Plastic Chemical BPA Declared Toxic In Canada

Julie188 writes "The Canadian government has formally declared bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical widely used to create clear, hard plastics, as well as food can liners, to be a toxic substance. Does this mean that you'll be tackled by the Canadian Mounties if you stroll around with some bottled water? Not exactly. Being a toxic chemical doesn't mean you can't get a little love. The government will at first try and set limits on how much BPA can be released into the air or water by factories that use the compound."

Comments

Yeah, whatever...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll be saying that it helps to prevent heart attacks next. One minute something's going to kill you, the next minute it's good for you. Rinse, repeat.

Re:Yeah, whatever...

[HiThere]

Those statements *aren't* contradictory.

Many (most?) medicines are poisons when taken improperly, which usually means excessively. Actually, many are even poisons when taken at the proper dose. It's just that the poison does less damage than that which it is medicating.

That said, it's pretty clear that BPA is a estrogen mimic that is damaging especially to children, but also to adults. It doesn't appear to have any redeeming biochemical effects. I *think* that it's also been linked to cancer, and is thus illegal in the US. This, however, has not been officially recognized. If I understand correctly the law didn't say that the government had to acknowledge that the chemical promoted cancer for it to become illegal to sell it, but that's the way the laws have been interpreted. (For obvious reasons, both good and bad.)

But asbestos is fine!

[dskoll]

So, our wonderful government declares BPA toxic, while at the same time continuing to deny asbestos's toxicity and exporting asbestos to the rest of the world.

It's all domestic politics. Banning asbestos would annoy Quebec, the major producer...

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[FooAtWFU]

I had gathered that asbestos is perfectly safe and fine as long as it stays out of your lungs; it's a physical contaminant, not a chemical one. (Am I wrong?) BPA contamination has the potential to be much more insidious.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Khyber]

Everything not a singular element is a chemical compound of some sort or another.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[hedwards]

The problem is that it's very, very hard to keep it out of the air. Yes, as long as you don't breathe it in you're fine, it's just that it's very difficult to avoid and you have to be very careful not to disturb it.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[tomhudson]

Nah, we replaced asbestos with poutine long ago.

Now, instead of killing people with toxic fibers in the air, we clog up their arteries instead.

Seriously, there was one study done on asbestos exposure to miners, and it turned out that the miners who smoked were 900 TIMES more likely to get lung problems.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

But the mode of damage is physical (i.e. fine particles slicing up the inside of your lungs) rather than chemical (e.g. a corrosive reaction against your organs).

And, yes, it would be better if asbestos regulation in Canada was based on scientific risk assessment rather than domestic politics.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[blackraven14250]

The point is that it's not something that's going to interact with your lungs in a chemical way. It's going to have the same exact effect as any other fine particulate substance when airborne.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Molecules don't care if we call it physical or chemical. Come off it, man - you're posting such excuse at a nerd website?

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]
Tell that to my uncle who has Asbestosis who has never smoked. He is a sparkie fwiw.
I can't see how smoking could be 900 times more likely to cause lung problems than asbestos unless you smoke your whole life, but are only exposed to asbestos once....

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Asbestos is an incredibly good insulator and offers superior fire resistance. It's still used for certain applications where nothing else is as good. As long as it's not airborne it poses no health risks.

In fact a lot of the asbestos fear is overreaction. There are many other things that are available for breathing that are more toxic. Not that you want to breath any asbestos but it's not like it's a poison or something.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[macraig]

Political asbestos maneuverings are indeed serpentine, aren't they?

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[fnj]

Not exactly. Asbestos particles, when inhaled chronically, lead to mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is not lung cancer; it is a cancer of the pleura which cover the lungs. Asbestos particles, because of their form and other characteristics are especially capable of piercing the alveoli and reaching the pleura. Asbestos particles are only 3,000-20,000 nm long, and only 10 nm in diameter (a human hair is 17,000-180,000 nm in diameter; a red blood cell is 8,000 nm in diameter). Only rarely does exposure to any other substance lead to mesothelioma. Smoking, and exposure to other types of particulates, preponderantly leads to forms of lung cancer rather than mesothelioma.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[tomhudson]

Synergy - the asbestos makes it harder for the lungs to cough up the fine tobacco particles, and those particles contain traces of actinides from a-bomb tests that will continue to filter down to the ground from the stratosphere to be absorbed by broad-leafed tobacco plants for another hundred years.

100 years ago, lung cancer was so rare that doctors would tell their students to take a good look, because they'd probably never see another case in their lifetime. People were smoking back then, but we didn't have both bomb residues and high levels of asbestos dust (asbestos brake shoes meant that pretty much everyone has bee exposed).

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[socsoc]

How much time did your electrician uncle spend in mines?

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[__aazsst3756]

Asbestos is still used in many industrial applications that supposedly do not release the substance into the air, such as gas pipeline gaskets.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[DirtyCanuck]

I think the reason for the BPA toxic classification stems from the Canadian governments agenda to use Maple Syrup as an alternative in plastic manufacturing.

I would expect similar measures put on the manufacturing of Asbestos following a solid breakthrough in the research and development of maplebestos.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Canadian,
living in Ottawa actually.

They just found asbestos in my building, didn't tell us about it. Only found out because of the hazard signs around but received no notice about it.

Thank god I'm moving in the next couple weeks, everybody else left already.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Mashiki]

Actually it's very easy to keep it out of the air. Asbestos is like glass, once you break it, you get explosive contamination of it, with shards everywhere. Otherwise it's a cheap, effective, and very useful material.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[SECProto]

There are actually two major types of asbestos - one that is very dangerous when particles enter the lungs, the other is much much less so. The first type is mined mainly in FSR, while the second type is the kind produced in Quebec. The whole asbestos thing was WAY overblown by the public and media who jump and shout "OMG ASBESTOS !!@~ " and sensationalize it ... like almost everything else they touch.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Lucky75]

Asbestos isn't normally ingested, and you normally don't come in contact with insulation.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[blackraven14250]

That really doesn't make it a toxin. That's a physical characteristic, doing physical damage to the lung.

You're right that those physical characteristics are somewhat unique, and thus cause somewhat unique symptoms, but that doesn't make asbestos a toxin. It's not some chemical, like BPA, that interacts on a molecular level, where that chemical interaction causes cancer.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[fnj]

Absolutely. We should all be clear that the tissue insult is physical, not chemical.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[cheater512]

And how much glass is broken on any given day?
If glass was carcinogenic when broken, it too would be illegal to use.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Mashiki]

We use it every day, it's called 'pink' or fiberglass. And it's just as dangerous as asbestos when not used with proper breathing equipment.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actinides (other than uranium and plutonium) are rare in bomb fallout. You are probably thinking of polonium.

Anyway, if biological fallout uptake were the principal driver for the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, then the dose-response relationship -- first measured in the 1950s -- should have changed by roughly a factor of two during the course of the 1960s.

One would expect both incidence and mortality of lung cancer to be rarer in Europe and the US prior the 1930s because mortality from other causes was higher. Furthermore, cigarette smoking became much more popular in the early 1900s, perhaps corresponding with the rise of the cinema. It's not that people didn't smoke tobacco before then... but they were almost always pipe-smokers.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. It'd be a little like declaring a sharp knife to be a "toxin". A sharp knife can be very dangerous to your body's tissues, since it can easily slice you open, but it's not a toxin, just a physical object that happens to have a sharp edge.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[tomhudson]

The dose-response relationship wouldn't change much if it's non-linear..

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[shugah]

There is far too much hysteria about asbestos.

My in-laws heard me mention that my house, which when originally built in 1910 had cedar shingle siding, was re-shingled in the 1940's with asbestos concrete shingles. My mother-in-law freaked out and became afraid to come to the house. This of course put me in a quandary. On one hand, because of my inherent arrogance and vastly superior intellect, I was compelled to inform her that unless I took a skill saw or angle grinder to the side o the house, the chances on any asbestos fibers, buried under multiple coats of paint (some of which are undoubtedly lead based) entering her lungs is somewhere around zero. On the other hand, if I left her in her ignorance ...

