New Study Links Plastics To Heart Disease, Diabetes

fprintf writes "There have been a number of studies over the years, some of which have been debunked, linking plastics with human disease. Now British researchers have released a study again linking common plastics used in food/liquid storage with human disease."

Comments

I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[kidde_valind]

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.
So, what, you're suggesting people who live lifestyles that cause heart disease are more likely to also use plastic containers for their food and drink? Or people with heart disease are more likely to use plastic containers? What other correllation are you proposing?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Correlation.is.not.spelled.like.corelation

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[zyl0x]

If you didn't RTFA, how do you know their results only evidenced correlation then?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, I prefer to store and heat my food and beverages in glass or metal (stainless steel - non teflon lined) containers.

Call me a paranoid hippy, but that's also why I'm getting in to canning, well "jarring", to preserve my food in glass jars vs store bought canned goods where those cans have a very thin layer of plastic on the inside.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[dreddnott]

Exactly right. "Correlation is not causation" has become more like a reflexive meme around here rather than a thoughtful addition to the conversation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[pizzach]

It's called a cheap grab for mod points.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Cliche 1: Not reading the article

Cliche 2: That stupid meme of making a sentence out of every word

Cliche 3: The assumption that everyone on slashdot has never heard "correlation is not causation"

I rate your post 3/10.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's never the point of these studies. No one is even claiming that. Did you just wake up for a few minutes in the classroom to hear that phrase uttered, so now you must reply to every study posted on /. with those words?

Everyone who tags research studies with this truth is demonstrating how ignorant they are. YES. THE WORDS. THEY ARE TRUE. But it has nothing to do with what the article is talking about. You might as well just tag _everything_ idleispants... it makes about as much sense.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[njfuzzy]

I agree. A perfectly sensible interpretation is "if you eat more unhealthy prepackaged food, that food comes in plastic containers".

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the study was based on the number of rubber bullets fired at a persons chest. As the number increased, the probability of a heart attack also increased. The second part was based on the study of plastic heart valve installations. It was observed that the people who had these valves in their hearts were also likely to suffer from heart disease.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I rate your post 3/10.

Speaking of stupid memes...

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[megamerican]

I haven't even rtfa but here goes

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.

Translation: I don't like the conclusion so I'll make a baseless assumption and attack the article without any knowledge of it. Sounds like a severe case of cognitive dissonance to me.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[j_166]

"Exactly right. "Correlation is not causation" has become more like a reflexive meme around here rather than a thoughtful addition to the conversation."

I don't see how you can say that, just because a lot of commenters tend to reflexively reply with that meme to articles about scientific studies linking one thing to another. There can be many reasons for this. Correlation does not necessarily equal cau... uh ... oh, I see your point.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[antifoidulus]

Wow, did you even bother reading the article? Do you really even understand statistics? Yes, correlation is not causation, but that really doesn't add much to the conversation. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient for causation. You do realize that there is a whole branch of mathematics and analysis that tries to extract causal relationships, if they exist, from this data? Are you also aware that analysis like this is the only way we can discover certain relationships?(Well, the only feasible way anyway). Getting a bunch of statistically random people to sit in a lab and drink from either plastic or non-plastic cups for 50 years isn't really going to be possible.

If you have a genuine statistical beef with something, please actually explain it rather than smugly stating, "corelation(sic). Is. Not. Causation)

Either that or show me your PhD in statistics.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says that it is? I.E who are you arguing against here?

Maybe you should read the article?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[IceCreamGuy]

YES. THE WORDS. THEY ARE TRUE.

hahaha, I definitely cracked a smile at that one, thanks. I do enjoy idleispants, though.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[SupplyMission]

I'm pretty sure the experts who did the study know much more about how to apply statistics than you ever will. If they are making conclusions in a respected, peer-reviewed publication, then you can bet money that they wouldn't be making those conclusions based on simple correlation alone. Even so, demonstrating a strong correlation between things often leads to the discovery of the cause of the correlation.

Second, why does parroting "correlation is not causation" warrant a mod to Insigthful? That's like trying to convince someone that a person who says "George W. Bush is an idiot" a lot has insightful political opinions. The parent post did not make a single insightful statement. Unless mindlessly repeating a buzzword that sounds intellectual counts as insight around here.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[onkelonkel]

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.

Maybe So. But Corelation. Is. Not. Not. Causation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[eclectic4]

Ta da!

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

i hate stupid mimes

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[geekoid]

From TFA
"At least from this study, we cannot draw any conclusion that bisphenol A causes any health effect. "

and:
"The researchers also cautioned that these findings are just the first step and more work is needed to determine if the chemical actually is a direct cause of disease."

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[techno-vampire]

I have. On the first of four pages, it's pointed out that there's not enough evidence yet to concede that the chemical in question causes these diseases.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[neoform]

I wish I could mod you up a more.

I don't understand why everyone immediately fires off that stupid one liner every time someone proposes a logical conclusion. Do any of these people understand how science works? You come up with a hypothesis based on an educated guess, then you test to see if it's true. Refuting something outright, saying that there's no concrete proof is the basis of a creationist's argument. If there is evidence to support a claim then there is clearly reason to believe there is causation, *based* on the correlation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[snarfies]

In Soviet Russia, correlation causes YOU!

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

What's a mime?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[geoffspear]

Yeah, it's pointed out by a representative of the chemical industry.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure eating the type of foods that typically come from TV dinners plastic containers would still cause ill health if they were in glass containers. Water is another story.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[gnick]

What's a mime?

A mime is someone who acts out a story through body motions without use of speech.

They're easy not to like.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[rev_g33k_101]

mime

n.

A modern performer who specializes in comic mimicry.

1. The art of portraying characters and acting out situations or a narrative by gestures and body movement without the use of words; pantomime.

2. A performance of pantomime.

3. An actor or actress skilled in pantomime.

4. Twenty (20) points if you run one over with a car

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Free the Cowards]

It's a defensive reaction, because most people think that correlation is causation.

Publish a study that shows how ice cream sales are correlated to shark attacks, to a very high degree. Watch how all the morons swarm out of the woodwork to talk about the evils of ice cream and how Nature is getting her revenge and all other kinds of stupid crap.

It's true that "correlation is not causation" does not add anything to the discussion. But it does keep things from being subtracted by idiots who can't grasp that concept.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[dgatwood]

Exactly. People who eat more prepackaged foods are more likely to be taking in all sorts of stuff---high fructose corn syrup, higher levels of sugar, higher levels of various preservatives (some of which break down into rather nasty stuff in the presence of citric acid), etc., all of which lead to increased levels of disease, whether it's heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. Those prepackaged foods are frequently packaged in containers made out of plastics that leach... yup, you guessed it... bisphenol A.

The correlation is interesting, but it isn't remotely close to proving causation. What would be required for that would be doing another study that compensates for dietary differences (and genetic predisposition and...).

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Free the Cowards]

Actually he completely agrees with the conclusion, which was that there is correlation but as yet no evidence for causation. You fail it!

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Free the Cowards]

Seeing as how the article comes right out and says, essentially, that correlation is not causation and there is no evidence for causation in the study, how can you possibly start out with those two questions in your post? His post completely agrees with the researchers who performed the study, and yet you somehow feel a need to sit there and lecture him for stating a fundamental fact of statistics. Well done!

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I thinks that's why they want more studies, they have shown the correlation but not the causation yet. One plausible explanation is that it's the food found in these plastic containers that is increasing the risk of disease. If the food that is typically packaged in these plastics is worse for you than food that is not typically packaged in these plastics, then the correlation with urine BPA levels would be just that, a correlation not a causation. Changing the container to be made of triton plastic, or whatever, would not change the fact that it's the food that is causing the increased risk of disease.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[eh2o]

Correlation *is* causation for multi-normal distributions, and since these types of distributions are common in nature (cf. the central limit theorem), the discovery of a correlation, while not necessarily proving a causal link, at least raises a significant possibility of a connection.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could mod you up a more.

I don't understand why everyone immediately fires off that stupid one liner every time someone proposes a logical conclusion. Do any of these people understand how science works? You come up with a hypothesis based on an educated guess, then you test to see if it's true. Refuting something outright, saying that there's no concrete proof is the basis of a creationist's argument. If there is evidence to support a claim then there is clearly reason to believe there is causation, *based* on the correlation.

You get modded up for bashing creationists! Yay for being an original /. ; what was that you were saying about people overusing "correlation is not causation"?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[DinDaddy]

Yes, it was a topic carefully avoided by the scientists themselves. Just look at their tap dancing: "The researchers, who will also present their findings at the U.S. FDA session on Tuesday, added it was too early to identify a mechanism through which the chemical may be doing harm." and "The researchers also cautioned that these findings are just the first step and more work is needed to determine if the chemical actually is a direct cause of disease."

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[lgw]

Ur doin it wrong: "In Soviet Russia, causation correlates you!"

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Ctrl-Z]

Maybe you should have RTFA first. "At least from this study, we cannot draw any conclusion that bisphenol A causes any health effect. As noted by the authors, further research will be needed to understand whether these statistical associations have any relevance at all for human health," Hentges said in a telephone interview.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[lgw]

The Mime Pope is a tough fight, though vulnerable to explosives.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[ribo-bailey]

Correlation is a measure of the probability of causation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

WRT correlation, I would like to see a study correlating the types of foods stored in plastic containers. Perhaps it's not the plastic, but the types of foods in the plastic causing health problems.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Tetsujin]

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.

I had a correlation... with yo' mama!

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[lennier]

"Getting a bunch of statistically random people to sit in a lab and drink from either plastic or non-plastic cups for 50 years isn't really going to be possible."

"Next... Mr Smith."

"Hi."

"Oops, looks like the seed material is recycling. Jenkins, retune the entropy pool, and get a cleaner in here."

Kraboom!

"Next... Senor Frobuzz."

"Purple souffle! Unicorn toffee!"

"Excellent, welcome to the team. Would you like to work on financial forecasting, cryptography or Situationism?"

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[hairyfeet]

Well,let us try to think this thing through(I did RTFA,BTW) and see what we can come up with. The chemical in question is found in drink bottles,and is also used as the waxy coating on many cans,most of which has really crappy stuff inside that is very bad for you. According to TFA those with the highest concentrations were 25% more likely to have heart disease,cancer,etc. Considering that we KNOW that the stuff that comes in a lot of those containers is really bad for you,and that the west has lots of unhealthy people who eat way too much junk. Wouldn't be logical to look at the diets first and see if the reason they have high levels of this plastic in their system is the fact that they are eating to much garbage and that the garbage might have a factor in their disease?

Again,according to TFA that more than 90% of folks test positive for this chemical in their urine,which means it really shouldn't be hard to find enough healthy folks to test this theory. Unless of course the amount they are considering bad is so high that there is no way to eat anything healthy and get enough of this plastic in your system which means those folks got bigger things to worry about than plastic. Even the reviewers note "At least from this study, we cannot draw any conclusion that bisphenol A causes any health effect. As noted by the authors, further research will be needed to understand whether these statistical associations have any relevance at all for human health".

