backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by AnnihilatorX.. on Jan 25 at 7:28 PM

BPA alternative may cause just as many problems

A little over four years ago, BPA was linked to a number of medical conditions including diabetes, asthma, and cancer among others. The chemical was commercially introduced in 1957, and was used in a wide range of products including food containers and bottles. Due to the backlash over BPA-related health risks, many manufacturers stopped using the chemical in their products.

In response, companies that offered plastic products containing BPA switched to Bisphenol S (BPS). BPA and BPS are very similar structurally, making the latter a good “drop-in replacement” for the former.

Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston are now reporting that widespread human exposure to BPS was confirmed in 2012 during the analysis of urine samples taken in the U.S., Japan, and China. The research study found that BPS disrupts cellular responses to the hormone estrogen, changing the pattern of cell growth -- even low levels of BPS exposure were enough to interfere with hormones.

"Our studies show that BPS is active at femtomolar to picomolar concentrations just like endogenous hormones -- that's in the range of parts per trillion to quadrillion," said UTMB professor Cheryl Watson, senior author of a paper on the study now online in the advance publications section of Environmental Health Perspectives. "Those are levels likely to be produced by BPS leaching from containers into their contents."

The backlash against BPA was fast and furious, but it may take some more time (and additional studies) to determine if BPS will encounter the same fate.

Source: Science Daily



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Here's a thought...
By quiksilvr on 1/23/2013 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Here's a thought...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/23/2013 9:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
"Shoot... the glass!"


RE: Here's a thought...
By kwrzesien on 1/23/2013 10:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
Still a classic movie...just watched it again the other day. But I can't believe he is making a new one!


RE: Here's a thought...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/23/2013 10:12:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's one of my favorite "Christmas" movies :)


RE: Here's a thought...
By ChronoReverse on 1/23/2013 11:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
I have a stainless steel bottle. Probably okay?


RE: Here's a thought...
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/23/2013 11:46:57 AM , Rating: 2
I switched to stainless steel years ago as well. I realize that with plastic bottles the concern was that BPA would leach into the water over time, and that using something like a Nalgene bottle occasionally is no big deal. However, I drink primarily water, and I carry a 40z bottle of it with me all day every day, so I figured why not play it safe and just avoid plastic. The stainless steel bottles are durable and reasonably priced.


RE: Here's a thought...
By Solandri on 1/23/2013 8:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Metal containers have a plastic lining inside. If you expose the metal to the liquid, it starts to corrode (yes even stainless steel will corrode), and atoms of the metal and its oxide float off in the water. This is also true of aluminum soda cans. There's a plastic lining on the inside. If you're handy with a knife, you can cut a can in half and peel off the plastic to see for yourself.

So your choices are pretty much glass with its fragility and breakage problems, or metal/plastic with the BPA/BPS scare. Or you can accept that the environment is trying to kill you, decide to live with the small risk, and enjoy life instead of worrying about every little thing. If there's a big risk, it'll be established pretty quickly (e.g. ozone depletion, thalidomide). If something is classified as "may be a risk" for decades, that's a pretty good indicator that the risk, if there even is one, is very small.


RE: Here's a thought...
By lexluthermiester on 1/24/2013 2:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
There is no plastic lining in aluminum cans. Aluminum naturally creates a lining in the form of aluminum oxide upon contact with air. Lining aluminum cans would be costly and redundant. And yes, out of curiosity, I just tried your idea of cutting open a can and "peeling" off the suggested layer. There was none.

And properly made glass is not as fragile as you seem to think.

quote:
Or you can accept that the environment is trying to kill you, decide to live with the small risk, and enjoy life instead of worrying about every little thing.


And oh yes, let us all just live with the un-natural poisons being fed to us by the companies who care more about providing a profit to their share-holders than they do about real safety. What a wonderful mentality! Yes, let's not worry at all about a little bit of poison here, a few chemicals there. After all how much real harm can they do, right? We all might as well just hop in front of a fast moving freight train!