Of course I told her. I just couldn't help my self.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Jarik C-Bol]

Thats what scares me. Fiberglass insulation was invented to replace 'dangerous' asbestos insulation, and of course, its just as harmful. Can you say 'failure to recognize the problem' ?

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your definition of how BPA is a toxin is exactly how asbestos causes mesothelioma.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

My grandmother used to make Asbestos snow men as they lived next to an Asbestos factory, whenever she goes to the doctor she has to tell them she doesn't have cancer as on her X-Rays it is all throughout her body. Hasn't killed her yet mind you.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[geogob]

The problem with asbestos is not the material itself. It was how it was used and the conditions in which it was produced. The ban and fear of asbestos was purely emotional and political. Of course, I agree that it still requires proper toxicity and hazard classification to ensure proper handling. I do not know the current status of asbestos regarding hazardous material classification.

A nice parallel we could make is the one with lead, although lead is much more dangerous than asbestos. It has some very important application and can be very useful although it has been shown to be dangerous. Thus it has been banned from certain specific applications (fuel, plastics for toys, paint, etc.).

Similar measures should be taken with asbestos, that is, identify problematic applications and regulate to limit those applications. But for some reason, the political playground pushed for a total ban of the product, regardless of its handling, usage or type (because, yes, there are different types of asbestos having different effects when exposed to it). A global fear of asbestos has been induced in the society, and I believe that your post and the way you present asbestos in this discussion is yet another symptom of this global fear.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[timmarhy]

your 1/2 right, while inhaling anything airborne isn't good for you, fibrous material such as crocidolite is exceptionally bad. a single large exposure won't usually result in cancer and there is always background levels of fibrous present naturally.

I work around the stuff all the time in my profession, and i can't help but laugh as the hysteria the media beats up about it.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Mashiki]

The real problem is that any good isolation is made up of small particulate matter(asbestos, fiberglass, blown cellulose), or is made from toxic chemicals(spray foam of all types). There's no real way to get around the whole 'toxic while applying' but there are ways to mitigate the damage it can cause you while you're applying it.

Even back in the 30's through to the 50's they knew asbestos wasn't really good for you. The solution then was to use asbestos weave(bandage), which was soaked or sprayed with water to remove the possibility of getting asbestos dust(fun to point out that auto body and mechanics always did this when doing body work, or changing car brakes), it was however tougher to remove dried asbestos after doing a weld job however. Fiberglass is tougher and more water resistant, which means you need to follow with a positive or negative air flow system when you're installing it, same with blown cellulose. And foam requires a full body suit, including breathing filters or self-contained air.

Really we'd still be using asbestos if it wasn't for the scare factor. Nothing beats it as a heat barrier or an insulation. It just needs proper handling.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

We use it every day, it's called 'pink' or fiberglass. And it's just as dangerous as asbestos when not used with proper breathing equipment.

The primary difference between fiberglass and asbestos is that fiberglass tends to splinter into "smooth" pointy shards, but asbestos has little 'hairs' that look similar to a fishhook. The body can do a little bit to get rid of a few bits of fiberglass since in a worst case scenario it will eventually work its way through the tissue. Asbestos becomes permanently lodged which is why there's such a high rate of cancer with relatively low exposure levels (compared to fiberglass exposure levels).

But you are correct, using fiberglass without the proper safety equipment can easily result in the same exact problem. It's only at very low levels of exposure that it has a significantly higher rate over fiberglass.

The other factor to consider is that asbestos is not fragile like glass. There ARE applications where you don't generally have to worry about exposure, for example after it's been made into a fabric for a firesuit. The problem with it is primarily seen during the manufacturing process itself, or when it is intentionally shredded into fine particles for use as insulation, mulch, etc. The insulation tiles which were made from asbestos were actually pretty safe- the problem with them is when they get worn down after 25 years of use in a school, but the BIG problem with those tiles comes from tearing them out; many times you're perfectly safe until you break them up during deconstruction.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[vlm]

But for some reason, the political playground pushed for a total ban of the product, regardless of its handling, usage or type (because, yes, there are different types of asbestos having different effects when exposed to it).

Impractical, for example, unless you magically train and regulate all illegal alien construction workers and demolition workers...

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anton Styles]

My grandfather smoked, yet his death was declared to be a cause of asbestosis, unrelated to smoking.

I'm guessing the study parent alluded to may have found that the exposure to asbestos greatly increased the miners' susceptibility to lung damage via cigarettes... I'll have to investigate this and confirm it.
Moral of the story, asbestos and smoking are both bad, and you should avoid both. I smoked from age 13-19, and now years later still have some problems with endurance running, but my lungs seem infinitely better than they were when I smoked. If anyone reads this and wants to quit, check out Allen Carr's "Easy Way to Stop Smoking" - the book is great but the video is excellent and was a tremendous help in my efforts to quit... There might be an .iso floating around on the intertubes if you feel like hunting ;)

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Asbestos snow men

Dear God!

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[geogob]

So instead of properly identifying the risk of a product and for which applications it is suited or not, we should totally ban it because illegal alien construction workers may be put in arms way due to the use of the product over 3 decades ago? Amazing logic.

This is exactly the kind of logic, thoughts and statement we should keep out of product regulation processes.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Kijori]

I don't think you need to look for anything quite so complex to see why lung cancer was barely ever diagnosed 100 years ago.
In 1910, a White US male who made it to 30 would live on average to about 65. According to the WHO, average age, today, for people to be diagnosed with lung cancer is 70. Take into account too that diagnostic science was much less advanced and it's hardly surprising that most doctors would never find a case of lung cancer.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[tomhudson]

And yet even then there were plenty then who lived past 65 (half of those who made it to 30), and even now 50%, according to your own figures, get lung cancer well under the age of 70.

Of course, the total population has almost quadrupled as well - that means a much larger sample size to draw from.

Fortunately, we can't do a "live double-blind" test. What we *can* do is try to get people to stop, or at least reduce, the amount they smoke.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The fibres have to be crushed up and inhaled in high concentrations and over long periods of time. The particles are sharp, extremely narrow, and highly insoluble, so they puncture cells over and over again in the lungs, causing mechanical damage. This can eventually cause cancer, but it's not through chemical processes. Wear breathing apparatus or don't disturb the asbestos-bearing materials in the first place and you're fine. However, there is one type of chromium-bearing asbestos that is chemically toxic (crocidolite) and is the one more clearly associated with cancer, but given that chromium is toxic all on its own if ingested, it's kind of obvious why. That type of asbestos isn't mined in Canada, and I'm not sure it's mined anywhere now. The risks from asbestos aren't much different from silicosis, which is simply caused by breathing in crushed rock containing quartz, the most common mineral on the surface of the planet. Basically, breathing silicate rock or glassy dust of any kind isn't healthy, yet you don't see people clamoring to ban fibreglass, which carries similar long-term exposure risks if you breath in high concentrations of fibres over a long period of time.

Then there's the fact that you aren't typically eating materials with asbestos, whereas BPA is used in food packaging and containers, which means we eat it all the time. And it mimics a human hormone (estrogen), so strong biological effects are expected. The connection between the health risks of the two materials (asbestos and BPA) is pretty poor.

Canada hasn't banned BPA. They've banned its use in baby products (bottles, canned baby food, etc.) on the premise that infant exposure carries a greater risk. Putting it on the "toxic" list means you can set standards for it like other toxic materials such as lead without having to compose special-case legislation. You set a regulatory standard for the allowed concentration in food or containers, and that's it.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Kijori]

The fact that the average age of diagnosis is 70 does not support the assertion that "50% [...] get lung cancer well under the age of 70", for two reasons. First it only shows that 50% of those diagnosed are under 70, not "well under". Second it confuses the ideas of "getting" lung cancer with being diagnosed - and this is critical when discussing why there were lower rates of diagnosis in the past. 100 years ago it was very difficult to diagnose lung cancer - more often than not, apparently, it was simply labelled "consumption" - and there was no real incentive to diagnose it more specifically since effective treatments didn't appear until the late 20th century.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[tomhudson]

Sure it does - because it takes time between acquiring the disease and being diagnosed.

