Plastic Water Bottles Won't Hurt You

Ignore the junk science and follow the facts.

(Page 2 of 2)

"He is the puppet master, and we moms are his puppets. He orchestrates the scare, and we, being fearful for our children, unknowingly carry out his plan for him. He comes out a winner, and we are duped into wasting our time, money and energy fighting a battle that never needed to be fought."

Good for you, Junk Science Mom, whoever you are. "Truth or Scare" is a wonderful addition to the debate.

But if BPA isn't toxic, why will Canada ban it? And why have Connecticut and Minnesota already done so? Because scientifically illiterate legislators are quick to panic. When the media sensationalize, legislators respond. Two FDA scientists—Ronald J. Lorentzen and David G. Hattan—note the bias toward sensationalism: "The disquieting public invocations made by some ... about the perils of exposure (to BPA) ... galvanize the public debate."

When even notoriously risk-averse FDA scientists speak out against the BPA panic, the scaremongers must have gone absurdly far.

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Old Mexican||

    As I announced it yesterday, let the flamewar begin!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Along the same lines: "Hey, let's get rid of these pesticides because they might cause cancer in doses 500 times what the average person is likely to face."

    Ten years later...

    "Bedbugs? Where did all these bedbugs come from?"

  • Brett L||

    Psst! I've got some homebrewed DDT to sell.

  • Colonel||

    Fuck. I may or may not have recently contracted lyme disease (I still need to get around to getting that checked on). Malaria, west nile, rabies, and various vectors and pests all could have been cut down on by some DDT.

  • jb||

    Yes, and all their predators too.So when all the predators are gone we can just keep dumping more and more toxins. Good plan.

  • ||

    DDT isn't used to kill every single mosquito. It's used to kill those that come in contact with human populations. That's why the most effective spraying campaigns are the ones targeting the inside of homes. Which is perfectly safe, as seen from years of experience, and a lot less trouble than dumping tons of the stuff from the sky. Everyone wins! Especially the thousands of people who won't die from malaria.

  • Colonel||

    Fuck. I may or may not have recently contracted lyme disease (I still need to get around to getting that checked on). Malaria, west nile, rabies, and various vectors and pests all could have been cut down on by some DDT.

  • MNG||

    " I may or may not have recently contracted lyme disease"

    I didn't know that a symptom was deranged conservatism or double posting. Huh.

  • Colonel||

    Its funny. I'm having trouble using my right arm.

  • MNG||

    There's always your LEFT.

  • Clean Sanchez||

    The left typically has very poor dexterity, is clumsy and unrefined. It is utilized by only those with a genetic abnormality that prevents proper use of the other. The same gene is also responsible for hypochondria and hallucinations.

  • Cyto||

    I heard one theory that lefties (handedness) were the result of identical twins where one of the twins didn't survive. Apparently twins are often identical but mirror images - one left handed, the other right. I read it in Discover or Scientific American, so appropriate doses of salt are recommended..

  • Snookums||

    According to wikipedia, that theory has been debunked.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_handed

  • SIV||

    Dursban

  • ||

    If our ancestors hadn't intruded on the caves where batbugs lived, there never even would have been bedbugs. So it's our own fault.

  • ||

    Sins of the father is a stupid concept.

  • Tanya||

    Bedbugs have come from different countries via immigrants.

  • ||

    Racist!

  • Old Mexican||

    Yet many people are sure BPA causes not only breast and prostate cancer but also obesity, diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity, autism, liver disease, ovarian disease, disease of the uterus, low sperm count, and heart disease. When a chemical is said to cause so many disorders, that's a sure sign of unscientific hysteria.

    But that's how shysters and con-artists like Erin Brokovich get the dough, man!

  • Ragin Cajun||

    ovarian disease, disease of the uterus, low sperm count

    I think people are using these bottles beyond their intended use.

  • AlmightyJB||

    And wouldn't that help solve the overpopulation "crisis"?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I've never understood why low sperm count is considered a bad side effect. I think of it as a bonus.

  • John Holdren, Science Czar||

    Low sperm count???

    Hey - I'm interested in this BPA thing . . .

  • ||

    agreed

  • ||

    But does it cause dogs and cats to live together?

  • Old Mexican||

    Richard Sharpe of the University of Edinburgh explained:

    "Some early animal studies produced results suggesting the possibility of adverse effects relevant to human health, but much larger, carefully designed studies in several laboratories have failed to confirm these initial studies."

