Still not terribly meaningful without a threshold for health effects.
Technically that's beyond the scope of the study. Unless those numbers have been reasonably established then it would be irresponsible to list them in this specific study.
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"?
Good thing the linked article linked to the abstract and the abstract linked to the actual report (surprisingly you don't have to pay to see). There you can see in the results section that the concentration went from 1.2 micro g/g to 2.0 micro g/g.
Amazing stuff this linking. It's almost as if the Web was created to link scientific documents
Thanks for taking my quote out of context and setting up your strawman.
If you don't know that you're going to be hitting against a DMBS that provides true ACID compliance and that has powerful stored procedures, it's probably a good idea not to depend on those features for critical functionality.
Ohh good, An argument that other databases are crappy so you should only program to that level.
A DBMS that doesn't have minimal ACID compliance as default is crappy.
Then you speak as though the problems of porting stored procedure and check constraints have not been solved a thousand times over. If your data is not important enough to ensure data integrity then why have it in the first place.
Then couple that with a database that doesn't scale well and you have extra crappy.
Slashdot Mirror
Still not terribly meaningful without a threshold for health effects.
Technically that's beyond the scope of the study. Unless those numbers have been reasonably established then it would be irresponsible to list them in this specific study.
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"?
Good thing the linked article linked to the abstract and the abstract linked to the actual report (surprisingly you don't have to pay to see). There you can see in the results section that the concentration went from 1.2 micro g/g to 2.0 micro g/g.
Amazing stuff this linking. It's almost as if the Web was created to link scientific documents
Ohh good, An argument that other databases are crappy so you should only program to that level.
A DBMS that doesn't have minimal ACID compliance as default is crappy.
Then you speak as though the problems of porting stored procedure and check constraints have not been solved a thousand times over. If your data is not important enough to ensure data integrity then why have it in the first place.
Then couple that with a database that doesn't scale well and you have extra crappy.