Replies

Excellent points. When it comes to BPA, much of the alarmist research completely ignores the fact that the human body is efficient at metabolizing BPA, so it remains in the body for only a short period of time. As a matter of fact, in many of these studies, the levels of BPA measured in the subject's urine, prior to the initiation of the study, were more than 1,000 times lower than the precautionary limits set by the FDA. You can find just about any toxin you want to find in our blood and urine if you measure for it in the right quantities.

I'd be willing to bet that sample contamination is a common problem in the studies critical of BPA. Even after decades of little success, we are still dealing with those who are pushing low doses of chemicals as emerging science. It doesn't matter to them that they have achieved absolutely zero scientific credibility, they continue looking for a following -- outside of the chemicalphobes in the media. I believe these people are driven solely by the pursuit of money, and that they will drift to the next "scare of the month" when the hysteria surrounding BPA finally passes. But, then again, I'm a cynic.....

I'd be willing to bet that sample contamination is a common problem in the studies critical of BPA.

Indeed.

In a modern biochemistry lab, plastics are used extensively. Centrifuge tubes of all sizes, flasks for cell and microbe culture, syringes, cell spreaders and scrapers, pipettes, sample cups, PCR tubes and plates, etc., etc., are all made of plastic. As one critique of BPA studies pointed out, if a speck of plastic dust falls into the sample, that would be enough to send the BPA levels skyrocketing. With all of the plastics in use in labs, it would be difficult to avoid plastic dust, even if the samples were processed entirely using glass and metal labware.