tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37842820.post4632917810605214048..comments2023-05-04T06:34:50.097-07:00Comments on The Neighborhood Toxicologist: Get your BPA FREE with each new bottle!Emily Monossonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00896682323554212375noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37842820.post-4976290146535849182009-07-01T16:21:28.746-07:002009-07-01T16:21:28.746-07:00I've been listening to the recent news on BPA ...I've been listening to the recent news on BPA and, as someone who used plastic baby bottles with both kids (12 and 8 years ago now), it is very disheartening. <br /><br />Anyway, I came across your blog via your book on scientists and motherhood, via my research on American women scientists (I'm a historian). I love your perspective and easy-to-digest overviews of the issues!Tiffanyhttp://www.womanwriting.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37842820.post-36551065007874010212009-06-11T07:05:40.237-07:002009-06-11T07:05:40.237-07:00Hi Joe, thank you for your comments. You are corre...Hi Joe, thank you for your comments. You are correct that exposure and dose matter. There have already been studies with baby bottles - and yes they do leach BPA, and the older more "used" (or washed) the bottle is, the more BPA leaches out.<br /><br />The point of the beer remark was just that students were directed to drink all their cold beverages from the bottles (I made an assumption here -that twenty-somethings don't exist on just milk and water.) While it's true this was a worst case scenario - as you point out - who drinks all the time from polycarb? <br /><br />However, that said, to get back to concentrations, while what leaches out may be low, I think our understanding of the potential impacts of the chemical is lacking. We know it is estrogenic - but don't always understand the subtle impacts of xenoestrogens such as BPA. We also know that we're exposed to a lot of different estrogens, both naturally occurring and from products like polycarbonate. How our bodies handle all these chemicals in combination is unclear. Often in this case, as we understand more - the "levels of concern" tend to drop over time as well. <br /><br />When that is the case (there are insufficient data, the chemical is known to cause problems in higher concentrations, and we know there is exposure particularly to the youngest and most vulnerable) AND it is a chemical that can fairly easily be removed from consumer goods (it already has been removed from bottles and there are alternatives like glass) or reduced from our diet - then at least in our home, it makes sense to switch. <br /><br />For more check out: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/36488/title/Plastics_chemical_linked_to_heart_disease,_diabetesEmily Monossonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896682323554212375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37842820.post-78389470796146865682009-06-09T07:13:27.357-07:002009-06-09T07:13:27.357-07:00Is a 69% increase necessarily something to get exc...Is a 69% increase necessarily something to get excited about? If you raise the level from 1.2 to 2.0 MIRCOgrams, is that really an issue? What level is the level of concern? If the level of concern is 10, who cares if we go up 69% from 1.2?<br /><br />And - who drinks beer, in a bar, from their own water bottle? What would happen if we had realistic exposure data? If we're worried about baby bottles, then check the levels in baby formula that's been in the bottle, and check the BPA in baby urine.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01774167118178434729noreply@blogger.com