    "By scientists who do not use the methologies of East Anglia, for a change."

  • Freaked out enviro-nut||

    I don't care what the studies show: With a name like "BPA" it has to be bad news.

  • Clean Sanchez||

    You probably even have it all over you from acid rain. It might even be linked to climate, why workers unions don't have unlimited power and the higher than average impotency rates among Democrats.

  • stuartl||

    But, but, but....has the EPA proved that no child will be hurt ever?

    If David Fenton has protected just one baby in the next 1000 years, he should be praised.

  • ||

    It just makes my teeth ache whenever someone trots out the "but if it saves just one life, it's worth it" argument.

  • sarcasmic||

    Then that baby dies of botulism thanks to a can not being lined with BPA containing plastic.

  • stuartl||

    Better 1000s of babies die from natural diseases than a single baby from an evil chemical.

  • ||

    Stuart FTW! ROFL

  • Mango Punch||

    I miss lobster girl.

  • Wind Rider||

    People, and their herders, prefer teh big scareez. And imaginary scareez are much more useful for satisifying the lack of new Stephen King material than drab, mundane reality. We're a fear junkie species.

  • VAX mask||

    I'm dressing up as a polio vaccine for Halloween.

  • ||

    I'm kickin' it old school - Tylenol caplet!

  • All right!||

    Let's go the the Huff Post Halloween Party!

  • ||

    I'm going as Kathleen Sebelius.
    That way, I can get away with shooting up out of syringes labeled 'H1N1 VACCINE'. Is that to '09 ish?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I find it hard to believe that cancer would be higher due to modern chemistry, compared to the shit that people were ignorantly contaminating themselves with forty years ago.

  • Brett L||

    Lot fewer of us dying of malnutrition or preventable childhood diseases. Why wouldn't cancer incidence be higher?

  • ||

    Yup. Any man who lives long enough will develop prostate cancer, for example.

  • ||

    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero.

  • waffles||

    as a transhumanist I say prove it

  • ||

    In Tyler we trust

  • ||

    Big fuckin' deal. My prostate will heal itself.. or some shit.

    How the fuck do you think Cyclops got all that badass pinkeye? Xavier don't believe in MaryJ dispensaries anyways.

  • ||

    The safer we are, the more people worry. Personally, I blame the baby boomers.

  • Clean Sanchez||

    It's the pot, known to influence feelings of paranoia.

  • MNG||

    Perhaps these folks feel about chemicals the way you guys feel about government: always be wary of any vindicating claims.

  • ||

    Isn't everything that exists technically a "chemical" ?

  • MNG||

    Like the chemical Pedanticum?

    OK, let's say synthetic ones or whatever. I imagine you knew WTF I was saying.

  • ||

    Apparently you didn't understand what I was saying.

  • ||

    Sure he did. That's why he responded like an asshole. That's all he's got.

  • ||

    True to form, MNG blames the audience for his semantic mistakes. Maybe you should "recalibrate your words".

  • MNG||

    Yeah Tulpa, being pedantic is so much fun!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Well, it's a silly distinction, more based on Original Sin than science. "It's man-made, it must be evul!"

    Okay, take something organic - well, it has to have carbon (C) to be organic, right? Add something that's all around us - say, nitrogen (N) - it's most of the air we breathe! And that mixture is found in many places in nature, including apple seeds and peach pits! Why, that must be good for you! >> CN.

  • Zeb||

    There is no sensible distinction to be made between natural and synthetic products, as you seem to be trying to do. Under such a definition, nothing humans do is natural unless they are living naked on an African plane.

  • ||

    I would live naked on a plane if I lived in first class....

  • Cliché Bandit||

    We got muthafukin naked on a muthafukin plane up here!!!

  • ||

    Why would we be naked on an African plane? Is the air conditioning broken?

  • ||

    Yup. Stool fucker is right again. He's like a god to me.

  • MNG||

    EAPie! Taking a break between breathless attendance at Palin rallies I see.

    Good for you!

  • Hooha||

    They're almost as faith-in-humanity taxing as those breathless, swooning crowds at Obama rallies were.

  • ANTI VAXXERS||

    "Perhaps these folks feel about chemicals"

    Or perhaps they feel about them like the ANTI-vaxxers feel about vaccines. Feelings are important.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Perhaps these folks feel about chemicals the way you guys feel about government: always be wary of any vindicating claims.

