Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

266 comments

I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0, Troll)

kidde_valind (1060754) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027161)

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (2, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027283)

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.
So, what, you're suggesting people who live lifestyles that cause heart disease are more likely to also use plastic containers for their food and drink? Or people with heart disease are more likely to use plastic containers? What other correllation are you proposing?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25027421)

Actually the study was based on the number of rubber bullets fired at a persons chest. As the number increased, the probability of a heart attack also increased. The second part was based on the study of plastic heart valve installations. It was observed that the people who had these valves in their hearts were also likely to suffer from heart disease.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25027291)

Correlation.is.not.spelled.like.corelation

about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25028897)

Periods do not go between every word in a sentence.

Re:about that... (1, Offtopic)

MPAB (1074440) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029039)

Khaaaa.aaaa.aaaa.nnnn!

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (5, Insightful)

zyl0x (987342) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027303)

If you didn't RTFA, how do you know their results only evidenced correlation then?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (5, Insightful)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027343)

Exactly right. "Correlation is not causation" has become more like a reflexive meme around here rather than a thoughtful addition to the conversation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (5, Funny)

j_166 (1178463) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027573)

"Exactly right. "Correlation is not causation" has become more like a reflexive meme around here rather than a thoughtful addition to the conversation."

I don't see how you can say that, just because a lot of commenters tend to reflexively reply with that meme to articles about scientific studies linking one thing to another. There can be many reasons for this. Correlation does not necessarily equal cau... uh ... oh, I see your point.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (2, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028759)

I wish I could mod you up a more.

I don't understand why everyone immediately fires off that stupid one liner every time someone proposes a logical conclusion. Do any of these people understand how science works? You come up with a hypothesis based on an educated guess, then you test to see if it's true. Refuting something outright, saying that there's no concrete proof is the basis of a creationist's argument. If there is evidence to support a claim then there is clearly reason to believe there is causation, *based* on the correlation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0)

snarfies (115214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028951)

In Soviet Russia, correlation causes YOU!

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (4, Insightful)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027381)

It's called a cheap grab for mod points.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (1)

eclectic4 (665330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028197)

Ta da!

I did RTFA and still can't tell much (4, Interesting)

sartin (238198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027511)

As usual from press reporting of scientific studies it's really hard to tell what to make of the conclusion. The article mentions animal studies that indicate BPA (the plastic) may disrupt hormones (especially estrogen).

The article suggests this is a preliminary study that only measured the correlation (so, yes it appears the assumption was correct) between BPA levels and heart disease and diabetes. It doesn't talking about removing the effect of diet, which is well-known to affect both of these diseases. If that effect is not accounted for in the study, it may well turn out that people who eat lots of meals from BPA containers (or have bad teeth and have fillings with BPA) tend to have less healthy diets as well.

Re:I did RTFA and still can't tell much (5, Interesting)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027663)

So did I. Correlation only. Zero evidence of any mechanism to cause BPA and heart disease.

And I don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that people who consume quantities of food and drink from plastic containers might have a somewhat less healthly lifestyle than those who don't.

Another thing about detecting BPA in peaple's bodies. With each new generation of analytical equipment, we gain another decade of sensitivity. Almost anything can now be detected in anything.

OTOH, my tropical fish would die if I left my stock water in 5 gallon jugs longer than a week or so.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (5, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028393)

From TFA
"At least from this study, we cannot draw any conclusion that bisphenol A causes any health effect. "

and:
"The researchers also cautioned that these findings are just the first step and more work is needed to determine if the chemical actually is a direct cause of disease."

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25027337)

Still, I prefer to store and heat my food and beverages in glass or metal (stainless steel - non teflon lined) containers.

Call me a paranoid hippy, but that's also why I'm getting in to canning, well "jarring", to preserve my food in glass jars vs store bought canned goods where those cans have a very thin layer of plastic on the inside.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25027387)

Cliche 1: Not reading the article

Cliche 2: That stupid meme of making a sentence out of every word

Cliche 3: The assumption that everyone on slashdot has never heard "correlation is not causation"

I rate your post 3/10.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25027423)

I rate your post 3/10.

