BPA present in 91 per cent of Canadians: report

[calculoso]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...-study-100816/

An overwhelming amount of Canadians -- 91 per cent, in fact -- have detectable levels of bisphenol A in their urine, according to a new Statistics Canada report.

The results from the Canadian Health Measures Survey by StatsCan, found the highest concentration of bisphenol A in teens, aged 12 to 19. Children from the age of six to 11 also had higher levels than adults.

....

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic and mimics estrogen in the body.

...

BPA has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and elevated liver enzymes.

Definitely doesn't sound good. If BPA is truly linked to these diseases, our healthcare will become even busier.

I'm wondering where they got these samples from?


On the lighter side of the issue..

The Bro
said
Thats why i am developing manboobs

[HPLovecraft]

The saddest part of this is that it took this long for the Canadian government to do any sort of national survey. BPA is in just about everything right now.

An interesting article from awhile back. . .

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle1520625/

The researchers took samples at more than 200 sites, mainly on the coasts around North America and Southeast Asia. They detected the chemical along the shorelines of 20 countries and in every batch of water or sand tested.

The Japanese researchers found BPA in the oceans and sand in amounts ranging from 10 ppb to 50,000 ppb. Environment Canada's proposed water pollution limit for industry is 1.75 ppb.

[mykalberta]

I am still using my Nalgene water bottles until they can find something better. Color me sceptical that they have hard data about this stuff. The last I heard about this vis a vi the bottle recall issue was that concentrated levels of this stuff in rats caused cancer. Levels 1000X+ more than what "91% of Canadians" are reported to have.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I am still using my Nalgene water bottles until they can find something better. Color me sceptical that they have hard data about this stuff. The last I heard about this vis a vi the bottle recall issue was that concentrated levels of this stuff in rats caused cancer. Levels 1000X+ more than what "91% of Canadians" are reported to have.

You should get a second bottle.

[Ashartus]

In and of itself fairly meaningless; detectable does not mean present at levels high enough to cause health effects (there are a lot of chemicals in our blood, some natural, some not). The "safe" level of BPA exposure is the subject of some fairly contentious debate still - both industry and environmental groups use some really badly designed studies to make their respective cases.

Personally I hate all the reports of chemicals being measured in people's blood without any context, which the environmental groups are particularly guilty of. The Canadian Health Measures Survey was supposed to include some information to put the data in context (how do they compare to other countries, levels at which effects are observed, etc.), but it seems like someone jumped the gun and published the data without the context. The US National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, which is fairly similar, at least includes some background information.

[troutman]

Is BPA in a Gatorade bottle?

[Hack&Lube]

So what kind of products is this stuff generally most prevalent in? Those hard plastic water bottles? Or the disposable soft ones too?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

So what kind of products is this stuff generally most prevalent in? Those hard plastic water bottles? Or the disposable soft ones too?

Most polycarbonate, so #7 plastics most often. Not all #7s, though, since 7 is sort of a catch-all term that can include environmentally friendly types, too.

Plastic piping, some plastic drinking containers, older baby bottles, that kind of stuff.

Most bottled water comes in #1 plastic and won't contain BPA.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Most polycarbonate, so #7 plastics most often. Not all #7s, though, since 7 is sort of a catch-all term that can include environmentally friendly types, too.

Plastic piping, some plastic drinking containers, older baby bottles, that kind of stuff.

Most bottled water comes in #1 plastic and won't contain BPA.

Most of my daily water intake comes from a big watercooler. Those are polycarb

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Most of my daily water intake comes from a big watercooler. Those are polycarb

Check for any extra toes or fingers!

No, really, you're not going to die from drinking water from them (at least, I hope not! There's no real hard evidence for or against the cancer risks, but it certainly doesn't help), but I feel better knowing I'm not sucking in compounds that pretend to be my own hormones.

It's the cumulative effect, and growing amount of, world-wide that concerns me.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You should get a second bottle.

I own 6. one at work, one at home, one at the gym and 3 spares that I bought for $2/each durring the bottle recall bs. No better bottles out there.

[FlamesAddiction]

How about those alluminum bottles? I just started using one after I first heard about this a while ago.

[troutman]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=209

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used in the manufacture of hard plastics which can be found in a wide range of products, including baby bottles, plastic utensiles, and plastic food containers. It has been the focus of some controversy over its safety, and the resulting debate reveals much about how the current system deals with such issues.

The concern is that BPA can leech from plastic containers into the food or liquid it contains, and when consumed can have negative health effects. The debate is over how to interpret existing evidence about BPA safety, which gives conflicting results. Essentially it is a debate about how to weight different kinds of evidence, and where safety thresholds should be.

Given the existing evidence I suspect that there are real but small effects from BPA at current human exposure. These effects may be too small to worry about, but (and here is where most agree) more research is necessary.

The question that cannot be answered just with scientific evidence is where we should draw the line in terms of guaranteeing safety. There is no such thing as absolute safety or zero risk. Everything entails some risk. Everything we eat, drink, wear, drive, touch, and use comes with some finite risk. Most reasonable people would agree that we should avoid excessive risks and not worry about trivial risks – but much of the world entails the gray zone in between these extremes.

Also – eliminating something like BPA is not without risk either. What will take its place, and is that safe? BPA is used because it is cost effective and there are advantages to the durable plastic that is used in many products. What will we lose if we give up this technology?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How about those alluminum bottles? I just started using one after I first heard about this a while ago.

Depends mostly on what it's coated with on the inside. In a lot of cases it's just the same epoxy as the plastic ones. Basically, aluminum on the outside, plastic on the inside, but they don't mark it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Check for any extra toes or fingers!

No, really, you're not going to die from drinking water from them (at least, I hope not! There's no real hard evidence for or against the cancer risks, but it certainly doesn't help), but I feel better knowing I'm not sucking in compounds that pretend to be my own hormones.

It's the cumulative effect, and growing amount of, world-wide that concerns me.

I've got a third leg but that's about it

Why does the cumulative world-wide effect concern you? It's basically a drop in the ocean. The biggest danger in terms of human exposure is probably storage of liquids and thus leeching rather than it being existing as one part per duodecillion in the ocean or on the beach.

[zarrell]

Only a matter of time anyway until they find something else "harmful" in the new, "safer" bottles. And then we can scare everyone into buying new stuff again. Not that I'm into conspiracy theories...

[DOK]

BPA is the new lead. Don't let your kids chew paint chips or plastic water bottles. What's next on the - will doom humanity next - list?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by DOK

BPA is the new lead. Don't let your kids chew paint chips or plastic water bottles. What's next on the - will doom humanity next - list?

If BPA is the new lead, that would be pretty bad.

[LockedOut]

Not too worried. Look at all the old folks who are still alive and kicking who have been exposed to worse and for longer in thier lifetime. Sure some of them can have health problems but that comes with old age and you can't really pin it down on a specific thing.

[calculoso]

What's bad for us?

From CDNinGER:

There is a rhyme to help you identify your plastics. There are 7 types of plastic and each are normally labelled with a number. Have a look at your nearest plastic bottle for the recycle symbol; in the symbol should be a number (1-7). Here's the little rhyme to help you all figure out if your plastic has BPA or not. "Four five, one two, all the rest are bad for you."So if your bottle has 3 6 or 7 on it, it likely has BPA in it. The only catch is number 7 is a "misc" catagory, and it could pretty much contain anything, meaning it may not have BPA. Thats why some hard plastic producers (number 7) can boast that they do not make products that contain BPA.Hope I helped at least one person avoid that awful stuff.