And while I don't want to sound like a shill for the plastics industry(really have no interest in plastics one way or the other) the simple fact is ANYTHING can kill you if there is too much in your system,even water. And they don't tell what amount they are calling the "highest" so we don't know if that is folks who drank one bottled drink a week,or several a day. And yet it says in TFA that the Canadian regulatory agencies are already labeling it a toxic chemical and coming up with all kinds of new laws to limit exposure like it was Radon or something. So maybe we should simply spend a little more money on testing before we draw any conclusions one way or another about the matter. And the reasons why folks break out the correlation meme is because bunches like the regulatory agencies seem to jump on data like this looking to pass new rules without even bothering with further testing or verification. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[fugue]

Teach Correlationism in highschool science class!

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[SETIGuy]

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.

So, what, you're suggesting people who live lifestyles that cause heart disease are more likely to also use plastic containers for their food and drink? Or people with heart disease are more likely to use plastic containers? What other correllation are you proposing?

I rarely respond to people who can't figure out how to put their response outside of the quote tags, but here goes...

Perhaps people with heart disease also have reduced ability to metabolize or excrete bisphenol A.

Don't strain your brain...

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[geekoid]

"all of which lead to increased levels of disease, "
And your evidence of this is...?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Corelation... Is that the noun version of Corel?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Proper sentences do not have multiple periods cascaded between nearly every word. Only 1 is required @ the ending of a sentence.

(See? It's not difficult to be yet another slashdot grammar & spelling nazi idiot, now, is it kids??)

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, just a masters. However, you're a retard. Without a mechanism,it's a profitable correlation. The real causal link is "scarry chemical correlated to cancer" -> grant money.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[TimSSG]

You come up with a hypothesis based on an educated guess, then you test to see if it's true.

I agree with what you said, but most people only do the hypothesis. Tim S PS: Posting the hypothesis on /. does not count as testing it.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

I rarely respond to people who can't figure out how to put their response outside of the quote tags, but here goes...

Yeah, because you've never made a typo in your life. And besides, they never happen in closing tags do they? Nice example of how some people never pass up the opportunity to be a dick evn on the most trivial shit. I'm so honoured you stopped your chronic masturbation to criticise my ability to close tags. You sure showed me.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[shadwstalkr]

You come up with a hypothesis based on an educated guess, then you test to see if it's true.

Well, you test to see if it's false within the limits of your study. The important point though is that a valid test must eliminate or compensate all sources of influence other than those being studied. However, when you're working with something as complicated as people, doing a rigorous study that controls for everything except the variables of interest is incredibly expensive, if not impossible.

So we get a lot of these studies where 10,000 people fill out a medical background and answer a few questions about $topicOfTheWeek. Studies like this can certainly indicate possible correlations that should be studied further (i.e. where grant money should be funneled), and the researchers are often rational about their conclusions. But then the press blows it up into a shocking medical fact, because "Something in your refrigerator can kill your children! Find out at 10!" gets viewers.

there is clearly reason to believe there is causation, *based* on the correlation.

Certainly if two things are correlated something is causing them, but it doesn't tell you which one causes the other, or if both are the consequence of some third thing. Naturally, people who choose to be dishonest about the results will choose the causation that benefits them, which is what the phrase in question aims to remind people.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[dgatwood]

Evidence that eating foods with more sweeteners leads to greater obesity, which in turn leads to diabetes? Do I really need to cite studies for something so commonly accepted? Okay, here's a good start:

http://news.healingwell.com/index.php?p=news1&id=521780
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/941223597.html
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/adult_diabetes/obover.cfm

I'm not saying that all type 2 diabetes is caused by obesity---it is well established that this is not the case---but it is well established that a fair percentage of people with type 2 diabetes became diabetic after gaining weight and that these people often cease to be diabetic after surgical intervention to forces weight loss. That's about as clear an establishment of causation as you can get.... The causative mechanism is even somewhat understood at this point.

Or did you mean the proof about the preservatives?

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/FDA-re-opens-probe-into-benzene-contamination-of-soft-drinks

Follow the links from there for loads of info on this subject.

It is fairly well established that sodium benzoate when combined with ascorbic acid (sorry, wrong acid in my previous post... my bad) releases benzene, which is a well known carcinogen.

Word to the wise: if you're buying soft drinks or fruit juices preserved with sodium benzoate, be sure to drink them immediately. Don't let them sit on the shelf of your home. What you don't know can kill you.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to /. where insightful comments get modded as trolls just because people don't like them.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[famebait]

"Linked". Does. Not. Imply. Causation. You. Annoying. Git.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[MSZ]

Even the reviewers note "At least from this study, we cannot draw any conclusion that bisphenol A causes any health effect. As noted by the authors, further research will be needed to understand whether these statistical associations have any relevance at all for human health".

Translation:
We found some funny results, but we have no fucking idea what they really mean. Please send use some more grants so we can actually try to find if it causes anything except the liquid in the test tube turning sparkly violet.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes

[tabrnaker]

You do know that's just what you write in your paper if those are the stats you did. It's worded to hopefully get more grants. It's research boilerplate.

Print version

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USLF18683220080916

Relative risk

[R2.0]

I wonder if they will compare the instances of disease to those from food poisoning from earlier methods of food storage?

Re:Relative risk

[VeNoM0619]

Exactly, if it isn't natural.. we shouldn't store it man... It's all about nature man... Like, we need to start storing stuff in leather... or for you vegans, store it in paper, unless you are like one of those hippies man. Then maybe you should store it in like... water.

Re:Relative risk

[Nursie]

This is exactly why I use asbsetos food wrap and drink only out of cups made from coal.

Re:Relative risk

[R2.0]

"This is exactly why I use asbsetos food wrap and drink only out of cups made from coal."

Actually, INGESTION of asbestos and coal would be no problem. It's only inhalation that is an issue, and even then the risk is magnified enormously when one is already a smoker.

Re:Relative risk

[antifoidulus]

This is why you should only use human bones as your utensils. There is no danger!(well, Kuru but....)

Plus, nothing makes for great conversation around the coffee maker at the office quite like a human skull fashioned into a mug.

Re:Relative risk

[megamerican]

I wonder if they will compare the instances of disease to those from food poisoning from earlier methods of food storage?

Using glass jars sure caused a lot of food poisoning!

Or how about not using BPA in plastics used to store food? Is that so hard to ask? There are probably thousands of plastics that don't use BPA. Why even risk it?

Re:Relative risk

[IgLou]

Exactly! I think most people have no freaking clue... Oh wait, I know they have no freaking clue that not all plastics are created equal. Also, from the responses, that no one read TFA; mind you the summary is a bit inflamatory so that will lead quite a few to disregard the article.

My wife is big on Tupperware and a quick check showed that some products contain BPA but not all. That's just one line of products. It's quite surprising how far spread these things are.
Anyways, it's like Transfats we should know what contains it and then work towards removing it. BPA has long been known for it's damaging effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Health_effects so eliminating it altogether would be in the best interest of all. Here in Canada our Health system is stretched to the limit due to an aging population why allow something that further impacts health and strains that system? I imagine that there will be the common "Oh it's not conclusive yet!" responses. Heaven forbid if anyone needs to spend an extra penny at Walmart.

Re:Relative risk

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't make things better because they used to be worse? Thanks for your kneejerk response.

Re:Relative risk

[onkelonkel]

Mod Parent Up. I drink from the skulls of my enemies too!!!

Re:Relative risk

[TheLink]

"Here in Canada our Health system is stretched to the limit due to an aging population why allow something that further impacts health and strains that system?"

Ah, you should switch to storing stuff in Thallium then, that should deal with the aging population problem.

And while you're at it, encourage people to smoke more (while taxing it heavily). :)

Re:Relative risk

[IgLou]

Well, I had this great plan that consisted of selling tax free cigarettes made in China in prisons and then having convicts make money by testing cancer treating drugs. I thought it was ingenius but some folks get so worried by ethics.

I say why start worrying about that now? :P

Re:Relative risk

[treeves]

Using glass jars never caused food poisoning. Improperly using glass jars caused food poisoning.

Re:Relative risk

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about not using BPA in plastics used to store food? Is that so hard to ask? There are probably thousands of plastics that don't use BPA. Why even risk it?

For the most part we aren't. The article says that BPA is use in making polycarbonate. The recycling number for polycarbonate is 7, which is "other". The 7 code isn't very common and many of them aren't polycarbonate. The places I can think of seeing polycarbonate is reusable sports, baby bottles, and those plastic 5 gallon water cooler bottles.

Re:Relative risk

[MPAB]

And do you choke on their ashes?

Re:Relative risk

[Wain13001]

I never realized ingesting small bits of glass would be considered food poisoning, but I guess it works.

Re:Relative risk

[Have Brain Will Rent]

There is nothing inherently dangerous about glass jars (other than breakage etc.) while the problem with plastics appear to be fundamental to the material itself.

Re:Relative risk

[R2.0]

"Using glass jars sure caused a lot of food poisoning!"

Actually, yes it did (and does). Improperly sealing glass containers used to cause many deaths from botulism, and is still a risk in home canning.

Re:Relative risk

[onkelonkel]

No. If you put them in the dishwasher on the china/crystal cycle and add about a half cup of baking soda the ashes come right off and the skulls are sparkling clean. No water spots either!

Re:Relative risk

[SatanicPuppy]

It's not all plastics; It's a simple subset. I did all the research earlier during the baby bottle scare, and it's not hard to get BPA free bottles, but it is hard to find canned goods (for example) that are BPA free.

This is one of those situations where I think there is enough concern to warrant labeling (at least) and sensible exploration of alternatives. There is no way to confirm the relationship without a series of long term studies, and there is nothing so amazing about BPA to justify keeping it.

Re:Relative risk

[I cant believe its n]

Using glass jars sure caused a lot of food poisoning!

No, but crystal glas can cause other diseases.

After centuries of enjoying beautiful lead crystal at table, it has recently come under the scrutiny of health authorities, who were testing paint and other products as possible sources of lead poisoning. Preliminary tests have shown that, over time, significant amounts of lead can migrate from lead crystal containers into liquids stored in them.

* One research team measured the amount of lead migration in Port wine that was stored in lead crystal decanters. After two days, lead levels were 89 micrograms; after four months, lead levels were between 2,000 and 5,000 micrograms.

* White wine doubled its lead content within an hour of storage, and tripled it within four hours.

* Brandy stored in lead crystal for five years had lead levels around 20,000 micrograms. * Any liquid can leach lead from crystal just as effectively as wine and other alcoholic beverages.

To put these numbers into perspective, the EPAâ(TM)s lead standard for drinking water is 50 micrograms per liter.

Re:Relative risk

[Have Brain Will Rent]

ok, just in case it wasn't clear - I should have said "the problem with these plastics"/p>

I do agree that it's "better safe than sorry" and if there is some chance of a problem then things should be labelled.

Re:Relative risk

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure your enemies did not use plastic and their skulls don't have BPA.

Re:Relative risk

[treeves]

Bad canning techniques really. It's just that no one was ever tempted to put their stewed homegrown tomatoes in a Tupperware container and set it on a shelf in the pantry and pull them out and eat them six months later....as far as I know.

Re:Relative risk

[mrmeval]

They already have, they believe there are too many people. This is one way for them to help the stupid die.

