![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have merged the Bisphenol-A page into this page. 192.203.205.129 22:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Its CAS#80-05-7 , EC{EINECS}#201-245-8 , RTK Substance#2388 , RTECS#SL6300000
ACX#X1002023-2
European Chemical Name: 4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol
This page appears to contain an error. This statement seems to be contradictory:
Bisphenol A is known to be an estrogen receptor agonist which can activate estrogen receptors leading to similar physiological effects as the body's own estrogens.[3]
However, wouldn't the latter half of the phrase imply this substance is a phytoestrogen rather than an estrogen receptor itself? Funsocaltiger 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Dose (ppb) | Effects (measured in studies of laboratory animals) | Study Year [1] |
---|---|---|
0.025 | Permanent changes to genital tract | 2005 |
0.025 | Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens | 2005 |
1.5 | Low levels of human exposure from diet | 2003 |
2 | 30% increase in prostate weight | 1997 |
2.4 | Signs of early puberty | 2002 |
2.4 | Decline in testicular testosterone | 2004 |
2.5 | Breast cells predisposed to cancer | 2006 |
10 | Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer | 2006 |
10 | Insulin resistance | 2006 |
10 | Decreased maternal behavior | 2002 |
13 | High levels of human exposure from diet | 2003 |
20 | Damage to eggs and chromosomes | 2003 |
25 | Health Canada provisional human exposure limit | 1999 |
30 | Hyperactivity | 2004 |
30 | Reversal of normal sex difference in brain structure | 2001 |
50 | U.S. human exposure limit | 1998 |
This table is sourced to a globe and mail article not available for free. The table is also misleading. I know for a fact that the first two entries each refer to a single study that looked at mice and did reported dosages in micrograms BPA/kg body mass/day,not ppb. I have removed the table and recommend a discussion of the research rather than an oversimplification of the research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.75.205.209 ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the table back in, with a citation back to a "free source", although scientific journal articles upon which much of the Wikipedia articles rely are usually not free either. The source, the Environmental Working Group's report on Bisphenol A in cans, also refers back to the original articles on which the doses themselves are based. I believe the notation, ppb, refers to μg/kg body mass/day (as is indicated in the text itself), is non-standard though it does appear elsewhere (see for example [1]), and has been changed. It seems the previous author (who chose not to sign their statement) was also complaining about the use of mice versus rats. It has been pointed out by vom Saal et al (see [2]) that at least some strains of rats are insensitive to any type of exogenous estrogen, hence, the use of other species. Lastly, the comment that "I know for a fact" does not hold much weight on such a public forum where one has no evidence of the author's credentials. However, at least according to the EWG table, the doses and effects are derived from two separate studies, both of which were included in the recent the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction interim draft expert panel report [3] Kristan 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I must say that this table is indeed quite alarming, and possibly misleading. If a dosage of 0.025 ug/kg/day (so 2 ug per adult per day) already leads to "permanent changes in genital tract", why is this not confirmed? The comments of the The National Toxicology Program (NTP)’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR)may be less alarming and closer to the facts. Sikkema 13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about whether the numbers in this table actually reflect the research. If you go to the reference it names the original papers... which seem to disagree with the numbers given in the table. For example, a Kubo 2001 paper says "We administered BPA only to mother rats during pregnancy and lactation at a dosage of approximately 1.5 mg/kg per day far less than the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL; 50 mg/kg per day)...". So the dose at which these brain effects occur is 1500 ug/kg/day, while the table specifies says it's 30 ug/kg/day. Note that the NOAEL level is meant to be 1000x the recommended "safe" level (50 micrograms/kg/day), so this isn't just a difference of notation. (Okay, so I've only looked at one article, and only at the abstract, but I think this warrants further investigation.) Arg ( talk) 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The table that was copied here was from a Globe and Mail article, but mostly drawn from an EWG report. As the author of the EWG table I want to clarify a couple of things. There was indeed a citation error. The study referenced for "Reversal of normal sex difference in brain structure" year 2003--should be 2001. I regret this, and fixed the error here and on EWG's website. All the studies cited are all summarized in 2 publicly available documents. NIH-sponsored CERHR's recent review of bisphenol A
[4] and a publication in Environmental Health Perspectives
[5]. I removed the line stating that 13 ug/kg-day for high-end exposures from diet, because this fact was not part of EWG's report.
I want to clarify the EPA's Human Exposure Limit for those not familiar with the RfD process. In the late 1980s EPA selected the most sensitive study (at that point) which found no effects at an exposure of 50 mg/kg per day. They then divided that ingestion level by 1000 to add a safety factor to address the fact that people may be more sensitive to the toxic effects of BPA than the animals studied, and to account for other uncertainties. Thus EPA believes that an individual should be able to ingest roughly 50 ug/kg-body weight per day with out any concern for toxic effects. The subsequent findings of toxicity at much exposure lower levels indicates that EPA's calculations must be updated. Sonyala —Preceding comment was added at 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The second column in the table is labeled "measured in studies of laboratory animals", yet includes rows that say "Health Canada provisional human exposure limit" and "U.S. human exposure limit". Were humans "laboratory animals" in these studies? If they were not, then they are not "measurements" at all, and suggest the removal from the table, the label can be changed, or the rows highlighted, any or all of which is accompanied by clear and unambiguous comment to the effect they are the result of some model, and affix the usual uncertainties from said modeling. (Indeed, given Kristan's comments, above, that you can pick and choose the species because "[...] at least some strains of rats are insensitive to any type of exogenous estrogen [...]", it leads me to wonder if this entire table is an NPOV violation at the source, without supporting evidence the un-identified lab animal in use in this table of data is equally or more sensitive than humans.) mdf ( talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Another user added the human exposure limits, but I will highlight them. I think they are useful because they underscore that adverse effects have been observed at lower levels than traditionally regarded as safe. Risk assessment typically uses the most sensitive test in the most sensitive species of animal, and then divides the amount ingested by a safety factor to assure that human exposures are well below those that cause harm in a laboratory.
This table is peer reviewed scientific studies, and government-derived safety levels, so is still NPOV in my opinion. Sonyala —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
66.225.145.140 ( talk) 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) - I don't really have a claim to stake in this article, but as an average reader I do find this table alarming, particularly because it is so one-sided. Of all the studies of Bisphenol A only a dozen or so were selected for inclusion in this table and ALL of the selected studies show a negative effect. This is a biased representation of a topic that is clearly still in debate. If ALL studies showed a negative health effect, then the product would be surely banned in most jurisdictions.
I agree that this table is biased and poorly referrenced, and should be removed. The Environmental Working Group is an advocacy group, not a reliable source of scientific data. Under NPOV, I believe that this should be removed. A section in the article for the politics of this chemical would be OK, but referrences to science should be left to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Pustelnik ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This table does not differentiate between exposure in utero and exposure as an adult. That is important information, since effects could be very different for each. Is it possible to add the corresponding information for each row? Xwordz ( talk) 16:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree this table is very misleading (if anyone is reading in this old section of the discussion page). Not only does it not differentiate between in utero and adult exposure, as noted above, but it doesn't differentiate between exposure routes; in particular, several of the referenced studies are based on subcutaneous injection (with results then compared to a US EPA reference dose for chronic ingestion). In general I also agree with a previous commenter that Environmental Working Group is not a reliable source of scientific data; they're an advocacy group with a history of biased study designs, and not really much better than the industry groups advocating the other side. Ashartus ( talk) 19:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If you edit the page, under the hazards section, I have added the hazards as determined by http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000000145.asp, but as a comment. Every time I tried to add them as a fact, my computer would wreck the template, this accounts for all my edits and undos. Could someone please add them as a fact, then reference them to the aforementioned site? Thank you.
This seems a sensitive subject, so rather than edit into the main article, the Expert Panel's findings are now public.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP)’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) was established in 1998. The NTP-CERHR’s principal activity is evaluating chemicals – either naturally occurring, as in the case of phytoestrogens found in soy products, or synthetic, as in the case of BPA.
The CERHR conducts its work though specially appointed independent Expert Panels made up of scientists representing a range of relevant disciplines. The Expert Panel works with NTP-CERHR staff over a period of several weeks, prepares a draft report, and reviews and edits that draft at a public meeting over the course of several days. In the case of BPA, the public editing and review extended over two three-day sessions several months apart.
The Expert Panel has published Draft Interim findings at CERHR website. The final report is due to be published in the Fall of 2007.