Speaking of stupid memes...

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25028245)

i hate stupid mimes

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028953)

What's a mime?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029223)

What's a mime?

A mime [wikipedia.org] is someone who acts out a story through body motions without use of speech.

They're easy not to like.

Mod parent redundant (5, Insightful)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027393)

From TFA: "At least from this study, we cannot draw any conclusion that bisphenol A causes any health effect. As noted by the authors, further research will be needed to understand whether these statistical associations have any relevance at all for human health."

As noted by the authors. The authors, and the person TFA got a quote from, and TFA all make this concession, and you try to karma-whore by stating the obvious. Read. The. Fine. Article.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25027397)

That's never the point of these studies. No one is even claiming that. Did you just wake up for a few minutes in the classroom to hear that phrase uttered, so now you must reply to every study posted on /. with those words?

Everyone who tags research studies with this truth is demonstrating how ignorant they are. YES. THE WORDS. THEY ARE TRUE. But it has nothing to do with what the article is talking about. You might as well just tag _everything_ idleispants... it makes about as much sense.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (1)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027651)

YES. THE WORDS. THEY ARE TRUE.

hahaha, I definitely cracked a smile at that one, thanks. I do enjoy idleispants, though.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (2, Insightful)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027405)

I agree. A perfectly sensible interpretation is "if you eat more unhealthy prepackaged food, that food comes in plastic containers".

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (2, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027427)

I haven't even rtfa but here goes

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.

Translation: I don't like the conclusion so I'll make a baseless assumption and attack the article without any knowledge of it. Sounds like a severe case of cognitive dissonance to me.

Maybe you should RTFA then. (3, Informative)

linear a (584575) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027505)

The article in question actually says that they don't claim causality - but that it should be looked at further.

Re:Maybe you should RTFA then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25027879)

But don't you know that every media outlet known to man (and a few that are unknown) will grab this headline and run with "Teh cancer causing plastic!!!!!!111!! News at 11:00."

Nice troll, good angry responses, I give it a 7.5 (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027553)

Well done. You were trolling, right?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (5, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027585)

Wow, did you even bother reading the article? Do you really even understand statistics? Yes, correlation is not causation, but that really doesn't add much to the conversation. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient for causation. You do realize that there is a whole branch of mathematics and analysis that tries to extract causal relationships, if they exist, from this data? Are you also aware that analysis like this is the only way we can discover certain relationships?(Well, the only feasible way anyway). Getting a bunch of statistically random people to sit in a lab and drink from either plastic or non-plastic cups for 50 years isn't really going to be possible.

If you have a genuine statistical beef with something, please actually explain it rather than smugly stating, "corelation(sic). Is. Not. Causation)

Either that or show me your PhD in statistics.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029117)

I'm pretty sure eating the type of foods that typically come from TV dinners plastic containers would still cause ill health if they were in glass containers. Water is another story.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25027587)

Who says that it is? I.E who are you arguing against here?

Maybe you should read the article?

Isn't it more likely ... (2)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027605)

the food IN the plastic is causing the heart disease?

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (1)

SupplyMission (1005737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027665)

I'm pretty sure the experts who did the study know much more about how to apply statistics than you ever will. If they are making conclusions in a respected, peer-reviewed publication, then you can bet money that they wouldn't be making those conclusions based on simple correlation alone. Even so, demonstrating a strong correlation between things often leads to the discovery of the cause of the correlation.

Second, why does parroting "correlation is not causation" warrant a mod to Insigthful? That's like trying to convince someone that a person who says "George W. Bush is an idiot" a lot has insightful political opinions. The parent post did not make a single insightful statement. Unless mindlessly repeating a buzzword that sounds intellectual counts as insight around here.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (1)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028179)

Corelation. Is. Not. Causation.

Maybe So. But Corelation. Is. Not. Not. Causation.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028727)

I have. On the first of four pages, it's pointed out that there's not enough evidence yet to concede that the chemical in question causes these diseases.