Re:Relative risk

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to weigh more than one risk here. In many cases plastics is more safe than glass, glass containments weigh quite a bit, glass is more expensive to create and to transport and has a higher environmental impact, too. We're living with BPA for a long time now, so it's likely not _that_ bad and this finding shows relations, which are worth to investigate for sure, but there's no hard evidence that this isn't coincidental. On the other hand it's of course a very good idea to get rid of traditional oil based plastics and use decomposable plastic made from biological sources instead, were applicable.

Re:Relative risk

[geekoid]

"BPA has long been known for it's damaging effects "

No, it is not. There is no evidence that it causes any problems in humans. none. what. so. ever.

At this point what we have here is a bunch of people taking advantage of the fear parents have for their children. Nothing more.

Further study is required. Some sort of mechanism for how this could happen would be nice.

We should not let fear run our lives, and we should not institute police changes based on speculation.

Re:Relative risk

[Anonymous Coward]

Too? I didn't know there was any other way.

Of course, when I drink from a skull taken from their collection of drinking skulls (plus one), that means I drink from the skull of their enemies as well. Which means that I, since my enemies' enemies might be my friends, I drink from my friends' skulls as well.

Agh! My head hurts! More Mead!!!

Re:Relative risk

[Anonymous Coward]

You used to work for the Tobacco Association of America, right?

To my mind, there is now more than enough statistical correlation to warrant avoiding polycarbonate plastics in food and drink containers. It isn't like there are no good alternatives: there are many other materials that work well. We don't need no stinking estrogen congeners in our diets.

Re:Relative risk

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear constantly runs peoples lives. It leads mass consumerism and is a great way to get people to vote for you because you're "defending them".

In this case, I'd say the ownership of "further study" should have been done years ago, when BPA was first used. It's not like there aren't alternatives in plastics.

Further study could easily be prolonged over years, decades even. Especially a human study as our lifespan makes observation of any effect difficult without taking 50 odd years. Corporations pay for and fabricate opinion on a regular basis and then pose that same opinion as fact. If something is a potential risk then mitigate the harm until the full effects are understood. It's a risk management exercise not fear mongering. Telling companies to only use certain plastics for packaging food won't kill anyone.

Re:Relative risk

[slash.duncan]

To put these numbers into perspective, the EPAâ(TM)s lead standard for drinking water is 50 micrograms per liter.

Well, yeah, but do you drink wine, brandy, etc, as if it were water? Do you cook with it as if it were water? Do you shower with it (breathing the steam) as if it were water? What about water your garden and sprinkle your lawn (the evaporation) with it as if it were water?

So a thousand or even a couple thousand micrograms per litre in a bottle of wine you have a glass of... isn't anything to get too worried over. That 20K micrograms per litre brandy might be worth giving up if you do it frequently, but even the 5K microgram port isn't something I'd be all /that/ concerned about, unless I was drinking a bottle a week or more over long periods.

So yeah, put the numbers in perspective. If you're drinking /that/ much alcohol, you probably need to stop and ask yourself some serious questions in any case. BTW, I don't have numbers, but the lead in fish is likely to be a bigger dietary source of it for many.

Re:Relative risk

[famebait]

I wonder if they will compare the instances of disease to those from food poisoning from earlier methods of food storage?

OK, I'm sold. There is absolutely no point in learning more about the health effects of newer containers, as long as we can think of something worse.

Re:Relative risk

[I cant believe its n]

You make a valid point.

I was just trying to defend R2.0's good idea of actually comparing plastics to glass instead of just assuming glass is ok for everything.

Re:Relative risk

[pjp6259]

My wife is big on Tupperware and a quick check showed that some products contain BPA but not all.

Is this an online resource where you can check if your food storage containers contain BPA?

Thanks!

Re:Relative risk

[IgLou]

I'd try just asking. But a quick search on google for tupperware and BPA brought up a blog that mentioned that the rock and serve line and I think one or two others has some BPA. But a lot of their stuff is BPA free.

Actually when I posted this I found lots of containers are BPA free. You just have to know what to look for. Sorry that I don't have more than that.

Good food, bad food

[sakdoctor]

Every week there will be a new study that reveals some common chemical in our daily lives, will be harmful or good for your health.
Often it will be both harmful and good on consecutive weeks.

Soon I'll be releasing my own study that shows excessive worrying about common foods causes diabetes, cancer and spontaneous combustion.

Re:Good food, bad food

[zappepcs]

Actually, you're on to something:

constant worrying about common foods = stress
and?
stress = heart health problems

Cancer is more destructive in those persons who are less able to defend against it.
Stress = weakened immune response

Spontaneous combustion? you're on your own with that one

Re:Good food, bad food

[Anonymous Coward]

stress = kinetic energy

kinetic energy = heat

heat > activation energy = spontaneous combustion

By the transitive power of bullhockey:

stress = spontaneous combustion

Re:Good food, bad food

[kungfugleek]

Exactly. My sister, who was a little overweight, was advised by her doctor not to worry about losing the weight because the stress of doing so would do more harm than the weight itself. She was otherwise healthy and active. I'm sure you could apply the same idea to a lot of news items like this. The stress of worrying about it is often more damaging than the thing you're worrying about.

Re:Good food, bad food

[blueforce]

Dozens of people spontaneously combust each year. It's just not really widely reported.

Re:Good food, bad food

[onionlee]

Studies have shown that prolonged life increases the chances of death!

Re:Good food, bad food

[Anonymous Coward]

Start smoking! Aside from reducing stress, you might lose a few pounds as well.

Re:Good food, bad food

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, stress affects ionic and chemical balance; altering general resisitivity and skin conductance.

Stress also commonly affects the skin - about 20%, including fat, on a healthy person. A _bit_ more, on real average people. Microcirculation is affected - resulting in splotchy, oily, and dry - parched - areas.

Noxious concentrations of atp-rich byproducts, and catalysts build up in an irregular distribution.

All it takes then is some spurious combination of common e-m waves (cellphone, wireless, cordless, kitchen mw, hertzian induction from a cheap toy's motor sparking, a neighbor's tesla coil getting romantic...). Or, maybe, catalysts from some common medication, chemical, vapor, or emission, (gas, solvents, catalysts, chicken soup?...) and....

Well, lets say that - very arguably - spurious coincidences might turn a very small percentage of the population into very exotic walking, talking, breathing briquettes.

After catalysed phosphorous imbalance kicks it off, plain ol' blubber can probably do the rest.

There's an interesting story about a village/town near the great wall looted by barbarians in the "good 'ole days". The humorous plunderers had set a wick (deeep) in the bellybutton of a rather fat dead merchant. The wick was still alight when help arrived, about three days later.

Spontaneous combustion is just probably the same - only faster. And accidental.

So. Yeah! Relax! Stop worrying about it, fer goodness' sake! ;-D

Re:Good food, bad food

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just it, they didn't prove that it causes anything. It just showed "association". The real data of the study could have been more accurately portrayed as "There is an association between BPA and a number of diseases. These diseases, such as diabetes and obesity, could have just as easily been caused by the high sodium TV dinners housed in the BPA containers, the sugary drinks, sedentary lifestyles, genetics, or any number of sources. Bottom line, we have no idea what causes these diseases - we just know that folks who have them also have higher levels of BPA in their blood."

All in all, this was a worthless study that will be slightly misrepresented in the media, misquoted in public, and misunderstood in general.

Re:Good food, bad food

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, there should be a weekly reminder in all the newspapers: "Worrying about things which might or might not happen, will kill you"

So there will be people who will think "Oh, so worrying causes stress and has more health risks than some silly correlated relationsship regarding food, so we should stop worrying and relax and we reduce the biggest factor regarding reduced health"

Then there will be people who will get stressed from having stress from worrying about the stress which kills you.. you just can't help those people, god must love them more for wanting them to his side sooner.

Mod parent redundant

[Al Dimond]

From TFA: "At least from this study, we cannot draw any conclusion that bisphenol A causes any health effect. As noted by the authors, further research will be needed to understand whether these statistical associations have any relevance at all for human health."

As noted by the authors. The authors, and the person TFA got a quote from, and TFA all make this concession, and you try to karma-whore by stating the obvious. Read. The. Fine. Article.

Re:Mod parent redundant

[rrohbeck]

Read. The. Fine. Article.

You got the meaning of RTFA wrong.

Huh!?

[Aphoxema]

Oh, damnit, I'm drinking out of a PC bottle now. I can already feel the psychosomatic effects taking a hold of me. ERRGGHHH, I CAN FEEL MY PANCREAS DISSOLVING! The horror! My heart! It's like, doing weird stuff it doesn't normally do! Gahhhh! Vision.. fading.. only... enough strength left... to push.. preview.. then wait like.. a minute.. and hit submit... URK!

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[VeNoM0619]

Keep using BPA products. And people wonder why girls are hitting puberty so much earlier now.

Internet? (reference: any adult web site)

attention deficit disorder

Internet? (reference: online games)

and neurological systems

Internet? (reference: goatse)

Snopes article is offtopic and strawman

[megamerican]

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/petbottles.asp

Didn't you realize that the snopes article in the summary talks about a completely different chemical?

tag: badsummary

Re:Snopes article is offtopic and strawman

[bonkeydcow]

He was referring to articles discussing the negative health effect of plastics. Not this chemical... Kinda like this one.
Cooking in plastic containers

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[smooth wombat]

Nice links. Can't imagine why Natural News would have such articles. Couldn't be anything about their bias to get people to buy "natural" products, is it?

You know, like Kevin Trudeau claiming the government is keeping cures for arthritis, cancer and other afflictions from the people and how he miraculously has all these cures, but only if you buy his book and visit his web site to buy the products.

Maybe you should RTFA then.

[linear a]

The article in question actually says that they don't claim causality - but that it should be looked at further.

Re:Maybe you should RTFA then.

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't you know that every media outlet known to man (and a few that are unknown) will grab this headline and run with "Teh cancer causing plastic!!!!!!111!! News at 11:00."

Re:Maybe you should RTFA then.

[gnick]

But don't you know that every media outlet known to man (and a few that are unknown) will grab this headline and run with "Teh cancer causing plastic!!!!!!111!! News at 11:00."

You've got your terror-inducing tagline wrong - too informative and too specific on time. It's supposed to go:

A shocking new study has found that a chemical found in 99.8% of US househoulds may be killing your family. We'll have details on that alarming story sometime in the next 90 minutes. So stay tuned, we return you now to the live coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial.

This should be followed by 6 minutes of live coverage of a lawyer shuffling papers, a commercial break, and a return to the same teaser. Repeat ad nauseum.

I did RTFA and still can't tell much

[sartin]

As usual from press reporting of scientific studies it's really hard to tell what to make of the conclusion. The article mentions animal studies that indicate BPA (the plastic) may disrupt hormones (especially estrogen).

The article suggests this is a preliminary study that only measured the correlation (so, yes it appears the assumption was correct) between BPA levels and heart disease and diabetes. It doesn't talking about removing the effect of diet, which is well-known to affect both of these diseases. If that effect is not accounted for in the study, it may well turn out that people who eat lots of meals from BPA containers (or have bad teeth and have fillings with BPA) tend to have less healthy diets as well.

Re:I did RTFA and still can't tell much

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

So did I. Correlation only. Zero evidence of any mechanism to cause BPA and heart disease.

And I don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that people who consume quantities of food and drink from plastic containers might have a somewhat less healthly lifestyle than those who don't.