RE: Here's a thought...
By lexluthermiester on 1/24/2013 2:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
And if the sarcasm of my previous statement didn't ring loud as a bell, let me be direct.

The mentality your entire statement just suggested is little more the irresponsible, half-witted nonsense and makes you look like a dolt spouting retarded gibberish. My 6 year old has better common sense than you have displayed.


RE: Here's a thought...
By jimbojimbo on 1/23/2013 12:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not. Everything is killing you.


RE: Here's a thought...
By Samus on 1/23/2013 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 5
Everyone who has drank water has died.


RE: Here's a thought...
By saicaml on 1/23/2013 2:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
mmm... I haven't died, just not yet =P. Would be more correct to state that everybody who has died drank water... yet not entirely truth


RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Here's a thought...
By LordSojar on 1/23/2013 3:12:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
- Sugar is bad for you (no, it's not)


Ok, so the other things... you might have some kind of point with. This however, sir, is a lie.

Sugar is awful for human beings, specifically fructose. Do you also believe alcohol (that would be ethanol by the way) isn't bad for you?

Sugar is classified as a poison by its hepatic process. It's converted into acetaldehyde in your liver, and it's not converted into glycogen like glucose is.

So to say sugar isn't bad for you is not only an outright lie, it's an ignorant one.

Human beings are not supposed to eat sugar, especially fructose enriched sugar, in the quantity we eat it in, period. Obesity epidemic is due almost exclusively to sugar... as is heart disease (because the VLDLs produced by the hepatic breakdown of fructose are the type that get under the endothelial cells in your arterial walls, and the LDLs produced by fats are far too buoyant and large to do so)

So, in summary.... you're wrong on every possible level here. If you're going to have sugar, make sure it's with fiber. Great saying, even if you don't believe in god... When god created the poison, he packaged it with the cure. Fiber counteracts almost all the fructose load in fruit when eaten as part of a balanced diet.

But if you're consuming 600 calories a day worth of fructose and eating less than 100g of fiber... you're poisoning your body, plain and simple.


RE: Here's a thought...
By lyeoh on 1/23/2013 3:33:32 PM , Rating: 3
Actually sugar has a role to play. When fruits are in season many animals fatten themselves up on it. Then when fruits go out of season or winter comes, they start losing that fat. If they didn't get fat enough they might not do so well.

The main problem I see is if you keep fattening yourself up for years or even decades.


RE: Here's a thought...
By maugrimtr on 1/24/2013 9:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same faux activism


You mean Science? I thought the other thing was faux activism - Religion? You might notice that those who ignore Science and instead create fictional realities also fall under the Religion spectrum due to their reliance on belief, i.e. make believe, not founded in fact, unscientific.

BPA was subject to a lot of scientific study. After all that study, it was concluded that BPA was probably not a good. Probably not hard to locate the scientific studies. Is that conclusive? Of course, not. Governments took advice from their agencies and the Canadian action probably spooked everything enough to immediately go nuts. Manufacturers replace BPA with BPS - a very similar chemical with similar properties. The scientists are merely proving that BPS has similar risks attached that led to the BPA issues (something the companies involved would already be aware of).


RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/25/2013 5:31:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The scientists are merely proving that BPS has similar risks attached that led to the BPA issues (something the companies involved would already be aware of).


No, they are not proving anything because they failed to prove anything with BPA in the first place. It was junk science with tests designed produce a desired result rather than a legitimate test with an objective analysis of results.


RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/25/13, Rating: -1
RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/25/2013 5:43:19 PM , Rating: 1
Reposted for the haters who believe free thinking means checking google and wikipedia. lulz

quote:
Ok, so the other things... you might have some kind of point with. This however, sir, is a lie.


Not a lie, and speaking in absolutes implies that you have some kind of definitive proof to back up what you say.

quote:
Do you also believe alcohol (that would be ethanol by the way) isn't bad for you?


You think it is? lol

quote:
Sugar is classified as a poison by its hepatic process. It's converted into acetaldehyde in your liver, and it's not converted into glycogen like glucose is.


