Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Plastic Chemical BPA Declared Toxic In Canada

Posted by Soulskill on from the good-thing-it's-not-toxic-here dept.

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."

15 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. But asbestos is fine! by dskoll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:But asbestos is fine! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:But asbestos is fine! by macraig · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    3. Re:But asbestos is fine! by fnj · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:But asbestos is fine! by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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).

    5. Re:But asbestos is fine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. The rest of the world needs to follow suit by janvo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Fine, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Your move.

    1. Re:Fine, Canada by nacturation · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  4. Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!? by pz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  5. Being a father with a paranoid mother... by Wilson+of+Waste · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  6. Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!? by adonoman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Canada bans BPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  8. Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA by baegucb · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  9. Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.