Another thing about detecting BPA in peaple's bodies. With each new generation of analytical equipment, we gain another decade of sensitivity. Almost anything can now be detected in anything.

OTOH, my tropical fish would die if I left my stock water in 5 gallon jugs longer than a week or so.

Re:I did RTFA and still can't tell much

[reeherj]

Actually they corrolated the results to studies done in animals. So humans with the highest levels of BPA, had the highest levels of heart disease and Diabetes, and this corrolated with toxicity studies done on animals.

So what they are saying is that the toxicity studies done on animals are relevant to the human population. This is a study that is ALWAYS done whenever testing any product/medication/etc which has shown harm in animal testing.

Re:I did RTFA and still can't tell much

[manicfish]

OTOH, my tropical fish would die if I left my stock water in 5 gallon jugs longer than a week or so.

Who told you THAT??? I regularly buy RO water that might sit around for months in its jug before I get around to using it in my reef tank. Of course, I oxygenate the water when I dissolve the salt mix, but suffocating your fish isn't the same thing having them poisoned by harmful plastic residue.

Re:I did RTFA and still can't tell much

[easyTree]

With each new generation of analytical equipment, we gain another decade of sensitivity. Almost anything can now be detected in anything.

I challenge you to use said equipment to detect life in this thread.. :S

Re:I did RTFA and still can't tell much

[pentlappy]

Then read TFA. It's available. Free.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/11/1303

Nice troll, good angry responses, I give it a 7.5

[spun]

Well done. You were trolling, right?

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[dunnius]

And people wonder why girls are hitting puberty so much earlier now.

That is because children have much better nutrition than there used to be. As a result, they are able to reach puberty sooner because of better health.

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[megamerican]

Nice links. Can't imagine why Natural News would have such articles. Couldn't be anything about their bias to get people to buy "natural" products, is it?

You know, like Kevin Trudeau claiming the government is keeping cures for arthritis, cancer and other afflictions from the people and how he miraculously has all these cures, but only if you buy his book and visit his web site to buy the products.

Do you have any proof of this bias? No

Did Kevin Trudeau write any of those articles I posted? No

Do you have any links or proof that he is providing miraculous cures? No

Good job at attacking a source you don't like instead of trying to prove anything they said wrong. Very intelligent!

Isn't it more likely ...

[neonprimetime]

the food IN the plastic is causing the heart disease?

Junk food?

[Sockatume]

It's time to play the what-is-the-causation game again. Most obvious to me is that junk food, prepared food (microwave meals etc.), and soft drinks are sold in plastic containers, and these foodstuffs are generally associated with heart disease and diabetes one way or another. It'll be interesting to see what the more rigorous studies find, although I'm sure this fine pilot study will be presented as Unarguable Proof That Plastic Makes You Die And We're Not Changing Our Minds On This by the world media before the day is out.

Re:Junk food?

[Dmala]

It'll be interesting to see what the more rigorous studies find, although I'm sure this fine pilot study will be presented as Unarguable Proof That Plastic Makes You Die And We're Not Changing Our Minds On This by the world media before the day is out.

While I agree there is no reason to panic, it seems to me that we go about this sort of thing a little backwards. A study shows a correlation between a particular chemical and certain diseases. Scientists quickly state that further study will be needed to determine causation. In the meantime, industry continues to produce and use millions of tons of the chemical, until such time as ironclad proof that the chemical is dangerous can be presented. Even then, regulatory agencies usually have to get involved before the substance is banned.

Wouldn't it make more sense to slowly phase out the use of a questionable chemical as soon as possible? If it turns out that the correlation was bogus, you can always go back to using it. If the evidence ends up showing that it *is* harmful, there's nothing to be done because you've already phased it out. And, in the meantime, you've reduced the exposure of thousands of people (or more) to it. It seems like the PR benefits alone would offset the costs of changing the manufacturing process.

Re:Junk food?

[Sockatume]

I wouldn't say that ironclad proof of danger is needed, but this study certainly isn't enough evidence on its won. On a case-by-case basis it seems simple enough to phase out a particular reagent, additive, contaminant etc. on the precautionary principle, but there are dozens of studies like these every year, and we'd be obliged to act on all of them. Nothing would get done. And the costs involved are huge. Phasing out soy products until safety could be proven, for example (soy is associated with things like breast cancer and feminisation) would completely destroy that field, and it would probably never recover.

Re:Junk food?

[Mr. Slippery]

It's time to play the what-is-the-causation game again.

Do you think that ingesting a synthetic estrogen might, just, possibly, have some health effects?

Polycarbonate is made up of strings of Bisphenol A; BPA has been known since the 1930s to be estrogenic. As polycarbonate - which is everywhere - ages, wears, or is exposed to heat, acids, or bases, BPA leaches out.

BPA has been linked to breast cancer, insulin resistance, miscarriage, obesity, prostate enlargement, early onset of sexual maturation, hyperactivity, and increased aggressiveness.

Re:Junk food?

[trongey]

But wait. What if it's not the junk food that's killing us? What if it's really been the containers all along.

OK. I'm going with this model, because I would much rather have junk food than platics.

Re:Junk food?

[Sockatume]

I'm not saying it doesn't have health effects, and indeed BPA seems to cause any number of things in vivo (particularly interesting is the subtle role estrogen has on brain function, and the effects estrogen-like chemicals may have in turn). However the health effects in this study are so strongly associated with products likely to be contaminated with BPA, that it seemed worth observing. Contradicting your assumptions doesn't make it an attack on your position! ;)

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[megamerican]

That is because children have much better nutrition than there used to be. As a result, they are able to reach puberty sooner because of better health.

You're kidding right? I guess all healthy girls should be hitting puberty at 3.

Or this study showing that more girls from age 6 to age 9 are hitting puberty instead of from 10 - 11.

I really pray you were joking!

This just in!

[smbarbour]

It has recently been revealed that a common thread has been found among all human ailments and syndromes.

Everyone that has been afflicted with a disease or syndrome has consumed large amounts of DHMO!

Plastics, m'boy!

[spun]

Don't malign plastic, you dirty hippies. They saved my life in WWII! Why, when I was a lad, we would have KILLED to have plastic food storage. You know what I hear when you say plastics are dangerous? "blah blah blah I hate America blah blah I hate progress blah blah blah." Real Americans can eat plastic like it was apple pie and not get sick.

The same goes double for global warming & the ozone layer. In fact, let's just stop funding research into things that may be bad for us. Only sissies care. All you are doing with your sissy studies is holding back progress and making people worry over nothing.

Admit it: you want us all to go back to living in caves. You hate the modern world and everything in it and you want to destroy it with your evil 'studies.' Elitist intellectual claptrap.

America stands for progress. Except we're not progressive, the damn hippies stole that word and turned it into something dirty. Either you love progress and you know that everything new is better, or you hate America and want everyone to live in caves.

If you hate plastics, you hate the whole human race!

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[onkelonkel]

Damn Right!!!

The American way is the best way. And the American way to deal with environmental problems is to make fun of environmentalists.

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[Hoi Polloi]

I see right through your scam! Anyone writing to Slashdot is a America hating commie...wait a minute...

BTW, to whoever labeled the parent flamebait; that wooshing sound you just heard is sarcasm going over your head.

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[spun]

Oh, I think they understood the sarcasm all too well, and thus the flamebait mod.

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[CodeBuster]

that wooshing sound you just heard is sarcasm going over your head.

Damn, I thought it was the giant sucking sound of American jobs rushing overseas. Phew, what a relief that it was only sarcasm.

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

are we a little angry this morning?
maybe you didnt have enough plastic i your diet today

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[cparker15]

If you hate plastics, you hate the whole human race!

And species, too!!! You misanthrope!!

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[Dutchy Wutchy]

Get back on your porch, grandpa! The world belongs to the new generation, not you low user-number folk.

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I think the word you're looking for is satire, not sarcasm. It was reasonably well done, too.

Colbert is funnier than Franken or Limbaugh. Satire is not as mean-spirited as other forms of contempt, and thus it is often more effective than the most sarcastic tirade... your speech won't have any effect on people if they stop listening to you.

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

spun = CEO of the world's largest plastics manufacturer...

So, don't let 'spun' lose money just because the truth has been exposed about plastics being bad for you, you fucking freaks...

(Jump on his obviously "member of the bandwagon/part of the winning team everyone is on" marketing tactics already, you damn losers!)

Re:Plastics, m'boy!

[famebait]

I do hate America, you insensitive clod.

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[dunnius]

It was based off a study that was done some time ago. One of the findings was that for females, once they go past a certain weight (I don't remember what it was, and I don't feel like looking this up) they hit puberty. The CNN article you mention mentions obesity possibly being a factor for the early puberty. I think it must be referencing that study.

How was this post modded troll?

[megamerican]

I've never been modded troll for posting links to articles that can easily be verified with a simple google search before.

Maybe people really don't like information that is contrary to their beliefs.

Re:How was this post modded troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously to preserve my mod points, but i can see the troll (but really should be uninformative) mod just because you link to a natural health site with financial reasons to demonize BPA. Link to peer reviewed published studies and i might mod you informative

Re:How was this post modded troll?

[megamerican]

Why should I be modded down for other peoples laziness to do a simple google search to see if the the article is correct?

Just because you or others don't like the source or hate the fact that a source tries to make money to continue their profession doesn't mean the source is biased. I don't see anyone bashing CNN for having advertisements on their websites.

Since you were too lazy to type "BPA NIH" into google I'll do it for you.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/draftBPA_MtgSumm080807.pdf

The Expert Panel expressed some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral
effects.
The Expert Panel had expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes
accelerations in puberty.

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[smooth wombat]

Do you have any proof of this bias?

Straight from their own front page:

• Ninety Percent of Olympic Athletes Used Nutritional Supplements to Enhance Performance
• Criminals Who Eat Processed Foods Leave More Evidence Behind at Crime Scenes
• Media Quotes Vitamin B12 Deficiency Study to Attack Vegetarians, Vegans
• Yet More Pharmaceuticals Found in the Public Water Supply of U.S. Cities

Did Kevin Trudeau write any of those articles I posted?

Never said he did. I was merely pointing out a similarity between Natural News and Kevin Trudeau both claiming that "natural" remedies are more effective than man-made medicines (which are also natural).

Do you have any links or proof that he is providing miraculous cures?

Just a few. Like this one, this one and this one. So yes, I have proof he is providing miracle cures. That and his infomercials on which he peddles his book which has in its title, "Includes The Natural Cures For Over 50 Specific Diseases".

Good job at attacking a source you don't like instead of trying to prove anything they said wrong. Very intelligent!

I never said I didn't like the source. Some "natural" items can be very beneficial to certain people. However, claiming that ONLY "natural" products, such as supplements which are unregulated and don't have to detail what they actually contain or what effect they may have on people, is disingenuous and potentially harmful.

As far as proving them wrong, I don't need to prove them wrong because studies over the years have proven them wrong. Here is one article which discusses "natural" remedies, and this one which talks about Lycopene.

So yes, I was very intelligent to point out the bias of Natural News so people are aware of their bias. Whether people heed the warning is up to them but they have been warned.

Carlin nailed it...

[grassy_knoll]

When it comes to common chemicals causing cancer, Carlin had a good line:

 

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.
--George Carlin

Its inside

[randomErr]

Maybe its not the plastic, but rather the junk food inside the plastic?