The draft conclusions of the Expert Panel are divided into various groups of interest. The following quotes from the Draft Interim Meeting Summary:
It is my understanding that the terminology around the word 'concern'is more or less standard for CERHR Expert Panels. -- Bob Herrick 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Bisphenol A is discussed on page 218 of The Merck Index, thirteenth edition, under number 1296. Regarding its manufacture from phenol and acetone, it says "Jansen, *US 2468982* (1949); /Faith, Keyes & Clark's Industrial Chemicals/, F. A. Lowenheim, M. K. Moran, Eds. (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 4th ed., 1975) pp 149-152. /Review: Chem. & Eng. News/ *41*, 35 (June 3, 1963); /ibid./ *51,* 5 (July 16, 1973)."
(This doesn't mean much to me, but might save somebody else a bit of effort.) D021317c 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Bisphenol A was discussed on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer" on October 30, 2007.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/health/july-dec07/bpa_10-30.html D021317c 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the note:
The independence of United States scientific panels from industry influence has been questioned however.[11]
It adds little and as the link no longer exists I'm removing it.
Regarding the note:
Furthermore, peer reviewed publications have appeared pointing out flaws within the chemical industry funded studies that report bisphenol A safety.
According to: http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/washington_obesity_mar12_07.htm Vom Saal's opinion itself is controversial. His opinion (while peer reviewed) is in the minority here and not part of a consensus. The article also mentions other papers reporting Bisphenol A safety that were not industry funded. As it stands, the wording is misleading and should be expanded to become more balanced or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.228.6 ( talk) 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
While there is indeed controversy about many aspects of BPA toxicity, it is inappropriate to use statements by PR firms, such as STATs to refute peer-reviewed publications. vom Saal's publication reporting systematic differences between industry-funded and academic studies was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a leading journal as measured by the impact factor.
A consensus statement about the potential adverse health effects of current human exposures grew out of an NIEHS-sponsored panel and is co-authored by 38 government and academic researchers, and in press at Reproductive Toxicology. [2].
While my position may not be NPOV as I work with Environment Working Group. The author of the above statement, "[vom Saal's] opinion (while peer reviewed) is in the minority here and not part of a consensus," should identify themselves by creating a wikipedia a log in and cite more reputable sources. ( Sonyala)
I agree, Sonyala. Will you list your qualifications on your user page? The Environmental Working Group can also be considered to be a PR organization, rather than a scientific one. Please tell me where "Environmental Health Perspectives" is rated as a "leading journal". Pustelnik ( talk) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a very interesting article and debate - the kind that adds to Wikipedia's good reputation IMHO. Kudos to all for watching the rigor and the debate. Three questions. 1) How can this be nominated to go from mid-level to high-level importance? I was just looking here because of a news article I had just seen about the chemical, and one can imagine this chemical will become a more important subject of scrutiny given the possible health risks. 2) How can this be nominated for a featured article? Much more important than some of the trivial topics that get selected for article-of-the-day. 3) I think the intro section, the initial paragraph, should say something about the chemical's significance to industry as well as to the possible health-risks. You don't get to that until long after the chemical analysis, and I think most readers would want to see in the lead some sense of the "notability" (to use a Wikipedian term) of the topic. Also, a guide as to how to tell which bottles contain bisphenol A would be useful, if there's for example, one of the recycling codes that it would refer to. Thanks! Bruxism ( talk) 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
What if any are the metabolites of this plastic in the human body, and how do bacteria (gut and the environment) metabolise it?
The content related to estrogen-like properties of bisphenol A would probably be more suitably relocated to Endocrine disruptor. We made a similar move with cyanide poisoning from cyanide. Left behind after the move are 2-3 sentences summarizing the nature of the controversy, so that readers are aware of the connection. The technology on bisphenol A is huge (many millions of kg are produced) so it is likely that this article will eventually become quite chemical. Comments or alternative ideas are welcome. Maybe there is a better place to move the content to allow the biomedical-legal aspects to fluorish. Again the cyanide poisoning article has been well received, judging from the level of attention it gets. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The quote in the following lines:
In January 2006, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment announced that polycarbonate baby bottles are safe, stating that published research is "difficult to interpret and [is] occasionally contradictory".[26]
should be replaced because on examination of the reference this quote is seen to be about the health effects of bisphenol A.
I suggest it is replaced with the following quote with the same reference "The BfR does not recognise any health risk for babies that are fed using baby bottles made of polycarbonate" Brentsalmon ( talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The following link is to a PhD thesis by Laura Vandenberg, a recognized expert on Bishphenol A. It has a great amount of information that could help improve this article Vandenberg: Human Exposure to Bishphenol A. I am also adding this to the external links. Enviropearson ( talk) 02:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the text:
methodology is an example of a " green chemical reaction" in the sense that the process
For the primary reason that if one is engaged in the production of the compound that is the subject of this actual Wiki article, one is hardly engaged in any sort of green chemistry! One is instead making a toxic compound that is leached out of plastics! To make the case that polycarbonate could be made from naturally obtained phenol and acetone does not even justify this, as natural ethanol can also be processed into ethylene capable of being used to make standard polyethylene plastic... which happens to not hydrolyze into toxins... Zaphraud ( talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Lots of wildly inaccurate material in this article, from the mischaracterization of scientific studies to the false statements about the meaning of recycling codes. See http://www.factsonplastic.com/today-show-bisphenol-release/ -- RDM2008 ( talk) 06:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
actually, the fact that i think the article is biased does justify the tag. i've pointed out several factual errors:
multiple editors have said there are problems with the article. according to WP:NPOVD, that means the tag remains. please return the tag. RDM2008 ( talk) 20:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Missing from the article is the NTP's relevant conclusions, http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/BPADraftBriefVF_04_14_08.pdf:
I am readding the tag, as no one has adequately defended its removal against the complaint made by two users on this talk page about the unbalanced nature of the article. RDM2008 ( talk) 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
More missing stuff:
blatant copyvio removed Nil Einne ( talk) 10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
One small point I'd like to mention is that Germany has certified BPA as non-harmful, yet the wikipedia page only mentions the countries that are proposing legislation against it. Seems very lop-sided to me. Check out Germany's Federal Institute For Risk Assessment (BfR) Joins FDA, Others, In Affirming Safety Of Bisphenol A Could we balance the BPA bashing with this? -- Angryapathy ( talk) 17:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"EFSA has issued a statement regarding the conclusions of a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The European Commission asked EFSA to rapidly assess the relevance of this study and its implications for hazard and risk assessment of Bisphenol A. Read more in our key topic section." The EFSA statement was issued on October 24, 2008. Should this be referenced in the section on the Lang study? EFSA's conclusion was that "This single study does not provide sufficient proof for a causal link between exposure to BPA and the health conditions mentioned above. Therefore, EFSA considers that there is no need to revise the TDI as derived by the AFC Panel in 2006." [7] -- 195.216.7.115 ( talk) 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Also: http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/bin.asp?CID=1102&DID=4645&DOC=FILE.PDF
As documented above, the page is one-sided quote-mining, anti-scientific, ignores the substantial evidence for BPA safety, but it's a waste of my time to edit-war with activists who refuse to follow Wikipedia rules and suffer no consequences for refusing to adhere to NPOV or NPOVD. I've documented why the tag should remain, other users agree, but Yilloslime repeatedly removes the tag without discussing or addressing the problems. Administrators should do something about his refusal to collaborate and the WP:OWN violation. The tag indicates the existence of a dispute, and Yilloslime is affirmatively misleading people with his disruptive edits. Shame on Wikipedia. RDM2008 ( talk) 04:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The final section of this article is titled "Identification in Plastics" and discusses plastics in packaging and leaching, so I think the previously removed paragraph needs to be added back in, as it further discusses the possibility of leaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlamb1 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Bisphenol A is used in the passage. '...but these resins do not use bisphenol A during polymerization and package forming.' I think it should be in this article because just as a reader wants to know which plastic can contain BPA, he or she also wants to know which plastics don't use BPA, especially if there has been an erroneous statement in a public printed piece as was the case with the Environmental Health Perspectives magazine article that was then corrected (hence the reference to EHP.)
