[Rockingham]

I once believed as you do, but about five years ago, a friend suggested that I look at the medical literature. A few weeks later, with some free time at a university library, I went to the medical treatises and the medical journal databases and read extensively on the subject. Contrary to my initial opinion, after followup reading, I gradually became convinced that there was good cause for avoiding BPA and other POPs.

About once a year, I take another look in detail at the issue. Nothing that I have seen so far has allayed my concerns. Am I correct? Or, more to the point, are the doctors and scientists who have raised the alarm well-founded in their concerns? My impression is that the evidence against BPA and other POPs is accumulating, much as the evidence did against cigarettes, lead in gasoline, and against other chemical pollutants.

For me at least, the balance has tipped in favor of caution even at the price of minor inconveniences. You may conclude otherwise, but take a look at the medical evidence. Simply reading the medical journal abstracts in the Pubmed database should be enough to persuade you that, at the very least, the issue is open to debate.

[Mase]

Instead of looking through abstracts in PubMed, you should look at the molecular diagrams of the typical structures of estrogen and BPA. As I said before, the structures of these two compounds look nothing alike, no matter how you view them.

The same abstracts that cry alarm over alleged estrogen dependent effects want you to believe that many other POP's are also very dangerous in minuscule amounts. These analyses are promoted as scientific, but they are really designed to sell books, promote an agenda, or make grant money flow.

What was that quote again about keeping the public alarmed and clamoring to be led to safety?