Re:Its inside

[Diss Champ]

Maybe it's not the junk food in the plastic, but the plastic in the junk food!

Bad Snopes, Bad

[DynaSoar]

"some of which have been debunked"

Snopes is good at debunking (urban) myths. They are not, however, good at evaluating science. Debunking is not even an appropriate term or activity to apply to science (as stated by the poster, and as performed by Snopes). Their FAQ lists other forms of common fiction which are not urban myth, but fail to list badly researched statements by or about science among them.

Snopes reports the "debunking" coming from the International Bottled Water Association. Nobody conversant with science would accept a statement from such as biased source as authoritative. Their major hint should have come from the statement that the master's thesis was "not peer reviewed". A thesis is conducted by a student under a committee of professionals, at least one of which (the thesis supervisor) is an expert in that field. Peer review is conducted by the committee. A thesis is intended to be material suitable for rewriting into a publishable paper. It will have the committee members' names on it, in reference if not in the by-line. As professionals they will at least see to it that the result is worthy of carrying their names.

As for the quote in Snopes supposedly from Rolf Halden of Johns Hopkins that there are no dioxins in plastic, do your own research, as Snopes should have done to follow up, and as the Johns Hopkins people should have done before making the statement. Go to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and put in the search terms "plastic" and "dioxin".

Snopes should also have done their research on the link they provide to the Johns Hopkins PR release (not a scientific publication of any sort, and certainly not peer reviewed) making the "hoax" claim. It is not from Halden, it is from Kellog Schwab. In addition to misattribution, they fail to note that the statement is made in the context of J.H. distancing themselves from misattribution in the emails titled "John Hopkins Cancer Update" and such, not in the context of research conducted or reviewed. There is a similar J.H. missive listed among the 150 results from PubMed. It is in a J.H. publication (peer review?) and has no authors credited.

Snopes appears to have found a way to become a subject of their own scrutiny, as they have delved into science and come up as debunkable urban science myth. Stick to urban mythology, Sponesites. Science can and does take care of itself, if you dig for it in science rather than press releases. Evaluating science requires taking the specific hypothetical statements and applying scientific expertise, not merely quoting vested interests (!) who happen to disagree for reasons other than replicable evidence.

Re:Bad Snopes, Bad

[Just Some Guy]

Snopes is good at debunking (urban) myths.

Not really. They suck at accepting corrections. For example, there's an article on whether Marilyn Monroe had six toes. Now, I have no reason to believe that they reached the wrong conclusion, but I know for a fact that at least one of their reasons is fundamentally wrong:

• There is no record of Marilyn's having had an operation at that point in her life, and no contemporary references to anyone's noticing her walking with a bandaged foot or a limp for a period of time. (One doesn't simply get up and start trotting around after having a toe removed -- the missing digit affects one's balance, and it takes some time to adjust to the change and "relearn" how to walk.)

My wife is a podiatrist, and I asked her if that was correct. She said that no, it's an urban legend of its own, and that it takes little adjustment after a toe amputation once the surgical wound is healed. Even removal of the big toe is a relatively minor deal (try walking with it lifted off the ground sometime and see if it makes a difference), let alone a vestigial extra pinky toe hanging off the side.

I wrote to Snopes with that information from an expert source, and they wrote back that I was a dumbass for believing that Marilyn had six toes. I don't! I just didn't think they should be using invalid facts to "prove" their case, even if I agree with their conclusion.

Snopes is fine for entertainment value, but wholly worthless as an authoritative information source.

Re:Bad Snopes, Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Snopes says chocolate kills dogs, too.

My 16 pound dachshund ate five pounds of chocolate. Think about those proportions.

She did not die, although she probably wished she had for a day or two. That dog had so much gas it was practically jet-propelled.

Snopes should avoid things that require experimental proofs, and stick to sorting history from legend. It's a different field, and one they can be good at.

Re:Bad Snopes, Bad

[Just Some Guy]

You too, huh? One Christmas morning, my Boston Terrier ate my entire box of chocolate covered cherries. There were no noticeable signs or symptoms that she'd done anything unusual - said dog was pretty spastic anyway.

I think that's on the list of things that "everyone knows", even if most people have had the same counter experience.

And ???

[mordred99]

Well Duh .. I mean when you store nothing but friend fish and chips in there, with a little more grease for good "measure", and you eat that for two years every day .. don't you think you are going to get heart disease? I mean have you not seen "supersize me?" :)

Re:And ???

[mordred99]

friend fish = fried fish fixed

Re:And ???

[arb phd slp]

Fish are friends, not food.

Re:And ???

[mordred99]

Only if your name is Bruce .. and I really don't want to meet you in a dark alley.

Re:And ???

[Belial6]

Please excuse me if you were being sarcastic.

Supersize Me was fixed. It was a joke. The guy that made that movie has publicly said that if he is making a show, he gets to spin things to look the way he wants. Just within the movie, they claim that eating McDonalds every day for a month was causing his liver to fail. Anyone who's liver fails from a month of McDonalds was seriously ill before the experiment ever started. So, either the guy was seriously ill before he ate at McDonalds and tried to blame the pre-existing condition on McDonalds, OR he was just lying. Supersize me is not a documentory, it is a work of fiction.

Re:And ???

[mordred99]

It was a joke ... making fun of the worst British food (health wise - I love fish and chips however) I could think of, and stating someone ate it every day for two years - and got sick .. I think most documentaries are rigged in some way - so I never took that movie worth a grain of salt :)

No worries mate.

Use Glass

[llZENll]

There is a reason all chemistry beakers, bottles, and flasks are made from glass, its the only cheap inert material that doesn't on some level mix with what you are containing. Metal and plastic eventually leech out.

Rather than going overboard with the results I would follow some common sense guidelines:
1) If you are a baby or preggers then use glass containers.
2) Use glass containers for heating things in the microwave or for long term liquid storage.

Given that the vast majority of everything we drink and eat these days is either stored in plastic or touches plastic at some point I think its almost impossible to go plastic free, and I doubt it matters much.

Re:Use Glass

[Anonymous Coward]

Do be careful when heating glass. Plastic won't explode.

Re:Use Glass

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason all chemistry beakers, bottles, and flasks are made from glass,

Oh Really?
then why
do all these
Chemistry Supply sites
carry plastic bottles?

Oh, and a lot of modern glass (like Pyrex) incorporates plastics or polymers as well as just "pure glass"...

My solution for you is to use Tinfoil, that outta protect you from all sorts of stuff...

Re:Use Glass

[reverseengineer]

Actually, what got us into this bisphenol A mess was that polycarbonate laboratory bottles became popular among regular consumers- chemists who enjoyed outdoor pursuits started taking Nalgene bottles (which are light, stable over a wide range of conditions, and nearly shatterproof) out of the lab and into the woods.

While I am not the sort to get caught up in scares about chemicals , I will admit the bisphenol A thing is a concern. This is Bisphenol A, and this is diethylstilbestrol. A nonsteroidal estrogen agonist, DES was once prescribed to reduce the risk of miscarriages. Banned from that use in the early 1970s due to it increasing rates of cancers and birth defects, DES is currently causing rare birth defects and cancers in the grandchildren of the women it was originally given to. Endocrine disruptors can be extremely potent, with persistant harmful effects, and I think it a prudent course that such compounds be identified and their use minimized.

That being said, it's bewildering to see people panic over BPA and then see an explosion of products touting their levels of soy isoflavones. Everyone knows those are estrogens, right?

Re:Use Glass

[Just Some Guy]

There is a reason all chemistry beakers, bottles, and flasks are made from glass, its the only cheap inert material that doesn't on some level mix with what you are containing.

Ummm....

Re:Use Glass

[b1rdy]

There is a reason all chemistry beakers, bottles, and flasks are made from glass, its the only cheap inert material that doesn't on some level mix with what you are containing.

I disagree, I've been drinking beer from glass containers for years and now my liver is shot. Glass is just as harmful as plastic it seems.

Re:Use Glass

[syousef]

If you are a baby or preggers then use glass containers

Giving glass to your baby????? Please tell me you're not a parent!

Re:Use Glass

[badkarmadayaccount]

Uhhh....

Re:Use Glass

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason all chemistry beakers, bottles, and flasks are made from glass, its the only cheap inert material that doesn't on some level mix with what you are containing.

Most but not all. If you've taken a couple of chemistry courses, you've probably run an experiment or two with a warning not to use glass for certain reagents, because it eats through them. For example, fluoride.

Welcome to Tautology Land: all chemistry equipment is made of glass because it's inert to your chemicals, except those which are not made of glass because they're not inert to your other chemicals. :/

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[geekoid]

Puberty is related to nutrition.
Did you read the article you link to?

Science also says it doesn't enter the bloodstream

[insanechemist]

A Chemical Research in Toxicology article here stated that rats and humans handle bisphenol A in very different ways so I'd be careful drawing lines between rat and human results.

"Enterohepatic circulation of bisphenol A glucuronide in rats results in a slow rate of excretion, whereas bisphenol A is rapidly conjugated and excreted by humans due to the absence of enterohepatic circulation. The efficient glucuronidation of bisphenol A and the rapid excretion of the formed glucuronide result in a low body burden of the estrogenic bisphenol A in humans following oral absorption of low doses."

The article actually says humans basically excreet all of the material resulting in extremely low (near undetectable) levels of biphenol A or its metabolite. They fed humans 5mg of isotopicaly labeled bisphenol A and studied what the body does with it - there is no way any plastic bottle or cup is gonna deliver 5mg of bisphenol A to you via drinking or eating its contents. Bisphenol a is an anti-oxidant used in ppm levels in the plastic to keep it from yellowing over time. So IMHO the jury is still out - BUT my kids use BPA free plastics :) With kids why take the chance?

Next time, buy cans

[Anonymous Coward]

No plastic bottles for me. Aluminum cans for all my (non-caloric) soda sipping.

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[megamerican]

Yes I did. It said the causes is indeterminate, then they quoted some people who for all we know made up something off the top of their head.

about that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Periods do not go between every word in a sentence.

Re:about that...

[MPAB]

Khaaaa.aaaa.aaaa.nnnn!

Re:about that...

[Anonymous Coward]

A.m.I.d.o.i.n.g.i.t.r.i.g.h.t?

Re:about that...

[Muad'Dave]

No, class A addresses look like aaa.nnn.nnn.nnn. Yours is a class C, which looks like ccc.ccc.ccc.nnn.

Re:about that...

[GreatBunzinni]

Periods do not go between every word in a sentence.

Tell that to William Shatner.

Re:about that...

[sgbett]

No, they come once a month!

I thankyou.

Obligatory Bioshock reference

[msormune]

Damn those plasmids.

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[megamerican]

Or maybe you can ask the NIH itself:
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/draftBPA_MtgSumm080807.pdf

The Expert Panel expressed some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral
effects.
The Expert Panel had expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes
accelerations in puberty.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/BPADraftBriefVF_04_14_08.pdf

In addition to effects on survival and growth seen at high dose levels of bisphenol A, a variety of effects related to neural and behavior alterations, precancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, altered prostate gland and urinary tract development, and early onset of puberty in females have been reported in laboratory rodents exposed during development to much lower doses of bisphenol A (⥠0.0024 mg/kg bw/day) that are more similar to human exposures.