Mlamb1 ( talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This table is bizarre and nonsensical. The lower the amounts of BPA involved, the worse the consequences? Is this homeopathy? Can someone restore the NPOV tag that this desperately needs? Joseph N Hall ( talk) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Continuing the comments of Hall, and Kmarkey, the article is ridiculously biased. The US government (the FDA), the EU, the japanese, all hold that 50 microgrammes/kg is a safe dose; and they have good reason for doing so. This article only puts the perspective of the studies that have found "low dose" effects. The point of good editing is to make plain why there is a disagreement. The disagreement is because studies performed to Good Laboratory Practice find that the LOAEL is 50 mgs/kg, and this is what governments (including Canada) rely on. I have therefore included the relevant references in the table.
This statement is amazing. Pharmacology, as a discipline, rests on the concept of the law of mass action to describe how chemicals interact with a receptor. You can get physiological antagonism between two different receptors; but you will always find that below a certain concentration, the lower the dose, the less the consequence. Without any known exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.75.23 ( talk) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yilloslime has simply reverted the table. He ignores the discussion above, and simply reverts the article to being one-sided. there is a clear argument as to why you need the high dose studies. They contrast with the low dose studies, and they are the basis for government regulation in the USA, Europe and Japan. There is no reason whatsoever for removing these studies from this discussion of bisphenol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.112.2 ( talk) 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 µg, use 50 µg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50 µg.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd initially installed a paragraph on research that shows BPA causes brain damage in primates. This research is very significant because it's been done on primates because it approximates the effect on humans - more so than rodents for example. It's a very important development in the debate on BPAs health effects, and there should be a paragraph to specifically cover this within the article. When the original paragraph that I installed on this topic was removed I was somewhat surprised. An addition or an edit maybe, but not a removal. The comment in the history re removal of the original primate res paragraph was:"moving stuff on primate study to new section". Where is it?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic type information service that spells things out in a good lay fashion. Critical topical information should not buried. Please come in and justify this action if you wish to do that again. Thank you. John Moss ( talk) 08:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend a lot of time digging, but it appears you might have been mistaken. It seems that your paragraph was not removed, it was edited and inserted somewhere else. With much better references, too, IMO. [9] -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rifleman, I found it. I must be going blind. lol. Sorry about that Yilloslime. Cheers. John Moss ( talk) 13:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers Yilloslime. Anybody have thoughts about the implications of this new primate research, on-top of the other studies showing endocrine disruption. Is this the final blow for BPA credibility? (if it had any left) John Moss ( talk) 22:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, John, this primate research has implications if you are a post-menopausal woman taking estrogen therapy while also injecting BPA into your veins. So I'm not very sure how totally relevent this research is. -- Angryapathy ( talk) 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a big question still unanswered in the section on identifying plastics using BPA: How does a consumer gauge the likely content of plastics where NO 1-7 designation is provided?
Common items that that have this ID problem: Household PVC piping (how commonly is this used for water piping?), and ubiquitous kitchen items, including hard coffee thermos linings that have no numerical label, coffee makers, coffee filter fittings, coffee pot lids and sealings/stoppers, plastic lunchbox linings, hard bottle caps for nutritional supplement/medication vials, plastic linings on metal food cans or on metal lids to glass-bottled drinks, and so on. Can someone add more guidance on plastics composition of unlabeled consumer products, please?
Also, can anyone provide the website for a database of tests of product packaging for BPA?
For example, I've just noticed a bottle of ACT flouride comes in a #3 container -- flouride is acidic and it seems likely to induce leaching. Also perturbing, a tub of "all natural" hummus has been packaged in #7 plastic. Most of these murky instances are ones that an outside source would have to investigate the composition of, if there is no legal obligation among producers to supply it.
Can anyone identify any Congressional bills that propose requiring plastics suppliers to label the makeup of these suspect plastics categories? A.k.a. ( talk) 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the totally cheesy pun of a section header, but anyways: A.k.a. you're doing great work here, but I also think you are going a little overboard. You've added about 9Kb of new material, and it's almost entirely about the new JAMA study and accompanying editorial. And while I agree that this a very important new study, 9Kb is just way more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves--almost a fifth of the article is devoted to it now. I think this needs to be pared down quite a bit. Yilloslime (t) 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should be pared down to the basics, with references/links to major reviews (e.g. NTP, Health Canada, etc.) for more information - this is after all meant to be an encyclopedia-type article, not a major technical report. I don't see a lot of value in describing all the individual studies, especially since both the chemical industry and environmental groups have done some pretty poorly designed studies basically designed to reach a specific conclusion, and the average layperson doesn't have the background to distinguish the good science from the bad (even experts can't always tell from the publications). Instead, maybe just briefly listing the known effects in humans/animals (based on the conclusions of the major reviews), then stating "some other studies have also suggested links with...(other possible effects)". Also, maybe some of the government/industry response could be summarized in more of a point form or table format to make it a bit more readable. Ashartus ( talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/11/1303 says 2003 production was 2 million, 6-10% growth anually. Someone please fix 132.198.84.83 ( talk) 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This article states that BPA is used in PVC to prevent polymerization. Now, there are many grades of PVC, from soft to hard. Shall I presume that soft contains a fair amount of BPA, and hard contains very little? Typical indoor plumbing PVC is yellow and hard; white PVC is softer, and not rated for indoor/hot-water use, but is often used in water supply mains running to the house. So the question is: how much BPA do these two common types of plumbing contain, and how much might leech into the water? linas ( talk) 01:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This study should be integrated in the article."Exposure to Bisphenol A Prenatally or in Adulthood Promotes TH2 Cytokine Production Associated with Reduction of CD4+CD25+ Regulatory T Cells" [10].
The study showed that BPA promotes the development of Th2 cells in adulthood, and both Th1 and Th2 cells in prenatal stages, by reducing the number of regulatory T cells. This could have a profound effect on your health as Th1 and Th2 are the two “attack modes” of your immune system. Based on the type of invader, your immune system activates either Th1 or Th2 cells to get rid of the pathogen. Th1 (T Helper 1) attacks organisms that get inside your cells, whereas Th2 (T Helper 2) goes after extracellular pathogens; organisms that are found outside the cells in your blood and other body fluids. When your Th2 are over-activated, your immune system will over-respond to toxins, allergens, normal bacteria and parasites, and under-respond to viruses, yeast, cancer, and intracellular bacteria, because as one system activates, the other is blocked. MaxPont ( talk) 16:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The recent change from milligrams to micrograms was, I believe, based on faulty arithmetic. The edit summary stated, "3250 mg/kg = 3.25 kg/kg... this doesn't make sense... if one had to ingest 3.25x their own weight, there would be no issue with this substance. µg is the proper measure". But 3250 mg doesn't equal 3.25 kg; it equals 3.25 grams, a milligram being 1/1000 of a gram and a kilogram being 1000 grams. It is entirely possible that my holiday-addled brain is messing this up, but I don't think so, so I'm reverting it. (3.25 grams = 0.115 oz., btw, fwiw.) Rivertorch ( talk) 15:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added a {{ splitsection}} tag to the health effects section. This section is a large portion of the article and therefore should be split out. Some editors may be concerned about content forking to push a POV but I do not see this as a valid reason for not carrying out a split. There are many WP articles that are largely critical in their content eg. Pollution in the United States, Criticism of religion, Health effects of tobacco etc. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[rm indent] My reason for suggesting the split is:
The "Government and industry response" section should be split out. As the article currently stands it is more of a "Government and industry response" article rather than an article about a chemical. I have also suggested splitting out an article called Bisphenol A in the United States to avoid systemic bias. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I also disagree with splitting the "Government and industry response" section, since its most a response to the recent studies cited on the top of the article and would look meaningless if split. The remaining of the article is still small to be left alone.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 15:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The article tries to relate the broad plastic recycling codes to identification of BPA: This is false. The attempted logic seems to be: 1) BPA in plastics sometimes can be a problem, 2) Some polycarbonates use BPA, 3) Recycling Group 7 includes polycarbonates (among MANY other plastics and combinations), therefore 4) Recycling group 7 recycling codes are a health warning to us. This is very false logic. Recycling codes are for recycling only. Rlsheehan ( talk) 16:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a good form to identify at least by exclusion (not PETE, not PS, ...). If you are aware of any plastic bottles that are #7 but not PC, and have a form to identify them please add that information.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
These two articles both claim that #1, #2, #4 & #5 are BPA free. I couldn't find much in the way of claims about #6. Maybe someone can add these references? Thanks.