Re:I haven't even rtfa, but here goes (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029055)

Yeah, it's pointed out by a representative of the chemical industry.

Relative risk (5, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027315)

I wonder if they will compare the instances of disease to those from food poisoning from earlier methods of food storage?

Re:Relative risk (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027359)

Exactly, if it isn't natural.. we shouldn't store it man... It's all about nature man... Like, we need to start storing stuff in leather... or for you vegans, store it in paper, unless you are like one of those hippies man. Then maybe you should store it in like... water.

Re:Relative risk (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027407)

This is exactly why I use asbsetos food wrap and drink only out of cups made from coal.

Re:Relative risk (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027463)

"This is exactly why I use asbsetos food wrap and drink only out of cups made from coal."

Actually, INGESTION of asbestos and coal would be no problem. It's only inhalation that is an issue, and even then the risk is magnified enormously when one is already a smoker.

Re:Relative risk (2, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027603)

This is why you should only use human bones as your utensils. There is no danger!(well, Kuru but....)

Plus, nothing makes for great conversation around the coffee maker at the office quite like a human skull fashioned into a mug.

Re:Relative risk (4, Funny)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028217)

Mod Parent Up. I drink from the skulls of my enemies too!!!

Re:Relative risk (1)

MPAB (1074440) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029065)

And do you choke on their ashes?

Re:Relative risk (4, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027615)

I wonder if they will compare the instances of disease to those from food poisoning from earlier methods of food storage?

Using glass jars sure caused a lot of food poisoning!

Or how about not using BPA in plastics used to store food? Is that so hard to ask? There are probably thousands of plastics that don't use BPA. Why even risk it?

Re:Relative risk (2, Insightful)

IgLou (732042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028089)

Exactly! I think most people have no freaking clue... Oh wait, I know they have no freaking clue that not all plastics are created equal. Also, from the responses, that no one read TFA; mind you the summary is a bit inflamatory so that will lead quite a few to disregard the article.

My wife is big on Tupperware and a quick check showed that some products contain BPA but not all. That's just one line of products. It's quite surprising how far spread these things are.
Anyways, it's like Transfats we should know what contains it and then work towards removing it. BPA has long been known for it's damaging effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Health_effects [wikipedia.org] so eliminating it altogether would be in the best interest of all. Here in Canada our Health system is stretched to the limit due to an aging population why allow something that further impacts health and strains that system? I imagine that there will be the common "Oh it's not conclusive yet!" responses. Heaven forbid if anyone needs to spend an extra penny at Walmart.

Re:Relative risk (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028423)

"Here in Canada our Health system is stretched to the limit due to an aging population why allow something that further impacts health and strains that system?"

Ah, you should switch to storing stuff in Thallium then, that should deal with the aging population problem.

And while you're at it, encourage people to smoke more (while taxing it heavily). :)

Re:Relative risk (1)

IgLou (732042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028565)

Well, I had this great plan that consisted of selling tax free cigarettes made in China in prisons and then having convicts make money by testing cancer treating drugs. I thought it was ingenius but some folks get so worried by ethics.

I say why start worrying about that now? :P

Re:Relative risk (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028885)

Using glass jars never caused food poisoning. Improperly using glass jars caused food poisoning.

Re:Relative risk (1)

Wain13001 (1119071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029107)

I never realized ingesting small bits of glass would be considered food poisoning, but I guess it works.

Re:Relative risk (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25028947)

Or how about not using BPA in plastics used to store food? Is that so hard to ask? There are probably thousands of plastics that don't use BPA. Why even risk it?

For the most part we aren't. The article says that BPA is use in making polycarbonate. The recycling number for polycarbonate is 7, which is "other". The 7 code isn't very common and many of them aren't polycarbonate. The places I can think of seeing polycarbonate is reusable sports, baby bottles, and those plastic 5 gallon water cooler bottles.

