April 6th, 2008, 01:23 PM
Story here
Quote:
Studies that support use of bisphenol A called into question
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
April 5, 2008
The industry group for the widely used plastic compound bisphenol A, currently the subject of a safety assessment by Health Canada, bases its view that low exposures to the chemical are harmless on three studies it funded - research that critics contend contains serious flaws.
The American Chemistry Council, an Arlington, Va.-based lobby group, has submitted the studies to Health Canada for its assessment. But only one of them has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the process that allows research to be vetted by independent experts.
...
There are approximately 160 non-industry-funded studies by academics and other investigators on low-dose BPA exposures, and about 90 per cent of them have detected harmful effects, says Frederick vom Saal, a University of Missouri researcher who is keeping a running tally on the scientific dispute over the chemical.
He has published a study on the council's rat experiment and, in an interview, said the animals were so insensitive to estrogenic hormones that they wouldn't have reacted even to birth control pills, limiting the value of any findings based on it.
Ahh, industry hacks. Quackery at it's finest.Studies that support use of bisphenol A called into question
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
April 5, 2008
The industry group for the widely used plastic compound bisphenol A, currently the subject of a safety assessment by Health Canada, bases its view that low exposures to the chemical are harmless on three studies it funded - research that critics contend contains serious flaws.
The American Chemistry Council, an Arlington, Va.-based lobby group, has submitted the studies to Health Canada for its assessment. But only one of them has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the process that allows research to be vetted by independent experts.
...
There are approximately 160 non-industry-funded studies by academics and other investigators on low-dose BPA exposures, and about 90 per cent of them have detected harmful effects, says Frederick vom Saal, a University of Missouri researcher who is keeping a running tally on the scientific dispute over the chemical.
He has published a study on the council's rat experiment and, in an interview, said the animals were so insensitive to estrogenic hormones that they wouldn't have reacted even to birth control pills, limiting the value of any findings based on it.
Story here
April 6th, 2008, 02:45 PM
Part of what bothers me about the studies, and it was paraben studies that really got me thinking about it, is that researching the effect of one chemical ingredient in low doses, doesn't give us anywhere near an accurate picture of what combinations of chemicals will do, when combined and used on a regular basis.
Part of what bothers me about the studies, and it was paraben studies that really got me thinking about it, is that researching the effect of one chemical ingredient in low doses, doesn't give us anywhere near an accurate picture of what combinations of chemicals will do, when combined and used on a regular basis.
April 6th, 2008, 02:54 PM
It gets pretty difficult to identify a signal from a single component when you start adding more variables. The effect that is measured might be so small for one variable, that when you look at multiple variables, you can't properly pin down what one compound does. And then there is the complex web of interactions.
For that reason, I think it's best to identify single compounds that we shouldn't use because of known consequences. Other compounds might be identified mistakingly when there is a confounding effect.
But you make a good point on the widespread use of chemicals and relationships between them.
Quoting karrie
Well, I would say the problem with looking at the relationships of so many different chemicals, is that there are so many different chemicals!
Part of what bothers me about the studies, and it was paraben studies that really got me thinking about it, is that researching the effect of one chemical ingredient in low doses, doesn't give us anywhere near an accurate picture of what combinations of chemicals will do, when combined and used on a regular basis.
It gets pretty difficult to identify a signal from a single component when you start adding more variables. The effect that is measured might be so small for one variable, that when you look at multiple variables, you can't properly pin down what one compound does. And then there is the complex web of interactions.
For that reason, I think it's best to identify single compounds that we shouldn't use because of known consequences. Other compounds might be identified mistakingly when there is a confounding effect.
But you make a good point on the widespread use of chemicals and relationships between them.
April 6th, 2008, 02:58 PM
Quoting Tonington
that makes a certain amount of sense, until you're staring at the ingredient list of the body wash someone got you from a shop famed for its stance against animal testing, and in that list are five different kinds of paraben.
Well, I would say the problem with looking at the relationships of so many different chemicals, is that there are so many different chemicals!
It gets pretty difficult to identify a signal from a single component when you start adding more variables. The effect that is measured might be so small for one variable, that when you look at multiple variables, you can't properly pin down what one compound does. And then there is the complex web of interactions.
For that reason, I think it's best to identify single compounds that we shouldn't use because of known consequences. Other compounds might be identified mistakingly when there is a confounding effect.
But you make a good point on the widespread use of chemicals and relationships between them.
It gets pretty difficult to identify a signal from a single component when you start adding more variables. The effect that is measured might be so small for one variable, that when you look at multiple variables, you can't properly pin down what one compound does. And then there is the complex web of interactions.
For that reason, I think it's best to identify single compounds that we shouldn't use because of known consequences. Other compounds might be identified mistakingly when there is a confounding effect.
But you make a good point on the widespread use of chemicals and relationships between them.
April 6th, 2008, 05:14 PM
Quoting Walter
This isn't a 'things we should worry about' thread. It's more of a 'why there are so many things we need to worry about' thread.
There already is a thread regarding things we should worry about.