    Usually, at least in MY case, chemicals don't slap spurious parking tickets on my windshield, nor do they tap my wallet every April 15th.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    always be wary of any vindicating claims.

    Like: "Government makes ROADS!"??

  • ||

    You know, OM, if it weren't for roads, BPA would likely have gone undiscovered.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Maybe they are just too stupid to analyze information. You know the excuse: "not everyone can be an expert!"

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You know what else is made of chemicals?
    Roads.

  • Rhea Son||

    And pay no attention to the concept of "dosage"!

    Anyways, forget the man-made stuff. Always go organic & natural, like, say, venereal disease.

  • ||

    "Since BPA became commonplace in the lining of canned goods, food-borne illness from canned foods—including botulism—has virtually disappeared," says the American Council of Science and Health.

    Botulism is organic, BPA isn't.
    Therefore BPA should be banned. Case closed.

  • ||

    Organic and natural...don't forget natural...

  • ||

    bio-dy-NAM-ic!

  • MNG||

    So BPA doesn't have negative effects because very little of it gets in our system, but it has positive effects despite that?

  • ||

    Looks like.

  • Positive ||

    Even for anti-science left-wing kooks.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    So BPA doesn't have negative effects because very little of it gets in our system, but it has positive effects despite that?

    I learned back in school that water in your tummy good, water in your lungs bad. Same case here, I guess.

  • Alex||

    Technically, you have water in your lungs right now.

  • Hooha||

    To quote the wise Robin Williams, in reguards to the assertation that 'a little [water] never hurt anybody'; "Yeah, but a lot can kill ya!"

  • Brett L||

    The positive is less food-borne illness because of better materials. Nothing to do with human exposure levels.

  • stuartl||

    Yes. BPA allows us to make plastics that keep liquids sanitary. Stossel mentioned botulism.

    Have you ever heard of relative risk?

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Just like driving. You could reduce the death rate from car accidents to 0 if you outlawed cars. Would your life be better, though?

    Maybe some people do develop health problems because of BPA. Unless that number of people is greater than the number of people who would sicken and die because of botulism and other food borne illnesses, then a ban is not good policy.

    I don't think there are many times when outright bans are the best policy. The best idea (which you advocated below) is usually to label items and let the users make their own decisions.

  • MNG||

    Oh yes Jimbo, my position means I am for outlawing cars. What a steel trap of a mind you have.

    Drinking from plastic bottles a lot lately, eh?

  • Pope Jimbo||

    MNG, defensive?

    I didn't say that cars should be outlawed. I tried to point out that outright bans rarely work as well as some sort of middle ground.

    Since whiskey doesn't come in plastic bottles, I am not too worried about it myself. But the whiskey might explain why I sort of agreed with you in that last bit.

  • Al Coholic||

    "Since whiskey doesn't come in plastic bottles, I am not too worried about it myself."

    Jim Beam's "Traveler" is made of lightweight PET.

  • ||

    Watch out, PJ - MNG has activated his WonderTwin powers...

  • Jayna||

    Shape of....a douchebag!

  • lolwut ||

    Form of... a douche-nozzle!

  • Cyto||

    That's "Form of...an ICE douche-nozzle!"

  • Hooha||

    I saw him turn into steam once to escape a jug. Poor bastard doesn't even get the 'worst power' award because of that Aquaman prick.

  • jb||

    Actually you can make cans without BPA and still not get botulism.So I have no idea where cars have anything to do with this.

  • ||

    His intelligence questioned, MNG trots out what his peanut-brain thinks is a contradiction.

    (Sorry if my Marty Stouffer impression is a bit rusty.)

  • ||

    In Stouffer's voice, your comment reads perfectly.

  • ||

    +1

  • Bill||

    It kills the botulism spores in the can, dumbass. Then when we ingest it, the enzymes and low pH in our stomach degrade the BPA.

  • jb||

    Actually the BPA goes into your body just the same,and if you were to be tested you would find it's in all your fluids dumbass.

  • ||

    Since 1776, Americans have been living longer and healthier lives. Thanks, Canada!

  • ||

    I think you meant, "Fuck you, Canada!"

  • MNG||

    When it comes to my kids I would err on the side of caution. Not being a chemist that means that if significant folks on both sides are making contrary claims I would try to avoid the product. As a clearer consensus emerged I would likely move more towards ignoring the critics.

