What is most disturbing about this is that in this "highly technical" (ahem) community, only one poster noticed that what is important is not whether or not BPA is present in the urine or blood of people who use the bottles, but rather it is what are the health effects if any when it is present? A related question still unasked here is, how far away does a 69% increase in BPA levels put us from FDA-posited unsafe levels? Since the normal level in the population is thousands of times less than the unsafe level, this is an important piece of data that was missing from TFA.
Although I can't recall the name of the documentary, I do recall having seen one some time back regarding farm runoff and native critters (frogs, in this particular case). One of the results of the study described in the documentary was that those frogs who lived in water with high concentrations of farm chemical runoff were able to tolerate it; those frogs which lived in water with extremely low levels of the same chemicals all showed health problems. The conclusion of the study was that the frogs' bodies were able to sense and properly restrict the consumption of chemicals when they were of high concentrations; low concentrations were able to "sneak in under the radar".
While not all chemicals are intrinsically evil, don't assume that you are safe from unnatural chemicals because the chemicals' concentrations are low...
Better yet, make soda (or beer, or wine) yourself. I make my own and nary a trace of corn sugar or industrial by-products (which, I suppose, would include HFCS) appears in my bottles.
And it doesn't hurt that my sodas include far less sugar than the big brands- about 100 calories/12oz. bottle.
Ha! Mod me -1 wasntpayingattention for not knowing about towel day, but I was actually carrying a towel all day on Monday! I was fishing on the holiday and it turns out that I got more fish that day than any on other trip this year. Unfortunately they were rock bass, not Babel Fish.
I did say "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" when I left the lake, though...
Of course, to do this today a farmer would need to file applications with the government for the 'right' to distill fuel for his own use from his own crops. To distill alcohol for personal use without a fuel permit or to, gasp! drink it , would be a federal offense.
The job of a corporation is to maximize shareholders investment value, not serve customers. If the former can be achieved through the latter, then so much the better for everyone.
That's exactly right- never speak to a police officer. Here's a video which explains that concept very well: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646 (Talking to the Police by Prof. James Duane) in the context of the 5th amendment and Miranda.
I like this. Think about it- you own a coffee shop and play the radio. ASCAP comes in and demands that you pay fees to play that radio. You decide that it's not worth it, and turn off the radio. Now the John Cage Trust sues you for infringing on his original work (silence)!
You might also be able to be sued for:
- a crowd's reaction after a really bad, tasteless joke
- that uncomfortable silence when you meet your girlfriend's parents
- most libraries (although they might have a fair use arguement)
Since silence is gone, I'm officially staking my claim to any music containing a 60HZ hum. If you play any music which has a ground loop hum on the original recording, you are infringing on the first couple of recordings I made many years ago...
I definitely appreciate your concerns about the population of us who object to ESC. The unfortunate truth, however, is that the population gets lumped together like this:
(!ESC-approving folks) == (Evangelical Christians) == (Evolution Deniers) == (Crackpots)
This equation is only true when you consider that the people to whom government is pandering are the loudest people, not the most numerous people. When there are only two groups visible in the public eye (i.e., self-righteous Christians or athiestic liberals) most people in my camp will choose the former. It is the failing of all 'news' organizations that only these loudmouths get heard and pandered to.
I do share some views with conservative whack-jobs (whom, privately, most of us think should STFU) but I deny that most of us are that way- they are just the loudest. America would be much better off if we could somehow deport the 20% of people at either end of the political bell curve. If it is true that most people who oppose ESC research do have an opposition to scientific research on the whole, then you'd expect to find that the demographic of medical professionals, scientists, and engineers would be mostly devoid of social conservatives; I don't buy that this is the case!
btw: thank you for recognizing that social conservative doesn't necessarily equal crackpot (although there are many for which the equation holds true- conservatives and liberals alike)
While the Bush administration did much to hinder scientific research, do not confuse this the opposition of ESC with a political agenda. I, like everyone else that opposes ESC, don't have a unexplainable bent against scientific research. We are looking to the atrocities committed in the name of medical research in just the last 100 years and are drawing a line in the sand in terms of what constitutes acceptable research (and research for which we want to commit our tax dollars). This being a free society, you are welcome to disagree; disagreement breeds progress. Do not, however, trivialize this moral position as something as trivial as a political stance. Doing so is little better than launching the usually obvious/. ad hominem attack.
Why isn't this point getting any traction? Although I oppose ESC, I know that it holds the potential for cures for diseases. The companies know this, too, but for some reason they want taxpayer money to conduct the research. Unless *all* of the taxpayer-funded research is to be put into the public domain, there is absolutely no reason why companies should get federal research money.
OTOH, cure cancer or diabetes with ESC and I guarantee that the company that finds the trick will make billions of dollars. If they paid for the research, they can keep the patents. If I (a taxpayer) paid for the research, I damn well better want it open for all to utilize.
This actually happened to my brother: One night, his car (parked on the street in a decent subdivision) was broken into. The hoods did little more than steal the faceplate to his radio (not a terribly expensive one, and yes I know he could have removed the faceplate when he left his car, but we all know this...)
The conclusion? After several futile attempts to purchase the faceplate, he was forced to pitch a perfectly good radio because an idiot had stolen the faceplate.
Slashdot Mirror
What is most disturbing about this is that in this "highly technical" (ahem) community, only one poster noticed that what is important is not whether or not BPA is present in the urine or blood of people who use the bottles, but rather it is what are the health effects if any when it is present? A related question still unasked here is, how far away does a 69% increase in BPA levels put us from FDA-posited unsafe levels? Since the normal level in the population is thousands of times less than the unsafe level, this is an important piece of data that was missing from TFA.
Although I can't recall the name of the documentary, I do recall having seen one some time back regarding farm runoff and native critters (frogs, in this particular case). One of the results of the study described in the documentary was that those frogs who lived in water with high concentrations of farm chemical runoff were able to tolerate it; those frogs which lived in water with extremely low levels of the same chemicals all showed health problems. The conclusion of the study was that the frogs' bodies were able to sense and properly restrict the consumption of chemicals when they were of high concentrations; low concentrations were able to "sneak in under the radar".
While not all chemicals are intrinsically evil, don't assume that you are safe from unnatural chemicals because the chemicals' concentrations are low...
Better yet, make soda (or beer, or wine) yourself. I make my own and nary a trace of corn sugar or industrial by-products (which, I suppose, would include HFCS) appears in my bottles.
And it doesn't hurt that my sodas include far less sugar than the big brands- about 100 calories/12oz. bottle.
Ha! Mod me -1 wasntpayingattention for not knowing about towel day, but I was actually carrying a towel all day on Monday! I was fishing on the holiday and it turns out that I got more fish that day than any on other trip this year. Unfortunately they were rock bass, not Babel Fish.
I did say "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" when I left the lake, though...
Of course, to do this today a farmer would need to file applications with the government for the 'right' to distill fuel for his own use from his own crops. To distill alcohol for personal use without a fuel permit or to, gasp! drink it , would be a federal offense.
The job of a corporation is to maximize shareholders investment value, not serve customers. If the former can be achieved through the latter, then so much the better for everyone.
That's exactly right- never speak to a police officer. Here's a video which explains that concept very well: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646 (Talking to the Police by Prof. James Duane) in the context of the 5th amendment and Miranda.
I like this. Think about it- you own a coffee shop and play the radio. ASCAP comes in and demands that you pay fees to play that radio. You decide that it's not worth it, and turn off the radio. Now the John Cage Trust sues you for infringing on his original work (silence)!
You might also be able to be sued for:
- a crowd's reaction after a really bad, tasteless joke
- that uncomfortable silence when you meet your girlfriend's parents
- most libraries (although they might have a fair use arguement)
Since silence is gone, I'm officially staking my claim to any music containing a 60HZ hum. If you play any music which has a ground loop hum on the original recording, you are infringing on the first couple of recordings I made many years ago...
I definitely appreciate your concerns about the population of us who object to ESC. The unfortunate truth, however, is that the population gets lumped together like this: (!ESC-approving folks) == (Evangelical Christians) == (Evolution Deniers) == (Crackpots)
This equation is only true when you consider that the people to whom government is pandering are the loudest people, not the most numerous people. When there are only two groups visible in the public eye (i.e., self-righteous Christians or athiestic liberals) most people in my camp will choose the former. It is the failing of all 'news' organizations that only these loudmouths get heard and pandered to.
I do share some views with conservative whack-jobs (whom, privately, most of us think should STFU) but I deny that most of us are that way- they are just the loudest. America would be much better off if we could somehow deport the 20% of people at either end of the political bell curve. If it is true that most people who oppose ESC research do have an opposition to scientific research on the whole, then you'd expect to find that the demographic of medical professionals, scientists, and engineers would be mostly devoid of social conservatives; I don't buy that this is the case!
btw: thank you for recognizing that social conservative doesn't necessarily equal crackpot (although there are many for which the equation holds true- conservatives and liberals alike)
While the Bush administration did much to hinder scientific research, do not confuse this the opposition of ESC with a political agenda. I, like everyone else that opposes ESC, don't have a unexplainable bent against scientific research. We are looking to the atrocities committed in the name of medical research in just the last 100 years and are drawing a line in the sand in terms of what constitutes acceptable research (and research for which we want to commit our tax dollars). This being a free society, you are welcome to disagree; disagreement breeds progress. Do not, however, trivialize this moral position as something as trivial as a political stance. Doing so is little better than launching the usually obvious /. ad hominem attack.
Why isn't this point getting any traction? Although I oppose ESC, I know that it holds the potential for cures for diseases. The companies know this, too, but for some reason they want taxpayer money to conduct the research. Unless *all* of the taxpayer-funded research is to be put into the public domain, there is absolutely no reason why companies should get federal research money. OTOH, cure cancer or diabetes with ESC and I guarantee that the company that finds the trick will make billions of dollars. If they paid for the research, they can keep the patents. If I (a taxpayer) paid for the research, I damn well better want it open for all to utilize.
This actually happened to my brother: One night, his car (parked on the street in a decent subdivision) was broken into. The hoods did little more than steal the faceplate to his radio (not a terribly expensive one, and yes I know he could have removed the faceplate when he left his car, but we all know this...) The conclusion? After several futile attempts to purchase the faceplate, he was forced to pitch a perfectly good radio because an idiot had stolen the faceplate.