
Tap water contains hidden danger linked to harm for unborn babies
Columbia University researchers found pregnant woman exposed to even trace amounts in drinking water were much more likely to have premature births or have underweight kids. Children born preterm or underweight face lifelong risks—impaired cognition, developmental delays, and chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and immune deficiencies. Arsenic crosses the placenta and disrupts fetal development by interfering with hormones, DNA expression, and organ formation.
It also disrupts nutrient absorption, stunting growth, and triggers inflammation, raising the risk of an early birth. The EPA's current max contamination limit (MCL) for arsenic in drinking water is 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L). But the researchers found: 'Higher prenatal public water arsenic was associated with lower birth weight, reduced birth weight–for–gestational age...and a higher risk of low birth weight even at concentrations less than 5 μg/L.' Arsenic seeps into groundwater and contaminates the supply that ultimately reaches tap water in homes. An estimated 2.1 million people throughout the US may be drinking domestic well water high in arsenic.
The element has also been found in municipal water supplies in all 50 states. Up to 280 million people rely on public water systems. The greatest concern is water systems in the Southwest due to arsenic-rich rocks and arsenic-rich volcanic and sedimentary rock erosion. The new paper, funded by the NIH, analyzed data from a nationwide research project called the ECHO Cohort, which tracks over 69 different groups of pregnant women and children across the US and Puerto Rico. It revealed white mothers were most exposed to higher arsenic levels – over 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L) in public water - making up 69 percent of this group.
Slightly under eight percent had underweight newborns,1,190 of 14,000 births births came too early, 840 infants were critically small, and 1,400 babies were dangerously undersized for their stage of development. This study revealed racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes. Hispanic/Latino mothers had healthier babies—higher birth weights and fewer complications—than non-Hispanic/Latino mothers. In contrast, Black mothers' babies were, on average, 245 grams lighter and faced higher risks of preterm birth, low birth weight, and being small for gestational age. 'Most U.S. residents rely on public drinking water, and our findings suggest that further reducing arsenic in public water systems could be an important step to improve infant health across the U.S.,' said Dr Anne Nigra, PhD, an environmental health scientist at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health. 'Even low levels of arsenic in public drinking water were associated with low birthweight and other adverse birth outcomes in U.S. infants.'
Long-term exposure has been linked to leukemia and cancers of the colon, skin, breast, stomach, mouth, kidney, and more, as well as heart disease. Even tiny amounts of inorganic arsenic — the kind found in drinking water — wreak havoc on your cardiovascular system by causing oxidative stress that can kill cells, inflammation that damages blood vessels, and stiff, damaged arteries. 'Most U.S. residents rely on public drinking water, and our findings suggest that further reducing arsenic in public water systems could be an important step to improve infant health across the U.S.,' said Dr Anne Nigra, an environmental health expert at Columbia University 's Mailman School of Public Health.
The Columbia researchers behind the latest study analyzed arsenic exposure in 14,000 US pregnancies by linking EPA water system data recorded from 2006 to 2019 to records of where the participants lived during pregnancy. Researchers tracked monthly water arsenic levels and examined four birth outcomes: preterm delivery, low birth weight, small gestational size, and birth weight scores. The analysis accounted for factors like maternal age and education while intentionally preserving racial/ethnic differences.
Even small increases in arsenic levels (one μg/L) in public water raised low birth weight risks by three percent, with higher exposures (five μg/L) increasing risks by 16 percent. They reported some caveats. The majority of ECHO participants reside in urban areas. They estimated arsenic exposure based on local water systems near people's homes, but they do not yet know if this fully captures their actual exposure. People do not just drink water at home. They are also exposed at work, school, or other places they go to frequently. The researchers' findings were published in the journal JAMA Network Open.
Hashtags

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


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Doctor reveals diet that mimics the effect of fasting without starving yourself could also CURE cancer
A leading longevity doctor has revealed the diet he says may be able to cure cancer, and potentially ward it off in the first place. There is growing evidence that severe calorie restriction (less than 800 per day) can starve cancer cells of the fuel they need to grow, halting them in their tracks and killing them off. Your browser does not support iframes.