Ok let's not delve into the fantasy world of doctors who get their degrees Fedex'd to them by some outfit in russia. No legitimate medical or scientific body classifies sugar as a poison. The "alternative medicine" nutjobs who think any food that comes in a package is 'toxic' are the ones pushing that nonsense.

quote:
Obesity epidemic is due almost exclusively to sugar... as is heart disease


Unsubstantiated claim; no REAL doctor is going to bet their license on the notion that sugar is the root of all evils...but the people who want you to buy alternative sweeteners like stevia or splenda have no problem paying off some quack to make statements like this.

quote:
So, in summary.... you're wrong on every possible level here.


You're obviously new here otherwise you'd know that I'm never wrong.

quote:
Fiber counteracts almost all the fructose load in fruit when eaten as part of a balanced diet.


In a time when people were eating an almost "all natural" diet they were also living to ripe old ages of 30, maybe 45.

quote:
But if you're consuming 600 calories a day worth of fructose and eating less than 100g of fiber... you're poisoning your body, plain and simple.


Assuming a 2,000 calorie diet getting 25% of your caloric intake from sugar would certainly not be the most optimal for health since the calories lack nutrients; but that is not making a your "sugar is poison" case for you. All that you said could have been condensed into one sentence: "Sugar is unhealthy if it's the primary component in your diet, however as part of a balanced diet it is fine."


RE: Here's a thought...
By auxy on 1/23/2013 9:02:56 PM , Rating: 5
You're an imbecile. I registered for this site specifically to call you out.

>The thing about BPA is that there is no real science to back up any of the claims made about its health effects.

Really? Freaking, REALLY? Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Health_ef...
I suggest you follow the source links on the wikipedia article. There have been dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed studies that show links to an incredible variety of health problems from BPA. Sure, some of these studies have had methodological problems, but many more have not. Regardless, there IS real science implicating this chemical in myriad health problems.

> Sugar is bad for you (no, it's not)

Nobody rational and informed has ever stated that "sugar is bad for you" so globally. Taking in excess sugar on a regular basis, as another poster noted -- and as Americans are wont to do -- is bad for you; REALLY bad. There's all kinds of research to support this, and a basic understanding of metabolic processes makes it obvious.

> Vegan diets are healthier than diets which include meat (not at all; balanced diets win)

Again, nobody rational or informed has ever stated this. The problem is that many people in the US don't eat "balanced" diets, which include more vegetables than meat -- they focus on heavy red meats and lean meats like chicken and rabbit, which don't provide the nutrients or dietary fiber that a person needs. Vegan diets (and less so vegetarian diets) have their own problems, but a diet laden with meats, grains, and starches to the exclusion of other things (fruits and vegetables, among them) is even worse.

>Drinking distilled water is healthy (more corrosive than Pepsi)
>Water with 0 TDS is ideal (it's actually dangerous to drink this for same reason as distilled water)

This is so brain-dead I don't even know where to begin. Yes, 100% deionized water is a pretty good solvent, but it's still not harmful to your body in anything approaching realistic levels of consumption. Read more here: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem0...

>The rain forest will be gone within the next 10 years (they've been saying this for over 40 years).

Yes, "they" have been saying this for a long time -- and they would have been right if they hadn't been! Measures have been put in place to protect many natural habitats in areas of extensive deforestation, and it is because of the efforts of these activists that these places still exist at all.

>"Inflammation" is in itself a medical condition and not merely a symptom (maybe "itching" needs to be elevated to medical condition so we can sell a supplement that reduces itch).

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with this, but there's nothing stating that symptoms can't themselves be harmful. Excessive sinus drainage is a symptom of infection, and yet the drainage itself can cause damage to your throat and lungs. Bronchitis is an inflammation often spoken of as if it were its own illness, and certainly it is a condition of note, but it is also a symptom, as you don't "catch" bronchitis -- it's caused by something else, usually an infection.

