recipes to enjoy during your eating windows, tips to support your overall wellness, and the kind of motivation you need to stick to the program and see results. Within just 28 days, you could both see and feel an incredible difference! Your confidence and health are worth it. Get started and enjoy 60 percent off when you join the Reverse Health 28-day fasting challenge today.


Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Contraception used by thousands increases risk of brain tumour, study finds
Women on a widely–used contraceptive jab are three–and–a–half times more likely to suffer a potentially–fatal brain tumour, a study shows. It's the third major investigation in just over a year to show the jab raises the risk of a meningioma, the most common type of tumour in the brain, in those on it for 12 months or more. Around 10,000 prescriptions a month are issued for medroxyprogesterone acetate— sold under the brand name Depo Provera—in England alone. Hundreds of women in the UK are now reported to be considering legal action against the manufacturer Pfizer, for not warning them of the risks. A class action is already underway against Pfizer and other generic manufacturers of the jab in the US, where more than 500 women allege the companies were aware of the link but failed to adequately warn users of the risks or promote safer alternatives. The drug is a hormone injection give every three months and works by preventing eggs from being released by a woman's ovaries. It was first licensed for use on the NHS as a contraceptive over 40 years ago. But a 2024 study in the British Medical Journal of more than 18,000 women, by a team of scientists from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, concluded those who stayed on it for at least a year were up to five times more at risk of a meningioma. The jab is administered every three months in a doctor's surgery or sexual health clinic A second probe in September last year, by researchers at the University of Alabama in the US, produced similar results. Although non–cancerous, the condition can cause blurred vision, headaches, hearing loss, poor sense of smell and problems with swallowing. Tumours are normally slow–growing but can kill by compressing the brain and nerves if they grow too big. Between 2,000 and 3,000 people a year in the UK are diagnosed with a meningioma and it's more common in women. In the latest study, scientists at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, compared meningioma rates in 72,181 women on the jab with more than 247,000 women on oral contraception. The results, in the journal Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, showed the risks were more than trebled in long–term users of the jab. Researcher Dr Mahyar Etminan said the dangers did not appear to increase the more years women spent on the drug. But he added: 'I do believe the evidence is now robust, with three large studies showing pretty much the same thing. 'Women concerned about this risk may want to consider opting for alternative contraceptives.' It's not clear why the jab triggers tumour growth. One theory is the synthetic hormone it uses – progestogen – binds to meningioma cells and helps them grow. Some research suggests certain versions of the Pill made with progestogen can also heighten the risk of meningioma but only in a small proportion of women who take it for more than five years. The UK drug safety watchdog—the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—last October called on Pfizer to include a warning about the heightened risk in patient information leaflets. Pfizer also wrote to NHS doctors urging them to immediately stop women from using Depo Provera if they were diagnosed with a meningioma. Virginia Buchanan, partner at Levin Papantonio—the law firm handling the case in the US—said: 'This new study reinforces the need for legal action against Pfizer, with the hope of bringing justice for the women who have never been warned about the increased risk of developing a brain tumour from using Depo–Provera and who have gone on to develop meningiomas.'


Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
MoD admits Britain's troops could have brain damage caused by their own weapons
Senior British officers and scientists admit British troops may suffer 'brain damage' caused by low impact blasts from their own weapons while fighting on the frontline Thousands of UK troops could have brain damage caused by their own weapons, defence chiefs have confirmed. Blast waves repeatedly caused by explosions from weapons could have led to life-long health issues, it has been revealed. The Ministry of Defence's lead officer on Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Lt Col James Mitchell admitted exposure to weapons blasts could cause the injuries. He told ITV News that in Iraq and Afghanistan, TBI and concussion was caused by larger explosions and blasts. But in fact low level blasts may cause health problems. Lt Col Mitchell told ITV News: "Over especially the last five to ten years, we're starting to appreciate the role of what we call low level blasts.' He said low level blasts were predominantly being caused by "the exposure of our service personnel to blast over-pressure from their own weapons systems." Lt Col Mitchell said 'thousands' of personnel may have been exposed to harmful blasts. Most at risk are troops exposed to heavy weapons like mortars, shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons, 50-calibre rifles and machine guns, or explosive charges. Explosions create a wave of 'overpressure', a spike in the surrounding air pressure above normal atmospheric levels caused by a blast wave. The force is so strong it enters the skull and can cause microscopic damage to blood vessels and neurons. Repeated exposure means the brain may not heal itself, causing serious long-term neurological damage. Symptoms of blast-related TBI overlap with those of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), making it difficult to diagnose. They are severe headaches, sight problems, sensitivity to noise and light, memory loss and a sense of personality change. Scientists are probing the causes of TBI, with financial support from the MoD. The University of Birmingham is playing a key role in the mild TBI study in partnership with the MoD, which aims to estimate what kind of brain damage veterans have. Professor Lisa Hill, a neuroscientist at Birmingham University said: 'If somebody gets injured, it changes the structure and function of the brain, but it also releases chemicals that you wouldn't normally see,' she said. 'So if we can measure things in blood or in their saliva, that can tell us how potentially bad their injury has been and what symptoms they might go on to get.' Hugh Keir, a Para Regiment sniper who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, now runs the H-Hour podcast which is popular with veterans in the UK and abroad. He volunteered to undergo a trial scan to see if his years of exposure to blast have left a mark. The results showed normal brain activity overall, but there were some signs that may indicate damage. Professor Mullinger also plans to study soldiers in real time, to see which activities are highest risk. 'We can scan these soldiers before they go and do a training exercise and then immediately after, then we get a baseline which is specific to them,' she said. 'If the 'wire paths' have been damaged by blasts or whatever else it might be, then the function is going to change.' The information collected from these trials could shape policy, such as modifying the most damaging weapons or reducing blast exposure in training exercises. British troops throughout the Afghan and Iraq wars were repeatedly exposed to firefights, explosions from bombs and mortars, especially being fired by their own side. Thousands have suffered hearing loss from the blasts but the new research suggests lower-grade blasts may have caused long-term issues. Sources said the research into the issue is ongoing and may result in protective gear used by soldiers may be investigated and further improved in a bid to protect against the blast waves. An estimated 300,000 armed forces personnel suffering with hearing loss caused by the relentless noise of military life. Hearing loss and tinnitus is much more common in the military population than the general public. In fact, by the age of 75, service personnel are 3.5 times more likely to experience hearing difficulties than the general public. The UK Armed Forces has a number of compensation schemes for serving and former serving personnel who have been injured as a result of their service in the armed forces. If the injury was caused prior to April 6 2005 and the person is no longer serving this would be the War Pension Scheme (WPS). The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) was established for soldiers injured after 2005 who are still in active service. However the criteria to claim for both schemes is arduous and in-depth.