Ozy42 ( talk) 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I was bold in tidying to make it appear more like the 2008 section, in order to reduce what I saw as unscientific non- WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE weight on WP:PRIMARY sources. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 04:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I organized the health effects section by mechanism of action, types of effects and exposure levels, rather than a miscellaneous dump of any related studies into the 2009 section. Obviously historical studies were moved to a separate history section for the interested. I found no place for sentences xxx expressed concerns about bisphenol A without further specification, and I doubt they are of significant value, although being referenced. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The second sentence says "It is a difunctional building block..." I think "difunctional" is a rather obscure word to put in the introduction without explanation. I'd guess that it means it has two functional groups, but I'm not sure. Billgordon1099 ( talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This article has adopted a style of "a 2007 review states X" instead of just stating X. I understand that this could occasionally be useful, but I find this repeated "review" and "study" wording distracting and poor in style. If we are presenting an overview on the toxicity of BPA for the thyroid gland, for example, I would assume this statement is being pulled from a review itself or a review section of an original research article. Also, these contextual frames are not in the text itself. A 2007 review does not begin with "This 2007 review..." A minor point but still, I find this distracting and senseless when applied en masse. Comments? - Shootbamboo ( talk) 23:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit incorporated a study as a reference in such a way that does not verify the sentence. Rather, it appears to be a
synthesis which advances a position as the study measured effluents and states "Bisphenol A...is believed to have originated from waste containing thermal paper and/or other printed paper" (p. 978).
WP:V and
WP:OR are (is a) core polic(y). This is a problem I hope does exist elsewhere in the article... I discussed the problems with this content
here also. -
Shootbamboo (
talk) 00:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent)—to clarify, I will list my concerns (and concessions) I have regarding your most recent revert concerning BPA and paper. (You did not most recently revert me saying "use in production", however.)
I replaced a 1998 external link with a 2008 one here but it was removed here as being "outdated". Considering the lead states "in 2008 after several governments issued reports questioning its safety..." I can't imagine how adding context to the 2008 NTP conclusion of "some concern" would be "outdated". - Shootbamboo ( talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Wired have released a list of the top science breakthroughs of 2009, listing at number 5: No. 5 Bisphenol A in Plastics Harms Humans.
“ | For years, the plastic additive Bisphenol A was the center of a bitter environmental health battle. Researchers pointed to studies showing that its estrogen-mimicking qualities caused cancer and developmental damage in laboratory animals, and might do the same in people. Plastic manufacturers said animal tests were no substitute for human studies, which didn’t exist. The U.S. public — of whom 90 percent have detectable levels of BPA in their bodies — was caught in the crossfire.
In November, epidemiologists produced a study of BPA in humans. In 164 male Chinese factory workers exposed to high levels of BPA, severe sexual dysfunction was rampant. Their exposures were far higher than most people, but it can no longer be argued that BPA affects only lab animals, not people. |
” |
78.105.234.140 ( talk) 15:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The reference concluded diet and survivability could theoretically account for the observation. How then is it an "extrapolation"? - Shootbamboo ( talk) 19:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The reference material actually says:
Bisphenol A. There are many processes for the industrial synthesis of this most important bisphenol [362], [372-376]. Currently, hydrogen chloride or sulfonated cross-linked polystyrenes [372], [377-379] are used as the catalyst which are usually arranged as a fixed bed over which the reaction mixture is passed (Fig. 2). The reaction of phenol with acetone takes place at 50 – 90 °C, the molar ratio phenol – acetone is up to 15 : 1. Bisphenol A crystallizes as an adduct with 1 mol phenol, after separation of the hydrogen chloride by distillation or neutralization. The use of ion exchangers is preferred to that of hydrogen chloride because they are less corrosive. The yield is normally 80 –95 %.
Figure Figure 2. Flowchart of a bisphenol A plant according to [383] a) Storage tank; b) Reactor; c) Column; d) Crystallizer; e) Separator; f ) Melt; g) Desorber; h) Flaking off To isolate the bisphenol, the whole reaction mixture can be fractionally distilled, whereby bisphenol A itself is distilled over particularly carefully under high vacuum, separated from resinous byproducts, and subsequently recrystallized under pressure at elevated temperature [380]. Crude bisphenol A can also be purified by extracting into hot heptane or mixtures of aromatics [381] or by recrystallization from aromatics [382]. A very high purity product with polyester quality is obtained if the bisphenol A – phenol 1 : 1 adduct is separated, recrystallized from phenol, and the phenol removed by distillation [375], [383]. These processes are mostly carried out continuously [372], [374], [376], [380], [383]. |
Essentially, the reference material says that BPA synthesis produces LOTS of byproducts (A resiny mess, in fact.. probably what that oozy stuff behind the polycarbonate factory is made of, huh?) and that distillation is required - either of the BPA itself under high vacuum (INEFFICIENT!) or by boiling off the phenol (and recapturing it). In the context of the original sentence, it appears the claim of "efficient" suggested that the reaction was neat, with no byproducts, as if the ketone and alcohol molecules just stuck together in only the prescribed arrangement, coming together with just enough force to expel the generated water molecules... but the reference text does not suggest industry operates with a catalyst that performs in such a manner (if it even exists). Zaphraud ( talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Something around reference #98 makes all the references appear as bullets (instead of having numbers) thereafter. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 15:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to have a ton of primary sources (references to journal research papers) and reads like a survey of the research literature. However, WP:MEDRS says, "In general, medical information in Wikipedia articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care, but there remains potential for misuse." I think the article would be of higher quality if most of the primary sources were removed and replaced by secondary sources (overview and review articles), and the article brought into compliance with WP:MEDRS. Billgordon1099 ( talk) 05:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph begins "Suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s[citation needed]......" This is not accurate. I have yet to find a reference that supports this notion. Apparently the potential for estrogenic effects was indicated in the 1930's but not necessarily as a hazard to humanhs. An indication that it might be hazardous, especially at low doses (but still not in humans), wasn't discovered until 1993, when D. Feldman, et al, at Stanford University published an article about effects of trace BPA leaching from polycarbonate in Endocrinology, Vol 132, 2279-2286, 1993. 67.180.70.83 ( talk) 06:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
"The first US jurisdictions to pass regulations limiting or banning BPA were Minnesota and Chicago." This is incorrect; it was Suffolk County. See [14] and [15] 64.89.89.238 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Here's a new study. — C M B J 06:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Fresh from the presses: http://www.nationalpost.com/Canada+adds+toxic+substances+list/3664648/story.html Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we expand the section on the proper uses of this monomer, and decrease to some extent the health issues? It appears to me that it is somewhat over the top. Compared to other wiki's on highly toxic stuff (for example, cyanide, or something as common as ethanol, which is "harmful". ). Besides, some studies show that there is no measurable effect, even in baby bottles. Quotes:
Overall, the current literature cannot yet be fully interpreted for biological or experimental consistency or for relevance to human health ( http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm197739.htm)
So I'm not saying that it isn't toxic in itself, just that the article may not be completely objective in stressing that it might have detrimental effects. 194.53.253.51 ( talk) 12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't edit it, cause it does not exist, yet the page houses it. Not sure what happenned.
Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 14:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Think it's fixed. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
BPA is considered a gender-bending chemical.(see: "Exposure to 'gender-bending' chemical higher than thought", "Europe tightens 'gender bender' chemical rules")
Petey Parrot ( talk) 03:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The following series of references within this article are no longer available as cited: "name="CERHR" However, the same information can be found in Appendix II in this citation: " http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/bisphenol/bisphenol.pdf, accessed 30 August 2011" Prof D. Meduban ( talk) 08:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are the exposures rated in dose instead of mass/dose? 50 ug in a 75kg human is much less than 25 ug in a .5 kg rat [71]. Yet this article uses the language 'low' repeatedly to refer to both. There's one reference to a prostate examination in rats which was using ug per kg, but the overall study of rats was 25 ug dose per rat not 25 ug per kg. It's a little misleading... Nor are the increase rates mentioned, which would have to be dug into the references to find, which is important. Is the increase linear? How large is it? Just saying it is there isn't really good information. There's an effect of relativity upon laws of motion, but only one planet has this effect large enough not to be cancelled out by other causes. What is it here? There's way too much little stuff on this page and not enough big stuff. Where's a population study of incidence vs industrial output? That would be big and simple sign that says 'look here'. 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bisphenol A/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
|
Last edited at 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
globemittelstaedt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have merged the Bisphenol-A page into this page. 192.203.205.129 22:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Its CAS#80-05-7 , EC{EINECS}#201-245-8 , RTK Substance#2388 , RTECS#SL6300000
ACX#X1002023-2
European Chemical Name: 4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol
This page appears to contain an error. This statement seems to be contradictory:
Bisphenol A is known to be an estrogen receptor agonist which can activate estrogen receptors leading to similar physiological effects as the body's own estrogens.[3]
However, wouldn't the latter half of the phrase imply this substance is a phytoestrogen rather than an estrogen receptor itself? Funsocaltiger 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Dose (ppb) | Effects (measured in studies of laboratory animals) | Study Year [1] |
---|---|---|
0.025 | Permanent changes to genital tract | 2005 |
0.025 | Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens | 2005 |
1.5 | Low levels of human exposure from diet | 2003 |
2 | 30% increase in prostate weight | 1997 |
2.4 | Signs of early puberty | 2002 |
2.4 | Decline in testicular testosterone | 2004 |
2.5 | Breast cells predisposed to cancer | 2006 |
10 | Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer | 2006 |
10 | Insulin resistance | 2006 |
10 | Decreased maternal behavior | 2002 |
13 | High levels of human exposure from diet | 2003 |
20 | Damage to eggs and chromosomes | 2003 |
25 | Health Canada provisional human exposure limit | 1999 |
30 | Hyperactivity | 2004 |
30 | Reversal of normal sex difference in brain structure | 2001 |
50 | U.S. human exposure limit | 1998 |
This table is sourced to a globe and mail article not available for free. The table is also misleading. I know for a fact that the first two entries each refer to a single study that looked at mice and did reported dosages in micrograms BPA/kg body mass/day,not ppb. I have removed the table and recommend a discussion of the research rather than an oversimplification of the research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.75.205.209 ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the table back in, with a citation back to a "free source", although scientific journal articles upon which much of the Wikipedia articles rely are usually not free either. The source, the Environmental Working Group's report on Bisphenol A in cans, also refers back to the original articles on which the doses themselves are based. I believe the notation, ppb, refers to μg/kg body mass/day (as is indicated in the text itself), is non-standard though it does appear elsewhere (see for example [1]), and has been changed. It seems the previous author (who chose not to sign their statement) was also complaining about the use of mice versus rats. It has been pointed out by vom Saal et al (see [2]) that at least some strains of rats are insensitive to any type of exogenous estrogen, hence, the use of other species. Lastly, the comment that "I know for a fact" does not hold much weight on such a public forum where one has no evidence of the author's credentials. However, at least according to the EWG table, the doses and effects are derived from two separate studies, both of which were included in the recent the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction interim draft expert panel report [3] Kristan 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I must say that this table is indeed quite alarming, and possibly misleading. If a dosage of 0.025 ug/kg/day (so 2 ug per adult per day) already leads to "permanent changes in genital tract", why is this not confirmed? The comments of the The National Toxicology Program (NTP)’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR)may be less alarming and closer to the facts. Sikkema 13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about whether the numbers in this table actually reflect the research. If you go to the reference it names the original papers... which seem to disagree with the numbers given in the table. For example, a Kubo 2001 paper says "We administered BPA only to mother rats during pregnancy and lactation at a dosage of approximately 1.5 mg/kg per day far less than the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL; 50 mg/kg per day)...". So the dose at which these brain effects occur is 1500 ug/kg/day, while the table specifies says it's 30 ug/kg/day. Note that the NOAEL level is meant to be 1000x the recommended "safe" level (50 micrograms/kg/day), so this isn't just a difference of notation. (Okay, so I've only looked at one article, and only at the abstract, but I think this warrants further investigation.) Arg ( talk) 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The table that was copied here was from a Globe and Mail article, but mostly drawn from an EWG report. As the author of the EWG table I want to clarify a couple of things. There was indeed a citation error. The study referenced for "Reversal of normal sex difference in brain structure" year 2003--should be 2001. I regret this, and fixed the error here and on EWG's website. All the studies cited are all summarized in 2 publicly available documents. NIH-sponsored CERHR's recent review of bisphenol A
[4] and a publication in Environmental Health Perspectives
[5]. I removed the line stating that 13 ug/kg-day for high-end exposures from diet, because this fact was not part of EWG's report.
I want to clarify the EPA's Human Exposure Limit for those not familiar with the RfD process. In the late 1980s EPA selected the most sensitive study (at that point) which found no effects at an exposure of 50 mg/kg per day. They then divided that ingestion level by 1000 to add a safety factor to address the fact that people may be more sensitive to the toxic effects of BPA than the animals studied, and to account for other uncertainties. Thus EPA believes that an individual should be able to ingest roughly 50 ug/kg-body weight per day with out any concern for toxic effects. The subsequent findings of toxicity at much exposure lower levels indicates that EPA's calculations must be updated. Sonyala —Preceding comment was added at 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The second column in the table is labeled "measured in studies of laboratory animals", yet includes rows that say "Health Canada provisional human exposure limit" and "U.S. human exposure limit". Were humans "laboratory animals" in these studies? If they were not, then they are not "measurements" at all, and suggest the removal from the table, the label can be changed, or the rows highlighted, any or all of which is accompanied by clear and unambiguous comment to the effect they are the result of some model, and affix the usual uncertainties from said modeling. (Indeed, given Kristan's comments, above, that you can pick and choose the species because "[...] at least some strains of rats are insensitive to any type of exogenous estrogen [...]", it leads me to wonder if this entire table is an NPOV violation at the source, without supporting evidence the un-identified lab animal in use in this table of data is equally or more sensitive than humans.) mdf ( talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Another user added the human exposure limits, but I will highlight them. I think they are useful because they underscore that adverse effects have been observed at lower levels than traditionally regarded as safe. Risk assessment typically uses the most sensitive test in the most sensitive species of animal, and then divides the amount ingested by a safety factor to assure that human exposures are well below those that cause harm in a laboratory.
This table is peer reviewed scientific studies, and government-derived safety levels, so is still NPOV in my opinion. Sonyala —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
66.225.145.140 ( talk) 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) - I don't really have a claim to stake in this article, but as an average reader I do find this table alarming, particularly because it is so one-sided. Of all the studies of Bisphenol A only a dozen or so were selected for inclusion in this table and ALL of the selected studies show a negative effect. This is a biased representation of a topic that is clearly still in debate. If ALL studies showed a negative health effect, then the product would be surely banned in most jurisdictions.
I agree that this table is biased and poorly referrenced, and should be removed. The Environmental Working Group is an advocacy group, not a reliable source of scientific data. Under NPOV, I believe that this should be removed. A section in the article for the politics of this chemical would be OK, but referrences to science should be left to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Pustelnik ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This table does not differentiate between exposure in utero and exposure as an adult. That is important information, since effects could be very different for each. Is it possible to add the corresponding information for each row? Xwordz ( talk) 16:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree this table is very misleading (if anyone is reading in this old section of the discussion page). Not only does it not differentiate between in utero and adult exposure, as noted above, but it doesn't differentiate between exposure routes; in particular, several of the referenced studies are based on subcutaneous injection (with results then compared to a US EPA reference dose for chronic ingestion). In general I also agree with a previous commenter that Environmental Working Group is not a reliable source of scientific data; they're an advocacy group with a history of biased study designs, and not really much better than the industry groups advocating the other side. Ashartus ( talk) 19:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If you edit the page, under the hazards section, I have added the hazards as determined by http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000000145.asp, but as a comment. Every time I tried to add them as a fact, my computer would wreck the template, this accounts for all my edits and undos. Could someone please add them as a fact, then reference them to the aforementioned site? Thank you.
This seems a sensitive subject, so rather than edit into the main article, the Expert Panel's findings are now public.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP)’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) was established in 1998. The NTP-CERHR’s principal activity is evaluating chemicals – either naturally occurring, as in the case of phytoestrogens found in soy products, or synthetic, as in the case of BPA.
The CERHR conducts its work though specially appointed independent Expert Panels made up of scientists representing a range of relevant disciplines. The Expert Panel works with NTP-CERHR staff over a period of several weeks, prepares a draft report, and reviews and edits that draft at a public meeting over the course of several days. In the case of BPA, the public editing and review extended over two three-day sessions several months apart.
The Expert Panel has published Draft Interim findings at CERHR website. The final report is due to be published in the Fall of 2007.