Times
4 hours ago
- Times
What is the healthiest breakfast cereal?
I s this the beginning of the end for breakfast cereal? The morning staple took off in the 1950s as a convenient alternative to porridge or eggs. Quick, tasty and 'fortified with vitamins and minerals', it has been filling our bowls ever since — but recently the total sale of branded cereals has dipped by 6.5 per cent, with only oats and granola bucking the trend. Why have we fallen out of love with cornflakes and co? Mostly it's due to an increase in health-conscious consumers avoiding ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and added sugars — many cereals can be packed full of them, regardless of the benefits trumpeted on the front of the box. However, experts say it can be a healthy choice, with some caveats. 'Cereal isn't inherently good or bad — it depends on the type and how you serve it,' says Rob Hobson, a nutritionist and the author of Unprocess Your Life. This is your guide to navigating the cereal aisle.


The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr
A US supreme court decision affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare sets the stage for more politicized science in the future, health law experts said about the court's decision. The court's majority opinion in Kennedy v Braidwood Management found that an expert panel – the preventive services taskforce – convened under the Affordable Care Act is under the direct oversight of the health secretary. 'This is your classic good news, bad news,' said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law. 'In a sane world, with a secretary of health that believes in science and doesn't bring in conspiracy theories and agendas, you would applaud this decision.' With health policy now in the hands of the Trump administration, 'it gives Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr] complete power about what to recommend and what not to recommend,' Gostin said. The court issued the opinion only hours after an expert vaccine advisory panel (ACIP) handpicked by Kennedy subverted the scientific consensus by recommending against vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative overwhelmingly considered safe. Thimerosal has been a subject of misinformation and anti-vaccine advocacy for decades. Much like the expert panel in question in the Braidwood case, the recommendations of the vaccine advisory committee are a key link in the treatment distribution pipeline. Recommendations from both panels are typically affirmed by the leadership of the health department, and then become the basis on which insurers base coverage decisions. In the case of the ACIP, those recommendations typically concern vaccines. In the preventive taskforce context, they include a wide range of treatments – from statins to cancer screenings to HIV prevention. It was widely recognized that Kennedy had the authority to hire and fire people for the vaccine panel – but legal controversy existed about whether health secretaries have the same power over the preventive services taskforce. 'The president and the Senate are accountable 'for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one',' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the six-vote majority. In other words, the court said, if you don't like it, go to the ballot box. MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health law management at the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, told the Guardian: 'We have that structure in place – and that is a really great structure if the folks in charge are actually deferring to the experts and the science and what the evidence says.' She added: 'To the extent that we are going to make decisions based on bad science – that has really serious public health implications.' The panel at the center of the vaccine decision is the ACIP vaccine panel. Until June, the advisory panel was made up of 17 experts vetted by CDC career scientists. Their recommendations, while not binding, were almost always approved by CDC leadership. Kennedy fired all 17 members unilaterally in June and stocked the panel with eight ideological allies – including vaccine skeptics and medical professionals with little experience in vaccines. One panelist withdrew after a government financial review, and after it was widely publicized that the secretary's claims about the panelist's affiliation with two universities was false. Wayne Turner, a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program, which advocates for the medically underserved, said that he and others were 'certainly breathing a sigh of relief with the court's decision today' because a key provision of Obamacare was found to be constitutional. 'But that sigh of relief is really short-lived,' Turner said. 'We have long anticipated with the appointment of RFK Jr, and certainly with his actions with the ACIP, that we can fully expect the preventive services taskforce to be the next battleground in the ideological war this administration seems to be waging. And the war is against science.' The subject of the Braidwood case provides a salient example. Plaintiffs were suing the government to claim that the taskforce was wrongly appointed. Although their legal argument was thorny, one treatment they specifically cited as wrong was insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prevention drug. Although the plaintiffs' claim that the taskforce was unconstitutional was swatted down, it provides activists with a roadmap to get what they want – if they can convince Kennedy to appoint more ideological allies to the taskforce. The preventive services taskforce may have one protective mechanism: a requirement that they be guided by evidence written into Obamacare, the legislation that impaneled them. Gearing up for another fight, Turner said: 'That's going to be an important thing for us to point to in the weeks and months ahead, and years, quite frankly.'