    But different people may feel differently and should be allowed to. So I would oppose a ban. But I would support some type of labeling law so people could make that choice in an informed manner.

  • ||

    When it comes to my kids I would err on the side of caution.

    Do they wear a different helmet inside than the one for the scary outside world?

  • MNG||

    I think it is quite normal for people to err on the side of caution with their kids.

    In philosophy this is addressed in the "mini-max" debate over rationality.

  • Over anxious parent||

    My kid is at home, tied up in the closet. That way, nothing bad will happen to him.

  • MNG||

    Wow, you rugged individualist you! Caveat emptor for kids, hey, why not!

  • waffles||

    Yes. I want my kid to fall out of trees, touch the stove when it's hot, and generally learn things through experience. You prevent the big catastrophes by learning from many small ones. I bet your kids aren't even allowed to eat dirt.

  • Cyto||

    My 9 month old daughter started herself on a dirt diet last month when she became fully mobile. Makes a poppa proud....

    Speaking of overly protective parents... I have nice memories of removing all remotely hazardous items from our home during "baby-proofing" for our first child. Our second child has a 3 year old for a big brother. If there's anything that doesn't come with pieces too small for his little sister, he's more than willing to correct that error by simple application of sufficient force. Surprisingly, she hasn't choked to death yet.

  • jb||

    Only playground dirt contaminated by the Strychnine in pressure treated wood that was the rage not too long ago.It's all fun and games until someone gets poisoned.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I force feed mine a gallon of High Fructose Corn Syrup a day so they have lots of extra padding to protect them in the case of any crashes or bumps.

    It also has the added benefit of keeping them close to home because they don't tend to wander off much on their own.

  • Ska||

    The veal theory of child rearing.

  • ||

    Now, now, darling. In this family, we only take safe risks!!

  • Bill||

    Yes, if I could I would avoid baby bottles that released BPA (if I had an infant). Just common sense.

  • ||

    I'm not understanding how increasing everyone's risk of botulism and childhood death by infectious disease is "erring on the side of caution".

    Are we concerned we might die from something a 12th century peasant would not have recognized?

  • Protect your kids||

    Don't get them vaccinated! You know what the Huff Post says. And lots of studies.

  • Don't Worry||

    As long as everyone else gets their kids vaccinated, yours are okay.

  • Vashon Island Resident.||

  • MNG||

    Erring on the side of caution includes weighing the costs on both sides of the decision, and I guess I don't find botulism as scary as TB. There's also that consensus thingee which strikes me as stronger for vaccines than the BPA issue (citation of Europe's FDA and an industry friendly org. notwithstanding).

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Erring on the side of caution includes weighing the costs on both sides of the decision, and I guess I don't find botulism as scary as TB.

    I find the possibility of dying of a very painfull bacterial disease to be more of an incentive than the possibility that trace amounts of some chemical might do me in when I'm already 80, David Fenton and Fenton Communications notwithstanding.

  • Holy Shit!||

    consensus "thingee"? You're a fucking Luddite, MNG. And they call kooky Republicans anti-science. Ha, Ha.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    When it comes to my kids I would err on the side of caution. Not being a chemist that means that if significant folks on both sides are making contrary claims I would try to avoid the product.

    Yet you err on the side of AGW which would have even bigger financial consequences for your kids if governments implemented "solutions" - I smell a very contrived conviction...

    So I would oppose a ban. But I would support some type of labeling law so people could make that choice in an informed manner.

    I would say, under the same logic, if it would not be a bad idea to make prostitutes label their product, as there is a much higher chance of being hurt by it.

  • MNG||

    I oppose most solutions to AGW I've heard proposed.

    As to prostitutes, were it legal I would want them to be regularly tested and teh results divluged to clients.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I oppose most solutions to AGW I've heard proposed.

    I don't disagree with that, but you DO err on the side of AGW nevertheless - so, what happened to erring on the side of [negative] "caution"?

    As to prostitutes, were it legal I would want them to be regularly tested and the results divulged to clients.

    Basically, you do want them to be labeled.

    "This prostitute is safe to take."

  • MNG||

    As I said erring on the side of caution involves looking at the risks involved in both sides of an action. If AGW proponents are correct then doing nothing might entail pretty bad consequences, perhaps worse than the ones from doing something.

