I think I will go with Vom Saal publications in refereed science journals. I don’t put snopeys on a pedastal of full and honest truth.
check out the links at the website.
I actually work with people who understand polymer chemistry and materials science. I have developed products for medical applications using these materials that have been reviewed and approved by the FDA and other regulatory agencies, based on REAL science.
We’re talking parts per BILLION here. Many analytical tests do not have the accuracy and resolution to even measure that low. Levels of BisA in polycarbonate are below the level of the detection method in many cases.
Science journals...publish or perish....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25065,00.html
Excerpt from their story:
“Their claims are based in the work of Our Stolen Future cult leader and University of Missouri researcher Frederick vom Saal. His experiments on laboratory mice supposedly show that very low doses of some chemicals — thousands of times lower than current safe standards — increased prostate weight in male mice and advanced puberty in female mice.
No other laboratory has been able to reproduce vom Saal’s work. Traditionally, reproducibility of experiments is necessary before results may be considered “scientific.”
But vom Saal all but guaranteed that his work will never be reproduced. His experiments involved a unique strain of mice that he inbred in his laboratory for about 20 years. When the mice stopped producing the results he wanted, he killed them.
Without the same strain of mouse, vom Saal’s experiments can’t be reproduced by others and his work can’t be thoroughly evaluated.
But vom Saal didn’t have to kill his mice to prevent criticism of his work. Allies on the NTP panel would give him a free pass.
The panel met last October at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA asked the panel to determine whether low doses of chemicals can interfere with hormonal processes. The EPA is required by a 1996 law to develop a screening program for chemicals suspected of having hormonal effects.
The panel asked the public to nominate studies to be reviewed. Ground rules required that a study’s raw data had to be submitted to the panel as a prerequisite for the study to be considered. The panel wanted to subject the data from these studies to “independent analysis.”
Vom Saal’s studies were nominated, but he didn’t submit his data. Inexplicably, the panel changed the ground rules to allow consideration of vom Saal’s studies anyway. The reason it did that had more to do with intimidation of panel members than science, according to those involved in the process.”
Looks like Vom Saal has some problems with his own research too...