Recognizing the lack of data on the effects of bisphenol A in humans and despite the limitations in the evidence for âoelowâ dose effects in laboratory animals discussed in more detail below, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed

Everything causes cancer.

[David Gerard]

Everything causes cancer, and cures it.

A lot of this "new study" stuff is horrendously lazy journalism caused by having too much space to fill.

Re:Science also says it doesn't enter the bloodstr

[mapsjanhere]

Sorry, but Bisphenol A is NOT a ppm level anti-oxidant - it's the main chemical building block in both epoxy-resins and polycarbonates. The problem is that no polymerization reaction proceeds to 100%, so you will always have unbound BPA in any "plastic" of these types. And yes, IAAPC
In regards to the article, it states that 90% of the population showed BPA in their bodies, and that the top 25% BPA correlated with increased disease. Since the BPA accumulates in fat tissue, this might also correlate with "the fattest 25% of the population have an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes". What no one will dispute.

Plastics linked to longer life

[davidwr]

To parrot an industry-trade-group TV commercial, "imagine a world without plastics." No single-use hypodermic needles and other medical devices, fewer artificial body parts and almost certainly no pacemakers, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, certain plastics are harmful to certain parts of our bodies. Any decision to take them off the market or restrict their use must be made holistically, and not based on a single narrow "save the fill-in-the-blank" criterion.

Re:Plastics linked to longer life

[smellsofbikes]

>must be made holistically, and not based on a single narrow "save the fill-in-the-blank" criterion.

I agree.
So I'm asking, out of curiosity: how does a society which has basically decided that it doesn't consider any level of risk acceptable, continue? Any advance that has the potential of hurting people gets attacked and legislated or lawyerized out of existence. People in regulatory or law-making roles actively participate in this because they stand to lose their jobs and careers if they've been shown to support something that has a risk of injuring people -- even if it will, overall, save or enhance the lives of many more people.

How do we as a society make progress if nobody is allowed to be at risk? I argue: we won't progress. So how do we, as informed individuals, get society to accept that progress without risk is very unlikely?

But what you really have to look out for is....

[3seas]

...life, as it is the disease that always leads to death.

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Need I go on?

Keep using BPA products. And people wonder why girls are hitting puberty so much earlier now.

1. No, you don't need to.

2. Linking to a bunch of stories from the same hippie web site doesn't do much to support your stance, try posting some different references.

3. Girls aren't hitting puberty any earlier than they ever have, & neither are boys. I believe you are thinking of a study they did on some fish showing certain chemical triggers from plastics caused the female fish to reach reproductive age sooner.
My great-great-grandmother and I had a discussion some years ago regarding teenage sexuality, pregnancy, puberty, etc. She said that it was actually more common for girls to become pregnant between 12 and 15 when she was growing up, it's just that nobody talked about it, or the abortions they had. In the late 1800's marriage (& children, plural) was common among women age 13 & 14, and a women that made it to 18 single was almost an 'old maid'. And yes, 13 or 14 years old at that time you were a man or woman, we only invented the 'teenage' category in the last 100 years- prior to the 1900's you had a (very demanding) job, a family, or were already conducting affairs of state.
People aren't getting pregnant, having sex, smoking, drinking, etc. any younger than they ever have, in fact in the last 60 years we've been moving away from that, resulting in a large percentage of society stuck in between childhood and adulthood, with all the physical drives of adults but the responsibility & accountability of children.

4. I'm not saying BPA is safe, but there is nothing on the site you linked to any more convincing than on this site dedicated to exposing industrial contaminants. The only reference given is a vague attribution to 'The Feds', who are incidentally the same people who told us that Margarine was safer than butter and not to worry about Asbestos insulation.

I'd post more references, but doing the research yourself would do you some good. Don't believe everything you heard, especially, from the Feds.

Re:Nice troll, good angry responses, I give it a 7

[gnick]

This is only kiddie_valind's 4th post and he's managed 17 replies as of the time of this post. The troll-fu is strong with this one. He's been fed well.

Correlation between plastics and human disease

[morgauo]

Hmm, let's see, what's more likely to be in a plastic container...

Fast Food
Candy Bar
Pop (Soda)
Snack Cakes
A good healthy home-cooked meal...

Re:Correlation between plastics and human disease

[Anonymous Coward]

What about water bottles, frozen vegetables and yogurt? Heating anything in plastic has always been bad for you. Food Leaches chemicals out of its plastic containers.

Don't blame plastic fatsos for your diabetes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Type 2 diabetes is caused by obesity (i.e. being a fucking fatass).

Being a fatass is caused by stuffing your face and not moving any part of your body except that needed to move your mouse, operate your remote, and get some more chips and soda from the refridgerator.

Case closed.

People who eat decently, and excercise don't get fat and don't get type 2 diabetes. PERIOD!

Not plastic or genes, or etc, except maybe if your a fatass you'll have a 99% chance of getting it rather than 98%.

Type 1 diabetes is caused by not breastfeeding and giving cows milk to newborns.

Type 2: Turn off your PC, walk to the damn store and buy decent food.

Type 1: Be a parent for Christ's sake!

Good food, bad food, good food, bad food, BOOM

[Anonymous Coward]

Spontaneous combustion has been linked to stress:

1) Many people tense up when stressed.
2) Tightly tensing up causes many people to shake.
3) Shaking increases the energy in the person's molecules as those molecules are bouncing and slamming into each other.
4) During this process, some of the extra energy results in extra heat.
5) When enough extra heat is generated, the person combusts.
6) Therefore, stress causes combustion.

Profit) If only we could only get a stress engine inside a car...

Where's the funny

[QZTR]

We get that you are all about criticising Americans based on your own ignorant biases and stereotypes. We get that.

I just wonder why people think it's funny since you've been making the same basic joke for years.

 

Re:Where's the funny

[spun]

I'm not criticizing Americans in general. The people I'm criticizing make up a small, but vocal minority of Americans. I'm just doing my part as a normal, mainstream, patriotic American to point out our flaws so that we can work on them, in a way that many people find humorous. Sorry if that offends you.

Fishing for Plastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Plastic without doubt has its uses in the medical world. Not that all plastic should be banned, but just because its been around so long that we are used to it, does not mean it is good for our food and water storage. And what about its impact on the environment. Plastic ends up in the Ocean, choking fish to death who think they are eating a jelly fish - not a plastic baggie. It keeps breaking down to smaller and smaller pieces (never going away), until that Tuna you just ate was a percentage of plastic. Plastic waste is creating a garbage island. If something may be unhealthy, and we need to reduce using it anyway, why is it so bad to cut back or find alternatives?
http://www.vbs.tv/shows/toxic/garbage-island/

correlation???

[Anonymous Coward]

one of the most common uses for plastic bottles is to store stuff that is loaded with sugar and other american staples. this study shows that people who have the highest levels of these chemicals in their bodies are also the people most likely to have diabetes and heart disease... this should be no big surprise because these are the people eating and drinking the most crap. i think this issue does deserve more study but with proper scrutiny. it is like saying that the rise in global temperature is linked to the global decline in pirates.

I'm not convinced

[Moraelin]

Look, if it were in response to any particular post or claim, I'd understand it. Heck, I could even swallow it as "just watch the hordes claim causation there." Then it at least also gave the question to which it answers.

But posted as a knee-jerk reaction by itself, it is just plain old dumb. And it almost invariably makes a claim about TFA, not about anyone who might misunderstand it.

I mean, picture the following conversation:

You: "But it does keep things from being subtracted by idiots who can't grasp that concept."
Me: "Then you should stop sucking cock."
You: "WTF?"
Me: "Oh, sorry, I'm just defensively answering in advance to people who think sucking cock also keeps idiots away."

If it sounds stupidly absurd, bingo, that's about how that tired meme is too. Stick to where someone actually falsely claimed causation.

Because from where I stand, the parrots reposting that meme all over the place _are_ the idiots subtracting from the conversation. That "answering" a question nobody asked is just adding useless noise to the signal.

But, just to be a lot less nice, let me tell you what it looks like to _me_ most of the time: karma whoring and ego masturbation. It allows some loser to (A) feel like a member in the big family of skeptics, and/or (B) feel already better for his lack of scientific results or education, by having something snarky to say each time any mention of science comes up. It's a one-liner ego-stroke, that's all there is to it. "Look at how much smarter I am than those 'scientists'! I know that correlation doesn't equal causation! I bet they don't!"

Bonus point if the idiot doesn't even understand what he's talking about there.

Not that I think science needs any defense from that, and far from me to keep anyone from using their own brains about any given problem or solution. By all means, please _do_ use your brains. But the whole point is that such one-liner memes _aren't_ much of a sign of brain activity, most of the time. It's just a canned slogan that most seem to wave around mechanically and unthinkingly, just because it seemed fashionable to pull it out.

Re:I'm not convinced

[Free the Cowards]

Think what you like. But run through the discussion to this story. Except for the big thread that started with the one guy who said "correlation is not causation", it looks to me like approximately every reply to this story assumes that the study has concluded that these plastics cause heart disease. Seems to me that we need more people saying that correlation is not causation, not fewer.

However, I should say that I agree with you completely that the statement itself is, generally, said in a completely knee-jerk manner with no thought behind it.

Do Not Eat!

[supernova_hq]

When will people learn not to eat the containers their food comes in?!?

Too much Coke causes Diabetes.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I knew drinking too much coke can cause diabetes, I would have never guessed that it was the plastic in the bottles and the coating on the cans.

Re:Science also says it doesn't enter the bloodstr

[Mr. Slippery]

The article actually says humans basically excreet all of the material resulting in extremely low (near undetectable) levels of biphenol A or its metabolite.

A curious statement, since BPA was found at detectable levels in the urine of 92.6% of the population in a CDC study.

Bisphenol a is an anti-oxidant used in ppm levels in the plastic to keep it from yellowing over time.

Bisphenol A is everywhere - it's the building block of polycarbonate. It's used in dental resins and in the lining of food cans.

I've always known it

[achenaar]

This is why I only drink from metal cans. Sure the boss gets uppity when I'm on my 8th Strongbow before lunch but I say, "HEY! Don't you know plastic bottles of water could give me HEART DISEASE!??!".

Germany: Water & Milk sold in Glass Bottles

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany, because of that (and because plastic affects the taste) most water is sold in glass bottles. Milk is sold in glass bottles or tetra packs, very rarely in plastic containers.

Much better!

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the post where you cited proof is MUCH more convincing than the post where you cited bias. Not everyone has seen the proof you have. I've never heard of this guy before.

I wouldn't have changed my original opinion much after reading your first post (that this is probably bunk, but that I'm not sure), but now I'm absolutely certain that this is utter nonsense.

So if you want to be more convincing in the future, make more posts like the parent post and fewer like the great-great grandparent post. Just talking about 'bias' isn't enough. But proving that they're not objective is.

Seems like a lot of chemists use plastic now

[bigtrike]

If you look at a lab supply catalog these days, there is quite a bit of plasticware.

