Showing posts with label BPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BPA. Show all posts
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Oil Reaches Underwater Cartoon Friends
**Insert sad trombone here**
Perhaps not the best way to explain the oil spill to your kids. Click here for a better way. The National Wildlife Federation also published a Guide for Parents and Teachers.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Sexstainability
A few weeks ago, we heard from a loyal reader and recycler who turned us on (pardon the pun) to a eco-concept we'd yet to discover: Certified Recycled Adult Toys.Sure, "sexstainability" is a little frisky of a topic for this blog, but after spending some time reading about the company, Scarlet Girl, surveying friends on facebook, and talking with my gal pals, it became clear that a lot of people use adult toys and a lot of plastics are being used to make them. And instead of filling landfills with expired or unwanted toys and their (gasp!) batteries, this particular company offers a $10 dollar store credit for used toys and sends the parts off to a processing plant that sterilizes and breaks down the materials into plastic confetti for future use not only in toys but in lots of other consumer goods (think dishwasher handles).
Apparently this is a big business, folks. And why shouldn't it be? We're talking about plastic materials that come into contact with the most sensitive of human places - likely at higher temperatures than the average bottled water reaches. A BPA-free, reusable water bottle carrying, granola-crunching girlfriend of mine shared her experience: "I've actually heard that adult toys are making green a big deal -- like rechargeable, instead of batteries, and even the materials they are made of -- like no bad plastics, and even the oils/lubes are better for your body. This chick I worked with was throwing a party for her girlfriends. I guess it's the new Tupperware party. The girl that came with all the goods was quite knowledgeable!"
It turns out that several years ago Greenpeace issued a warning about sex toy toxicity explaining the dangers of phthalates AND Treehugger even dedicated a post to sustainable sex one Valentines Day - which means people have been greening the bedroom for years unbeknownst to us!
Lucky for us, the Internet has plenty of suggestions. Here are a few that appear to be tested and true:
- The Earth Angel Hand Powered Rechargeable Vibrator. It's the world's first ever green technology sex toy. And it's made from recycled plastic and eight minutes of hand cranking will power it up for an hour. Or if that's not your vibe, perhaps you'd be interested in the Solar Powered Bullet (which is actually half the price of the former).
- Go Glass. Just like cooking in the kitchen, glass is always safer than plastic when exposed to heat and it won't lose shape in the dishwasher.
- Choose lube and massage oils sans petroleum derivatives. Treehugger recommends: Earth Botanicals Organic Massage Oil and Druide Sensual Massage Cream.
(Thnx, Vicki)
Saturday, January 16, 2010
FDA Finally Expresses Concern About BPA
The Washington Post reports:
Growing scientific evidence has linked the chemical to a host of problems, including cancer, sexual dysfunction and heart disease. Federal officials said they are particularly concerned about BPA's effect on the development of fetuses, infants and young children.
"We have some concern, which leads us to recommend reasonable steps the public can take to reduce exposure to BPA," said Joshua Sharfstein, FDA's deputy commissioner, in a conference call to reporters Friday.
The Obama administration has pledged $30 million dollars to a two-year study of the chemical.
Growing scientific evidence has linked the chemical to a host of problems, including cancer, sexual dysfunction and heart disease. Federal officials said they are particularly concerned about BPA's effect on the development of fetuses, infants and young children.
"We have some concern, which leads us to recommend reasonable steps the public can take to reduce exposure to BPA," said Joshua Sharfstein, FDA's deputy commissioner, in a conference call to reporters Friday.
The Obama administration has pledged $30 million dollars to a two-year study of the chemical.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Uh oh
So there's a big story this week in the NY Times examining potential dangers of tap water - which, according to the latest data from the EPA, is not as carefully regulated as I/we once thought. This is a freakin' disaster for JustSaying's crusade against bottled water. Charles Duhigg reports:
"Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times... But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000...."
Okay okay... the system needs some attention and upgrades. The NY Times put up this great interactive allowing folks to look at the water systems in their respective states and districts. Seeing these chemicals listed as contaminents in local water systems is bound to scare people straight to Costco for cases of bottled water. The article continues:
"Drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not necessarily make someone ill. Many contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years. And some researchers argue that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long periods, pose few risks. Others argue that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking water does not equal the benefits... Moreover, many of the thousands of chemicals that have not been analyzed may be harmless. And researchers caution that such science is complicated, often based on extrapolations from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, particularly given that more than 57,400 water systems in this country each deliver, essentially, a different glass of water every day."