Re:Relative risk (1)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029217)

There is nothing inherently dangerous about glass jars (other than breakage etc.) while the problem with plastics appear to be fundamental to the material itself.

Plastics, m'boy! (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027759)

Don't malign plastic, you dirty hippies. They saved my life in WWII! Why, when I was a lad, we would have KILLED to have plastic food storage. You know what I hear when you say plastics are dangerous? "blah blah blah I hate America blah blah I hate progress blah blah blah." Real Americans can eat plastic like it was apple pie and not get sick.

The same goes double for global warming & the ozone layer. In fact, let's just stop funding research into things that may be bad for us. Only sissies care. All you are doing with your sissy studies is holding back progress and making people worry over nothing.

Admit it: you want us all to go back to living in caves. You hate the modern world and everything in it and you want to destroy it with your evil 'studies.' Elitist intellectual claptrap.

America stands for progress. Except we're not progressive, the damn hippies stole that word and turned it into something dirty. Either you love progress and you know that everything new is better, or you hate America and want everyone to live in caves.

If you hate plastics, you hate the whole human race!

Re:Plastics, m'boy! (1)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028103)

Damn Right!!!

The American way is the best way. And the American way to deal with environmental problems is to make fun of environmentalists.

Re:Plastics, m'boy! (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028263)

I see right through your scam! Anyone writing to Slashdot is a America hating commie...wait a minute...

BTW, to whoever labeled the parent flamebait; that wooshing sound you just heard is sarcasm going over your head.

Re:Plastics, m'boy! (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028281)

Oh, I think they understood the sarcasm all too well, and thus the flamebait mod.

Re:Plastics, m'boy! (2, Informative)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029215)

that wooshing sound you just heard is sarcasm going over your head.

Damn, I thought it was the giant sucking sound [wikipedia.org] of American jobs rushing overseas. Phew, what a relief that it was only sarcasm.

Re:Relative risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25028181)

We can't make things better because they used to be worse? Thanks for your kneejerk response.

Good food, bad food (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027347)

Every week there will be a new study that reveals some common chemical in our daily lives, will be harmful or good for your health.
Often it will be both harmful and good on consecutive weeks.

Soon I'll be releasing my own study that shows excessive worrying about common foods causes diabetes, cancer and spontaneous combustion.

Re:Good food, bad food (5, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027517)

Actually, you're on to something:

constant worrying about common foods = stress
and?
stress = heart health problems

Cancer is more destructive in those persons who are less able to defend against it.
Stress = weakened immune response

Spontaneous combustion? you're on your own with that one

Re:Good food, bad food (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25028133)

stress = kinetic energy

kinetic energy = heat

heat > activation energy = spontaneous combustion

By the transitive power of bullhockey:

stress = spontaneous combustion

This just in! (2, Funny)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027701)

It has recently been revealed that a common thread has been found among all human ailments and syndromes.

Everyone that has been afflicted with a disease or syndrome has consumed large amounts of DHMO!

Carlin nailed it... (1)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028183)

When it comes to common chemicals causing cancer, Carlin had a good line:

 

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.
--George Carlin

Re:Good food, bad food (1)

kungfugleek (1314949) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029135)

Exactly. My sister, who was a little overweight, was advised by her doctor not to worry about losing the weight because the stress of doing so would do more harm than the weight itself. She was otherwise healthy and active. I'm sure you could apply the same idea to a lot of news items like this. The stress of worrying about it is often more damaging than the thing you're worrying about.

BPA can cause more than that. (-1, Troll)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027363)

The National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health concluded in April that there is "some concern" that BPA [naturalnews.com] may cause problems in fetuses, babies and children, including breast or prostate cancer, early onset of female puberty, attention deficit disorder and other problems of the reproductive and neurological systems.

