Timeline for How do I identify if the water bottle is of a safe material for my children?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2012 at 15:06 | comment | added | Dan Moulding | @Darwy: No, I said harm to humans from typical BPA exposure is hypothetical. Animal models often exhibit biological responses that are different from humans, too, so the fact that BPA can have significant biological effects in mice doesn't, by itself, tell us anything about how it will affect humans. That said, animal models can be a good starting point for formulating hypotheses about human reactions. Until BPA is shown to cause harm in humans, under typical exposure, then any hypothesized harm it may cause to humans from plastic bottles is just that: hypothetical. | |
| Jan 25, 2012 at 14:13 | comment | added | Darwy | So you're saying that mice models cannot be used to compare with human results? That's not really true. Mice/rats have many systems which are comparable to ours and they show adverse effects from the same compounds we do. ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/… and endo.endojournals.org/content/152/6/2150.abstract | |
| Jan 23, 2012 at 21:26 | comment | added | Dan Moulding | @Darwy: Nice try. That is a poorly written meta-analysis. It is poorly written not only because of the numerous grammatical mistakes, but also because of the outright misleading statements. When that "study" states "BPA has shown [sic] to cause PP in pubertal girls", it gives the impression that this was shown in human girls. The authors fail to make clear that, in the cited study, the subjects were girl mice not human girls (the relevant study, #62 referenced in Table 3, can be read here: nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6755/full/401763a0.html). Thank you, try again. | |
| Jan 23, 2012 at 18:31 | comment | added | Darwy | @DanMoulding ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478717 "BPA has shown to cause PP in pubertal girls" Where PP is precocious puberty So no, the concern is no longer hypothetical. | |
| Jan 23, 2012 at 14:54 | comment | added | Dan Moulding | @Darwy: First, this isn't the skeptics SE; answers aren't expected to be thoroughly referenced. Second, I looked at your answer, and the sources you cite there (that I could access) confirm what I have said here: none of them showed a definitive -- or even probable -- link to any negative health effects in humans. One of the sources you cited states, "we do not yet have any clear cause–effect relationships in humans". And as you stated in your answer, animal tests showing harm (such as cancer) involve "LARGE" doses of BPA. So, yes, as of this time the concern is hypothetical. | |
| Jan 21, 2012 at 9:40 | comment | added | Darwy | I'd like to add in an answer I gave on the Skeptics site: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2202/… There are published studies which are raising more concerns about the presence of BPA (and phthalates) in bottles, etc. -1 for not bothering to reference the claim that 'the concern with BPA is purely hypothetical' when, in fact there ARE concerns - especially for children (ie early onset of puberty, etc) | |
| Jan 19, 2012 at 10:56 | comment | added | deworde | @Jack: With BPA, they've proven that if they give a large enough dose to lab animals it's dangerous, and that's where the concerns come from. Counter to that, it's been used in plastics for years, and there's not been a conclusive study on what effect that's had on kids. Counter to that, the concerns were only raised recently, and conclusive studies take time. | |
| Jan 19, 2012 at 10:50 | comment | added | deworde | @Jack: The general way that "safety" is worked out, is a) what negative side effects have been seen in a lab where they often boost the dose until they get an effect, and b) what negative side effects have been seen among actual kids. For example, paracetamol is seen to be safe during pregnancy because mothers used it for years before anyone thought to check if it was safe, which meant they could just look at the current crop of kids and go "well, they seem fine". With something like thalidomide, same principle, tragically different outcome. | |
| Jan 19, 2012 at 1:14 | comment | added | Jack | Wait a minute, Dan, may I interpret from your answer that BPA products are safe for my little ones? Nowadays, it is so hard to be a parent cause some said BPA is dangerous while some said BPA is safe. All I know is that I don't want to endanger my little ones with things that can cause them cancer or illness. | |
| Jan 18, 2012 at 23:00 | comment | added | DA01 | While true, 'purely hypothetical', while accurate, may be downplaying it a bit. We do know it causes issues in various animal's systems. Still, valid points...there are typically bigger issues to worry about. | |
| Jan 18, 2012 at 20:18 | history | answered | Dan Moulding | CC BY-SA 3.0 |