Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Toxic Chemicals in Plastics

2»

Posts

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Decius wrote: »
    They banned the use of BPA and sale of plastics with BPA in them up here. Guess I should replace all my plasticware, including the few bowls I have from before I was born.

    Also, this would be close to a completely worthless action.

    The quantities of BPA in plastics are tiny. If they're capable of leeching out at all, then over a decade of use would have already extracted the material out.

    I think the idea is to take them out of the production chain and reduce the overall environmental load. Also, like a lot of ag chems, the people making/handling the stuff are exposed to much higher levels. They're worth protecting.

    Oh no - I agree with that. Reducing levels of bad things is good, especially if research suggests the limits should be set lower. What I meant was, replacing old plasticware is going to be close to worthless, if something in small quantity is supposed to be leeching from it. After a decade, you'd expect it all to be pretty much gone - or greatly reduced.

    Ah, I see what you mean. I don't think I own any food-related plasticware that's even close to a decade old, though. I can think of maybe a couple of things in mum's house, but plastic overall is a pretty throwaway substance, especially with recycling available. Would this not affect exposure levels?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Decius wrote: »
    They banned the use of BPA and sale of plastics with BPA in them up here. Guess I should replace all my plasticware, including the few bowls I have from before I was born.

    Also, this would be close to a completely worthless action.

    The quantities of BPA in plastics are tiny. If they're capable of leeching out at all, then over a decade of use would have already extracted the material out.

    I think the idea is to take them out of the production chain and reduce the overall environmental load. Also, like a lot of ag chems, the people making/handling the stuff are exposed to much higher levels. They're worth protecting.

    Oh no - I agree with that. Reducing levels of bad things is good, especially if research suggests the limits should be set lower. What I meant was, replacing old plasticware is going to be close to worthless, if something in small quantity is supposed to be leeching from it. After a decade, you'd expect it all to be pretty much gone - or greatly reduced.

    Ah, I see what you mean. I don't think I own any food-related plasticware that's even close to a decade old, though. I can think of maybe a couple of things in mum's house, but plastic overall is a pretty throwaway substance, especially with recycling available. Would this not affect exposure levels?

    Presumably there'd be more BPA in any of the polycarbonate things the "younger" they were. How it gets released probably depends on the treatment of the plastic - but of course that does pose some questions, since the suggested releasing agents are things like harsh detergents and the like. But then...one would think that would wash whatever came out away as well.

    The punchline of everything I've seen tends to be that whatever can be freed is quite far below exposure limits per day, and most of the negative effects are developmental.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Mad_Scientist_WorkingMad_Scientist_Working Registered User
    edited April 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    hey whatever happened to the frog apocalypse? Have we figured out whether that's due to endocrine disruptors like BPA or not?
    And this is why I hate econuts. Five minutes of searching. All it took was five minutes of searching to find out that its a freaking disease.
    One of the main ideas in the article I linked is that, while "the dose makes the poison", the size of the dose required to be poisonous might be smaller than is officially recognized.
    It also claimed that a lot of diseases are on the rise despite the fact that there are numerous pollutants that we know causes those diseases and problems.
    I think the idea is to take them out of the production chain and reduce the overall environmental load. Also, like a lot of ag chems, the people making/handling the stuff are exposed to much higher levels. They're worth protecting.
    That is retarded. The EPA laws all ready cover this scenario and are much more stringent than you are aware of. Pretty much everything you can find in your house is treated exactly the same way BPA is in an industrial setting. Its kind of pathetically sad because your waste probably contains sources of mercury, radioactive materials, nasty organic solvents, and other bad chemicals. And yet you throw it out.

    Mad_Scientist_Working on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh man, I love the BPA arguement. I did a paper on it where I literally dissected a 500 page report by the EPA. So far, its of moderate to some risk, which they give to pretty much everything they investigate. Now, there are criticisims of the report, because they cherry picked results, but then I did a literature review and we have no idea what concentrations these plasticizers disrupt receptors.

    No one can get the dose curves right, and they certainly can't elicit a disruptive effect at nano/pico molar levels (what BPA is in your urine and bloodstream).

    Oh, and don't worry about water bottles.
    The massive massive majority of BPA comes from your dental fillings.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Also, they did several studies to determine how BPA is eluted into solution from plastics, turns out you have to really really really stringently wash them over and over and over with very very very hot water. Aaaaaaaaand, microwaves don't make BPA go into your food.
    Microwaves are tuned to the frequence of water molecules, not BPA.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Archonex wrote: »

    Either way, I can believe that there's a fair amount of nasty shit in the water. I remember reading a report saying that alot of the nastier synthetic chemicals that are dumped into the water don't typically dissipate over a short period of time. When they start to build up, you start to see problems, like what certain areas of China are supposedly facing now.


    This was a sensationalist and incredibly wrong wrong wrong report, too.
    This is what the modern media has done to science, and how laypersons interpret this stuff.
    Right here guys.
    And it's not even your fault (well you should be more inquiring, don't take things at face value).