Think about it, and it should be obvious ... :-)

Sure, a lot of it was labeled "consumption" - but that was a catch-all phrase, same as today we say "cancer", when we could be dealing with cancers caused by cell mutation, by viruses, by chemical disruptors - all very different.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're in the prevention game (e.g. trying to figure out whether to give school girls an HPV vaccine) it doesn't matter what caused the cancer

Once you have cancer it's all the same, the cells are dividing uncontrollably, they begin to proliferate through the body, they acquire capabilities not normally present in that kind of cell, and disobey suicide instructions.

The treatment depends on where the cancer is, what kind of cells are affected, and whether it has begun to noticeably spread. Not really very much on how it was caused. This it has in common with a lot of other serious illnesses. HIV kills people who got it from re-used needles at a government clinic the same way it kills people who got it fucking a whote.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[dskoll]

Whatever the mechanism by which asbestos damages your lungs, this is the real hypocrisy: Asbestos is strictly regulated in Canada, but Canada exports the stuff for use in countries with lax or no regulation.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Grishnakh]

Is that hypocrisy? Canada can't control the laws in other countries, and asbestos still has many valid uses, as long as it's handled properly. Nitroglycerin is dangerous too, but handled properly is very useful. Is someone a "hypocrite" for exporting explosives to countries with lax regulation for use in demolitions?

If Canada refused to export to countries without strict regulation, how well do you think that's going to go over diplomatically? That's basically insulting the purchasing country.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[tomhudson]

You might want to re-think your arguments. To state ...

it doesn't matter what caused the cancer

... and then to state ...

The treatment depends on where the cancer is, what kind of cells are affected, and whether it has begun to noticeably spread.

... is contradictory - since it depends on the type of cancer, which depends on what caused it in the first place. See the following as just one example:

Example - prostate cancer - if you're beyond a certain age, it's simply not worth treating because it's usually ssssllloooowwww. That's the decision that former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau faced.

The causes of prostate cancer are far different from, say, skin cancer. Unless you're the goat guy, exposure to UV in the sun didn't cause your prostate cancer.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[dskoll]

Is someone a "hypocrite" for exporting explosives to countries with lax regulation for use in demolitions?

Yes, absolutely.

If Canada refused to export to countries without strict regulation, how well do you think that's going to go over diplomatically?

People's health and wellbeing is more important than diplomacy, and if countries with lax regulation feel "insulted", well... too bad.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Anonymous Coward]

!!!!! Well Duh, all poisons are safe if they don't enter the body, Analogy: guns are perfectly safe unless the bullet enters you. Point is - asbestos is not safe because it tends to end up in someone's lungs sooner or later, unforeseen things happen, the building trade is full of cowboys who don't want to spend the large asbestos clean-up costs or even pay to check if it's present - when doing all kinds of renovations and demolitions. One third of people die of cancer, perhaps it time to start banning all poisons and finding alternatives.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[lonecrow]

91% of Canadians have higher levels of the toxic BPA in their bodies then the natural estrogen that BPA mimics. I think it is safe to assume for now that this number is the same for Americans given our similar lifestyles. (albeit with fewer guns and Christians up here)

As a Canadian I am ashamed of our Asbestos exports. That's one of the reasons I vote Green Party, the only party with the guts to deal with it head on.

More about BPA and other toxins in household objects can be found here toxicfreecanada.com They did great work publicizing the dangers of BPA.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[edmsing]

My grandmother and mother lived into their late eighties, I have never known them to have taken any medication on a regular basis, however, most of my friends, over sixty, take three or four medications daily...

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[duskycat]

Typical!! Asbestos is obviously not fine. What about asbestpsis and all the health and safety it cant be right John Edwards web design, websites built

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[GameboyRMH]

Well then any foreign gun manufacturers should refuse to export to America where criminal gun violence is so rampant.

Japan and Germany must also also be hypocrites for exporting cars to the US, which mandates relatively pathetic levels of driver training and car maintenance.

Re:But asbestos is fine!

[Da_Biz]

I had gathered that asbestos is perfectly safe and fine as long as it stays out of your lungs

Essentially, yes. Too much of that--or the oft-feared Dihydrogen Monoxide--can kill you.

Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

This means more for us in the United States! Suck it, Canada!

The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[janvo]

This is definitely a step in the right direction. BPA is a risk to the entire population and it's use is very widespread. It disrupts our hormonal system and has now been linked to different types of breast cancer, heart disease and endocrine disorders. It also affects our reproductive systems. People really need to be aware that the use of plastics containing BPA is harmful and that use of this substance is currently ubiquitous throughout the world.

Re:The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[BitterOak]

It also affects our reproductive systems. People really need to be aware that the use of plastics containing BPA is harmful and that use of this substance is currently ubiquitous throughout the world.

Given that our world is overpopulated, and the population is growing rapidly, would it really be such a bad thing if our reproductive systems were dampened a little? And I actually am not trying to be funny here. I'm somewhat half serious. Would mankind be better off if we started having fewer babies?

Re:The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[janvo]

The argument as to whether mankind would be better off with more or less population growth is a whole other thread. Either way, our population needs to be healthy. Chemicals such as BPA not only contribute to our poor health (think of the impact on healthcare costs) but may also affect the planet in adverse ways (who knows how many countless species may also be affected by BPA). We all know there are many examples of chemicals being released that have devastating affects on the ecosystem and that isn't good for anyone, regardless of our views on population growth.

Re:The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[Grishnakh]

Not this way. The parent said BPA "has now been linked to different types of breast cancer, heart disease and endocrine disorders." Any benefit you might get from slowing reproduction down a little will be much more than made up for by these other health problems.

If you want to find some insidious chemical to limit reproduction, find something that doesn't hurt peoples' health in other ways. We need a population that is stable, yet healthy. We spend way too much on healthcare as it is, as a society.

Re:The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[DurendalMac]

I just hope that there's a decent alternative to it. Lead-free solder didn't work out quite like the leaded stuff. However, from what I understand (and I may be wrong), BPA is only released from plastics when heated past a certain point. As such, a water bottle isn't going to hurt you unless you leave it baking in your car all day. Dishwashers are probably fine as they're rinsing the things out when the bottles are heated, so you'd have very little BPA left when it was done. I think the big concern was baby bottles as they are often heated in a pot when warming milk.

Re:The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[compro01]

We already do have fewer babies. Birthrates in almost all of the western world (Europe, Canada, and the US) are below replacement rate. The only reason the above countries are experiencing population growth is immigration. Some countries, such as Germany, Japan, and Russia, are currently experiencing negative population growth.

Re:The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 Informative. Notes:

And I actually am not trying to be funny here. I'm somewhat half serious. Would mankind be better off if we started having fewer babies?

The only reason the above countries are experiencing population growth is immigration. Some countries, such as Germany, Japan, and Russia, are currently experiencing negative population growth.

Re:The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[Idiomatick]

Even if a few venues of baby production shut down supply and demand will kick in and the market will move to fill the void. I doubt that the total number of babies produced each year will really drop. They will just take more to get. Though that could result in easier governmental caps or controls. If the number of suppliers is lessened.

Re:The rest of the world needs to follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the Krogan.

Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[NFN_NLN]

I hope Brita comes out with a glass pitcher...

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[pz]

I hope Brita comes out with a glass pitcher...

I'm pretty certain they'll come out with a BPA-free plastic version instead, since that's all the rage in bottles and food containers for infants.

Personally, I'd be happy to have a world free of BPA. Unfortunately, that's going to be very difficult as it's found in many common items. For some, there are plastics that are good alternatives, but others, it will be some time before alternates can be found. In particular, epoxy binders used wood-based sheet goods production (particle board, chip board, flooring, etc.) are bad and are going to be around for a long time since there is so much of it installed.