Reminds me of George Carlin: Save the planet

[Seth Kriticos]

George Carlin outlined quite good, that the intent of the planet earth to create mankind was to have plastic in the first place. Actually it does not need us any more, earth + plastic is there. We can go as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X0F1Qjn0Ac

Re:Reminds me of George Carlin: Save the planet

[spun]

And here I was thinking the purpose of the Earth was to create Rick Astley videos...

link correction

[Seth Kriticos]

To error is human, not? So here is the link I ment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWrSuhLpVM

Re:Science also says it doesn't enter the bloodstr

[pentlappy]

A curious statement, since BPA was found at detectable levels in the urine of 92.6% of the population

What part of "excrete" did you not understand?

Re:Science also says it doesn't enter the bloodstr

[pentlappy]

I should probably clarify that comment.

If BPA is found in the urine, it most certainly enters the bloodstream. However, what the GP post's article is suggesting is that it is cleared and excreted very quickly from the bloodstream, therefore it cannot build up in a large enough quantity in the blood to exert any physiological effect on humans.

Thus when they tried to measure blood levels they could only detect the conjugated, presumably inactive form of bisphenol A, which was found in very small quantities and promptly cleared in the urine.

Hope that makes sense.

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[geekoid]

So yes, I was very intelligent to point out the bias of Natural News so people are aware of their bias and lies .

There fixed it for you. :)

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[geekoid]

h please, ther eis no evicens at al in the first article.
While yuo can be suspect of the industry funded studies, many other countries have done studies as well.

Your last linking is talking about rats..rats, not people, rats.

Naturalnews goal is to get everyone 'organic' and to fear anything 'artificial.
I wonder if they get to pick the 2 billion people that would die if everyone went organic?
Also it is funny how they don't have any articles about how all ecoli breakout have been from organic farms?

Know your plastics

[actionbastard]

Bisphenol-A is not found in plastic articles that are made of polypropylene (PP), HDPE, or LDPE. Those of you swigging from that bottle of FIJI, NYC Tap, or that can of Jolt need to wake up and check your sperm count.

correlation is not causation?

[speedtux]

<sarcasm>Yeah, obviously that's all wrong; obviously, heart disease and cancer induce false memories of using plastic bottles.</sarcasm>

What TFA actually says

[Rui del-Negro]

People who eat more prepackaged foods are more likely to be taking in all sorts of stuff---high fructose corn syrup, higher levels of sugar, higher levels of various preservatives [...]

It seems that no one bothers to actually read the articles before posting (save the "you must be new here", I'm being sarcastic).

You see, the study didn't test exposure to BPA. It only compared the likelihood of some diseases with the amount of BPA present in the body. That's an important detail.

In other words, this correlation may very well indicate causation... the other way around. Heart disease or diabetes may cause your body to retain more BPA. As simple as that.

Shooting off in random directions and making conjectures about the habits of people who come into contact with BPA is pointless (unless you're planning to back it up with data). For example, BPA is used in the packaging of several vegetables, so you can eat nothing but "health food" and still come into contact with BPA frequently. In fact the article points out that 90% of the people tested had some BPA in their body. Also, high-fuctose corn syrup is relatively rare outside the USA (extremely rare in Europe), and the study was (apparently) conducted in the UK.

In any case the study's authors are not claiming any causation, one way or the other, and they specifically say they did not identify any mechanism through which BPA would cause any illness.

Re:What TFA actually says

[dgatwood]

True about HFCS being rare in Europe. Doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of prepackaged foods with truckloads of sugar, though. And we got some yogurt in Italy last summer that was chock full of HFCS, IIRC, so it's not unheard of even there.

Even among the prepackaged health food crowd (with a few possible exceptions like fresh bagged carrots), people who eat prepackaged foods are more likely to be in a hurry (or else they would buy fresh), and thus more prone to stress, and thus more prone to obesity. They are also less likely to have time to get exercise, and thus more prone to obesity. And so on.... :-)

The point wasn't to speculate about what common cause triggered both the obesity/diabetes and the Bisphenol A. The point was that it is pretty trivial to come up with plausible explanations in which a common cause could result in both increased BPA exposure (which presumably would result in increased BPA uptake) and obesity.

Your reverse causation theory is also interesting. Obesity would presumably cause additional uptake of foods, and if you are eating more foods and tend towards prepackaged stuff, that by itself would lead to greater uptake of BPA along with it.

That said, if Bisphenol A interferes with hormones, it would not be surprising if that resulted in weight gain. As such, the causation theory is also quite plausible.

Until more studies are done, it is just correlation. One would hope, however, that in light of the correlation, there will be a significant push to step up studies to determine causation or lack thereof.

Re:What TFA actually says

[MSZ]

High Fructose Corn Syrup might be not very common in Europe, but most of the soft drinks contain "glucose-fructose syrup"... Generally the same evil shit, only probably not made from corn.

And anyway, whether it's regular sugar, cane sugar, HFCS or similar, the amount of sugar in these drinks is not healthy. It isn't however the main cause of obesity - you need to add candy bars, grease loaded fast "food" and the common, irrational fear of exercise (from which I do, unfortunately, suffer).

Re:What TFA actually says

[Rui del-Negro]

And we got some yogurt in Italy last summer that was chock full of HFCS, IIRC, so it's not unheard of even there.

You probably don't remember correctly. It's very much "heard of". It's just not used very frequently (for various reasons, starting with the fact that Europe doesn't produce more corn than it knows what do do with - in fact, it probably imports some corn), and when it is used, it's generally called "isoglucose", not HFCS, so you probably wouldn't have recognised it anyway.

I would say you may have been eating an imported yogurt (made in the USA or Japan), but I seriously doubt anyone in Italy would import dairy products from either of those two countries. Unless it was frozen yogurt, of course.

It's not impossible that some italian brand of yogurt decided to use a relatively rare, highly regulated sweetener, and then described it on the label (in English, no less) using the american designation. It's just highly unlikely.

people who eat prepackaged foods are more likely to be in a hurry

Go on, criticise people who (in fact don't) jump to conclusions based on incomplete data and then pull some sweeping, nonsensical generalisation out of thin air.

Oh, and then build on that by adding:

[...] and thus more prone to stress, and thus more prone to obesity. They are also less likely to have time to get exercise, and thus more prone to obesity. [...] what common cause triggered both the obesity [...] increased BPA exposure and obesity [...] Obesity would presumably [...] that resulted in weight gain [...]

Seriously, RTFA. It says nothing about obesity. It's about heart disease and diabetes.

Re:What TFA actually says

[Rui del-Negro]

High Fructose Corn Syrup might be not very common in Europe, but most of the soft drinks contain "glucose-fructose syrup"... Generally the same evil shit, only probably not made from corn.

Glucose-fructose syrup used in Europe will nearly always have less than 10% of fructose, so it's very different from HFCS (which has 40-55% fructose). The one similar to HFCS is called isoglucose (typically with 42% fructose). In any case, the majority of drinks (Coke, Fanta, etc.) uses sucrose (mostly due to production quotas & taxes, not because of any health concerns).

And anyway, sucrose (regular cane / beet sugar) breaks down into fructose and glucose when it's digested, so if there's anything special about HFCS it won't be the fructose (or the glucose), it'll probably be in some other substance present in it in very small amounts, and not present in other types of sugar.

Not that any of this has much to do with the study in question.

pnas weighs in with monkeys

[verySmartApe]

For all those correlation!=causation idiots who don't like case-control studies, there have been some controlled studies on primates. This article just came out in PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/14187

I'm against the kind of alarmism that has become rampant in nutritional science, but there is increasing reason to be concerned about BPA

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sources referenced are drivel. Lycopene is dirived from tomatos and saw palmeto has been well studied for years. A real source of information is a search engine called "PubMed".
PubMed searches Index Medicus, The index to the United States national library of medicine. Go to your favorite search engine and enter "entrez pubmed". You now have access to 16 to 18 million titles, many of them with abstracts and not a few with complete articles.
          Dovregubbin

Re:BPA can cause more than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the Lycopene article doesn't prove anything? It looks like a poorly written advertisement for some prostate product to me. See the author's link at the bottom.

You're laboring under a misconception

[QZTR]

You seem to think I give a fuck about your opinion, and will waste time listening to you make stupid excuses and equivocations.

Re:You're laboring under a misconception

[spun]

You did waste time reading my post, and you wasted even more time replying. And YOU seem to think everyone else gives a fuck about YOUR opinion, so we're in the same boat, eh? You know what I see when you post? "Wah wah wah, someone thinks differently than me, make them stop, wah wah!" Free speech: get used to it or get off the Internet, you freak.

Re:You're laboring under a misconception

[QZTR]

"You're laboring under a misconception you seem to think I give a fuck about your opinion, and will waste time listening to you make stupid excuses and equivocations."

Please point out where I said, "won't read" as opposed to "won't listen to"? Ah, I see, I didn't and you're wrong.

"You know what I see when you post? "Wah wah wah, someone thinks differently than me, make them stop, wah wah!""

That's probably because you can't read worth a fuck, as that sentence never appeared in any of my posts.

"Free speech: get used to it or get off the Internet, you freak."

You mean like when I said to you "your jokes aren't funny, and I don't give a fuck about your stupid excuses?" and you responded with "get used to it or get off the Internet, you freak."

It's nice to see you don't mind adding hypocrisy to your list of crimes.

And I still don't intend to listen to your stupid excuses and equivocations, you're simply not intelligent enough to waste my time with, apart from shutting you the fuck up for fun like I did here.

You are obviously confused

[spun]

How can you listen to me, fool? Are you hiding in my office somewhere? Please. You can't shut me up, either. Have you invented a device to stab people in the face over the Internet? I thought not.

I think you might have some kind of manic disorder. Your thinking is disorganized and illogical, and you seem to have sever delusions of grandeur. You don't actually have the power to shut me up.

You might want to see a mental health professional. Manic disorders are serious.

God damn are you stupid, you even fail at pedantry

[QZTR]

"How can you listen to me, fool?"

"Listen:

1. to give attention with the ear; attend closely for the purpose of hearing; give ear.
2. to pay attention; heed; obey (often fol. by to): Children don't always listen to their parents."

That's how idiot. Get a dictionary and learn to use the words you're asking about before you say something else profoundly stupid.

"I think you might have some kind of manic disorder."

Of course you say that, I pointed out the you're a hypocritical idiot, of course you'd try to attack me, you have no other options left.

You got shut the fuck up. Displaying your ignorance of common words and their usage only reinforces my previous point about your reading ability and lack of intelligence. that you resorted to failed attempts at pedantry to gloss over the fact that you were stupid enough to cry free speech while simultaneously complaining about my use of free speech.

You got shut the fuck up again. It won't change, no matter how many sad little end runs you try to make around your own ignorance and hypocrisy.

You argue like a child

[spun]

But you did pay attention, didn't you? You read my post, you replied, that means you paid attention. The fun thing is, I'm forcing you to keep responding, wasting more of your time and attention, getting your blood pressure up, making you rant and rave. I love it, please keep going.

You've only shut me up in your own, delusional world.

And yet I'm still destroying you

[QZTR]

"But you did pay attention, didn't you?"

No, and you're changing your argument again because your stupid attempt to act like "listen" didn't apply, when I just proved to you that it did.

"You read my post, you replied, that means you paid attention."

No, I have no fucking idea what you said. I paid attention to nothing, I simply reacted reflexively. You fail again.

"The fun thing is, I'm forcing you to keep responding, wasting more of your time and attention, getting your blood pressure up, making you rant and rave. I love it, please keep going."

