The usual suggestion is that they find their way into waterways in urine. The truth is that most of us are exposed to endocrine disruptors (not to mention carcinogens) on a daily basis and that we absorb many of them through our respiratory tracts, our digestive system and our skin.

They are chemicals that are used in making paper and textiles, that are found in paints and pesticides, detergents, cosmetics, shampoos, hair colour products and many more. Some are used in the lining of cans of tinned food where they have been found to leach into things like peas and mixed veges. They’re in cough mixtures and tooth pastes, burning plastic and bleaches, lunch wraps and liniments.

The notion that they all originate from the piddle of people on prescription drugs or women on the pill is a fallacy. Given their widespread usage in such common everyday substances, it’s not at all surprising that many find their way into wastewater treatment works. After all, only a very small proportion of wastewater, or sewage, actually originates from bodily functions, the rest, the vast bulk of it, is from our showers, laundries, sinks and industries.

But this is surely a case for the need for a better, a far more thorough, treatment of our wastewater. When Lawrence Springborg was concerned about sex changes in fish in English rivers, he should have been asking about the inputs into the waterway and the degree of treatment beforehand.

Of course no one wants them in our rivers nor our water supplies. If we treat wastewater with progressively smaller and smaller filters right down to membrane, molecular level, then we are providing a far safer process than we currently use in most drinking-water treatment works.

The confidence that we currently place in being able to drink water that is free of water-borne diseases should be able to be extended to cover chemicals in the water. But only if we engage in that extra treatment.