However, independent studies published by the National Academy of Sciences suggest that contaminated water is the source of millions of Americans maladies (upset stomachs, birth defects, cancer) each year.
This is super tricky, folks. I urge you to read the article in its entirity here. Duhigg addresses the actual risk posed by small traces of arsenic (which is roughly equivalent to risks associated with receiving 1,664 x-rays although it sounds like it will turn us all into mutant ninja turtles); risks and studies surrounding the presesnce/development of bromates (particularly out in LA); a handful of contaminents associated with manufacturing pollution (some regulated, some not) such as perchlorate, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene; other chemicals associated with liver and kidney disease (lead, mercury) and Parkinson's disease (manganese) and what the EPA intends to do about all this.
In a statement, the E.P.A. said that a top priority of Lisa P. Jackson, who took over the agency in January, was improving how regulators assessed and managed chemical hazards... “Since chemicals are ubiquitous in our economy, our environment, our water resources and our bodies, we need better authority so we can assure the public that any unacceptable risks have been eliminated,” the E.P.A. wrote. “But, under existing law, we cannot give that assurance.” ...Ms. Jackson has asked Congress to amend laws governing how the E.P.A. assesses chemicals, and has issued policies to insulate the agency’s scientific reviews from outside pressures. But for now, significant risks remain, say former regulators.
For a long time, I have sat complacent and content with my tap water and urged those around me to trade their BPA rich plastic bottles in for reusable ones. But perhaps it's time I start putting a little more emphasis on home purification systems and a little less trust in the "America has the safest tap water" mantra I've undertaken up until reading this article.
"Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times... But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000...."
Okay okay... the system needs some attention and upgrades. The NY Times put up this great interactive allowing folks to look at the water systems in their respective states and districts. Seeing these chemicals listed as contaminents in local water systems is bound to scare people straight to Costco for cases of bottled water. The article continues:
"Drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not necessarily make someone ill. Many contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years. And some researchers argue that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long periods, pose few risks. Others argue that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking water does not equal the benefits... Moreover, many of the thousands of chemicals that have not been analyzed may be harmless. And researchers caution that such science is complicated, often based on extrapolations from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, particularly given that more than 57,400 water systems in this country each deliver, essentially, a different glass of water every day."
However, independent studies published by the National Academy of Sciences suggest that contaminated water is the source of millions of Americans maladies (upset stomachs, birth defects, cancer) each year.
This is super tricky, folks. I urge you to read the article in its entirity here. Duhigg addresses the actual risk posed by small traces of arsenic (which is roughly equivalent to risks associated with receiving 1,664 x-rays although it sounds like it will turn us all into mutant ninja turtles); risks and studies surrounding the presesnce/development of bromates (particularly out in LA); a handful of contaminents associated with manufacturing pollution (some regulated, some not) such as perchlorate, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene; other chemicals associated with liver and kidney disease (lead, mercury) and Parkinson's disease (manganese) and what the EPA intends to do about all this.
In a statement, the E.P.A. said that a top priority of Lisa P. Jackson, who took over the agency in January, was improving how regulators assessed and managed chemical hazards... “Since chemicals are ubiquitous in our economy, our environment, our water resources and our bodies, we need better authority so we can assure the public that any unacceptable risks have been eliminated,” the E.P.A. wrote. “But, under existing law, we cannot give that assurance.” ...Ms. Jackson has asked Congress to amend laws governing how the E.P.A. assesses chemicals, and has issued policies to insulate the agency’s scientific reviews from outside pressures. But for now, significant risks remain, say former regulators.
For a long time, I have sat complacent and content with my tap water and urged those around me to trade their BPA rich plastic bottles in for reusable ones. But perhaps it's time I start putting a little more emphasis on home purification systems and a little less trust in the "America has the safest tap water" mantra I've undertaken up until reading this article.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
BPA: It's not just in plastics anymore
In the weeks leading up to Thanksgiving, Campbell's and Progresso engage in what foks in the advertising business call "Soup Wars." If you pay attention, you'll find that the commercials and print advertisements evolve from self-propelling, your-grandmother-gave-us-this-recipe, mmm mmm good jingles to smear campaigns against the other candidate. This year, I wouldn't be surprised if bisphenol A, or BPA, is the new MSG and plays a role in the race.