FUnny, I seem to recall you tracking me down a day later to defend your stupid joke. I am repeatedly telling you I don't care about what you say, yet you think you're "getting my blood pressure up" when the reality is, my co workers and I are marvelling at how stupid you are, and how ridiculous your attempts to get over on me are.

So far, you've changed your attack every time you reply, and yet you think you've done something other than prove exactly what I said about you.

And I've seen you use that stupid "I'm getting you to respond" attack befor, it's tired just like your jokes.

"You've only shut me up in your own, delusional world."

Then reality is my world.

You cannot deny that no matter what you've done, you've gotten your moronic arguments crushed at every opportunity, and now you're acting as though your own compulsion to reply is somehow a win for you.

Of course, if you weren't so stupid, you'd realize you replied to me, so by your own argument you lose.

Again.

Now, you cannot help yourself, you are so mentally ill, so totally intellectually flawed, that you must, must reply to defend yourself, no matter how idiotic your replies are, and no matter how stupid and hypocritical you appear.

Please deny it so I can post your quotes and prove it.

And you get shut the fuck up. Again.

Re:And yet I'm still destroying you

[spun]

Dude, who do you think is reading this thread? It's a day old and buried deep. It's just you and me here.

Are you Baghdad Bob? "The spuns are killing themselves at my gates! Haha! I are winning!" Just saying you are crushing me, doesn't make it true. That's why I say you need help, and I'm serious. You're very badly delusional. You think you're somehow destroying me and my arguments, but that's only in your own mind. No one else cares. No one else even knows.

No one else is reading this, you aren't showing me up in front of anyone. You aren't proving anything, except how delusional and full of yourself you are. You are imagining a victory in your own head. I can't stop laughing.

To tell you the truth, I'm not even reading your replies, I just kinda skim over it, have a good laugh at how sad and out of touch with reality you are, and poke you some more to get you to respond again.

Keep it up, I can use the entertainment. I love trolling angry conservative idiots on the Internet, it's my one vice. It makes me so happy knowing I can make a fool like you angry enough that he can't let it go. Really, you've made my whole week here. Thanks!

Re:And yet I'm still destroying you

[spun]

LOL. Classic psychological projection. You've got an obsession, dude. You are WAY too interested in me. I mean, in a way, I'm flattered. I can understand, you know I'm superior and you're drawn to me, like a moth to a flame.

It just gets better and better. Reread your post, I made you so mad, you can't even type correctly anymore. Super-sweet. Please, keep going, maybe you'll get so mad you have an aneurysm!

Save the psychobabble, you're wrong about that too

[Anonymous Coward]

"Classic psychological projection"

No it isn't, don't use terms you're not smart enough to understand. And before you pipe up, argue with my Master's Degree in Behavioral psychology, you'll get further making an ass of yourself for it than for me again.

"You are WAY too interested in me."

Do I know you? I mean apart from the shitty jokes and retarded points that get shot down every time you make them?

And just so you know, once again to reinforce the point, you replied to me. Shut the fuck up again.

" Reread your post, I made you so mad, you can't even type correctly anymore"

You know you've lost when you resort to grammar and spelling criticism.

"Please, keep going, maybe you'll get so mad you have an aneurysm!"

At least then we'd be intellectually equivalent.

Well, am I still making you day? Are you still so pathetic and useless that a random conversation wiht someone who repeatedly shut you the fuck up and caused you to display your hypocrisy and ignorance over and over is somehow a positive for you?

And just so you know, there are a half dozen people laughing at how pathetic you are in the background. Every time you post they ask me, "doesn't that loser have anything better to do?" to whihc I'f forced to answer, "read the posts, he admitted he doesn't, and that the highlight of his week is a random conversation with someone he doesn't know where he makes an ass of himself". Then they laugh at you.

And so do I.

Re:Save the psychobabble, you're wrong about that

[spun]

You haven't repeatedly done anything. Your victories exist only in your own mind. Just to be clear, The Star Wars action figures you have lined up on your desk in your mom's basement are not 'your co-workers.' They are plastic dolls.

Tell me, gotten any positive moderations here? No? How's your karma? You seem to be out of touch as far as what the rest of Slashdot thinks of me, because I have excellent karma, and continue to get moderated up. And you don't. If I'm the idiot you claim to be, then everyone else here must be idiots too. So why waste your time posting on a web site full of idiots? Find something better to do.

You keep on losing pathetically in this argument, but you are too dumb to know it. But now I grow bored, my server installs are done and I don't have any more time to kill taunting you, so I'm afraid our little game here is done. Maybe you can find someone else to validate your pathetic existence.

garwoodpr

[garwoodpr]

Wood Toys are Better Than Plastic

Parents can replace plastic toys like puzzles for preschoolers with wood ones from family companies like http://www.tagtoys.com/ that make all their toys in the USA.

Are you still at it?

[QZTR]

Let me get my coworkers so we can laugh at you some more.

PS I would have read your post, but as soon as I saw you bring up moderation I knew you knew I had won, so I didn't bother.

 

Re:Are you still at it?

[spun]

Hey, it's that loser from yesterday! Couldn't stay away from my brilliance, could you? Still desperately trying to prove to yourself that you aren't a loser, I see. How's that going? You convinced yet?

Laughing

[QZTR]

@ you. Right now.

I mean damn, loser, look at how fast you responded...

Re:Laughing

[spun]

Hehe, Seriously, what are you hoping to gain from this? It's obvious you can't stop. You know I'm better than you. Better at arguing, better liked, better at insults, better at logic, just all around superior, and you can't stand it. You know you are inferior in every way, pathetic, and have no life, and you resent people like me. It's okay, there is still a place for losers in this world, you just have to let go of the resentment, and admit your place is on the bottom, where it has always been, and always will be.

Nine minutes

[QZTR]

Nine minutes.

You're so obsessed it took you less than ten minutes to reply.

Sorry, you're too pathetic after that to do anything but laugh at.

Again.

Re:Nine minutes

[spun]

Are you still obsessing over this, even after the weekend? Is your life that boring? Sad.

Re:Nine minutes

[spun]

You don't understand how the Slashdot message system works, do you? Or what a good sysadmin's day is like. Ah well, you can keep trying to tick me off. But you can't make me angry. I, on the other hand, can get you so mad you can't even type right. You need professional help, and you need to stop referring to your imaginary co-workers, it's getting old.

Re:Nine minutes

[spun]

Okay, Mr. Obsessed, we have your shipment of "Obsession for Simpletons" for you if you sign... riiiiight... here. There we go! Nice huh? Smells like 'Preteen Douchebag Loser" only it's cheaper.

Nine minutes loser, it won't change

[QZTR]

"Are you still obsessing over this, even after the weekend?"

No, I'm not replying within ten minutes to say I'm not obsessed with replying like you did.

" Is your life that boring?"

No, because I'm not replying within ten minutes to say I'm not obsessed with replying like you did.

"Sad."

Thanks for signing your post.

Re:Nine minutes loser, it won't change

[spun]

Jesus, you really are incapable of letting this go. You need help. Like most people in psychology, I'll bet you got into it to figure out why you are so screwed up. You obviously failed. You need to get your anger and obsessions under control before they ruin your life. You are probably in danger of being fired or de-certified if anyone at your work place or in your profession found out what you are writing. People with your types of problems shouldn't be trusted to work with the mentally ill.

Me, I'm a sysadmin, and a damn good one, which means I have plenty of free time, because the stuff I set up doesn't fail. I have messages turned on on slashdot, so I see pretty quick when someone responds to me. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out yet.

One more time, you launch a moronic attack, hoping it will hurt me, and fail. Your lack of insight into my character will prevent you from ever finding anything that can, but it is amusing to watch you flail about blindly. Keep it up!

Re:Nine minutes loser, it won't change

[spun]

You can't successfully attack someone else for doing what you do. It kinda backfires. And I wouldn't go showing this to co-workers if I were you. You did claim to be in the mental health field, and, well, your behavior here is so insane, any co-worker of yours would be questioning your sanity before they were laughing at me, so like everything else you say, I think you're lying about that.

When you get angry, your typing sucks, you know that?

Nine minutes loser, it won't change

[QZTR]

"Neun minuten! Du bist ein esel!"

That's my German co-worker, congratulations you're internationally pathetic!

And you sure do wirte a lot for someone who "claims" they're not obsessed...

I checked...

[QZTR]

And nine minutes = you are a loser.

Eat it.

PS we're still laughing at you.

Re:I checked...

[spun]

I checked, and making the same dumb argument, when it obviously isn't working, is insane. You don't seem to be achieving what you set out to do. My diagnosis? You've got a borderline personality with a touch of megalomania. You may not know this, but there are drugs that could help you.

Nine minutes

[QZTR]

is 540 seconds, which, when written that way, makes you even more pathetic.

And we're STILL laughing at you.

Quoting you

[QZTR]

Spun said "Duh, I's not obsessed, I has to reply in nine minutes, I has no choice, I swear I's not obsessed!"

That made it even more fun to laugh at you.

Re:Quoting you

[spun]

Okay, I get it. You're obsessed with me. You can't get over how much better I am than you, so you keep trying to tear me down. However, you have no ammunition. You can claim to be laughing, but I know you are really frothing at the mouth, wondering why nothing you try works on me. I'm the one who's laughing here.

Spun says...

[QZTR]

Spun says "I know I reply in nine minutes, which of course means you're obsessed with me."

Yes, Spun is that stupid.

Which is why we laugh at him so much.

Re:Spun says...

[spun]

Your imaginary friends don't count, I keep telling you that. I know they say not to listen to me, but you have to try!

Why can't you accept the fact that nothing you do works? I know you are a life long bully, used to people shutting up when you insult them, but that doesn't work with me. I really don't care what you believe, you're obviously completely delusional, so your opinions are worthless.

And obviously, no one else cares what you think either. You simply don't matter, and that is the truth you can't afford to face.

I always wonder...

[QZTR]

Whether it's physically painful for you to sit there fidgeting until it's been long enough for you to post without looking like even more of a loser.

Don't bother waiting, you can't make it any worse.

Spun says "I dun'ts gives a fudgy what you think, and I'll post over and over, obsessively and without fail to prove I's dun'ts care!!!!one1111eleven!!!"

Yes, again, Spun is that stupid.

 

Re:I always wonder...

[spun]

You lose again, and you always will. Luckily no one cares but you.

Nine minutes

[QZTR]

It's a good thing you're not totally obsessed with replying, otherwise you might do so in nine minutes then continuously reply to say you're not obsessed.

Uh oh... never mind...

Nine minutes...

[QZTR]

I bet if we were discussing your sex life, nine minutes would be your personal best.

But we're not, and you're a loser.

A loser that we're laughing at.

Re:Nine minutes...

[spun]

The voices in your head do not make you a 'we.' They just make you crazy.

SEVEN MINUTES!

[QZTR]

Seven minutes!

You obviously obeyed when I instructed you to avoid waiting, it's nice to know you do what I tell you when I tell you.

But it doesn't stop us from laughing at you.

Re:SEVEN MINUTES!

[spun]

I'm doing a little experiment here. How long will QTZR keep posting? Will he keep going until the thread shuts down? I posit that he will. It's getting increasingly boring, but I feel I must press on with the experiment.