    As to labeling, I realize you fancy the economy-grinding-to-a-halt and inhumane philosophy of caveat emptor to be preferable than helping people make informed voluntary decisions.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    If AGW proponents are correct then doing nothing might entail pretty bad consequences, perhaps worse than the ones from doing something.

    Yeah. Seems like your concern for chemicals, despite the evidence they're safe, to be contrived, considering you're so ready to jump to the AGW bandwagon. Just sayin'.

    I realize you fancy the economy-grinding-to-a-halt and inhumane philosophy of caveat emptor to be preferable than helping people make informed voluntary decisions.

    Economy-halting, sure. I guess you have never felt avocadoes to test their ripeness. People learn to inform themselves of things without the need of labels and coercion, MNG.

    "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to populate the world with fools."

  • Ska||

    Excuse me ma'am, I'd like to investigate your snatch and mouth for sores, lesions, or other undesirable features, before committing to your services.

  • "Ma'am"?||

    Re: Ska,

    Excuse me ma'am, I'd like to investigate your snatch and mouth for sores, lesions, or other undesirable features, before committing to your services.

    "Hey, fuck you! No risk, no fun!"

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    OM, I call shenanigans, you cant call a flame war and then instigate it.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think that what you believe one way or another about matters of fact is relevant to a discussion of relative risks. What you believe to be the case has nothing to do with what you think is the appropriate way to react to it.

  • ||

    But I would support some type of labeling law so people could make that choice in an informed manner.

    Do you mean including it in the usual ingredients list, or having a big red starburst saying "MAY CAUSE YOUR NUTS TO FALL OFF!!!!!1!!!!" on the front of the bottle? The former is already required, the latter is going too far.

  • Brett L||

    Its not an ingredient. Its a component of the plastic in the bottle. It would be like putting 'aluminum' on the ingredient list of a soda can.

  • ||

    Being rational now? that's weird.. Go back to being delusional.

  • ||

    What's disgusting is that Canadians like to hump their sisters and drink bottles of mayonnaise. Eh.

  • ||

    How do you know so much about Canadians, sage? Maybe you're a secret one?!?

  • ||

    I hate mayonnaise.

  • lolwut ||

    Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Do you like gladiator movies?

  • Nipplemancer||

    Mayo is the devil's condiment

  • Jeff P||

    What about pissing into plastic bottles while driving? That's okay, right?

  • Safety Monitor||

    As long as you are not using your cell phone at the same time.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jeff P,

    What about pissing into plastic bottles while driving? That's okay, right?

    Seems like when it comes to your dick, you should err on the side of caution just like MNG prescribes . . .

  • Greg Nickels||

    Plastic Water Bottles Won't Hurt You

    Au contraire, plastic water bottles can do lots of damage. I lost an election over it.

  • COINTELPRO||

    The researcher in the documentary was named "Stephen King"? Seems somewhat fitting considering he's trying to scare the hell out of everyone.

  • ||

    late to the party, bruh.

  • Wind Rider||

    In the film, toxicologist Dr. Stephen King

    He LOVES making cameo appearances. . .

  • steve||

    "not only breast and prostate cancer but also obesity, diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity, autism, liver disease, ovarian disease, disease of the uterus, low sperm count, and heart disease"
    You're thinking of what processed carbs causes...

  • Piltdown Man||

    Wow, what a surprise. MNG is being a hypocritical, annoying shit once again.

  • Mike M.||

    His dopamine levels are simply getting out of whack once again due to his defective DRD4 gene. He just needs another dose of his medication is all.

  • ||

    Perhaps these folks feel about chemicals

    Less feeling. More thinking.

    When it comes to my kids I would err on the side of caution.

    Feel free to not buy food in BPA-lined cans or water bottles with BPA for your kids, then.

  • Piltdown Man||

    MNG will believe unquestioningly scientists using computer models to try to predict with some degree of accuracy something as volatile as the climate, but when they are able to do an actual, repeatable test, well, that's just asking too much of him.

  • Old Mexican||

    Anyway, I love plastic bottles, especially because they make lefty, thuggish, anti-market ideologues foam at their mouths.

  • ||

    That's right, parents. There is absolutely NO BPA in Bag o' Glass!! It's just broken glass, you know?

  • Pip||

    I just love that scetch.

  • Pip||

    "sketch"

  • Carlos||

    This seems to me like another effort by the enviro-liberals of the world to demonize a ubiquitous item of practicality on a misinformed whim. Led and advanced by millions of stuffed shirts rabblerousers.

  • ||

    This is not the only plastic that can be used for water bottles or can liners.
    I guess it's just too expensive to be safe.
    Stossel and Reason keep losing cred. because you people just want to have a ego filed circle jerk

  • Joe||

    That's "an" ego-filled circle jerk if you please.

    If BPA really does have an effect on botulism, it may be better to use it. If the decrease in botulism is due to a plastic liner in general, then use a different plastic. Of course, it may be something different that caused the decrease, like irradiation of the food before it was canned. I'm just taking someone above's word on the BPA postivie effect.

  • Brett L||

    Or maybe we shouldn't go around changing our industry from BPA to other, less well studied plastics based on the strength of preliminary animal studies whose results didn't hold up in human trials. Whichever.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: hoyt,

    I guess it's just too expensive to be safe.

    That doesn't make any sense.

  • ||

    I've been sucking water out of plastic bottles for 20 odd years so far. I'm not dead yet!

  • Pip||

    Hey Texas, I hope you guys come back and beat San Francisco.

  • ||

    Baseball < Flies fucking.

  • ||

    Baseball < Flies fucking.

  • ||

    For anyone that likes to ban shit based on "studies" and scary sounding names like BPA, I present to you:

    http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

    Still one of the best sites ever made.

    We really do need to ban DHMO!!! IT KILLS PEOPLE EVERY YEAR!

  • ||

    Why is studies in quotation marks?

    Valid (therefore unbiased) scientific studies are an excellent basis on which to ban or not ban things--as opposed to media/hysteria/frenzy, which is what DHMO makes fun of. I can't think of a better basis, myself. In fact, Stossel is arguing that BPA shouldn't be banned because scientific studies don't support the ban.

    If you want to say that nothing should be banned, ever, that's a different and perfectly reasonable argument but DHMO.org has nothing to do with that.

  • ||

    > Yet many people are sure BPA causes
    > not only breast and prostate cancer
    > but also obesity, diabetes,
    > attention deficit hyperactivity,
    > autism, liver disease, ovarian
    > disease, disease of the uterus, low
    > sperm count, and heart disease. When
    > a chemical is said to cause so many
    > disorders, that's a sure sign of
    > unscientific hysteria.

    Oh really? Plutonium is also a chemical compound, and exposure to it does indeed cause a wide range of health issues in different parts of the body. Is that also unscientific hysteria?

  • Brett L||

    1. Plutonium is an element, not a compound

    2. We don't put plutonium in consumer products

    Other than that, great analogy.

  • ||

    "The principal radiation from plutonium is the alpha particle. Alpha radiation is totally stopped by a single sheet of paper or even an inch of air. These alpha particles cannot penetrate the outer layer of one’s skin. Therefore, plutonium outside the body is considered harmless. Even ingestion of these materials is of relatively low risk to humans."

  • Peter Jensen||

    "Europe's equivalent of the FDA concluded: "(T)he data currently available do not provide convincing evidence of neurobehavioral toxicity.""

    Is John Stossel telling me that those Socialist Technocrats can actually be trusted? Or is it only when they say what he wants to hear?

  • ||

    "Junk Science Mom," recently called out one of the people behind the anti-BPA campaign: [...] there is an ugly truth behind the scenes that you will never hear about in the media. Greed, propaganda, political agendas, profits...

    Yes, I visit Reason because I love European consumer protection agencies and hate people motivated by profit.

    His logic is so lazy and shallow, he could almost have his own TV show...

  • Brett L||

    I think its more in the vein of "if even these guys don't want to ban it, how bad can it be?"

  • ||

    Ah, I can see that.

  • Peter Jensen||

    Back to my point, if they don't ban they are ok, but if they ban they're not.

    Their science is junk when they ban steroids and growth hormones in cattle food, but it's trustworthy when then say BPA is ok.

    That turkey doesn't fly for me.

  • Brett L||

    I think its fine to say that their evidentiary standards are biased towards finding tenuous links AND they couldn't even find a tenuous link in this case.

  • Peter Jensen||

    Nonsense. Don't confuse me, I'm busy seeing the world in black-and-white and conjuring contradictions where there are none.