>Climate change / global warming caused by humans (junk 'science' has replaced religion for most sheeple)

This one is dicier, but there is real, peer-reviewed science that supports (not proves) the idea of human impact on global climate. The fact that some people believe whatever the TV tells them does not invalidate the genuine concerns of the informed.

>Fresh water supply to be depleted in next 10-20 years (right along with the rain forests, no doubt).

Refer to my prior remarks about rational and informed people. The concerns about fresh water are actually linked to concerns about climate change; read up on "desertification" if you really want to be informed.

Ranting about "liberals" on a tech site is pointless. Whatever your political leanings, it just makes you look like a backwards Fox News devotee -- an impression only strengthened by trotting out unrelated tirades on artificially controversial issues that were never really in question in the first place. I'm no "liberal" myself (as a stalwart gun owner and small government devotee), but people like you disgust me. If you really want to be a skeptic, learn to look up peer-reviewed articles and recognize real research, instead of simply decrying all of science as "junk".


RE: Here's a thought...
By iSmug on 1/24/2013 9:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well said!


RE: Here's a thought...
By lexluthermiester on 1/24/2013 3:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Rabbit? WTH? Who the heck eats rabbit? Chicken? Sure. Turkey? Sure. But rabbit?

And distilled water is not the same as deionized water. There ARE differences. Distilled water, depending on the method used to distil it, can be very acidic. In amounts greater than 20oz it can be toxic to any large mammal, including humans. And it will corrode the enamel of our teeth worse than ANY soda pop. High school chemistry knowledge is all that is needed to know such, IF you paid attention is class. And as one of the commentators in the dept of energy page you sited even said "in large amounts" it's toxic.

If you're going to make statements as though they are facts, place get your terms and science straight. And while the gov site you sited is credible, it does show there is a variety of opinion on the topic and should not be taken as hard fact.


RE: Here's a thought...
By AnnihilatorX on 1/25/2013 7:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In amounts greater than 20oz it can be toxic to any large mammal, including humans.


Actually, drinking 20oz of even normal water can kill any human due to overhydration... point is moot.


RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/25/13, Rating: -1
RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/25/2013 5:36:31 PM , Rating: 1
This is a courteous repost which I will repost for fun each time someone rates me down out of spite. :)

quote:
You're an imbecile. I registered for this site specifically to call you out.


DailyTech really needs to start compensating me for all these extra members I get for them.

quote:
Really? Freaking, REALLY? Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Health_ef...


After a "bold" opening statement you immediately link to wikipedia, a highly subjective source of information. In doing so you've indicated that you do not know what you are talking about but you are sure you disagree with me.

quote:
I suggest you follow the source links on the wikipedia article. There have been dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed studies that show links to an incredible variety of health problems from BPA. Sure, some of these studies have had methodological problems, but many more have not. Regardless, there IS real science implicating this chemical in myriad health problems.


No, there has not been any CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that shows a direct link between BPA and health issues. What there is, is a lot of left wing non-profits who depend on fear mongering to validate their existence and continue getting their charitable handouts.

You, the wikipedia linker, are in no position to declare what is "real" science and what is not. You could not even formulate your own argument.

quote:
Taking in excess sugar on a regular basis, as another poster noted -- and as Americans are wont to do -- is bad for you; REALLY bad. There's all kinds of research to support this, and a basic understanding of metabolic processes makes it obvious.


This is not limited to sugar. Eating something to excess does not cause that something to be "bad". Please stop making generalized references to "all kinds of research". If you don't know why it is good or bad for you just shut up and don't say anything. You're really just proving my point - lots of stupid people who will believe just about anything as long as it isn't true.

quote:
The problem is that many people in the US don't eat "balanced" diets, which include more vegetables than meat -- they focus on heavy red meats and lean meats like chicken and rabbit, which don't provide the nutrients or dietary fiber that a person needs. Vegan diets (and less so vegetarian diets) have their own problems, but a diet laden with meats, grains, and starches to the exclusion of other things (fruits and vegetables, among them) is even worse.


