Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel Asher
Here we have two sets of observations, one in the animal world among freshwater fish, and the other in the human world with its obsessive use of statistics, and a totally unproved hypothesis being constructed out of it as a result eagerly seized upon by a ravening Press. Ugh ! !
OK. How about this then : Never mind the Phthalates, how about their chemical kindred the Phthaleins ? They result in rampant diarrhoea in humans, so when I'm constipated perhaps I'd better chew some plastic ! How ridiculous an assumption is that ? Only slightly less ridiculous than the ones made about other chemical derivatives.
Trouble is, the Media can't wait for genuine research to run its course before feverishly rushing to Press.
I'd be a lot more worried about Fluorocarbons in the Environment, myself
|
Many newspapers overdo critical suspicions. But there is nothing wrong about making it public.
Of cause you can't say: they are chemical similar, so they have to work like hormones. As far as I know there are proofs of hormone like effects for fishes and mice. There is no question that Phthalates are volatile in plastics, and we have a lot of contact to them. So there are reasonable suspicions that they influence us too, and most industries have financial interests to not change the use of Phthalates.
I agree that Fluorocarbons are a problem that should worry us more. I.e. methane. Has 20-30 times stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, in suspicion to harm the ozone layer. About 70% of the methane in the atmosphere is caused by humans (fertilizer, farming, cattle farming), some indications that over fishing could increase bacteria produced methane, and huge stores in permafrost soil and methane hydrate under sea that both are released with temperature raise.