  • ||

    "Europe's equivalent of the FDA "

    There are so many libertarian things wrong with this.

  • ||

    With Europe? Agreed.

  • prolefeed||

    You know what else is made of chemicals?
    Roads.

    Threadwinner!

  • Tony||

    A cheaper, more environmentally friendly option is to get a fucking Brita filter on your faucet. Tastes better than the garden hose crap that goes in those $2 bottles anyway.

  • Tony||

    In fact, I think I'll write my congressman and encourage him to pass a Brita water-filter mandate.

  • Sweet Brita||

    Don't trust that municipal water supply, Tony?

  • Tony||

    It's better than the libertarian alternative, shit sludge.

  • Alpheus||

    Because every businessman is just yearning to infect every potential customer with diptheria, cholera, and the like!

  • DDavis||

    I took a trip over to Pubmed, and searched for BPA. 1310 articles. The first twenty were mainly about hormonal effects of BPA.

    For all those pooh poohing the effects of BPA, how many of those abstracts have you looked at? How many of those papers have you read?

    Here is one paper showing an *inverse* relationship between BPA and the Free Androgen Index in a real study of real men, not rodents.
    ###
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....=pmcentrez

    Conclusions
    Our results suggest that, in fertile men, exposure to low environmental levels of BPA may be associated with a modest reduction in markers of free testosterone, but any effects on reproductive function are likely to be small, and of uncertain clinical significance.
    ###
    Notice the paper is not from doomsayers. These guys go out of their way to make unsubstantiated claims that the effects of their *statistically validated correlation* are "likely to be small, and of uncertain clinical significance."

    There are a lot of useless, pseudoscientific scares. And then other times we find something that is really screwing us, like lead. Pooh poohing every report of a problem is no more rational or scientific than jumping on the bandwagon of every scare.

    And I do find it funny that all of a sudden we should trust all those government panels telling us everything is ok.

  • Al Gore||

    I have some graphs shaped like various sporting equipment that help illustrate just how bad this stuff really is! Let me just sift through all of my Brita stock certificates to find them...

  • ||

    I like this one:

    Epigenetic influences of low-dose bisphenol A in primary human breast epithelial cells.
    Weng YI, Hsu PY, Liyanarachchi S, Liu J, Deatherage DE, Huang YW, Zuo T, Rodriguez B, Lin CH, Cheng AL, Huang TH.

    Human Cancer Genetics Program, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
    Abstract
    Substantial evidence indicates that exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) during early development may increase breast cancer risk later in life. The changes may persist into puberty and adulthood, suggesting an epigenetic process being imposed in differentiated breast epithelial cells. The molecular mechanisms by which early memory of BPA exposure is imprinted in breast progenitor cells and then passed onto their epithelial progeny are not well understood. The aim of this study was to examine epigenetic changes in breast epithelial cells treated with low-dose BPA. We also investigated the effect of BPA on the ERα signaling pathway and global gene expression profiles. Compared to control cells, nuclear internalization of ERα was observed in epithelial cells preexposed to BPA. We identified 170 genes with similar expression changes in response to BPA.

  • ||

    Bottom line is that plastics don't need to be made from petroleum regardless of the synthetic estrogen released when the plastic is heated. John, just run back to your life on the pathetic lying mainstream media channel ABC and see what your corporate eugenicist owners want you to lie about next..

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • ||

    I am not for or against plastic bottles and such but I do wonder how to keep those darn things out of the esturaries, I went to the outer banks and crossing over a million bridges it seemed like I saw lots of floating plastics especially bottles. I mean it was everywhere in the esturaries and it was easy to see them from the bridges.

    shame on you who throw bottles and plastic into the roads rivers and such and do not properly dispose of them. maybe they ought to ban these and go back to glass bottles, I just loved the glass the pop always tasted better and you took them back to the store for a nickel or dime and they got reused. I see people buy giant packs of bottled waters at the store, why not just invest in a water purifier and use a reusuable bottle

    while I don't believe gov should be regulating us to much, very minimally I do believe there ought to be a better education system to teach dumb down people who are caught up in their little world could see the bigger picture of their actions more. people only see their own little world without regard to fact there are 300 million americans doing the same as them well for the most part.

    our actions do have consequences good or bad, people need to learn to see that. but we can't rule out willful ignorants who will act as they do without regard to the conseqences.

    seabirds

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement