If you haven’t seen it yet, USA Today is doing a series called “toxic legacy“. First was lead, then mercury, and today, plastics. Well, really it’s about BPA. We’ve dicussed BPA here before and I’m not going to rehash it. The article is good but doesn’t give a lot of new information if you have been following this issue. One of the things that most people what to know is who to believe. And when you have two committees (NIEHS & CERHR) coming up with different takes on it, you don’t know who to trust. You know how I feel about it. A great look into how the different panels reached their different conclusions was written by Bette Hileman in Chemical and Engineering News (Sept 3rd 2007edition). I highly recommend reading it.
A lot of other people share my concerns about the CERHR panel (unjustified or non-sensical exculsion of studies, lack of experts on BPA,…etc. One of the big questions that I continue to have is that the CERHR’s justification for getting rid of some studies based on the route of administration is so wrong headed and blind to the principles of toxicokinetics (that’s the study of how/where/how much the compounds move around in the body), that it seems as if there has to be another motive. I don’t want to suggest some nefarious motives, but the ony other option seems stupidity.
Meanwhile, the EPA says it’s on it. Or…er…will be, in…uh…several years. Gee, thanks. Don’t they get it that that is so unbeliveably unacceptable to the public? I swear, most EPA employes you hear in the news talk as if they don’t even work in the public health field at all. It’s like they are academic scientists, nothing more. I take that back, even the academics are taking more action. Sheesh.
PS Take a look at the sidebar on the lead page about the decrease in the blood lead levels in cities. Look at DC. Is that due to the lead pipe issue being mitigated? That’s striking! I knew that the situation was bad but if that’s the main reason for the huge decrease, it was more like a disaster.