Too good to pass up: BPA "health effects": Reductio ad absurdum?

While the previous post describes excellent work that pretty much sets the record straight on human exposure to BPA—at actual real-world levels—we note that the University of Illinois is touting an unpublished fear-mongering study, by the very aptly named Dr. Jodi Flaws.

Under the rather sensational headline "Plastics chemical retards growth, function of adult reproductive cells," the press release from the university goes onto say that "Their study is the first to show that chronic exposure to low doses of BPA can impair the growth and function of adult reproductive cells."

You have to get deeper into the article to find that Flaws really WAS testing the effect of BPA on cells. She used cell cultures, not whole animals!

Cell cultures cannot metabolize and eliminate BPA, and the BPA concentration used—10 micrograms per milliliter—is hardly a "low dose." In fact, such levels are orders of magnitude higher than normal human exposure.

The press release begins with the bogus contention that "Bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in plastics and known to cause reproductive problems in the offspring of pregnant mice exposed to it." We would remind the good Dr. Flaws that numerous studies on lab animals (not just their cells) have failed to show evidence of fertility issues even at doses one million times higher than typical human exposures.

Of course, I don't know exactly what she means by "reproductive problems," and she doesn't define what she means, either.

Let's see, normal human exposure to BPA causes no problems. Let's try mice at extremely high levels, and get dubious results. I've got it! Let's try mouse cells—separate from the animal—at even higher levels.

For those of you who forgot their Latin, reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions. In this case the reductio ad absurdum refers to the lab work, itself.

Thank you Dr. Flaws, and maybe you'll get some hard questions when you present this work at your poster session on July 19th in Pittsburgh. (Shaw's Eco-Logic)

More good news on BPA

Leave it to Health Canada to finally put a stake through the heart of the BPA fear-mongering nonsense. Those of you who have been following this issue have often read that Canada protects the health of its citizens ever so much better than our own FDA. Since EWG and NRDC are fond of promoting this idea, let's see what the good scientists at Health Canada discovered...

They tested the following classes of products for BPA:

• Baby food prepackaged in glass jars
• Canned powdered infant formula
• Bottled water

In all cases, dozens of products and different brands were tested, and in all cases, levels were exceedingly low. This new data confirms Health Canada's previous conclusion that exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children.

In fact, Health Canada stated that an adult would have to drink approximately 1,000 liters (264 US gallons) of water from polycarbonate water cooler bottles every day to approach the science-based safe intake limit for BPA recently established in Canada.

While all of the glass water bottles showed BPA concentrations below the minimum detectable level, so did many of the plastic bottles and the one water can brand tested (Perrier).

No BPA was detected in any of the canned powdered infant formula samples tested. The level of BPA found in baby food packaged in jars clearly indicates that exposure to BPA through consumption of these products is extremely low.

Health Canada's new data provides further support for recent assessments from eleven regulatory bodies around the world that determined BPA is safe for use in food contact products. These regulatory bodies include: the European Food Safety Authority, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, French Food Safety Authority, Swiss Office for Public Health, and Food Standards Australia-New Zealand.

I hope that this latest round of data will convince the public, but as long as grants are given out to the likes of Freddie vom Saal, Shanna Swan, and the rest of the endocrine disruptor gang, this trumped-up issue—based almost entirely on over-interpretation of data in rodents—will be with us.

Why not reach out to the gang, and ask them what they think of these new findings?

Here's the contact information:

Fred vom Saal      vomsaalf@missouri.edu      (573) 882-4367

Shanna Swan      shanna_swans@urcm.rochester.edu      (585) 273-3521

And, while you're at it, drop a quick e-mail to the feckless journos at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel who did a big story on how bad BPA is, basing nearly the entire 30,000 word series on input from...Freddie vom Saal.

Susanne Rust      srust@journalsentinel.com

Meg Kissinger      mkissinger@journalsentinel.com

If you think I'm being too hard on old Freddie, check out this direct quote:

"The science is clear and the findings are not just scary, they are horrific," vom Saal said. "When you feed a baby out of a clear, hard plastic bottle, it's like giving the baby a birth control pill."

That's just the kind of level-headed thinking that should be driving this issue, don't you think? (Shaw's Eco-Logic)

Worth repeating: STATS: Media ignored science in BPA coverage

In a review of American media coverage of the controversy of bisphenol A, researchers at STATS (a nonprofit, nonpartisan Statistical Assessment Service affiliated with George Mason University), say the media failed to properly weight different studies based on their size and research methodology and relied too heavily on sources like the University of Missouri biologist Frederick vom Saal (bio page), a man STATS takes pains to discredit.

View the full 49-page pdf here. (Covering Health)

How Can We Still Be Alive?

The MSM keeps reporting that businesses are poisoning us. I myself, when younger and stupider, reported on the danger of pesticides and food additives. My TV show has suggested that Teflon pans and cell phones may poison you. The list of scares is endless, and yet somehow Americans keep living longer. Our survival hasn’t deterred the MSM, however. Reporters still give credulous attention to alarmists, while treating business spokesmen like liars. (John Stossel, ABC News)

Missing: news headlines

Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions - 'Comprehensive Planetary Regime could control development, distribution of all natural resources'

The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions. (WorldNetDaily)

How Do Climate Models Work?

Since fears of manmade global warming — and potential legislation or regulations of carbon dioxide emissions — are based mostly upon the output of climate models, it is important for people to understand the basics of what climate models are, how they work, and what their limitations are.

Climate Models are Computer Programs

Generally speaking, a climate model is a computer program mostly made up of mathematical equations. These equations quantitatively describe how atmospheric temperature, air pressure, winds, water vapor, clouds, and precipitation all respond to solar heating of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Also included are equations describing how the so-called “greenhouse” elements of the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) keep the lower atmosphere warm by providing a radiative ‘blanket’ that partly controls how fast the Earth cools by loss of infrared to outer space.

The equation computations are made at individual gridpoints on a three-dimensional grid covering the Earth

In “coupled” climate models, there are also equations describing the three-dimensional oceanic circulation, how it transports absorbed solar energy around the Earth, and how it exchanges heat and moisture with the atmosphere. Modern coupled climate models also include a land model that describes how vegetation, soil, and snow or ice cover exchange energy and moisture with the atmosphere.

You can make computer visualizations of how these processes evolve as the model is run on the computer, such as the nice example shown below produced by Gary Strand at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). This particular image shows sea surface temperatures, near-surface winds, and sea ice concentrations in one of the NCAR models at some point during a run of the model on a supercomputer. [Note the model does not have an actual physical shape in the computer…it is just a long series of computations.]

If you want to see how a climate model simulation evolves over time, a striking YouTube video of the NCAR CCSM climate model is shown here.

Snared in the misanthropists' PC trap: ExxonMobil is not a climate change denier - We have the same concerns as everyone on energy and greenhouse gas emissions, says Nick Thomas

You report the views of Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute, who attempts to portray us as climate change deniers (ExxonMobil is still funding groups that question global warming, 2 July). We are not. We take climate change seriously and have the same concerns as people everywhere - how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the risks to society and ecosystems from increases in greenhouse gas emissions are significant. We agree that it is prudent to address these risks. We have researched this issue for more than 25 years, and produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. Our scientists serve on the IPCC and numerous scientific bodies. But the article ignored these facts.

You stated that last year we "handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds" to lobby groups that "question the reality of global warming". Like many other companies, we seek to promote discussion on issues that are relevant to us and contribute to a wide range of academic and policy organisations. These have a diverse group of supporters and obviously we cannot, nor do we try to, control what they say on any particular issue.

The article made no mention of other organisations we have funded, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, the Brookings Institution, Princeton University and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction.

Ward says: "If the company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it." We are not interested in funding such views. Over the past few years we have discontinued contributions to several policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from this important discussion about how the world will secure energy for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner. We review our contributions on an annual basis. (The Guardian)

Exxon has it all wrong. They should actively defend their business and the science, which means pointing out what utter rubbish catastrophic enhanced greenhouse really is. They should be pointing out that green plants form the basis of the biosphere's food web and green plants are utterly dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide. They should point out that helping the biosphere recover previously lost carbon is the best thing humans have done and are ever likely to do for life on Earth. They don't because whacko greenies and a complicit media paint them as bad for providing essential services and telling the truth. Stupid game and a losing strategy...

Sotomayor, Hispanics promise lots of scrutiny of GOP

Democrats explicitly opposed Estrada because he was Latino.  Do you remember the huge outcry this created from these Hispanic interest groups at the time this memo got revealed, and how they protested Democratic racism and bigotry?

Yeah, neither do I, and neither does Miguel Estrada.