My family and I have stopped eating anything that comes in a can. Not only are cans typically lined with BPA-bearing plastics, but the contents are in intimate contact for a very long time. Avoiding canned foods has been pretty easy with one exception: canned tomatoes. If anyone has a good solution for those, I'd love to hear it.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Avoiding canned foods has been pretty easy with one exception: canned tomatoes. If anyone has a good solution for those, I'd love to hear it.

Tomatoes in jars or passata (rustica if you enjoy the pips).

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really okay. BPA doesn't magically take itself out of the plywood, crawl along the carpet and jump on your bed to attack your sore vagina. In fact, even the few well designed studies which do link BPA to other problems don't show a significant reason for concern. However, if you're the type who will let your child die of whooping cough for the bullshit fear of autism, keep voting for Al Gore.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[minor_deity]

Fresh tomatoes are an excellent alternative to canned tomatoes. If you need to get the skin off then boil some water, and then drop the tomatoes in for 30s or so, the skin will peel right off after they cool a bit.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the tomatoes yourself into glass jars. It's easy and fun! Make sure to add a bit of acid (or test the pH), some older canning recipes are calibrated for older tomatoes, which were more acidic.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

All Brita pitchers and filters are already BPA free. They always have been.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[adonoman]

You'd have have a bigger reduction of BPA intake by making sure you wash your hand every time you handle a thermal printed receipt.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[socsoc]

Canned tomatoes? Have your taste buds fallen off? Can em yourself in jars if you're planning for some nuclear winter.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Penguinshit]

A very good solution.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[pz]

Canned tomatoes? Have your taste buds fallen off? Can em yourself in jars if you're planning for some nuclear winter.

I cook. A lot. About 5-6 dinners per week for my family (yes, married with kid --- geeks can get lucky) plus lunches on weekends. Many recipes work best with canned tomatoes, and tomato paste. Tomato pasta sauce would be an alternative, since it's nominally available in glass jars still, but what we've been able to find in our area is a lot more than just tomatoes so can't be used in many recipes. That is, unless you want your chicken cacciatore, briam, or arni kokkinisto to taste like pasta sauce (hint: you probably don't). It's possible, although difficult, to find tomato paste in glass jars, but I haven't found a good alternative for canned tomatoes.

And we do grow our own fresh tomatoes, but since our access to arable land is limited to a few pots on the balcony, the yield isn't high enough to create a stock for the rest of the year. Next summer, though, I'm going to try to buy a boatload of tomatoes from the good organic farm we recently found and try canning our own sauce for the off season. But that doesn't solve the problem for this fall-through-spring.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[bzipitidoo]

One other major use of BPA you may not know about is as a coating on sales slips. BPA is easily absorbed from these coatings just by handling them without gloves. For shoppers, the exposure is not much, but for someone working a cash register all day, it's a problem.

The sickest part of all this is that we guessed BPA could be trouble as far back as the 1930s! It's frightening how special interests have managed to keep these rather important safety questions from being answered for almost 80 years. BPA could be one of the reasons for the current obesity and diabetes epidemic.

Today, we're still being just as foolish. "Doubt is our product". One wonders if we're doomed when you look around and see that far from Big Tobacco's program to sow doubt and confusion having become the canonical example of unethical, immoral, and stupid behavior, it is actually rather admired and emulated! The Climate Change deniers look to Big Tobacco's efforts for inspiration. Lately, those finance guys who needed a huge bailout from the public have been trotting out the same sort of excuses about how no one could have known. They're supposed to be the savvy sophisticated experts, but never mind that. They did know, and everyone knows it. Their claims that they couldn't know are pathetic. Yet so far, they are being allowed to get away with it, and that is in no small part because of the constant war being waged upon facts and science. And the constant diversion of our attention to other matters such as war and piracy. If I understand the bargain made with Mozilo, he will not see any jail time, and I fear he was let off way too easily.

I don't know what reforms we can make to change all this. Shine more "light of day" on everything? But we have a huge amount of deliberately created confusion over just what is right and wrong, and what wrongs are important and what aren't. Potheads do time while so-called white collar crooks walk free. Baseball players get grilled by Congress for steroid use while big corporations slide by for much worse things, or even get a few apologies as BP did! Perhaps the problem is that too many students pass through our education system failing to really get science, so that they are easily befuddled by nonsense? Or are too sheltered and come out naive and ripe for fleecing and hustling? Or are spoiled and careless, easily diverted with bread and circuses? Or have been corrupted and made cynical, and think that there isn't an honest person in the whole world, so they might as well also cheat and steal as much as possible? Why do so many people endure the shady treatment they get from telecoms companies, for one? A huge task to begin straightening that out while calling out the perps for the liars, thieves, and murderers that they are. Throwing them into jail would be a start. And take away all their ill gotten gains. ALL of it. We also desperately need to regain control of executive pay, which has risen so high that the difference between what each executive is paid and what the President of the US is paid is enough to have bailed out the economy several times over. But all that is not enough. We don't want people cynically feeling that these hucksters were cool and smooth, admiring them for being "successful", and worst of all thinking that they were righteous.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Why can't you buy fresh tomatoes all year?

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, I have to disagree about executive pay. While I think it's ridiculous when CEOs are giving hundreds of millions in bonuses or salaries, those are privately-owned companies, and they're free to (over)pay as much as they want to. The last thing we need is the government telling people how much money they can pay each other.

If you want to do something about executive compensation, get government out of the business of favoring big companies (and bailing them out when they fail due to their own incompetence), and put it back in the business of promoting small business, restoring competition, and busting up monopolies. Government needs to stay out of business, unless a business grows so large that there's no more fair competition, and the playing field needs to be leveled, so to speak.

What we have now, in the USA, is a government that favors BIG business, and bails it out when it screws up. This action is favored by the Democrats and the Republicans: remember, TARP was done by a Democrat-controlled Congress under Bush, and then the GM/Chrysler bailout was done by Obama and friends. Neither of the parties is interested in promoting competition in business, or promoting small business.

So, if you want to limit executive compensation, then stop voting for politicians who act to promote excessive compensation through favors to big business. This means stop voting for Democrats, and stop voting for Republicans. If you vote for either of these parties, you're to blame for all the problems we're having.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[socsoc]

Here's a protip: you are way less cool than you think you are. Recipes with canned ingredients and everything. Although it sounds like you've already arrived at my suggestion, so thanks for coming out.

I'll continue buying tomatoes of varying freshness from CSA to farmer market to nice grocery store to ghetto grocery store all season till they repeat per your enlightened holy schedule... And 90% will rot before I use em.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Nursie]

Ignore the weirdos, normal people use canned tomatoes all the time. In the UK you can now get chopped tomatoes in cardboard cartons, so that's one option if you can find that. Also lookout for Passata and/or sugocasa, usually in large glass jars though may cost a little more.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[worf_mo]

It's possible, although difficult, to find tomato paste in glass jars, but I haven't found a good alternative for canned tomatoes.

Here in Italy you can buy tomatoes in glass bottles or jars from a variety of brands and with differing consistency (from a very liquid sauce to little cubes), and usually they contain tomato only, no extra ingredients or flavoring. You can look for "salsa di pomodoro", "passata di pomodoro" or "pomodori pelati" on amazon.com to get an idea. Hopefully you can find some similar local products from your area until you get the chance to make your own.

We usually make our own once a year and keep them in jars, a year's supply for three families. A piece of goat cheese, some tomato from the jar and a bit of olive oil on top, what more could you want. :)

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[1%warren]

The cardboard cartons are probably lined with BPA plastic too.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been to several McDonalds that just threw those kinds of receipts right in with the burgers and fries. Often times you wouldn't notice and the receipt would sit on the fries for a few minutes. It would come out looking like the ink evaporated and reformed on different parts of the receipt. Not like flowing like a liquid, but patterns from evaporation.
[/S] I eated BPA's. Is it supposed to make you feel like a girl?
CAPTCHA: Absolves

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next summer, though, I'm going to try to buy a boatload of tomatoes from the good organic farm we recently found and try canning our own sauce for the off season.

