Slashdot Mirror


BPA Leaches From Polycarbonate Bottles Into Humans

Linus the Turbonerd sends in the bulletin that BPA, a toxic chemical used in the production of polycarbonate, the plastic composing hard, clear water bottles, has been found to leach out of such containers, directly into the water that their users consume. "In addition to polycarbonate bottles, which are refillable and a popular container among students, campers and others and are also used as baby bottles, BPA is also found in dentistry composites and sealants and in the lining of aluminum food and beverage cans. ... 'We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds. If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher. This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA's endocrine-disrupting potential,' said Karin B. Michels, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH and Harvard Medical School and senior author of the study."

7 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bulletin? Bulletin? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can the US government finally get on the fucking ball and ban BPA? I'm sick of catering to business interests.

  2. Re:FUD? Doesn't seem to harm infants... by mozzis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is most disturbing about this is that in this "highly technical" (ahem) community, only one poster noticed that what is important is not whether or not BPA is present in the urine or blood of people who use the bottles, but rather it is what are the health effects if any when it is present? A related question still unasked here is, how far away does a 69% increase in BPA levels put us from FDA-posited unsafe levels? Since the normal level in the population is thousands of times less than the unsafe level, this is an important piece of data that was missing from TFA.

    --
    This is not a self-referential sig.
  3. Re:Old? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Careful, this one has friends.

    Anyway, anyone who can't read between the lines of Nalgene stopping their use of a material they've been claiming is the best thing ever isn't very smart, and deserves toxics in their pee.

    The most hilarious part is that if you told people ten years ago that polycarbonates were dangerous they'd say that you were a big fucking idiot. Five years ago you'd be a conspiracy theorist. Today, you're vindicated. Tomorrow, you'll tell them about something else that's probably dangerous, and you'll be a big idiot to them again.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. I don't want to make light of this, but... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The linked report was less than useful, since the reporting was done in relative terms - e.g. "increased by two thirds". Okay, but two thirds over what? There are generally specific concentrations above which a chemical is identified as harmful by the government (or by a watchdog agency, if you don't trust the government). Why not say "BPA levels increase from the background level of xxxxxxx to a ppm/ppb of yyyyyy in individuals who drank from these bottles for one week"?

    So really, even if the shift away from BPA plastics wasn't already well on, there's no indication from this report whether I should actually be concerned or not. And frankly, as someone with a science background, this sort of thing makes me LESS likely to be concerned. When I see fuzzy reporting, my first though is it was done intentionally because they can't support their case using objective numbers. I've seen this happen in honest-to-goodness scientific papers way too often to not notice.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Re:Old? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean like the industrial sugar that's in 99% of all American (and 90% of all European) "food"? ^^

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  6. Re:Old? by fractoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this extremely old news? Companies have been making BPA-free plastic bottles now for a long long time, including baby bottles.

    Well I couldn't have told you exactly what chemical causes it, but I doubt you could find anyone who'd argue that fresh clean water left in a plastic container for a few days *doesn't* taste 'plasticky'. If the water tastes different when it comes out of the plastic container than when it went in, then either something has been removed (unlikely given that it's tap water in a sealed container) or there's something new in it, and unless you believe in homeopathy, that something new is a chemical.

    The human sense of taste is fascinating, it's like 'the lab' from NCIS except it's made out of a few square inches of meat.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  7. Junk Science by thethibs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds [from nearly zero to 1.6×nearly zero] . If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher. This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA's endocrine-disrupting potential,'

    This is propaganda, not science.

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.