    I'm a 100% environmentalist, but dear god get your science straight before you go blasting away at different chems and gmos.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    This is a bigger non-issue than GM fruit

    OH GOD THE FRUIT IS MODIFIED GENETICALLY! THIS MEANS BAD SCIENCY THINGS ARE DONE TO IT! A BOOGAH BOOGAH BOOGAH!!!

    edit: Before anyone asks, yes I am aware there are issues with GM organics. However, whenever it's presented as a 'bad thing' it basically boils down to 'it's science so it's BAD'. Just like the idea of synth chemicals. which incidentally is a term that makes no sense to me

    If you think shit like BPA is a "non-issue" then you need to read more about BPA.
    You obviously didn't read enough about it.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    hey whatever happened to the frog apocalypse? Have we figured out whether that's due to endocrine disruptors like BPA or not?
    And this is why I hate econuts. Five minutes of searching. All it took was five minutes of searching to find out that its a freaking disease.
    Dramatic declines in amphibian populations, including population crashes and mass localized extinctions, have been noted since the 1980s from locations all over the world. These declines are perceived as one of the most critical threats to global biodiversity, and several causes are believed to be involved, including disease, habitat destruction and modification, exploitation, pollution, pesticide use, introduced species, climate change, and increased ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B). However, many of the causes of amphibian declines are still poorly understood, and the topic is currently a subject of much ongoing research. Calculations based on extinction rates suggest that the current extinction rate of amphibians could be 211 times the background extinction rate and the estimate goes up to 25,039–45,474 times if endangered species are also included in the computation

    Good to know you've got the single cause figured out though, better go tell those researchers they've been wasting their time.

    L|ama on
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    Bottled water that comes from a spring. I haven't had any problems with the company I get my water from in the past, but in recent years the quality of the water has been slipping badly.

    Oh, honey. It comes from a tap.

    Heh, I was actually at Whole Foods the other day, and I used my phone to take pictures of the ingredients list of every single brand of bottled water there. They all said "local municipal source". Maybe I'll post them here later.

    Perpetual on
  • Mad_Scientist_WorkingMad_Scientist_Working Registered User
    edited April 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    hey whatever happened to the frog apocalypse? Have we figured out whether that's due to endocrine disruptors like BPA or not?
    And this is why I hate econuts. Five minutes of searching. All it took was five minutes of searching to find out that its a freaking disease.
    Dramatic declines in amphibian populations, including population crashes and mass localized extinctions, have been noted since the 1980s from locations all over the world. These declines are perceived as one of the most critical threats to global biodiversity, and several causes are believed to be involved, including disease, habitat destruction and modification, exploitation, pollution, pesticide use, introduced species, climate change, and increased ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B). However, many of the causes of amphibian declines are still poorly understood, and the topic is currently a subject of much ongoing research. Calculations based on extinction rates suggest that the current extinction rate of amphibians could be 211 times the background extinction rate and the estimate goes up to 25,039–45,474 times if endangered species are also included in the computation

    Good to know you've got the single cause figured out though, better go tell those researchers they've been wasting their time.
    Wait doesn't that make you the idiot for bringing up the complicated issue and trying to single out one particular issue for something that has multiple causes.

    Mad_Scientist_Working on
  • UsagiUsagi Nah Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    hey whatever happened to the frog apocalypse? Have we figured out whether that's due to endocrine disruptors like BPA or not?
    And this is why I hate econuts. Five minutes of searching. All it took was five minutes of searching to find out that its a freaking disease.
    Dramatic declines in amphibian populations, including population crashes and mass localized extinctions, have been noted since the 1980s from locations all over the world. These declines are perceived as one of the most critical threats to global biodiversity, and several causes are believed to be involved, including disease, habitat destruction and modification, exploitation, pollution, pesticide use, introduced species, climate change, and increased ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B). However, many of the causes of amphibian declines are still poorly understood, and the topic is currently a subject of much ongoing research. Calculations based on extinction rates suggest that the current extinction rate of amphibians could be 211 times the background extinction rate and the estimate goes up to 25,039–45,474 times if endangered species are also included in the computation

    Good to know you've got the single cause figured out though, better go tell those researchers they've been wasting their time.
    Wait doesn't that make you the idiot for bringing up the complicated issue and trying to single out one particular issue for something that has multiple causes.

    Except that L|ama was asking a question, not making sweeping generalizations

    Usagi on
  • Mad_Scientist_WorkingMad_Scientist_Working Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Usagi wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    hey whatever happened to the frog apocalypse? Have we figured out whether that's due to endocrine disruptors like BPA or not?
    And this is why I hate econuts. Five minutes of searching. All it took was five minutes of searching to find out that its a freaking disease.
    Dramatic declines in amphibian populations, including population crashes and mass localized extinctions, have been noted since the 1980s from locations all over the world. These declines are perceived as one of the most critical threats to global biodiversity, and several causes are believed to be involved, including disease, habitat destruction and modification, exploitation, pollution, pesticide use, introduced species, climate change, and increased ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B). However, many of the causes of amphibian declines are still poorly understood, and the topic is currently a subject of much ongoing research. Calculations based on extinction rates suggest that the current extinction rate of amphibians could be 211 times the background extinction rate and the estimate goes up to 25,039–45,474 times if endangered species are also included in the computation

    Good to know you've got the single cause figured out though, better go tell those researchers they've been wasting their time.
    Wait doesn't that make you the idiot for bringing up the complicated issue and trying to single out one particular issue for something that has multiple causes.

    Except that L|ama was asking a question, not making sweeping generalizations
    No he was making a sweeping generalization namely because there is enough evidence to know that to place a blame on a single chemical is stupid. In fact some of the more well known plights involving frogs actually involves parasites and predators. So why ask a question from which we know can't be the sole cause of all froggy problems?

    Mad_Scientist_Working on
Sign In or Register to comment.