Stereotype much? I like how you're being racist and assuming that black people only eat meat because you lefties believe they "just got done evolving into humans" and don't know no better. Nice.

quote:
This is so brain-dead I don't even know where to begin. Yes, 100% deionized water is a pretty good solvent, but it's still not harmful to your body in anything approaching realistic levels of consumption.


You mean brain dead like bringing up deionized water when DISTILLED water and heavily filtered 0 TDS water was specifically mentioned? Yeah, it's a L2Read issue on your part. Do they still make hooked on phonics? Give them a call.

quote:
Yes, "they" have been saying this for a long time -- and they would have been right if they hadn't been! Measures have been put in place to protect many natural habitats in areas of extensive deforestation, and it is because of the efforts of these activists that these places still exist at all.


I'm sure they'd like to take credit for fixing the world while at the very same time claiming that the problems they've fixed...or mitigated...are even more dire now than they were before. The majority of these "activist" groups rarely do much more than make noise and whine. The people who are actually doing something don't have time to beg for money - they just do what they believe they gotta do.

quote:
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with this, but there's nothing stating that symptoms can't themselves be harmful. Excessive sinus drainage is a symptom of infection, and yet the drainage itself can cause damage to your throat and lungs. Bronchitis is an inflammation often spoken of as if it were its own illness, and certainly it is a condition of note, but it is also a symptom, as you don't "catch" bronchitis -- it's caused by something else, usually an infection.


The point is that "inflammation" is not a medical condition. It is a symptom or reaction to some other affliction...but there are now snake oil hucksters who have decided that "inflammation" on its own is a treatable condition and are happy to sell you pills for $30 a bottle / month.

I'm not sure how you could miss that point. Isn't American your first language or do I need to type this up in chinese or something?

quote:
This one is dicier, but there is real, peer-reviewed science that supports (not proves) the idea of human impact on global climate. The fact that some people believe whatever the TV tells them does not invalidate the genuine concerns of the informed.


Man has been able to affect localized areas, i.e. smog over LA back in the 80s...but globally, no...and the so-called science that "supports" the notion of man-made global warming is tied to scientists and professors whose egos and paychecks depend on people believing their prophecies. One good volcanic eruption spews more gases and particulates into the air then decades of human industry has.

quote:
Refer to my prior remarks about rational and informed people. The concerns about fresh water are actually linked to concerns about climate change; read up on "desertification" if you really want to be informed.


You are neither rational nor informed so why do you keep bringing up the people who agreed with me and didn't reply?

I like it when dumb people tell me to "read up" on something they themselves do not understand. Climate change is heavily rooted in pseudo-science which validates my point that the "concerns" for depletion of our fresh water supply are unrealistic at best. Climate change is also frequently sold to irrational, uninformed folks such as yourself using wild doomsday "predictions".

quote:
Ranting about "liberals" on a tech site is pointless. Whatever your political leanings, it just makes you look like a backwards Fox News devotee


I like Fox News as far as mainstream media outlets are concerned, as they still conduct journalism and not simply fanboism...however I'm hardly devoted to them.

Liberalism is not a political class; it's a state of mental retardation that often goes unchecked and undetected.

quote:
an impression only strengthened by trotting out unrelated tirades on artificially controversial issues that were never really in question in the first place.


Pseudo-science and contrived controversy are tenets of the left wing manifesto...but you'd have completely libtarded to believe any of that.

quote:
I'm no "liberal" myself (as a stalwart gun owner and small government devotee), but people like you disgust me. If you really want to be a skeptic,


Why is it that liberals like yourself feel the need to pretend they are not actually liberals in order to give themselves a sense of legitimacy? Is that your way of acknowledging that to rational and informed people you come across as someone struggling with certain mental challenges?

quote:
learn to look up peer-reviewed articles and recognize real research, instead of simply decrying all of science as "junk".


All that I listed in my original post is valid...and despite some disagreements there has not been any compelling argument made that suggests anything I said was inaccurate.

BTW You may just want to learn how to quote.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki