"Environmental Health Perspectives" has a long history of publishing environmental scare articles that later turn out to have been based on bad data AND/OR that later turn out to be non-replicable by anyone other than the authors of the initial paper.
Steven J. Milloy, who runs the Junk Science website calls the journal a "health scare oriented journal." I concur.
For the truth about pthalates and bisphenol-A (BPA), please read Mr. Milloy's article here:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/milloy042505.htm
Here's a key snippet:
"Fifty years of experience and a lot of scientific examination of BPA indicate it’s safe — so what’s behind the AB319 scare?
The short answer is the same folks who were behind the 1990s scare about so-called “endocrine disruptors.” They’re led by University of Missouri activist-researcher Frederick vom Saal who claims that BPA is a “phenomenally potent sex hormone” that acts like “birth control pills."
But vom Saal has previously made scientific claims that are not only unsubstantiated, but incapable of being substantiated.
In 2001, for example, he claimed that his experiments on laboratory mice supposedly showed that very low doses of some chemicals — thousands of times lower than safety standards — increased prostate weight in male mice and advanced puberty in female mice.
No other laboratory was able to reproduce vom Saal's work — and reproducibility of experimental data is a prerequisite for results to be considered “scientific.”
Vom Saal also guaranteed that his work would 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."
You can read more about Steve Milloy at the Junk Science website.
jas3
Thanks for the link. Did anyone notify PETA?