Hint: "Organic" just means that the farm has paid for and passing a type of certification process.
So for example you can use pesticides and other 'non-organic' methods to grow some plants, turn those plants into compost, and then use that as fertilizer for your tomatoes and still call them 'organic'.
And the other side of the story is that you can get food which is just as high quality, and uses all "organic" processes, which is NOT labeled 'organic' because the people didn't want to pay for a sticker.
'Organic' also does not address anything which occurs during the packaging and shipping stages of food distribution, such a chemical stabilizers/ripeners used by the grocery store.

My point being, that when you're paying for something with the 'organic' label on it, you're mostly paying for the label. It does not necessarily mean the food is any more pure, free of artificial substances, or in any way healthier or more nutritious.

And in any event, chances are the farm in Mexico that grows the 'non-organic' tomatoes are actually more 'organic' than the ones you grew in your house. There really isn't anything at all organic about potting soil, and you can't convince me you're using natural methods to fertilize the dirt if you didn't. It takes a steady rotation cycle and leaving the land fallow to restore the soil nutrients naturally, the only way you can ever hope to produce an organic crop is using a large-scale farm with a LOT of land, indoor planting will not 'cut the mustard'.

But that doesn't solve the problem for this fall-through-spring.

So take a few months' break from eating tomatoes. It's not the end of the world, and there's plenty of other foods to eat. If you're going to really be hardcore (as it sounds like you're trying to be) then you shouldn't be eating anything out of season in the first place.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Nursie]

Eh, most likely, they are plasticised!

Glass jars or fresh toms then. Problem solved.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[drinkypoo]

Next summer, though, I'm going to try to buy a boatload of tomatoes from the good organic farm we recently found and try canning our own sauce for the off season.

Hint: "Organic" just means that the farm has paid for and passing a type of certification process.

Hint: "good" means "good"

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[zippthorne]

Ok, but try finding a local farm that isn't organic. Seriously, go down to the farmer's market and peruse the farms and try find ONE that's not a advertising they're "organic."

Hint: organic means that more people will buy it (people who are easily fooled by worthless labels AND people who want local foods but don't care about the label). So the prices are higher, and small local farmers need all the price help they can get, since they can't make up for it in volume.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[yanos]

If it's to make some tomato sauce, try some of these, they're in a glass bottle: http://magasin.iga.net/Search/BasicSearch.aspx?Search=coulis%20de%20tomate

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Idiomatick]

I'd be less worried about the difficult to get rid of things. Why do we need to worry about those? Chemical bans really need to be doing cost benefit analysis, tax rather than ban to automate the process. If we get rid of BPA in all the low hanging fruit we'll have gotten rid of 99% of the BPA we come into contact with. The last 1% will likely cost 5x as much to get rid of as the first 99%, there is no point in doing so. Perhaps a hard ban in food packaging and children's toys.

http://www.heyamy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Tomatoes7.jpg ?

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[bzipitidoo]

No I do not advocate having the government just arbitrarily cap executive pay. However, threatening to do so might be useful. And might not be. That sort of thing is exactly the wrong move, as it gives credence to all the screaming over government interference. One area of government interference I'd love to seen the end of is patents.

Another idea, to make companies put pay packages up for a vote with all the stockholders, has some promise. Employees should have a say as well, and it seems the only way they get any is through union power. No union, no say. I have no sympathy for the arguments that unions are wrecking companies with their outrageous demands-- and some of them are outrageous, for instance, "featherbedding"-- when the executives aren't willing to show any restraint either. One of the more raw examples of this was the time that this Crandall, then CEO of American Airlines, successfully negotiated pay cuts with the pilot and stewardess unions, to save the company, and then turned around and accepted a huge bonus and pay increase for himself that amounted to nearly the money the union members gave up. The next day, there was a political cartoon showing him with his hand in a cookie jar he was holding behind his back.

The boards have been derelict in their duties. It's partly being dazzled by star power, partly getting themselves held over a barrel because talent searches take months and they find it easier to cave to the outrageous demands of the talent they have found rather than start the search over, and partly corruption, conflict of interest, and misplaced sympathy as some of them will be negotiating their own pay packages with other boards, of which the fellow currently negotiating with them may be a member. The government could and should do more to enforce existing laws against these conflicts of interest. But that's only a little. What more can be done, by government or anyone else? The best option left may be to vote with our feet. Sell all their shares. Not easy when so many of us are several layers removed thanks to pension plans, mutual funds, and the like. At least we may be able to stop even worse ideas, like the privatization of Social Security.

I don't have the millions required to obtain a seat on a board. I have thought of buying 1 share and attending shareholder meetings, but know that's a non starter. Just watch how far Michael Moore got with that one in Roger and Me. The people who run those meetings carefully script them to keep shareholders as passive and submissive as possible. Similarly with voting for better politicians. I've tried, but outsiders so seldom win office (the most recent one I can think of is Ventura in Minnesota), that I feel it's usually better to try for the lesser of the 2 evils than throw my vote away on a futile protest. I live in a red state, where even voting for Democrats seems like so much futility.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[GreyWolf3000]

Okay, but going to McDonalds is practically begging for a multitude of other health problems.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Grishnakh]

but outsiders so seldom win office (the most recent one I can think of is Ventura in Minnesota), that I feel it's usually better to try for the lesser of the 2 evils than throw my vote away on a futile protest.

This is exactly the mentality that prevents outsiders from ever winning office. If you vote for evil, then you will surely get evil.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[pz]

You have any references for those numbers?

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

In most areas, you can get tomatoes in jars instead of cans -- tomato paste is harder to find, but surprisingly you can get it in bulk in some stores.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[HiThere]

I was going to say "You must not have any idea how much work that is", but reading your comment, that's clearly wrong.

It is still true, however, that that's a lot of intensive work during a couple of months of the year, and you need to have enough space to store the results. (I've done it, and didn't like it. Others seem to get into it. YMMV. But remember that you need to be able to store the results of your efforts. It makes loads of sense if you live on a farm where space is cheap. A lot less sense if you live in a city. [Though if you can find the space there are arguments for keeping enough food on hand to last for a month without electricity or gas. Just be sure you keep at least twice as much water.])

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brita Pitchers contain no BPA

-----------

The Green Guide responds:

It is true that Brita filter systems use containers made from styrene methylmethacrylate copolymer, which is a polymer (a combination of molecules) primarily used in the production of acrylic sheeting, molding powders and resin and surface coatings. According to Brita, the company manufactures containers made from styrene methylmethacrylate copolymer to avoid leaching.

Brita’s information on leaching came from the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), which performs extensive material safety tests. The NSF states that Brita pitchers have been tested for material safety while in contact with “very aggressive water” (i.e. exposure to water with low total of dissolved solids and .5 ppm of available chlorine for three successive 24-hour periods) and have found no evidence of leaching.

Rick Andrews, the technical manager of the Drinking Water Treatment Unit Certification Program at the NSF, explains that when a company is seeking NSF certification for new container/filter system, NSF requires information about the constituents of the plastic and then tests for leachates they know are associated with those ingredients. Using acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) as an example, they would look for styrene and acrylonitrile leaching into the water. We asked about styrene leaching from the methylmethacrylate copolymer, and he assured us that any polymer that includes a styrene component would be tested for styrene leaching.

For a second opinion, we also checked with the FDA. Their report on styrene methylmethacrylate also found that it may be safely used in repeat contact with foods without risk of leaching.

The bottom line is that The Green Guide sees no reason not to use Brita pitchers so long as they are the correct filter for the contaminants in your tap water.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[sunspot42]

While I think it's ridiculous when CEOs are giving hundreds of millions in bonuses or salaries, those are privately-owned companies, and they're free to (over)pay as much as they want to.

Yes. And then their overpaid executards buy off Congress, loot their companies and run them into the ground, wreck the economy and demand trillion dollar bailouts funded by people who actually do productive work.

