Estimation of incidence and social cost of colon cancer due to nitrate in drinking water in the EU: a tentative cost-benefit assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Presently, health costs associated with nitrate in drinking water are uncertain and not quantified. This limits proper evaluation of current policies and measures for solving or preventing nitrate pollution of drinking water resources. The cost for society associated with nitrate is also relevant for integrated assessment of EU nitrogen policies taking a perspective of welfare optimization. The overarching question is at which nitrogen mitigation level the social cost of measures, including their consequence for availability of food and energy, matches the social benefit of these measures for human health and biodiversity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Epidemiological studies suggest colon cancer to be possibly associated with nitrate in drinking water. In this study risk increase for colon cancer is based on a case-control study for Iowa, which is extrapolated to assess the social cost for 11 EU member states by using data on cancer incidence, nitrogen leaching and drinking water supply in the EU. Health costs are provisionally compared with nitrate mitigation costs and social benefits of fertilizer use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For above median meat consumption the risk of colon cancer doubles when exposed to drinking water exceeding 25 mg/L of nitrate (NO₃) for more than ten years. We estimate the associated increase of incidence of colon cancer from nitrate contamination of groundwater based drinking water in EU11 at 3%. This corresponds to a population-averaged health loss of 2.9 euro per capita or 0.7 euro per kg of nitrate-N leaching from fertilizer.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our cost estimates indicate that current measures to prevent exceedance of 50 mg/L NO₃are probably beneficial for society and that a stricter nitrate limit and additional measures may be justified. The present assessment of social cost is uncertain because it considers only one type of cancer, it is based on one epidemiological study in Iowa, and involves various assumptions regarding exposure. Our results highlight the need for improved epidemiological studies.</p

Does the evidence about health risks associated with nitrate ingestion warrant an increase of the nitrate standard for drinking water?

Several authors have suggested that it is safe to raise the health standard for nitrate in drinking water, and save money on measures associated with nitrate pollution of drinking water resources. The major argument has been that the epidemiologic evidence for acute and chronic health effects related to drinking water nitrate at concentrations near the health standard is inconclusive. With respect to the chronic effects, the argument was motivated by the absence of evidence for adverse health effects related to ingestion of nitrate from dietary sources. An interdisciplinary discussion of these arguments led to three important observations. First, there have been only a few well-designed epidemiologic studies that evaluated ingestion of nitrate in drinking water and risk of specific cancers or adverse reproductive outcomes among potentially susceptible subgroups likely to have elevated endogenous nitrosation. Positive associations have been observed for some but not all health outcomes evaluated. Second, the epidemiologic studies of cancer do not support an association between ingestion of dietary nitrate (vegetables) and an increased risk of cancer, because intake of dietary nitrate is associated with intake of antioxidants and other beneficial phytochemicals. Third, 2–3 % of the population in Western Europe and the US could be exposed to nitrate levels in drinking water exceeding the WHO standard of 50 mg/l nitrate, particularly those living in rural areas. The health losses due to this exposure cannot be estimated. Therefore, we conclude that it is not possible to weigh the costs and benefits from changing the nitrate standard for drinking water and groundwater resources by considering the potential consequences for human health and by considering the potential savings due to reduced costs for nitrate removal and prevention of nitrate pollution

Role of Kv1 Potassium Channels in Regulating Dopamine Release and Presynaptic D2 Receptor Function

Dopamine (DA) release in the CNS is critical for motor control and motivated behaviors. Dysfunction of its regulation is thought to be implicated in drug abuse and in diseases such as schizophrenia and Parkinson's. Although various potassium channels located in the somatodendritic compartment of DA neurons such as G-protein-gated inward rectifying potassium channels (GIRK) have been shown to regulate cell firing and DA release, little is presently known about the role of potassium channels localized in the axon terminals of these neurons. Here we used fast-scan cyclic voltammetry to study electrically-evoked DA release in rat dorsal striatal brain slices. We find that although G-protein-gated inward rectifying (GIRK) and ATP-gated (KATP) potassium channels play only a minor role, voltage-gated potassium channels of the Kv1 family play a major role in regulating DA release. The use of Kv subtype-selective blockers confirmed a role for Kv1.2, 1.3 and 1.6, but not Kv1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 4.2. Interestingly, Kv1 blockers also reduced the ability of quinpirole, a D2 receptor agonist, to inhibit evoked DA overflow, thus suggesting that Kv1 channels also regulate presynaptic D2 receptor function. Our work identifies Kv1 potassium channels as key regulators of DA release in the striatum

When Does Nitrate Become a Risk for Humans?

Is nitrate harmful to humans? Are the current limits for nitrate concentration in drinking water justified by science? There is substantial disagreement among scientists over the interpretation of evidence on the issue. There are two main health issues: the linkage between nitrate and (i) infant methaemoglobinaemia, also known as blue baby syndrome, and (ii) cancers of the digestive tract. The evidence for nitrate as a cause of these serious diseases remains controversial. On one hand there is evidence that shows there is no clear association between nitrate in drinking water and the two main health issues with which it has been linked, and there is even evidence emerging of a possible benefit of nitrate in cardiovascular health. There is also evidence of nitrate intake giving protection against infections such as gastroenteritis. Some scientists suggest that there is sufficient evidence for increasing the permitted concentration of nitrate in drinking water without increasing risks to human health. However, subgroups within a population may be more susceptible than others to the adverse health effects of nitrate. Moreover, individuals with increased rates of endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds are likely to be susceptible to the development of cancers in the digestive system. Given the lack of consensus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive, independent study to determine whether the current nitrate limit for drinking water is scientifically justified or whether it could safely be raised