Anyone know anything about this next hazard , wrt electronics
handling, heating etc, where exactly is it found ?

Firstly the "bis" of bisphenol - is it pronounced as
the "bis" in bistable or "bis" in biscuit ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...lth.foodsafety

Packaging chemical linked to greater risk of diseases
Some of the products which might contain bisphenol A include:

· Hard clear plastic - and sometimes tinted - water bottles.

· Hard clear plastic baby feeding bottles.

· Hard plastic baby toys.

· Food storage containers, plastic bowls and tableware.

· Cans of baked beans, soup, vegetables, fizzy drinks, etc.

· Dental sealant to prevent cavities.

· Electronic equipment.

· Spray-on flame retardants.



· Calls for 'aggressive action' to limit use of bisphenol A
· Further research needed to confirm findings

* Sarah Boseley, health editor
* The Guardian,
* Wednesday September 17 2008

Tougher restrictions on the use of a chemical used to line food and drink
cans and found in baby bottles and other plastic containers will be demanded
today, following publication of research linking it to increased risk of
heart disease, diabetes and liver abnormalities in adults.

Environmental campaigners have long worried over the ubiquitous presence of
bisphenol A, which 90% of people have at low levels in their bodies.
Evidence from animal studies shows it is an endocrine disrupter, which can
mimic the naturally occurring hormone oestrogen. Critics say it could
potentially interfere with the development of a foetus.

Until now, there has been more speculation than evidence about its effects
on humans. Today, however, research by scientists at Exeter University,
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama), finds
that adults with higher levels of bisphenol A in their bodies have higher
rates of certain diseases.

The study will step up pressure on regulatory bodies to control use of the
chemical. Two leading US scientists are calling in the same issue of Jama
for "aggressive action" to limit human exposure, and accuse drug regulators
in the US and Europe of turning a blind eye to warning signs in animal
studies. The results of the trial will today be put before a committee of
the US regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is
considering what action, if any, needs to be taken.
Scientist Iain Lang says problems arise from long-term exposure to chemical
used in drinks cans Link to this audio

The research was based on data from the US, collected from the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-04, which included 1,455
adults over 18 and under 74. The concentration of bisphenol A in the body
was measured through a urine sample.

The scientists found that people with cardiovascular disease and diabetes
had higher concentrations of bisphenol A in their urine, even when age and
sex was taken into consideration. Those with the highest concentrations of
the chemical in their bodies had nearly three times the likelihood of heart
disease of those with the least bisphenol A in their urine, and 2.4 times
the diabetes risk. People with high levels of the chemical also had a higher
chance of abnormal levels of three liver enzymes.

The scientists say their study shows a relationship, but does not prove that
bisphenol A (BPA) is responsible for the higher disease levels. They are
calling for more studies to be done to confirm what they have found.

Iain Lang, of the epidemiology and public health group of Exeter's Peninsula
medical school, said the study was not a reason for people to stop buying
canned food or plastic bottles. "I'm not changing my behaviour on the basis
of this single study," he said.

Unhealthy habits, such as eating the wrong foods, smoking, drinking to
excess and lack of exercise were the main causes of heart disease, he said.
However, regulators will want to reassure themselves that there is no
problem and the FDA and European regulators will be under pressure to act.
In an editorial in the journal, Frederick vom Saal, from the University of
Missouri, Columbia, and John Peterson Myers of Environmental Health
Sciences, Charlottesville, Virginia, say the regulators should "follow the
recent action taken by Canadian regulatory agencies, which have declared BPA
a 'toxic chemical' requiring aggressive action to limit human and
environmental exposures".

Until now, they say, the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority have
chosen to ignore warnings in spite of "overwhelming evidence of harm from
animal studies". A contributory factor may be "an aggressive disinformation
campaign using techniques first developed by the lead, vinyl and tobacco
industries to challenge the reliability of findings published by independent
scientists".

David Coggon, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the
University of Southampton, said if the findings were corroborated, there
would need to be more controls on exposure to the chemical. "If low-level
BPA were confirmed to cause disease, there would be a need to review
controls on sources of exposure to the chemical."

Professor Richard Sharpe, of the Medical Research Council human reproductive
sciences unit at Edinburgh University, said it was important to exclude
possible alternative causes of the raised heart disease and diabetes levels.

"If you drink lots of high-sugar canned drinks you will over time increase
your risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes ... incidentally you will
be exposed to more bisphenol A [from the can lining] ... it is obviously a
priority that we design studies to provide this information before we label
bisphenol A as the prime suspect," he said.
At a glance

Bisphenol A is mainly used to make a clear plastic polycarbonate which will
withstand high temperatures, and epoxy resins to line the insides of tin and
aluminium cans to prevent corrosion from the food and drinks they contain.



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"N Cook" wrote in message
...
Anyone know anything about this next hazard , wrt electronics
handling, heating etc, where exactly is it found ?

Firstly the "bis" of bisphenol - is it pronounced as
the "bis" in bistable or "bis" in biscuit ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...lth.foodsafety

Packaging chemical linked to greater risk of diseases
Some of the products which might contain bisphenol A include:

· Hard clear plastic - and sometimes tinted - water bottles.

· Hard clear plastic baby feeding bottles.

· Hard plastic baby toys.

· Food storage containers, plastic bowls and tableware.

· Cans of baked beans, soup, vegetables, fizzy drinks, etc.

· Dental sealant to prevent cavities.

· Electronic equipment.

· Spray-on flame retardants.



· Calls for 'aggressive action' to limit use of bisphenol A
· Further research needed to confirm findings

* Sarah Boseley, health editor
* The Guardian,
* Wednesday September 17 2008

Tougher restrictions on the use of a chemical used to line food and drink
cans and found in baby bottles and other plastic containers will be
demanded
today, following publication of research linking it to increased risk of
heart disease, diabetes and liver abnormalities in adults.

Environmental campaigners have long worried over the ubiquitous presence
of
bisphenol A, which 90% of people have at low levels in their bodies.
Evidence from animal studies shows it is an endocrine disrupter, which can
mimic the naturally occurring hormone oestrogen. Critics say it could
potentially interfere with the development of a foetus.

Until now, there has been more speculation than evidence about its effects
on humans. Today, however, research by scientists at Exeter University,
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Jama), finds
that adults with higher levels of bisphenol A in their bodies have higher
rates of certain diseases.

The study will step up pressure on regulatory bodies to control use of the
chemical. Two leading US scientists are calling in the same issue of Jama
for "aggressive action" to limit human exposure, and accuse drug
regulators
in the US and Europe of turning a blind eye to warning signs in animal
studies. The results of the trial will today be put before a committee of
the US regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is
considering what action, if any, needs to be taken.
Scientist Iain Lang says problems arise from long-term exposure to
chemical
used in drinks cans Link to this audio

The research was based on data from the US, collected from the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-04, which included 1,455
adults over 18 and under 74. The concentration of bisphenol A in the body
was measured through a urine sample.

The scientists found that people with cardiovascular disease and diabetes
had higher concentrations of bisphenol A in their urine, even when age and
sex was taken into consideration. Those with the highest concentrations of
the chemical in their bodies had nearly three times the likelihood of
heart
disease of those with the least bisphenol A in their urine, and 2.4 times
the diabetes risk. People with high levels of the chemical also had a
higher
chance of abnormal levels of three liver enzymes.

The scientists say their study shows a relationship, but does not prove
that
bisphenol A (BPA) is responsible for the higher disease levels. They are
calling for more studies to be done to confirm what they have found.

Iain Lang, of the epidemiology and public health group of Exeter's
Peninsula
medical school, said the study was not a reason for people to stop buying
canned food or plastic bottles. "I'm not changing my behaviour on the
basis
of this single study," he said.

Unhealthy habits, such as eating the wrong foods, smoking, drinking to
excess and lack of exercise were the main causes of heart disease, he
said.
However, regulators will want to reassure themselves that there is no
problem and the FDA and European regulators will be under pressure to act.
In an editorial in the journal, Frederick vom Saal, from the University of
Missouri, Columbia, and John Peterson Myers of Environmental Health
Sciences, Charlottesville, Virginia, say the regulators should "follow the
recent action taken by Canadian regulatory agencies, which have declared
BPA
a 'toxic chemical' requiring aggressive action to limit human and
environmental exposures".

Until now, they say, the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority have
chosen to ignore warnings in spite of "overwhelming evidence of harm from
animal studies". A contributory factor may be "an aggressive
disinformation
campaign using techniques first developed by the lead, vinyl and tobacco
industries to challenge the reliability of findings published by
independent
scientists".

David Coggon, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the
University of Southampton, said if the findings were corroborated, there
would need to be more controls on exposure to the chemical. "If low-level
BPA were confirmed to cause disease, there would be a need to review
controls on sources of exposure to the chemical."

Professor Richard Sharpe, of the Medical Research Council human
reproductive
sciences unit at Edinburgh University, said it was important to exclude
possible alternative causes of the raised heart disease and diabetes
levels.

"If you drink lots of high-sugar canned drinks you will over time increase
your risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes ... incidentally you
will
be exposed to more bisphenol A [from the can lining] ... it is obviously a
priority that we design studies to provide this information before we
label
bisphenol A as the prime suspect," he said.
At a glance

Bisphenol A is mainly used to make a clear plastic polycarbonate which
will
withstand high temperatures, and epoxy resins to line the insides of tin
and
aluminium cans to prevent corrosion from the food and drinks they contain.



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/




I'll tell you what - I am absolutely ****ed off with some new study every
week telling us that something which we have used or eaten without issue for
decades - if not centuries - is now considered "dangerous" or a "threat to
health".

Not so long back, we all ate butter and cooked with lard. We used to eat
bread and dripping on doorsteps of white bread. We poured salt on our food
like it was going out of fashion, and we put four spoons of sugar in our mug
of tea. Bread and jars of jam and everything else used to last for weeks
because they had preservatives in them. And we were all a lot fitter than we
are now.

Apart from the sugar, my dear old mum at 86 still does all of these things,
and is fit enough to catch a bus into town every day come wind rain and
shine, to do her shopping. All of the half-educated nerds with post grad
degrees being paid tax-payer's money to come up with this ill-informed
statistical manipulation crap, need to get out more and get a life, instead
of wasting my money to tell me that some new chemical or drug or aspect of
my lifestyle, is gonna kill me a few hours sooner than if I lived like a
hermit surviving on rice tea and unrefined wheat biscuits baked with pure
mountain spring water.

I really wouldn't worry about this stuff being in electronics, still less
how to pronounce it. It's hard enough struggling a living out of this
business, and figuring out whether to buy petrol, gas or electricity this
week as it is, without worrying about the latest safety fad. Just look what
the 'worries' about lead in solder have done for us all ...

Arfa

I'll tell you what - I am absolutely ****ed off with some new study every
week telling us that something which we have used or eaten without issue
for
decades - if not centuries - is now considered "dangerous" or a "threat to
health".

Not so long back, we all ate butter and cooked with lard. We used to eat
bread and dripping on doorsteps of white bread. We poured salt on our food
like it was going out of fashion, and we put four spoons of sugar in our
mug
of tea. Bread and jars of jam and everything else used to last for weeks
because they had preservatives in them. And we were all a lot fitter than
we
are now.

Apart from the sugar, my dear old mum at 86 still does all of these
things,
and is fit enough to catch a bus into town every day come wind rain and
shine, to do her shopping. All of the half-educated nerds with post grad
degrees being paid tax-payer's money to come up with this ill-informed
statistical manipulation crap, need to get out more and get a life,
instead
of wasting my money to tell me that some new chemical or drug or aspect of
my lifestyle, is gonna kill me a few hours sooner than if I lived like a
hermit surviving on rice tea and unrefined wheat biscuits baked with pure
mountain spring water.

I really wouldn't worry about this stuff being in electronics, still less
how to pronounce it. It's hard enough struggling a living out of this
business, and figuring out whether to buy petrol, gas or electricity this
week as it is, without worrying about the latest safety fad. Just look
what
the 'worries' about lead in solder have done for us all ...

Arfa



so pronounced bhaaaahsphenol

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

On 2008-09-18, N Cook wrote:
Anyone know anything about this next hazard , wrt electronics
handling, heating etc, where exactly is it found ?

Firstly the "bis" of bisphenol - is it pronounced as
the "bis" in bistable or "bis" in biscuit ?

bis-phen-ol

Io answer your (other) first question it's a plasticiser it's found in
thermo-softening plastic parts in trace amounts, the insulation on wiring,
relay cases, enclosures, plugs, membranes, packing materials, that sort of
stuff.

Bye.
Jasen

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:14:20 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

Not so long back, we all ate butter and cooked with lard. We used to eat
bread and dripping on doorsteps of white bread. We poured salt on our food
like it was going out of fashion, and we put four spoons of sugar in our mug
of tea. Bread and jars of jam and everything else used to last for weeks
because they had preservatives in them. And we were all a lot fitter than we
are now.

And, if you wish to be complete, the average life expectancy in 1900 was
around 49 years.

We have a lot of people in this community that _continue_ to eat as you
describe, and the obit columns list their dates of birth in the 1960's
and 1950's.

I agree there is more hysteria than reason in all this.

Jonesy

In article , If you must, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:14:20 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

Not so long back, we all ate butter and cooked with lard. We used to eat
bread and dripping on doorsteps of white bread. We poured salt on our food
like it was going out of fashion, and we put four spoons of sugar in our mug
of tea. Bread and jars of jam and everything else used to last for weeks
because they had preservatives in them. And we were all a lot fitter than we
are now.

Butter is a very good natural food. If you eat those hydrogenated products, they are not
natural and do as much harm. I never like too much salt. Never liked sugar in tea or
coffee. My jellys last a long time. I really like hot pepper. Talk about cholesterol, thats
mostly hereditary.

New medical procedures, that whats improving life spanat at humongous costs. Its
going to get a LOT worse.


greg


And, if you wish to be complete, the average life expectancy in 1900 was
around 49 years.

We have a lot of people in this community that _continue_ to eat as you
describe, and the obit columns list their dates of birth in the 1960's
and 1950's.

I agree there is more hysteria than reason in all this.

Jonesy

In article ,
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
And, if you wish to be complete, the average life expectancy in 1900 was
around 49 years.

Very different if you take away death in very early years due to childhood
illnesses, etc. And is that figure just for natural deaths?

--
*The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
And, if you wish to be complete, the average life expectancy in 1900 was
around 49 years.

Very different if you take away death in very early years due to childhood
illnesses, etc. And is that figure just for natural deaths?

That's an interesting question. I wonder if the life expectancy figures
accounted for childhood death, or if they only include those who survive
into adulthood. My paternal grandfather's family tree consisted of nine
individuals, two of whom died before one year of age (at the turn of the
19th century). Most if the other seven lived into fairly old age,
although a couple died in their middle years. I wonder how that would
affect 'official' estimates of average life expectancy...if applied only
to that generation of my family.

jak

In article ,
jakdedert wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
And, if you wish to be complete, the average life expectancy in 1900 was
around 49 years.

Very different if you take away death in very early years due to
childhood illnesses, etc. And is that figure just for natural deaths?

That's an interesting question. I wonder if the life expectancy figures
accounted for childhood death, or if they only include those who
survive into adulthood. My paternal grandfather's family tree
consisted of nine individuals, two of whom died before one year of age
(at the turn of the 19th century). Most if the other seven lived into
fairly old age, although a couple died in their middle years. I wonder
how that would affect 'official' estimates of average life
expectancy...if applied only to that generation of my family.

Roughly the same with my family in a different part of the world - if you
survived childhood you'd have a life expectancy not so different to today.
The biggest improvment in life expectancy came from better sanitation -
and that was in place by the 1900. And smoking cigarettes wasn't the norm
then - that came a few years later.

--
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18 Sep 2008 13:25:07 GMT, Allodoxaphobia
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:14:20 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

Not so long back, we all ate butter and cooked with lard. We used to eat
bread and dripping on doorsteps of white bread. We poured salt on our food
like it was going out of fashion, and we put four spoons of sugar in our mug
of tea. Bread and jars of jam and everything else used to last for weeks
because they had preservatives in them. And we were all a lot fitter than we
are now.

And, if you wish to be complete, the average life expectancy in 1900 was
around 49 years.

We have a lot of people in this community that _continue_ to eat as you
describe, and the obit columns list their dates of birth in the 1960's
and 1950's.

I agree there is more hysteria than reason in all this.

Jonesy

What I find amazing is all the 'Christian Science' followers... They
die at the same 1900's rates, and yet they seem so mathematically
challenged that they can't figure out what the reason is!

Had a good friend who was a Christian Scientist... His wife too. He
died at 47 (heart attack, prayed for a cure up to about ten minutes
before he died.) His widow died at about 53 or so. I think it was
cancer, but never found out for sure. Same thing, tried the same fix
that didn't work for her husband... Didn't work for her either!

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
And, if you wish to be complete, the average life expectancy in 1900 was
around 49 years.

Very different if you take away death in very early years due to childhood
illnesses, etc. And is that figure just for natural deaths?

--
*The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.



Now this touches on the problem of using the imprecise word "average.
There are three distributions that are called verages: Mean, median and
mode.
And then therr is skewness.
Statistics 101.

There are liars, damned liars and stasticians said ????.


Charlie

Jasen Betts wrote in message news:gatfe8$sus$1@gonzo...
On 2008-09-18, N Cook wrote:
Anyone know anything about this next hazard , wrt electronics
handling, heating etc, where exactly is it found ?

Firstly the "bis" of bisphenol - is it pronounced as
the "bis" in bistable or "bis" in biscuit ?

bis-phen-ol

Io answer your (other) first question it's a plasticiser it's found in
thermo-softening plastic parts in trace amounts, the insulation on wiring,
relay cases, enclosures, plugs, membranes, packing materials, that sort of
stuff.

Bye.
Jasen

So unless you're into chewing on cables or salvaging copper wire by burning
off the insulation then probably nothing to be concerned about in
"electronics"

More generally its very noticeable to me that , in comparison to when I were
a kid, all around the world these days, you see water bottles hanging off
the mouths of kids. Is this due to "brain gym" ******** teaching in schools
? - I happen to know one such teacher. Or is there an addictive element to
something emenating from plastics ? phthaletes/bisphenols? . I know of an
industrial chemist concerned about phthalates and human contact, I'll ask
him about bisphenol.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

"N_Cook" wrote in message
...
Jasen Betts wrote in message news:gatfe8$sus$1@gonzo...
On 2008-09-18, N Cook wrote:
Anyone know anything about this next hazard , wrt electronics
handling, heating etc, where exactly is it found ?

Firstly the "bis" of bisphenol - is it pronounced as
the "bis" in bistable or "bis" in biscuit ?

bis-phen-ol

Io answer your (other) first question it's a plasticiser it's found in
thermo-softening plastic parts in trace amounts, the insulation on
wiring,
relay cases, enclosures, plugs, membranes, packing materials, that sort
of
stuff.

Bye.
Jasen

So unless you're into chewing on cables or salvaging copper wire by
burning
off the insulation then probably nothing to be concerned about in
"electronics"

More generally its very noticeable to me that , in comparison to when I
were
a kid, all around the world these days, you see water bottles hanging off
the mouths of kids. Is this due to "brain gym" ******** teaching in
schools
? - I happen to know one such teacher. Or is there an addictive element to
something emenating from plastics ? phthaletes/bisphenols? . I know of an
industrial chemist concerned about phthalates and human contact, I'll ask
him about bisphenol.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/




Better yet, see if you can find a bunch of post-grads looking for a science
project ! I'm sure that they could get a government grant of my money for
millions to research the tenuous connections between kids and water bottle
contents addiction. Then, in 5 years' time, I'm sure that the Guardian and
the Sun would be happy to run a story on their 'findings' ... d;~}

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
Better yet, see if you can find a bunch of post-grads looking for a science
project ! I'm sure that they could get a government grant of my money for
millions to research the tenuous connections between kids and water bottle
contents addiction. Then, in 5 years' time, I'm sure that the Guardian and
the Sun would be happy to run a story on their 'findings' ... d;~}

No, you have it wrong. If they were to do a study, in five years no one
would pay attention. If they were to apply for a grant to study the
effect of Bisphenol A upon global warming, they would be flooded with
money and press coverage.

As long as their results are positive, i.e. it does/may cause global warming,
the press would be constantly following them and people would be throwing
money at them.

If on the other hand, they were to make the mistake of even hinting that
there is no link, they would find themsevles back asking people if they
wanted fries with their burgers.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Jasen Betts wrote:

bis-phen-ol

.... it's a plasticiser it's found in
thermo-softening plastic parts in trace amounts, the insulation on wiring,
relay cases, enclosures, plugs, membranes, packing materials,

Polycarbonate plastic is made by reacting bis-phen-ole with phosgene.
Thus bisphenole differs from a plasticizer, because bisphenole is
chemically bound, whereas a plasticizer is only mixed in.

You would definitely not say that eg your CRTs casing has any
properties of phogene. Neither does it have those of bisphenole.
Like your tissue contains amino acids, but you would not be expected
to smell of amonia.

One possibility to come into contact with bisphenole as end user would
be to thermally or otherwise decompose the material in question.
Another would exist if the manufacturer did not let the polycarbonate
forming reaction come to completion, thus leaving unreacted monomer in
the stuff, which would diffuse out over time (just like plasticizer).

Bisphenole is suspected to be a detrimental agent in the environment
since long years. A sound proof has not come to my knowledge yet.
But we will certainly be wise to handle all chemicals with caution
which nature wouldn't know how to handle itself.

Regards,
H.

I am of the view that there is no such things as a harzardous substance.
Substances are hazardous or not in terms of how they are used.

With respect to BPA... If there is any credible evidence that this substance
isn't safe for human consumption (and there is), then it should be removed
from that those come in contact with food. Period. No arguing. On the other
hand, simply touching surfaces containing it doesn't seem to be harmful,
because it (probably) doesn't pass through the skin, and how often do people
lick their hands after touching plastic items?

A good example of a largely unjustified warning is the little tag stating
that "California has determined this product contains a substance..." etc on
many items. I first saw this on the cable attaching the remote control to my
Sony Discman. Turns out the cable jacket contains lead acetate (I think
that's the substance) used as a plasticizer. Now, lead and lead compounds
are poisonous, and you certainly don't want to be getting them in your
system. But an adult's contact with this cable is rare and brief -- and (as
before), people generally don't lick their hands afterwards. On the other
hand, children do put toys in their mouths.

So I don't fully agree with Arfa on this. Government has an obligation to
keep hazardous materials away from people -- but there has to be some common
sense about it. It's easier to write a blanket ban when it's not absolutely
necessary.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Better yet, see if you can find a bunch of post-grads looking for a
science
project ! I'm sure that they could get a government grant of my money for
millions to research the tenuous connections between kids and water
bottle
contents addiction. Then, in 5 years' time, I'm sure that the Guardian
and
the Sun would be happy to run a story on their 'findings' ... d;~}

No, you have it wrong. If they were to do a study, in five years no one
would pay attention. If they were to apply for a grant to study the
effect of Bisphenol A upon global warming, they would be flooded with
money and press coverage.

As long as their results are positive, i.e. it does/may cause global
warming,
the press would be constantly following them and people would be throwing
money at them.

If on the other hand, they were to make the mistake of even hinting that
there is no link, they would find themsevles back asking people if they
wanted fries with their burgers.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM


My friend, you are indeed a cynic truly after my own heart ... :-)

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
I am of the view that there is no such things as a harzardous substance.
Substances are hazardous or not in terms of how they are used.

With respect to BPA... If there is any credible evidence that this
substance
isn't safe for human consumption (and there is), then it should be removed
from that those come in contact with food. Period. No arguing. On the
other
hand, simply touching surfaces containing it doesn't seem to be harmful,
because it (probably) doesn't pass through the skin, and how often do
people
lick their hands after touching plastic items?

A good example of a largely unjustified warning is the little tag stating
that "California has determined this product contains a substance..." etc
on
many items. I first saw this on the cable attaching the remote control to
my
Sony Discman. Turns out the cable jacket contains lead acetate (I think
that's the substance) used as a plasticizer. Now, lead and lead compounds
are poisonous, and you certainly don't want to be getting them in your
system. But an adult's contact with this cable is rare and brief -- and
(as
before), people generally don't lick their hands afterwards. On the other
hand, children do put toys in their mouths.

So I don't fully agree with Arfa on this. Government has an obligation to
keep hazardous materials away from people -- but there has to be some
common
sense about it. It's easier to write a blanket ban when it's not
absolutely
necessary.



Unfortunately for us William, we in the UK are now 'ruled' by a huge
bureacratic machine called the European Union. It is full of committees
having oodles of my cash thrown at them to research everything from the
harmful effects of Guinness bubbles going up your nose, to contracting
breast cancer from listening to too much night-time radio. And then
legislating on it in a way that bypasses my own country's government such
that a law banning use of whatever they have today decided is "harmful",
just gets 'nodded through' onto the statute books. I don't have a problem
with a government having a responsibility of protection to the populace it
governs, but honestly, some of the crap we get foisted on us now in the name
of environmental / personal safety, is nonsense bordering on the ludicrous.

From what I have seen of the situation in the U.S. on my visits, we have it
ten times worse here. Every single day you can read in one newspaper or
another, how something that we have used or consumed without problem for
decades, is suddenly more dangerous to your health than stepping off a
platform into the path of a train. It is this constant and relentless advise
to stop doing this or eating or drinking that if you want to avoid dying
horribly or contracting cancer, and the incessant glee with which the daily
rags and news broadcasters run these half-baked stories, which is totally
doing my crust in. The real shame of it is that the standard of education in
this country has now dropped to such a sadly low level, that people will
believe without question, any rubbish told to them through newspapers (those
who can actually read, that is) or on the TV, for those who can't.

Arfa

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
I don't have a problem with a government having a responsibility of
protection to the populace it governs, but honestly, some of the crap
we get foisted on us now in the name of environmental / personal
safety, is nonsense bordering on the ludicrous.

Can you name some of it which is fact rather than press speculation? The
press are great at horror stories about what is 'proposed', but the vast
majority of that is either just plain lies or taken out of context.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.