So no, letting a bunch of obvious crooks and psychopaths steal all they want doesn't actually work in practice. This should hardly come as a great surprise.

This action is favored by the Democrats and the Republicans: remember, TARP was done by a Democrat-controlled Congress under Bush, and then the GM/Chrysler bailout was done by Obama and friends.

The Senate approved the bailout measure on Oct. 1, 2008, on a bipartisan vote of 74 to 25. The House initially rejected the proposal, but under prodding from the White House and leading members of both parties, House members ultimately voted 263 to 171 for the bill, with 91 Republicans joining 172 Democrats in backing it; 108 Republicans and 63 Democrats voted no.

And I actually don't have a problem with TARP per se - clearly the financial system had been wrecked by 30 years of idiotic laissez-faire policy - the problem I have with it is that the perpetrators of that collapse have all walked free (adding insult to injury, plenty of them have served in both the Bush and Obama administrations), and many of them are still running the same Wall Street firms that precipitated the collapse.

At least with the GM/Chrysler bailout, the executives who ran those companies into the ground were also forced out. Those bailouts also cost a tiny fraction of what we've spent so far bailing out Wall Street (not to mention the multi-trillion dollar impact the collapse of Wall Street's gambling spree has had on the economy as a whole).

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of someone being less cool than they think they are...

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Grishnakh]

Yes. And then their overpaid executards buy off Congress, loot their companies and run them into the ground, wreck the economy and demand trillion dollar bailouts funded by people who actually do productive work.

Right; if you have a problem with that, you need to take it up with Congress (by voting better), so that wrecked companies are not bailed out at all. No failed company should EVER be bailed out by the government; there is simply no good reason for it, and it only rewards failure and mismanagement.

So no, letting a bunch of obvious crooks and psychopaths steal all they want doesn't actually work in practice.

Yes, actually it does. It works if you allow their companies to fail and die, and their assets to be bought for pennies on the dollar by better-run companies. People will learn a painful lesson and the crooks and psychopaths won't get any more jobs as corporate executives.

The problem is when the People elect crooks and psychopaths to Congress, and they bail out their crooked buddies' corporations. Whose fault is that? The Peoples'. It's their responsibility to vote better.

The Senate approved the bailout measure on Oct. 1, 2008, on a bipartisan vote of 74 to 25. The House initially rejected the proposal, but under prodding from the White House and leading members of both parties, House members ultimately voted 263 to 171 for the bill, with 91 Republicans joining 172 Democrats in backing it; 108 Republicans and 63 Democrats voted no.

Exactly: a majority of Democrats voted for it, and it was approximately 50/50 on the Republican side, except that Bush (Rep) wanted it, and since he's President, his vote counts for as much as the rest of Congress (being the sole head of the entire Executive branch after all), or at the very least it counts for 1/6 of Congress since without him you need a 2/3 vote to override his veto.

And I actually don't have a problem with TARP per se - clearly the financial system had been wrecked by 30 years of idiotic laissez-faire policy - the problem I have with it is that the perpetrators of that collapse have all walked free (adding insult to injury, plenty of them have served in both the Bush and Obama administrations), and many of them are still running the same Wall Street firms that precipitated the collapse.

30 years? My understanding is that the law overturning the Glass-Steagal Act was signed by Clinton in 1999, just before he left office. The government pushing for lenders to lend to people who couldn't pay, coupled with the overturning of G-S, led to the collapse. From Wikipedia:

Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. [2][3]

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks and has been blamed by some for exacerbating the damage caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the Financial crisis of 2007-2010. The potential to make enormous profits trading mortgage-backed securities with artificially high ratings encouraged banks to take on otherwise intolerable risk in the form of bad loans. The ease with which people were obtaining home loans contributed to an artificial housing boom and exacerbated the inevitable decline.

So while some of the groundwork may have been laid before that, it looks to me like the biggest mistakes were made starting at the end of 1999, signed into law by a Democrat.

At least with the GM/Chrysler bailout, the executives who ran those companies into the ground were also forced out. Those bailouts also cost a tiny fraction of what we've spent so far bailing out Wall Street

Granted, but "not as bad" still doesn't make it good. Those companies should have been allowed to fail. Other companies would have bought up their assets and started making cars a

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Idiomatick]

Bottles and containers have readily available alternatives... And the other part of my statement was based on yours.... "For some, there are plastics that are good alternatives, but others, it will be some time before alternates can be found. In particular, epoxy binders used wood-based sheet goods production (particle board, chip board, flooring, etc.) are bad and are going to be around for a long time since there is so much of it installed."

It seems pretty obvious that there would be varying levels of replaceability for varying costs. This will follow a bell curve of some sort... So the most valuable uses for BPA would be much much greater than the average... I also think we come into contact with plastic bottles, receipts and so on more than we do epoxy binders or scientific research yadda yadda.

All I'm saying is fix bottles and receipts, don't worry too much about the epoxy. Outright bans can be damaging and wasteful. Taxing a substance leads to something far more flexible. Only use banning when necessary (the example of plastic utensils and children's toys). Sorry if I was unclear.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[cffrost]

[...] I feel it's usually better to try for the lesser of the 2 evils than throw my vote away on a futile protest. I live in a red state, where even voting for Democrats seems like so much futility.

A third-party vote is only thrown away in a swing-state. Since you live in a red state, voting for a democrat is similarly thrown away. Vote for a third-party candidate and at least try to get them matching federal campaign funds.

See: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tactical_voting

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is smoking, but you wouldn't spray BPA on a cigarette before smoking it*. Same with McDonalds. It might be unhealthy, but I do NOT want an extra BPA with my fries, thanks.
*Why do you think the "natural" cigarettes like Winston and American Spirits have become more popular? No additives. I believe the rationale behind the rise in lung cancer is directly linked to cigarette additives and not so much the tobacco itself.

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are "boxes" of tomatoes...

http://thesoftlandingbaby.com/2010/01/14/bpa-free-tomatoes-do-exist/

Trader Joe's and others carry em...

Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!?

[box4831]

(yes, married with kid --- geeks can get lucky)

Wha? that sounds like the antithesis of 'lucky'


[im joking of course, to each his own ;) ]

Bottled water

[Arancaytar]

You already can't bring bottled water into an airport anyway; this won't make any difference. :P

Re:Bottled water

[AK Marc]

I bring in empty bottles of bottled water so that I can fill them at the fountain once I'm in. That way I have the convenience of bottled water without having to pay for one at airport pricing. I've never had a problem with that. So there's nothing that would prevent someone from taking in their empty bottle or buying it in the airport and taking it to Canada that way.

Re:Bottled water

[Abstrackt]

I do the same, though because I use a metal bottle security does occasionally want to see inside it.

chinese factory owners rub hands in anticipation

[Anonymous Coward]

oh boy! another way to profit from environmental and democracy arbitrage.

and slashdotters are worried about arbitraging a $2 used book.

FMP (f my planet)

can i have some txoic chemicals today

[chronoss2010]

no really i want to get a lot of this and make a stew for the neighbor......

Fine, Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, Canada. We're going to declare Justin Bieber a toxic substance.

Your move.

Re:Fine, Canada

[Lazareth]

I thought there was already consensus on this

Re:Fine, Canada

[formfeed]

We're going to declare Justin Bieber a toxic substance.

Don't encourage him. - Or he'll drive 11year old girls even more crazy.

Re:Fine, Canada

[Nemyst]

If you pay for the waste processing plant.

Re:Fine, Canada

[shutdown -p now]

We wholeheartedly agree, but recycling him would require a major effort to ensure safe disposal. Would you be willing to help with that?

Re:Fine, Canada

[jjohnson]

An empty threat, since you've allowed extensive exposure to Celine Dion for decades now.

Re:Fine, Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

We apologize formally for that freak, and Bryan Adams and Celine Dion as well. Personally I don't know how these people got popular.

Re:Fine, Canada

[nacturation]

Fine, Canada. We're going to declare Justin Bieber a toxic substance.

Justin Bieber is living proof of the fact that BPA mimics the effects of estrogen.