From Nicholas D. Kristof's recent Op-Ed:
"...More than 92 percent of Americans have BPA in their urine, and scientists have linked it — though not conclusively — to everything from breast cancer to obesity, from attention deficit disorder to genital abnormalities in boys and girls alike.
Now it turns out it’s in our food.
Consumer Reports magazine tested an array of brand-name canned foods for a report in its December issue and found BPA in almost all of them. The magazine says that relatively high levels turned up, for example, in Progresso vegetable soup, Campbell’s condensed chicken noodle soup, and Del Monte Blue Lake cut green beans.
The magazine also says it found BPA in the canned liquid version of Similac Advance infant formula (but not in the powdered version) and in canned Nestlé Juicy Juice (but not in the juice boxes). The BPA in the food probably came from an interior coating used in many cans..."
From Nicholas D. Kristof's recent Op-Ed:
"...More than 92 percent of Americans have BPA in their urine, and scientists have linked it — though not conclusively — to everything from breast cancer to obesity, from attention deficit disorder to genital abnormalities in boys and girls alike.
Now it turns out it’s in our food.
Consumer Reports magazine tested an array of brand-name canned foods for a report in its December issue and found BPA in almost all of them. The magazine says that relatively high levels turned up, for example, in Progresso vegetable soup, Campbell’s condensed chicken noodle soup, and Del Monte Blue Lake cut green beans.
The magazine also says it found BPA in the canned liquid version of Similac Advance infant formula (but not in the powdered version) and in canned Nestlé Juicy Juice (but not in the juice boxes). The BPA in the food probably came from an interior coating used in many cans..."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
If you need another reason...
...to stop drinking bottled water (and trade in any dangerous Nalgene bottles for their new and improved BPA-free ones), read this article reporting the findings of an impromptu study performed at the Harvard School of Public Health. Some highlights:
...Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found that people who drank for a week from the clear plastic polycarbonate bottles increased concentrations of bisphenol A - or BPA - in their urine by 69 percent...
...Numerous animal studies in recent years suggest that low levels of BPA might cause developmental problems in fetuses and young children and other ill effects. The health effects on adults are not well understood although a recent large human study linked BPA concentrations in people's urine to an increased prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, and liver toxicity...
...Led by Jenny Carwile, a Harvard School of Public Health doctoral student, 77 Harvard students in the study drank all cold beverages from stainless steel bottles for a week to wash BPA out of their bodies and minimize exposure. Most BPA is flushed from people's bodies within a matter of hours. During that week, the students gave urine samples. Then the students were given two refillable polycarbonate bottles made with BPA to drink all cold beverages from for one week. Urine samples taken over that week showed the students' BPA levels spiked the second week to levels normally found in the general population. Because the students did nothing different in their schedules other than drink from the BPA bottles, the researchers determined their urine concentrations largely came from the bottles...
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Add it to the file...
We really do have to be aware of everything we put in, on and around our bodies these days, huh? I've posted about dangerous chemicals in skincare products and preached against bottled water, but have never touched upon the widely researched dangers of chemicals found in the plastics and the dangers association with their absorption. And since the most recent danger seems to be a connection between the phthalates used to make plastics more pliable (think rubber duck toys and water/baby bottles) and childhood obesity... well... we better take a look at this.Jennifer Lee, for the NY Times' City Room, offers a great overview of the latest research and talks to leading researchers involved with the Growing Up Healthy in East Harlem" study in her latest post:
...The chemicals in question are called phthalates, which are used to to make plastics pliable and in personal care products. Phthalates, which are absorbed into the body, are a type of endocrine disruptor — chemicals that affect glands and hormones that regulate many bodily functions. They have raised concerns as possible carcinogens for more than a decade, but attention over their role in obesity is relatively recent...
...The findings may presage a new approach to thinking about obesity — drawing environmental factors into a central part of the equation. “Most people think childhood obesity is an imbalance between how much they eat and how much they play,” Dr. Landrigan said. But he thinks the impact of endocrine disruptors on obesity could be more significant than many people believe. “Most people think it’s marginal,” he said, paling in comparison with diet and exercise...
These phthalates are EVERYWHERE, folks. From vinyl siding to perfume. Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)