The draft conclusions of the Expert Panel are divided into various groups of interest. The following quotes from the Draft Interim Meeting Summary:
It is my understanding that the terminology around the word 'concern'is more or less standard for CERHR Expert Panels. -- Bob Herrick 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Bisphenol A is discussed on page 218 of The Merck Index, thirteenth edition, under number 1296. Regarding its manufacture from phenol and acetone, it says "Jansen, *US 2468982* (1949); /Faith, Keyes & Clark's Industrial Chemicals/, F. A. Lowenheim, M. K. Moran, Eds. (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 4th ed., 1975) pp 149-152. /Review: Chem. & Eng. News/ *41*, 35 (June 3, 1963); /ibid./ *51,* 5 (July 16, 1973)."
(This doesn't mean much to me, but might save somebody else a bit of effort.) D021317c 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Bisphenol A was discussed on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer" on October 30, 2007.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/health/july-dec07/bpa_10-30.html D021317c 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the note:
The independence of United States scientific panels from industry influence has been questioned however.[11]
It adds little and as the link no longer exists I'm removing it.
Regarding the note:
Furthermore, peer reviewed publications have appeared pointing out flaws within the chemical industry funded studies that report bisphenol A safety.
According to: http://www.stats.org/stories/2007/washington_obesity_mar12_07.htm Vom Saal's opinion itself is controversial. His opinion (while peer reviewed) is in the minority here and not part of a consensus. The article also mentions other papers reporting Bisphenol A safety that were not industry funded. As it stands, the wording is misleading and should be expanded to become more balanced or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.228.6 ( talk) 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
While there is indeed controversy about many aspects of BPA toxicity, it is inappropriate to use statements by PR firms, such as STATs to refute peer-reviewed publications. vom Saal's publication reporting systematic differences between industry-funded and academic studies was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a leading journal as measured by the impact factor.
A consensus statement about the potential adverse health effects of current human exposures grew out of an NIEHS-sponsored panel and is co-authored by 38 government and academic researchers, and in press at Reproductive Toxicology. [2].
While my position may not be NPOV as I work with Environment Working Group. The author of the above statement, "[vom Saal's] opinion (while peer reviewed) is in the minority here and not part of a consensus," should identify themselves by creating a wikipedia a log in and cite more reputable sources. ( Sonyala)
I agree, Sonyala. Will you list your qualifications on your user page? The Environmental Working Group can also be considered to be a PR organization, rather than a scientific one. Please tell me where "Environmental Health Perspectives" is rated as a "leading journal". Pustelnik ( talk) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a very interesting article and debate - the kind that adds to Wikipedia's good reputation IMHO. Kudos to all for watching the rigor and the debate. Three questions. 1) How can this be nominated to go from mid-level to high-level importance? I was just looking here because of a news article I had just seen about the chemical, and one can imagine this chemical will become a more important subject of scrutiny given the possible health risks. 2) How can this be nominated for a featured article? Much more important than some of the trivial topics that get selected for article-of-the-day. 3) I think the intro section, the initial paragraph, should say something about the chemical's significance to industry as well as to the possible health-risks. You don't get to that until long after the chemical analysis, and I think most readers would want to see in the lead some sense of the "notability" (to use a Wikipedian term) of the topic. Also, a guide as to how to tell which bottles contain bisphenol A would be useful, if there's for example, one of the recycling codes that it would refer to. Thanks! Bruxism ( talk) 21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
What if any are the metabolites of this plastic in the human body, and how do bacteria (gut and the environment) metabolise it?
The content related to estrogen-like properties of bisphenol A would probably be more suitably relocated to Endocrine disruptor. We made a similar move with cyanide poisoning from cyanide. Left behind after the move are 2-3 sentences summarizing the nature of the controversy, so that readers are aware of the connection. The technology on bisphenol A is huge (many millions of kg are produced) so it is likely that this article will eventually become quite chemical. Comments or alternative ideas are welcome. Maybe there is a better place to move the content to allow the biomedical-legal aspects to fluorish. Again the cyanide poisoning article has been well received, judging from the level of attention it gets. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The quote in the following lines:
In January 2006, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment announced that polycarbonate baby bottles are safe, stating that published research is "difficult to interpret and [is] occasionally contradictory".[26]
should be replaced because on examination of the reference this quote is seen to be about the health effects of bisphenol A.
I suggest it is replaced with the following quote with the same reference "The BfR does not recognise any health risk for babies that are fed using baby bottles made of polycarbonate" Brentsalmon ( talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The following link is to a PhD thesis by Laura Vandenberg, a recognized expert on Bishphenol A. It has a great amount of information that could help improve this article Vandenberg: Human Exposure to Bishphenol A. I am also adding this to the external links. Enviropearson ( talk) 02:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the text:
methodology is an example of a " green chemical reaction" in the sense that the process
For the primary reason that if one is engaged in the production of the compound that is the subject of this actual Wiki article, one is hardly engaged in any sort of green chemistry! One is instead making a toxic compound that is leached out of plastics! To make the case that polycarbonate could be made from naturally obtained phenol and acetone does not even justify this, as natural ethanol can also be processed into ethylene capable of being used to make standard polyethylene plastic... which happens to not hydrolyze into toxins... Zaphraud ( talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Lots of wildly inaccurate material in this article, from the mischaracterization of scientific studies to the false statements about the meaning of recycling codes. See http://www.factsonplastic.com/today-show-bisphenol-release/ -- RDM2008 ( talk) 06:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
actually, the fact that i think the article is biased does justify the tag. i've pointed out several factual errors:
multiple editors have said there are problems with the article. according to WP:NPOVD, that means the tag remains. please return the tag. RDM2008 ( talk) 20:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Missing from the article is the NTP's relevant conclusions, http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/BPADraftBriefVF_04_14_08.pdf:
I am readding the tag, as no one has adequately defended its removal against the complaint made by two users on this talk page about the unbalanced nature of the article. RDM2008 ( talk) 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
More missing stuff:
blatant copyvio removed Nil Einne ( talk) 10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
One small point I'd like to mention is that Germany has certified BPA as non-harmful, yet the wikipedia page only mentions the countries that are proposing legislation against it. Seems very lop-sided to me. Check out Germany's Federal Institute For Risk Assessment (BfR) Joins FDA, Others, In Affirming Safety Of Bisphenol A Could we balance the BPA bashing with this? -- Angryapathy ( talk) 17:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"EFSA has issued a statement regarding the conclusions of a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The European Commission asked EFSA to rapidly assess the relevance of this study and its implications for hazard and risk assessment of Bisphenol A. Read more in our key topic section." The EFSA statement was issued on October 24, 2008. Should this be referenced in the section on the Lang study? EFSA's conclusion was that "This single study does not provide sufficient proof for a causal link between exposure to BPA and the health conditions mentioned above. Therefore, EFSA considers that there is no need to revise the TDI as derived by the AFC Panel in 2006." [7] -- 195.216.7.115 ( talk) 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Also: http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/bin.asp?CID=1102&DID=4645&DOC=FILE.PDF
As documented above, the page is one-sided quote-mining, anti-scientific, ignores the substantial evidence for BPA safety, but it's a waste of my time to edit-war with activists who refuse to follow Wikipedia rules and suffer no consequences for refusing to adhere to NPOV or NPOVD. I've documented why the tag should remain, other users agree, but Yilloslime repeatedly removes the tag without discussing or addressing the problems. Administrators should do something about his refusal to collaborate and the WP:OWN violation. The tag indicates the existence of a dispute, and Yilloslime is affirmatively misleading people with his disruptive edits. Shame on Wikipedia. RDM2008 ( talk) 04:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The final section of this article is titled "Identification in Plastics" and discusses plastics in packaging and leaching, so I think the previously removed paragraph needs to be added back in, as it further discusses the possibility of leaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlamb1 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Bisphenol A is used in the passage. '...but these resins do not use bisphenol A during polymerization and package forming.' I think it should be in this article because just as a reader wants to know which plastic can contain BPA, he or she also wants to know which plastics don't use BPA, especially if there has been an erroneous statement in a public printed piece as was the case with the Environmental Health Perspectives magazine article that was then corrected (hence the reference to EHP.)
Mlamb1 ( talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This table is bizarre and nonsensical. The lower the amounts of BPA involved, the worse the consequences? Is this homeopathy? Can someone restore the NPOV tag that this desperately needs? Joseph N Hall ( talk) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Continuing the comments of Hall, and Kmarkey, the article is ridiculously biased. The US government (the FDA), the EU, the japanese, all hold that 50 microgrammes/kg is a safe dose; and they have good reason for doing so. This article only puts the perspective of the studies that have found "low dose" effects. The point of good editing is to make plain why there is a disagreement. The disagreement is because studies performed to Good Laboratory Practice find that the LOAEL is 50 mgs/kg, and this is what governments (including Canada) rely on. I have therefore included the relevant references in the table.
This statement is amazing. Pharmacology, as a discipline, rests on the concept of the law of mass action to describe how chemicals interact with a receptor. You can get physiological antagonism between two different receptors; but you will always find that below a certain concentration, the lower the dose, the less the consequence. Without any known exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.75.23 ( talk) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yilloslime has simply reverted the table. He ignores the discussion above, and simply reverts the article to being one-sided. there is a clear argument as to why you need the high dose studies. They contrast with the low dose studies, and they are the basis for government regulation in the USA, Europe and Japan. There is no reason whatsoever for removing these studies from this discussion of bisphenol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.112.2 ( talk) 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 µg, use 50 µg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50 µg.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd initially installed a paragraph on research that shows BPA causes brain damage in primates. This research is very significant because it's been done on primates because it approximates the effect on humans - more so than rodents for example. It's a very important development in the debate on BPAs health effects, and there should be a paragraph to specifically cover this within the article. When the original paragraph that I installed on this topic was removed I was somewhat surprised. An addition or an edit maybe, but not a removal. The comment in the history re removal of the original primate res paragraph was:"moving stuff on primate study to new section". Where is it?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic type information service that spells things out in a good lay fashion. Critical topical information should not buried. Please come in and justify this action if you wish to do that again. Thank you. John Moss ( talk) 08:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend a lot of time digging, but it appears you might have been mistaken. It seems that your paragraph was not removed, it was edited and inserted somewhere else. With much better references, too, IMO. [9] -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rifleman, I found it. I must be going blind. lol. Sorry about that Yilloslime. Cheers. John Moss ( talk) 13:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers Yilloslime. Anybody have thoughts about the implications of this new primate research, on-top of the other studies showing endocrine disruption. Is this the final blow for BPA credibility? (if it had any left) John Moss ( talk) 22:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, John, this primate research has implications if you are a post-menopausal woman taking estrogen therapy while also injecting BPA into your veins. So I'm not very sure how totally relevent this research is. -- Angryapathy ( talk) 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a big question still unanswered in the section on identifying plastics using BPA: How does a consumer gauge the likely content of plastics where NO 1-7 designation is provided?
Common items that that have this ID problem: Household PVC piping (how commonly is this used for water piping?), and ubiquitous kitchen items, including hard coffee thermos linings that have no numerical label, coffee makers, coffee filter fittings, coffee pot lids and sealings/stoppers, plastic lunchbox linings, hard bottle caps for nutritional supplement/medication vials, plastic linings on metal food cans or on metal lids to glass-bottled drinks, and so on. Can someone add more guidance on plastics composition of unlabeled consumer products, please?
Also, can anyone provide the website for a database of tests of product packaging for BPA?
For example, I've just noticed a bottle of ACT flouride comes in a #3 container -- flouride is acidic and it seems likely to induce leaching. Also perturbing, a tub of "all natural" hummus has been packaged in #7 plastic. Most of these murky instances are ones that an outside source would have to investigate the composition of, if there is no legal obligation among producers to supply it.
Can anyone identify any Congressional bills that propose requiring plastics suppliers to label the makeup of these suspect plastics categories? A.k.a. ( talk) 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the totally cheesy pun of a section header, but anyways: A.k.a. you're doing great work here, but I also think you are going a little overboard. You've added about 9Kb of new material, and it's almost entirely about the new JAMA study and accompanying editorial. And while I agree that this a very important new study, 9Kb is just way more WP:WEIGHT than it deserves--almost a fifth of the article is devoted to it now. I think this needs to be pared down quite a bit. Yilloslime (t) 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should be pared down to the basics, with references/links to major reviews (e.g. NTP, Health Canada, etc.) for more information - this is after all meant to be an encyclopedia-type article, not a major technical report. I don't see a lot of value in describing all the individual studies, especially since both the chemical industry and environmental groups have done some pretty poorly designed studies basically designed to reach a specific conclusion, and the average layperson doesn't have the background to distinguish the good science from the bad (even experts can't always tell from the publications). Instead, maybe just briefly listing the known effects in humans/animals (based on the conclusions of the major reviews), then stating "some other studies have also suggested links with...(other possible effects)". Also, maybe some of the government/industry response could be summarized in more of a point form or table format to make it a bit more readable. Ashartus ( talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/11/1303 says 2003 production was 2 million, 6-10% growth anually. Someone please fix 132.198.84.83 ( talk) 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This article states that BPA is used in PVC to prevent polymerization. Now, there are many grades of PVC, from soft to hard. Shall I presume that soft contains a fair amount of BPA, and hard contains very little? Typical indoor plumbing PVC is yellow and hard; white PVC is softer, and not rated for indoor/hot-water use, but is often used in water supply mains running to the house. So the question is: how much BPA do these two common types of plumbing contain, and how much might leech into the water? linas ( talk) 01:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This study should be integrated in the article."Exposure to Bisphenol A Prenatally or in Adulthood Promotes TH2 Cytokine Production Associated with Reduction of CD4+CD25+ Regulatory T Cells" [10].
The study showed that BPA promotes the development of Th2 cells in adulthood, and both Th1 and Th2 cells in prenatal stages, by reducing the number of regulatory T cells. This could have a profound effect on your health as Th1 and Th2 are the two “attack modes” of your immune system. Based on the type of invader, your immune system activates either Th1 or Th2 cells to get rid of the pathogen. Th1 (T Helper 1) attacks organisms that get inside your cells, whereas Th2 (T Helper 2) goes after extracellular pathogens; organisms that are found outside the cells in your blood and other body fluids. When your Th2 are over-activated, your immune system will over-respond to toxins, allergens, normal bacteria and parasites, and under-respond to viruses, yeast, cancer, and intracellular bacteria, because as one system activates, the other is blocked. MaxPont ( talk) 16:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The recent change from milligrams to micrograms was, I believe, based on faulty arithmetic. The edit summary stated, "3250 mg/kg = 3.25 kg/kg... this doesn't make sense... if one had to ingest 3.25x their own weight, there would be no issue with this substance. µg is the proper measure". But 3250 mg doesn't equal 3.25 kg; it equals 3.25 grams, a milligram being 1/1000 of a gram and a kilogram being 1000 grams. It is entirely possible that my holiday-addled brain is messing this up, but I don't think so, so I'm reverting it. (3.25 grams = 0.115 oz., btw, fwiw.) Rivertorch ( talk) 15:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added a {{ splitsection}} tag to the health effects section. This section is a large portion of the article and therefore should be split out. Some editors may be concerned about content forking to push a POV but I do not see this as a valid reason for not carrying out a split. There are many WP articles that are largely critical in their content eg. Pollution in the United States, Criticism of religion, Health effects of tobacco etc. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[rm indent] My reason for suggesting the split is:
The "Government and industry response" section should be split out. As the article currently stands it is more of a "Government and industry response" article rather than an article about a chemical. I have also suggested splitting out an article called Bisphenol A in the United States to avoid systemic bias. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I also disagree with splitting the "Government and industry response" section, since its most a response to the recent studies cited on the top of the article and would look meaningless if split. The remaining of the article is still small to be left alone.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 15:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The article tries to relate the broad plastic recycling codes to identification of BPA: This is false. The attempted logic seems to be: 1) BPA in plastics sometimes can be a problem, 2) Some polycarbonates use BPA, 3) Recycling Group 7 includes polycarbonates (among MANY other plastics and combinations), therefore 4) Recycling group 7 recycling codes are a health warning to us. This is very false logic. Recycling codes are for recycling only. Rlsheehan ( talk) 16:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a good form to identify at least by exclusion (not PETE, not PS, ...). If you are aware of any plastic bottles that are #7 but not PC, and have a form to identify them please add that information.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
These two articles both claim that #1, #2, #4 & #5 are BPA free. I couldn't find much in the way of claims about #6. Maybe someone can add these references? Thanks.
Ozy42 ( talk) 19:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I was bold in tidying to make it appear more like the 2008 section, in order to reduce what I saw as unscientific non- WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE weight on WP:PRIMARY sources. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 04:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I organized the health effects section by mechanism of action, types of effects and exposure levels, rather than a miscellaneous dump of any related studies into the 2009 section. Obviously historical studies were moved to a separate history section for the interested. I found no place for sentences xxx expressed concerns about bisphenol A without further specification, and I doubt they are of significant value, although being referenced. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The second sentence says "It is a difunctional building block..." I think "difunctional" is a rather obscure word to put in the introduction without explanation. I'd guess that it means it has two functional groups, but I'm not sure. Billgordon1099 ( talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This article has adopted a style of "a 2007 review states X" instead of just stating X. I understand that this could occasionally be useful, but I find this repeated "review" and "study" wording distracting and poor in style. If we are presenting an overview on the toxicity of BPA for the thyroid gland, for example, I would assume this statement is being pulled from a review itself or a review section of an original research article. Also, these contextual frames are not in the text itself. A 2007 review does not begin with "This 2007 review..." A minor point but still, I find this distracting and senseless when applied en masse. Comments? - Shootbamboo ( talk) 23:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit incorporated a study as a reference in such a way that does not verify the sentence. Rather, it appears to be a
synthesis which advances a position as the study measured effluents and states "Bisphenol A...is believed to have originated from waste containing thermal paper and/or other printed paper" (p. 978).
WP:V and
WP:OR are (is a) core polic(y). This is a problem I hope does exist elsewhere in the article... I discussed the problems with this content
here also. -
Shootbamboo (
talk) 00:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent)—to clarify, I will list my concerns (and concessions) I have regarding your most recent revert concerning BPA and paper. (You did not most recently revert me saying "use in production", however.)
I replaced a 1998 external link with a 2008 one here but it was removed here as being "outdated". Considering the lead states "in 2008 after several governments issued reports questioning its safety..." I can't imagine how adding context to the 2008 NTP conclusion of "some concern" would be "outdated". - Shootbamboo ( talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Wired have released a list of the top science breakthroughs of 2009, listing at number 5: No. 5 Bisphenol A in Plastics Harms Humans.
“ | For years, the plastic additive Bisphenol A was the center of a bitter environmental health battle. Researchers pointed to studies showing that its estrogen-mimicking qualities caused cancer and developmental damage in laboratory animals, and might do the same in people. Plastic manufacturers said animal tests were no substitute for human studies, which didn’t exist. The U.S. public — of whom 90 percent have detectable levels of BPA in their bodies — was caught in the crossfire.
In November, epidemiologists produced a study of BPA in humans. In 164 male Chinese factory workers exposed to high levels of BPA, severe sexual dysfunction was rampant. Their exposures were far higher than most people, but it can no longer be argued that BPA affects only lab animals, not people. |
” |
78.105.234.140 ( talk) 15:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The reference concluded diet and survivability could theoretically account for the observation. How then is it an "extrapolation"? - Shootbamboo ( talk) 19:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The reference material actually says:
Bisphenol A. There are many processes for the industrial synthesis of this most important bisphenol [362], [372-376]. Currently, hydrogen chloride or sulfonated cross-linked polystyrenes [372], [377-379] are used as the catalyst which are usually arranged as a fixed bed over which the reaction mixture is passed (Fig. 2). The reaction of phenol with acetone takes place at 50 – 90 °C, the molar ratio phenol – acetone is up to 15 : 1. Bisphenol A crystallizes as an adduct with 1 mol phenol, after separation of the hydrogen chloride by distillation or neutralization. The use of ion exchangers is preferred to that of hydrogen chloride because they are less corrosive. The yield is normally 80 –95 %.
Figure Figure 2. Flowchart of a bisphenol A plant according to [383] a) Storage tank; b) Reactor; c) Column; d) Crystallizer; e) Separator; f ) Melt; g) Desorber; h) Flaking off To isolate the bisphenol, the whole reaction mixture can be fractionally distilled, whereby bisphenol A itself is distilled over particularly carefully under high vacuum, separated from resinous byproducts, and subsequently recrystallized under pressure at elevated temperature [380]. Crude bisphenol A can also be purified by extracting into hot heptane or mixtures of aromatics [381] or by recrystallization from aromatics [382]. A very high purity product with polyester quality is obtained if the bisphenol A – phenol 1 : 1 adduct is separated, recrystallized from phenol, and the phenol removed by distillation [375], [383]. These processes are mostly carried out continuously [372], [374], [376], [380], [383]. |
Essentially, the reference material says that BPA synthesis produces LOTS of byproducts (A resiny mess, in fact.. probably what that oozy stuff behind the polycarbonate factory is made of, huh?) and that distillation is required - either of the BPA itself under high vacuum (INEFFICIENT!) or by boiling off the phenol (and recapturing it). In the context of the original sentence, it appears the claim of "efficient" suggested that the reaction was neat, with no byproducts, as if the ketone and alcohol molecules just stuck together in only the prescribed arrangement, coming together with just enough force to expel the generated water molecules... but the reference text does not suggest industry operates with a catalyst that performs in such a manner (if it even exists). Zaphraud ( talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Something around reference #98 makes all the references appear as bullets (instead of having numbers) thereafter. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 15:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to have a ton of primary sources (references to journal research papers) and reads like a survey of the research literature. However, WP:MEDRS says, "In general, medical information in Wikipedia articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care, but there remains potential for misuse." I think the article would be of higher quality if most of the primary sources were removed and replaced by secondary sources (overview and review articles), and the article brought into compliance with WP:MEDRS. Billgordon1099 ( talk) 05:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph begins "Suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s[citation needed]......" This is not accurate. I have yet to find a reference that supports this notion. Apparently the potential for estrogenic effects was indicated in the 1930's but not necessarily as a hazard to humanhs. An indication that it might be hazardous, especially at low doses (but still not in humans), wasn't discovered until 1993, when D. Feldman, et al, at Stanford University published an article about effects of trace BPA leaching from polycarbonate in Endocrinology, Vol 132, 2279-2286, 1993. 67.180.70.83 ( talk) 06:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
"The first US jurisdictions to pass regulations limiting or banning BPA were Minnesota and Chicago." This is incorrect; it was Suffolk County. See [14] and [15] 64.89.89.238 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Here's a new study. — C M B J 06:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Fresh from the presses: http://www.nationalpost.com/Canada+adds+toxic+substances+list/3664648/story.html Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we expand the section on the proper uses of this monomer, and decrease to some extent the health issues? It appears to me that it is somewhat over the top. Compared to other wiki's on highly toxic stuff (for example, cyanide, or something as common as ethanol, which is "harmful". ). Besides, some studies show that there is no measurable effect, even in baby bottles. Quotes:
Overall, the current literature cannot yet be fully interpreted for biological or experimental consistency or for relevance to human health ( http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm197739.htm)
So I'm not saying that it isn't toxic in itself, just that the article may not be completely objective in stressing that it might have detrimental effects. 194.53.253.51 ( talk) 12:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't edit it, cause it does not exist, yet the page houses it. Not sure what happenned.
Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 14:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Think it's fixed. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
BPA is considered a gender-bending chemical.(see: "Exposure to 'gender-bending' chemical higher than thought", "Europe tightens 'gender bender' chemical rules")
Petey Parrot ( talk) 03:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The following series of references within this article are no longer available as cited: "name="CERHR" However, the same information can be found in Appendix II in this citation: " http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/bisphenol/bisphenol.pdf, accessed 30 August 2011" Prof D. Meduban ( talk) 08:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are the exposures rated in dose instead of mass/dose? 50 ug in a 75kg human is much less than 25 ug in a .5 kg rat [71]. Yet this article uses the language 'low' repeatedly to refer to both. There's one reference to a prostate examination in rats which was using ug per kg, but the overall study of rats was 25 ug dose per rat not 25 ug per kg. It's a little misleading... Nor are the increase rates mentioned, which would have to be dug into the references to find, which is important. Is the increase linear? How large is it? Just saying it is there isn't really good information. There's an effect of relativity upon laws of motion, but only one planet has this effect large enough not to be cancelled out by other causes. What is it here? There's way too much little stuff on this page and not enough big stuff. Where's a population study of incidence vs industrial output? That would be big and simple sign that says 'look here'. 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bisphenol A/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
|
Last edited at 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
globemittelstaedt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).