Re:Fine, Canada

[cffrost]

We're going to declare Justin Bieber a toxic substance.

It gets worse...

Re:Fine, Canada

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You mean exposure to Justin Bieber presents neurological symptoms in children? Ban him! Ban him immediately!

yes state-owned enterprises will get right on that

[hildi]

they will put it right up there with 'hurting our GDP growth, endangering our stranglehold on political power, and destroying the economic power base of the Party leadership' uh huh.

Re:yes state-owned enterprises will get right on t

[janvo]

lol, I understand what you're saying and I completely agree with you that there are very few corporations (state owned or not) that will act on their own accord for the 'world's' benefit. The power here though is really with the consumer. I for example do not purchase any plastics that have BPA in them, if i have a choice. There are more and more private enterprises that are manufacturing BPA free plastics as they see demand increasing. I hope the trend continues.

people who buy canned food

[hildi]

are not going to care about BPA.. they are too worried about how to buy any food at all. (note inside of cans is lined with BPA and prices WILL GO UP if it is changed. go up as in, consumers will stop buying it because the main point of buying it is low price and speed of preparation)

Re:people who buy canned food

[drinkypoo]

(note inside of cans is lined with BPA and prices WILL GO UP if it is changed. go up as in, consumers will stop buying it because the main point of buying it is low price and speed of preparation)

Non-BPA cans are barely more expensive. If consumers don't buy canned food because it's a cent more expensive then good riddance, it's mostly crap anyway.

Warning label is in order

[poltsy]

Do not eat the bottle.

Re:Warning label is in order

[zacronos]

Do not eat the bottle.

Or perhaps:
Do not eat bottle with remaining mouth.

evidence plz

[hildi]

i admit i have no evidence for my statement, other than 1. industry PR and 2. the only non-BPA canned beans are an organic brand ,,, but its organic so the price difference could be the organic-ness not the bpa-free-ness

Being a father with a paranoid mother...

[Wilson of Waste]

It has been known and banned in many other parts of the world. I don't even think the USA has done anything about it though. If you avoid number 3 plastics you have no BPA worries. That means number 1, 2, 4, 5, and six are BPA free. Just thought everyone would like to know

Re:Being a father with a paranoid mother...

[canajin56]

And remember that most cans are lined with BPA containing plastic.

Re:Being a father with a paranoid mother...

[Wilson of Waste]

That is true, I also forgot to mention that number 7 plastics may or may not contain BPA as well... As for medical grade plastics I am not sure..

Re:Being a father with a paranoid mother...

[socsoc]

Then tell your mom that you turned out okay and she shouldn't meddle with your decisions so much.

Re:Being a father with a paranoid mother...

[Sulphur]

Can I line my tin hat with BPA?

Define "toxic"

[UnknowingFool]

What criteria is Canada using for "toxic"? Because anything in large amounts is sufficiently toxic to human beings (water is toxic if drunk in large amounts over a short period of time). Most medications are toxic to small children because their bodies can't handle the concentrations. Normally the LD50 is used as a criteria of how toxic a substance is. Bisphenol A is now known to be an endocrine disruptor (like PCBs and DDT). Is that the criteria?

Re:Define "toxic"

[nedlohs]

I realise reading is hard, but:

"""
This includes substances
* that were found to meet the categorization criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation potential and inherent toxicity to non-human organisms, and that are known to be in commerce, or of commercial interest, in Canada; these substances are considered to be high priorities for assessment of ecological risk; and/or
* that were found either to meet the categorization criteria for greatest potential for exposure of Canadians or to present an intermediate potential for exposure, and were identified as posing a high hazard to human health based on available evidence on carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity; these substances are considered to be high priorities for assessment of risk to human health. ...

whether the substance is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that
* have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;
* constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or
* constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
"""

It's a government list, they can put whatever they like on it...

Re:Define "toxic"

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, ddt is also banned

Re:Define "toxic"

[canajin56]

Section 64 of CEPA 1999 defines a substance as toxic "if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that: have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health." That's the definition they use. It is up to the government to determine what is a "long-term harmful effect" on human life or health. They have conducted studies indicating it is acutely toxic (determined by LD50, like you suggest) to aquatic life, so that's "immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity". Also, it's been found, by Canadian, US, and EU studies, to have a significant effect on fetal and childhood development. Specifically on the development of the brain and prostate gland. This makes it a "reproductive toxin" as described in CPR (Controlled Product Regulations) sections 55 and 58. This is not done by LD50, but by evaluation of studies as to whether or not current studies indicates "Evidence of a physiological effect". They looked at those Canadian, American, and European studies, and concluded that there is in fact evidence of physiological effect. So, while it is not toxic in the sense of having an LD50, it is toxic by their definition of having a physiological effect on fetal and child development. Anywho, here is the Environmental Protection Act that defines that stuff. And here is the actual announcement from the government, which you can reach from TFA if you follow enough links.

Re:Define "toxic"

[the eric conspiracy]

I agree wholeheartedly that the summary is not very fine, and the word 'toxic' out of context is meaningless.

In this case it is a designation that means that the chemical will be regulated by the CEPA. It has nothing to do with a finding of actual toxicity at some particular level, only that there will be regulations issued to control exposure to BPA, primarily occupational exposure in this case since of course that's where the greatest risk is.

In reality there is no particular evidence that current US EPA regulations provide inadequate protection from BPA except possibly due to occupational exposure. Remember that the methodology is to find a minimum effect level, then divide that by 1000 for the final regulation.

The new evidence appearing in the literature seems to indicate that the no effect level should be lower than what was used, not that the current exposure levels are above the no effect level.

Of course that doesn't prevent a great hue and cry in the mainstream media about deadly deadly BPA but what the hell can you expect? Rational discussion or and effort to whip up a frenzy to sell more advertising space?

In reality this should be filed along with the dangers of HFCS and Autism from MMR. In other words the waste basket of dumb ideas.

Re:Define "toxic"

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case it is a designation that means that the chemical will be regulated by the CEPA. It has nothing to do with a finding of actual toxicity at some particular level, only that there will be regulations issued to control exposure to BPA,

Oh, I get it now. It makes sense to me as an American if I change it to read like this:

"In this case it is a designation that means that the substance will be regulated by the FDA. It has nothing to do with a finding of actual danger at some particular level, only that there will be regulations issued to control exposure to marijuana".

So why didn't they outlaw it

[Anonymous Coward]

BPA lines many 'tin' cans. Many of those cans come from China. I heard someone speculate that the Canadians didn't ban BPA because they were afraid of the Chinese reaction.

Given how inept Stephen Harper is at diplomacy, I would believe anything. The Canadians just:
1 - got kicked out of their airbase in the UAE
2 - lost to Portugal in a United Nations election for the Security Council
because of Harper's bungling.

If it's toxic, ban it: otherwise you're admitting that you're allowing Canadians to be poisoned.

And how about sales receipts?

[Anonymous Coward]

also may be a source of BPA. http://www.naturalnews.com/030012_BPA_receipts.html [naturalnews.com, other sources lists]

It's the water that's the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I drank so much water my head almost exploded due to osmosis, only to pass out in the bath an nearly drown after slipping on some ice.

Water Drink it, drip on it, submerse yourself in it, you'll die.
Seriously dangerous drug if you ask me, should be banned. Where all addicted to the bloody stuff.

Quick! Let's ban everything!

[scottbomb]

No evidence needed, just the fear that it might be harmful. Glass can cut... ban it! Wood can give you a splinter... ban wood! Excuse me while I go eat some plastic bottles.

Canada bans BPA

[Anonymous Coward]

or was it just misheard, maybe they wanted to ban BP Eh

Thermal Receipts have the most BPA

[EmperorOfCanada]

Oddly enough Thermal Receipts have the most BPA. Something like a 1000 x as much as you would get from a water bottle.

If you get a receipt and then eat your burger is the receipt a food product regulated in the same way you might regulate a plastic fork?