Bisphenol A Chemical in Plastic Bottles Harms Children, Feds Conclude [naturalnews.com]

The FDA declared that BPA is safe based on two industry funded studies. [naturalnews.com]

Chemicals in Plastic Shown to Cause Reproductive and Neurological Disorders [naturalnews.com]

A University of Cincinnati (UC) research team, headed by Scott Belcher, PhD, reports in two articles in the December 2005 edition of the journal Endocrinology that BPA shows negative effects in brain tissue "at surprisingly low doses."
http://www.naturalnews.com/020334.html [naturalnews.com]

Need I go on?

Keep using BPA products. And people wonder why girls are hitting puberty so much earlier now.

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (3, Funny)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027461)

Keep using BPA products. And people wonder why girls are hitting puberty so much earlier now.

Internet? (reference: any adult web site)

attention deficit disorder

Internet? (reference: online games)

and neurological systems

Internet? (reference: goatse)

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027491)

Nice links. Can't imagine why Natural News would have such articles. Couldn't be anything about their bias to get people to buy "natural" products, is it?

You know, like Kevin Trudeau claiming the government is keeping cures for arthritis, cancer and other afflictions from the people and how he miraculously has all these cures, but only if you buy his book and visit his web site to buy the products.

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (1, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027575)

Nice links. Can't imagine why Natural News would have such articles. Couldn't be anything about their bias to get people to buy "natural" products, is it?

You know, like Kevin Trudeau claiming the government is keeping cures for arthritis, cancer and other afflictions from the people and how he miraculously has all these cures, but only if you buy his book and visit his web site to buy the products.

Do you have any proof of this bias? No

Did Kevin Trudeau write any of those articles I posted? No

Do you have any links or proof that he is providing miraculous cures? No

Good job at attacking a source you don't like instead of trying to prove anything they said wrong. Very intelligent!

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (4, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028057)

Do you have any proof of this bias?

Straight from their own front page:

  • Ninety Percent of Olympic Athletes Used Nutritional Supplements to Enhance Performance
  • Criminals Who Eat Processed Foods Leave More Evidence Behind at Crime Scenes
  • Media Quotes Vitamin B12 Deficiency Study to Attack Vegetarians, Vegans
  • Yet More Pharmaceuticals Found in the Public Water Supply of U.S. Cities

Did Kevin Trudeau write any of those articles I posted?

Never said he did. I was merely pointing out a similarity between Natural News and Kevin Trudeau both claiming that "natural" remedies are more effective than man-made medicines (which are also natural).

Do you have any links or proof that he is providing miraculous cures?

Just a few. Like this one [naturalcures.com] , this one [amazon.com] and this one [google.com] . So yes, I have proof he is providing miracle cures. That and his infomercials on which he peddles his book which has in its title, "Includes The Natural Cures For Over 50 Specific Diseases".

Good job at attacking a source you don't like instead of trying to prove anything they said wrong. Very intelligent!

I never said I didn't like the source. Some "natural" items can be very beneficial to certain people. However, claiming that ONLY "natural" products, such as supplements which are unregulated and don't have to detail what they actually contain or what effect they may have on people, is disingenuous and potentially harmful.

As far as proving them wrong, I don't need to prove them wrong because studies over the years have proven them wrong. Here is one article [cnn.com] which discusses "natural" remedies, and this one [iula.org] which talks about Lycopene.

So yes, I was very intelligent to point out the bias of Natural News so people are aware of their bias. Whether people heed the warning is up to them but they have been warned.

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (3, Interesting)

dunnius (1298159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027559)

And people wonder why girls are hitting puberty so much earlier now.

That is because children have much better nutrition than there used to be. As a result, they are able to reach puberty sooner because of better health.

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (1, Troll)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027675)

That is because children have much better nutrition than there used to be. As a result, they are able to reach puberty sooner because of better health.

You're kidding right? I guess all healthy girls should be hitting puberty at 3. [dailymail.co.uk]

Or this study [cnn.com] showing that more girls from age 6 to age 9 are hitting puberty instead of from 10 - 11.

I really pray you were joking!

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (2, Informative)

dunnius (1298159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027917)

It was based off a study that was done some time ago. One of the findings was that for females, once they go past a certain weight (I don't remember what it was, and I don't feel like looking this up) they hit puberty. The CNN article you mention mentions obesity possibly being a factor for the early puberty. I think it must be referencing that study.

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028461)

Puberty is related to nutrition.
Did you read the article you link to?

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028881)

Yes I did. It said the causes is indeterminate, then they quoted some people who for all we know made up something off the top of their head.

Re:BPA can cause more than that. (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029041)

Or maybe you can ask the NIH itself:
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/draftBPA_MtgSumm080807.pdf [nih.gov]

The Expert Panel expressed some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral
effects.
The Expert Panel had expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes
accelerations in puberty.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/BPADraftBriefVF_04_14_08.pdf [nih.gov]

In addition to effects on survival and growth seen at high dose levels of bisphenol A, a variety of effects related to neural and behavior alterations, precancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, altered prostate gland and urinary tract development, and early onset of puberty in females have been reported in laboratory rodents exposed during development to much lower doses of bisphenol A (⥠0.0024 mg/kg bw/day) that are more similar to human exposures.

Recognizing the lack of data on the effects of bisphenol A in humans and despite the limitations in the evidence for âoelowâ dose effects in laboratory animals discussed in more detail below, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed

How was this post modded troll? (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028049)

I've never been modded troll for posting links to articles that can easily be verified with a simple google search before.

Maybe people really don't like information that is contrary to their beliefs.

Re:How was this post modded troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25028297)

Posting anonymously to preserve my mod points, but i can see the troll (but really should be uninformative) mod just because you link to a natural health site with financial reasons to demonize BPA. Link to peer reviewed published studies and i might mod you informative

Re:How was this post modded troll? (2, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028841)

Why should I be modded down for other peoples laziness to do a simple google search to see if the the article is correct?

Just because you or others don't like the source or hate the fact that a source tries to make money to continue their profession doesn't mean the source is biased. I don't see anyone bashing CNN for having advertisements on their websites.

Since you were too lazy to type "BPA NIH" into google I'll do it for you.

http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/draftBPA_MtgSumm080807.pdf [nih.gov]

The Expert Panel expressed some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral
effects.
The Expert Panel had expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes
accelerations in puberty.

Huh!? (0)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027449)

Oh, damnit, I'm drinking out of a PC bottle now. I can already feel the psychosomatic effects taking a hold of me. ERRGGHHH, I CAN FEEL MY PANCREAS DISSOLVING! The horror! My heart! It's like, doing weird stuff it doesn't normally do! Gahhhh! Vision.. fading.. only... enough strength left... to push.. preview.. then wait like.. a minute.. and hit submit... URK!

Snopes article is offtopic and strawman (1, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027473)

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/petbottles.asp [snopes.com]

Didn't you realize that the snopes article in the summary talks about a completely different chemical?

tag: badsummary

Re:Snopes article is offtopic and strawman (1)

bonkeydcow (1186443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028047)

He was referring to articles discussing the negative health effect of plastics. Not this chemical... Kinda like this one.
Cooking in plastic containers [snopes.com]

Junk food? (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25027627)

It's time to play the what-is-the-causation game again. Most obvious to me is that junk food, prepared food (microwave meals etc.), and soft drinks are sold in plastic containers, and these foodstuffs are generally associated with heart disease and diabetes one way or another. It'll be interesting to see what the more rigorous studies find, although I'm sure this fine pilot study will be presented as Unarguable Proof That Plastic Makes You Die And We're Not Changing Our Minds On This by the world media before the day is out.

Re:Junk food? (1)

Dmala (752610) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029225)

It'll be interesting to see what the more rigorous studies find, although I'm sure this fine pilot study will be presented as Unarguable Proof That Plastic Makes You Die And We're Not Changing Our Minds On This by the world media before the day is out.

While I agree there is no reason to panic, it seems to me that we go about this sort of thing a little backwards. A study shows a correlation between a particular chemical and certain diseases. Scientists quickly state that further study will be needed to determine causation. In the meantime, industry continues to produce and use millions of tons of the chemical, until such time as ironclad proof that the chemical is dangerous can be presented. Even then, regulatory agencies usually have to get involved before the substance is banned.

Wouldn't it make more sense to slowly phase out the use of a questionable chemical as soon as possible? If it turns out that the correlation was bogus, you can always go back to using it. If the evidence ends up showing that it *is* harmful, there's nothing to be done because you've already phased it out. And, in the meantime, you've reduced the exposure of thousands of people (or more) to it. It seems like the PR benefits alone would offset the costs of changing the manufacturing process.

Its inside (2, Interesting)

randomErr (172078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028243)

Maybe its not the plastic, but rather the junk food inside the plastic?

Bad Snopes, Bad (4, Insightful)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028341)

"some of which have been debunked"

Snopes is good at debunking (urban) myths. They are not, however, good at evaluating science. Debunking is not even an appropriate term or activity to apply to science (as stated by the poster, and as performed by Snopes). Their FAQ lists other forms of common fiction which are not urban myth, but fail to list badly researched statements by or about science among them.

Snopes reports the "debunking" coming from the International Bottled Water Association. Nobody conversant with science would accept a statement from such as biased source as authoritative. Their major hint should have come from the statement that the master's thesis was "not peer reviewed". A thesis is conducted by a student under a committee of professionals, at least one of which (the thesis supervisor) is an expert in that field. Peer review is conducted by the committee. A thesis is intended to be material suitable for rewriting into a publishable paper. It will have the committee members' names on it, in reference if not in the by-line. As professionals they will at least see to it that the result is worthy of carrying their names.

As for the quote in Snopes supposedly from Rolf Halden of Johns Hopkins that there are no dioxins in plastic, do your own research, as Snopes should have done to follow up, and as the Johns Hopkins people should have done before making the statement. Go to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez [nih.gov] and put in the search terms "plastic" and "dioxin".

Snopes should also have done their research on the link they provide to the Johns Hopkins PR release (not a scientific publication of any sort, and certainly not peer reviewed) making the "hoax" claim. It is not from Halden, it is from Kellog Schwab. In addition to misattribution, they fail to note that the statement is made in the context of J.H. distancing themselves from misattribution in the emails titled "John Hopkins Cancer Update" and such, not in the context of research conducted or reviewed. There is a similar J.H. missive listed among the 150 results from PubMed. It is in a J.H. publication (peer review?) and has no authors credited.

Snopes appears to have found a way to become a subject of their own scrutiny, as they have delved into science and come up as debunkable urban science myth. Stick to urban mythology, Sponesites. Science can and does take care of itself, if you dig for it in science rather than press releases. Evaluating science requires taking the specific hypothetical statements and applying scientific expertise, not merely quoting vested interests (!) who happen to disagree for reasons other than replicable evidence.

Re:Bad Snopes, Bad (2, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029043)

Snopes is good at debunking (urban) myths.

Not really. They suck at accepting corrections. For example, there's an article on whether Marilyn Monroe had six toes [snopes.com] . Now, I have no reason to believe that they reached the wrong conclusion, but I know for a fact that at least one of their reasons is fundamentally wrong:

  • There is no record of Marilyn's having had an operation at that point in her life, and no contemporary references to anyone's noticing her walking with a bandaged foot or a limp for a period of time. (One doesn't simply get up and start trotting around after having a toe removed -- the missing digit affects one's balance, and it takes some time to adjust to the change and "relearn" how to walk.)

My wife is a podiatrist, and I asked her if that was correct. She said that no, it's an urban legend of its own, and that it takes little adjustment after a toe amputation once the surgical wound is healed. Even removal of the big toe is a relatively minor deal (try walking with it lifted off the ground sometime and see if it makes a difference), let alone a vestigial extra pinky toe hanging off the side.

I wrote to Snopes with that information from an expert source, and they wrote back that I was a dumbass for believing that Marilyn had six toes. I don't! I just didn't think they should be using invalid facts to "prove" their case, even if I agree with their conclusion.

