Tap Water Contamination: Health Risks and What Research Shows
This paper investigates whether tap water contamination poses a genuine public health risk or is largely overstated by commercial interests. Beginning with the assumption that contamination concerns are exaggerated, the author conducts internet and Google Scholar research and discovers that the reality is more concerning than anticipated. The paper examines how volatile compounds enter the body through showering and other non-drinking exposures, reviews epidemiological links between chlorinated water and bladder cancer as well as adverse reproductive outcomes, and evaluates bottled water as an alternative. Drawing on sources including the Environmental Working Group and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the paper concludes that while some hype exists, tap water contamination is a legitimate and underappreciated health concern.
- Introduction: Personal motivation for investigating tap water contamination
- Initial Assumptions About Tap Water Safety: Hypothesis that contamination concerns are overstated
- Research Process and Sources: Google and Google Scholar search methods used
- Key Findings on Contamination and Health Risks: Chloroform exposure, cancer links, and unregulated chemicals
- Bottled Water as an Alternative: FAO evidence that bottled water is not clearly superior
- Conclusion: Revised position: contamination real but manageable
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper establishes a clear personal hypothesis upfront and honestly revises it in the conclusion, demonstrating intellectual honesty and a genuine inquiry process.
- It draws on peer-reviewed epidemiological sources alongside institutional reports (FAO, Environmental Working Group), giving the argument empirical grounding despite its informal framing.
- The paper broadens its scope by addressing non-ingestion exposure pathways (showering, dermal contact), which most general readers would not consider — adding genuine depth to the contamination discussion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses direct quotation strategically: rather than paraphrasing technical findings, the author quotes key passages precisely (e.g., the Weisel & Jo dosage comparison) so that the evidence speaks with its own authority. This technique is especially effective when citing scientific thresholds or regulatory standards, where paraphrase risks distorting meaning.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a personal inquiry arc: introduction (motivation), assumptions (hypothesis), search process (methodology), findings (evidence and analysis), and conclusion (revised position). This reflective structure — common in exploratory or research-log assignments — works well here because it mirrors actual information-seeking behavior and makes the argument's development transparent to the reader.
Introduction
This paper examines the possible existence of tap water contamination — a topic of personal concern given the long-standing claim that tap water is unsafe and that avoiding contamination requires spending money on any number of schemes. These range from the comparatively modest expense of buying bottled water to the enormously costly project of retrofitting an entire home water system with purification equipment. It is particularly important to determine whether such warnings are simply a money-making strategy on the part of businesses or whether there is genuine cause for concern.
Even the cheapest alternative — purchasing bottled water — accumulates into a worrisome expense over time. On the other hand, purifying tap water may be a necessary safeguard for one's health, in which case the expenditure may be well worthwhile.
Initial Assumptions About Tap Water Safety
The initial assumption here is that tap water is not as contaminated as some claim. This assumption rests on the observation that greater public awareness campaigns would exist if the situation were truly dire. Smoking offers a useful comparison: the government goes to great lengths to warn the public against cigarettes, establishing programs at public expense to encourage smoking reduction. If tap water were dangerously contaminated, one might expect similar warnings and cost-reduced purification systems to be implemented at the government level.
Efforts are already underway to purify streams, and activists monitor water quality. While water may have been more contaminated at some point in the past, there is reason to believe the situation has improved.
References
Bove, F., Fulcomer, M. C., & Savrin, J. E. (1995). Public drinking water contamination and birth outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology, 141, 850–862.
Latham, M. (1997). Human nutrition in the developing world. Food and Nutrition Series, 29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
McGeehin, M. A., Reif, J. S., Becher, J. C., & Mangione, E. J. (1993). Case-control study of bladder cancer and water disinfection methods in Colorado. American Journal of Epidemiology, 138, 492–501.
Weisel, C. P., & Jo, W. K. (1996). Ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposures to chloroform and trichloroethene from tap water. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104, 48–51.
West, L. Tap water in 42 states contaminated by chemicals. About.com.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.