In Canada regulation will all depend on if the receipt paper is made in Quebec or near Ottawa.

Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all.

Some, notably from Appleton Papers, contains BP-S, another form of Bisphenol without the complications.

Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA

[janvo]

Good to know, thanks for the info! This is the kind of information consumers to need to be aware of.

Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA

[baegucb]

Oddly enough, I usually don't eat the receipt.

Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past I have squirted ketchup onto the receipt when there weren't any paper cups available.

Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA

[TermV]

Bisphenol A is a coating painted on thermal paper that readily comes off onto your hands and will transfer onto anything you touch. This stuff must be coating everything near the cash registers at your local supermarket. There's apparently 60-100mg of Bisphenol A on the average receipt. At least in polycarbonate it's bonded into the plastic and doesn't just come out.

Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA

[IICV]

But you touch it, and then eat with your hands without washing them because hey it's just a receipt. If the concentration is high enough, this can matter.

not toxic outside canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

So as long as i'm not in canada it's not toxic?

Concentration?

[tirefire]

Does anyone out there know what kinds of concentrations of BPA start causing (significant) harm to humans and how it compares to what you get from plastic bottles? Whenever I hear about the horrors of BPA, my inner cynic tells me that it's the new secondhand smoke.

Re:Concentration?

[asavage]

Very dangerous then? My wife is a nurse and she has patents terminally ill with lung cancer from second hand smoke.

Re:Concentration?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the interests of disclosure, I am in the bottle water industry.

BPA Concentrations in Polycarbonate (PC) and PC-Lined Containers

Note 1: Cans are filled and then heated (Pasteurized), releasing availabe BPA immediately. Levels will continue to increase over time, albeit slowly.
Note 2: Source is likely PC lining in storage vats before bottling in glass.
Note 3: Bottled water is not Pasteurized after filling, so the levels increase over time. At 3 months, .5 ppb. At 9 months 4.7 ppb. Levels may depend on storage conditions, condition of bottles, etc.
Note 4: When boiling water is used with PC baby bottles, levels of BPA released can rapidly increase. Some results showed BPA levels of 50 ppb or higher. This, combined with the weight of infance relative to adults, had lead to a ban on PC baby bottles in Canada.

Typical Levels in parts per billion (ppb)

Canned Foods
18.2 Tomato Sauce (Note 1)
17.9 Apple Juice
14.1 Tomato Jouce
9.9 Chicken Noodle Soup #1
8.6 Chicken Noodle Soup #2
6.8 Peas & Carrots
6.5 Cream Style Corn
6.2 Mini Beef Ravioli
4.7 Pasta in Tomato Sauce
2.9 Baked Beans
2.1 Canned Meal Replacement
1.6 Canned Tomatoes

16 Canned vegetables with liquid (Range was 4 to 39)
11 Canned pastas
7.2 Strained Organic Carrots Baby Food
5 Baby Formula (Range was 0.1 to 13.2)
4.2 Canned Energy Drinks
3 Fast Food Sandwiches
0.5 Canned Soft Drinks
0.3 Some wines (Range was 0 to 2.1) (Note 2)

1.5 Five Gallon Bottled Water (Range was 0 to 8.2) (Note 3)

Baby Bottles
0.23 Zero Washes
8.4 Fifty One Washes
6.7 One Hundred Sixty Nine Washes
25 Used Bottles Boiling Water (Highest level was 50 ppb)
2 Water 26 degrees Celsius (Method Detection Limit was 2 ppb)
29 Water 95 degrees Celsius (Note 4)

This information was collected from various sources, including CTV/Globe Media, NTP-CERHR Report (National Toxicology Program), Health Canada/Canadian Press 9 July 2009, Journal of Agriculture & Food Safety, Jan 2009

The allowable concentrations vary by country. In the US for example, the level is 50ug/l/kg of body weight. The level in Canada is 25ug/l/kg of body weight. The allowable concentration is generally 1/1000 of the toxic level. That is why people sometimes mention that you would have to drink 500 or more glasses/day depending on your body weight to reach a toxic level.

The reason bpa was banned for baby bottles is that people were using boiling water to sanitize them. This causes a spike in the bpa released. Washing them normally was not a problem, as demonstrated by the levels in regular 5 gallon water bottles which are washed with hot but not boiling water.

The other area of concern is the environmental effect of bpa, specifically the amount released into the environment through wastewater. This isn't my area of expertise though.

Re:Concentration?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone out there know what kinds of concentrations of BPA start causing (significant) harm to humans and how it compares to what you get from plastic bottles? Whenever I hear about the horrors of BPA, my inner cynic tells me that it's the new secondhand smoke.

I've always argued that water sitting around in a plastic bottle for months on end is not a good idea -- even before the BPA hype. Unless the water and the plastic are both completely inert, you're going to get petrochemical byproducts mixing with your H2O. As people drink a lot of water, this can build up fast.

Then again, knowing people who have suffered medically from secondhand smoke (bar workers, etc), I tend to agree with you on the last part -- smoke is bad, BPA is bad. Both should be avoided where possible and endured where not possible.

I think you'll find that the concentrations in thermal receipts and can liners (is the inside of your can white? it's BPA-coated) is much more of an issue than in water bottles however -- unless you're in the habit of heating your water in the plastic bottle (for instance, by leaving it in your car on a sunny day).

But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why oh why ban BPA? Just because it mimics estrogen, makes boys turn into girls, when it leaks into the streams boy fish become girl fish, and gives women an extra shot at getting breast cancer. That's all! So they line tin cans with it, and cash register receipts (both thermal and not), and thermal paper, and make drinking bottles out of it, and line juice boxes with it, that doesn't mean its everywhere, does it? Think of the poor petrochemical companies! They have an easier time making profits if this product weren't banned you know! Fussy Canadians! Think of poor poor Exxon! They only had a net profit of $1268 U$ per second last year, and that's a pretty slim $40 Billion. Dammit Jim! What are we to do without BPA?

Oh really?

[arcite]

I guess I should get rid of my asbestos mattress eh? Oh well, I'm sorry.

Travel to any developing country

[arcite]

and you will find their sewage ducts, waterways, roadsides, well...everywhere actually choked with BPA plastic bags and food containers. Standard practice is to just burn the stuff, but it usually causes localized flooding disease first. Oh yea, the ocean is full of the stuff too. Aren't we humans a wonderful species?

BPA declared toxic in Canada

[12WTF$]

but the vast oceans of residue from tar sands mining has now been proven both nutritious and delicious, eh!

Re:BPA declared toxic in Canada

[Dr Caleb]

Which residue would that be?

http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2772627

Re:BPA declared toxic in Canada

[12WTF$]

Why, only the nutritious and delicious residue, of course.
Kind of like the picture of a sturdy pine treelet being planted in expensively cleaned top soil by the CEO of Suncor, contains 100% of my daily requirement of spin.

proven both nutritious and delicious

I really was being humourous and didnt expect to be called out for proof. Thank you for my citation source!

Meanwhile that toxic sludge (heavy metals, bitumen fractions etc) is being poured into the wilderness rivers.
Christ in a canoe, the 'mericans are expecting to all live up there in 2100 when the Arctic melts and here you go shitting up all that fine real estate with tar sludge. "Hey America, we paved the top bit of your hat to make a nice parking lot"

craigslist tampa

[kingston123]

your post is so good.you share nice tips in this post which are helpful for me also others.thanks for taking time to discus this topic and share. craigslist tampa

Warning label is in order

[drinkypoo]

Do not eat the bottle.

All plastics, including BPA-free varities, leach into liquids stored into them, even though they are often made of multiple layers of plastic with different properties designed to prevent this. Period, the end.

As a wise man who was once a physics professor at UCLA said to me, I don't trust plastics. They look a little too much like hormones.

Warning labels solve everuthing

[Anonymous Coward]

And somehow filter the BPA that has solved into the water too? With your teeth maybe?

What about #7?

[wonkavader]

Wait, I heard #7s have BPA.

Re:What about #7?

[Wilson of Waste]

Scroll up about lines...