Snopes is fine for entertainment value, but wholly worthless as an authoritative information source.

And ??? (1)

mordred99 (895063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028357)

Well Duh .. I mean when you store nothing but friend fish and chips in there, with a little more grease for good "measure", and you eat that for two years every day .. don't you think you are going to get heart disease? I mean have you not seen "supersize me?" :)

Re:And ??? (1)

mordred99 (895063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028371)

friend fish = fried fish fixed

Re:And ??? (1)

arb phd slp (1144717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028823)

Fish are friends, not food.

Re:And ??? (1)

mordred99 (895063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028911)

Only if your name is Bruce .. and I really don't want to meet you in a dark alley.

Re:And ??? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029047)

Please excuse me if you were being sarcastic.

Supersize Me was fixed. It was a joke. The guy that made that movie has publicly said that if he is making a show, he gets to spin things to look the way he wants. Just within the movie, they claim that eating McDonalds every day for a month was causing his liver to fail. Anyone who's liver fails from a month of McDonalds was seriously ill before the experiment ever started. So, either the guy was seriously ill before he ate at McDonalds and tried to blame the pre-existing condition on McDonalds, OR he was just lying. Supersize me is not a documentory, it is a work of fiction.

Use Glass (4, Insightful)

llZENll (545605) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028411)

There is a reason all chemistry beakers, bottles, and flasks are made from glass, its the only cheap inert material that doesn't on some level mix with what you are containing. Metal and plastic eventually leech out.

Rather than going overboard with the results I would follow some common sense guidelines:
1) If you are a baby or preggers then use glass containers.
2) Use glass containers for heating things in the microwave or for long term liquid storage.

Given that the vast majority of everything we drink and eat these days is either stored in plastic or touches plastic at some point I think its almost impossible to go plastic free, and I doubt it matters much.

Science also says it doesn't enter the bloodstream (2, Informative)

insanechemist (323218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028591)

A Chemical Research in Toxicology article here [acs.org] stated that rats and humans handle bisphenol A in very different ways so I'd be careful drawing lines between rat and human results.

"Enterohepatic circulation of bisphenol A glucuronide in rats results in a slow rate of excretion, whereas bisphenol A is rapidly conjugated and excreted by humans due to the absence of enterohepatic circulation. The efficient glucuronidation of bisphenol A and the rapid excretion of the formed glucuronide result in a low body burden of the estrogenic bisphenol A in humans following oral absorption of low doses."

The article actually says humans basically excreet all of the material resulting in extremely low (near undetectable) levels of biphenol A or its metabolite. They fed humans 5mg of isotopicaly labeled bisphenol A and studied what the body does with it - there is no way any plastic bottle or cup is gonna deliver 5mg of bisphenol A to you via drinking or eating its contents. Bisphenol a is an anti-oxidant used in ppm levels in the plastic to keep it from yellowing over time. So IMHO the jury is still out - BUT my kids use BPA free plastics :) With kids why take the chance?

Re:Science also says it doesn't enter the bloodstr (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029231)

Sorry, but Bisphenol A is NOT a ppm level anti-oxidant - it's the main chemical building block in both epoxy-resins and polycarbonates. The problem is that no polymerization reaction proceeds to 100%, so you will always have unbound BPA in any "plastic" of these types. And yes, IAAPC
In regards to the article, it states that 90% of the population showed BPA in their bodies, and that the top 25% BPA correlated with increased disease. Since the BPA accumulates in fat tissue, this might also correlate with "the fattest 25% of the population have an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes". What no one will dispute.

Next time, buy cans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25028807)

No plastic bottles for me. Aluminum cans for all my (non-caloric) soda sipping.

Obligatory Bioshock reference (2, Funny)

msormune (808119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25028987)

Damn those plasmids.

Not Dishwasher Safe (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029079)

Why would you ever think that plastic, something completely made of chemicals, would be good for you? Especially when heated, which only releases more chemicals into your food. We all know we ignore the warning labels: not microwaveable, not dishwasher safe etc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...