Plastic water bottles
Is anyone else's house in an uproar because of all the controversy going on with bisphenol A in water bottles?
I'd known it was something to be concerned with, when we had a baby and I dutifully bought the bisphenol-free bottles, thinking it was mostly a done deal.
We even went so far as to buy a stainless steel bottle to use alongside the Nalgene--just to be on the safer side.
Then this week it seems like every time I turn around, I see more articles about it. And I started looking around our kitchen--we have a LOT of plastic stuff. And we'd been reusing everything, thinking we were doing something good for the environment. Well...
So I looked up some scholarly article citations about it, and watched Matt Lauer, listened to NPR and read the LATimes...
I feel more knowledgeable about the situation now. Enough to make me throw out all the scratched #7s and the re-used #1s!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Plastic water bottles.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://worldcat.org/blogs/mt-tb.cgi/45
On April 19, 2008 at 9:14 PM Oreal Bell said:
I think this is a play by the anti-plastic lobby to force us to spend more money on crap we don't need.
I don't believe this is a problem.
Of course, I have an artesian well on my property here in western Tennessee, so I naturally don't have to buy my water in plastic bottles, nor do I have to store it in such.
But it sounds like a load of bottom-line motivated hot air to me.
On April 21, 2008 at 9:48 AM Alice Sneary
said:
Thanks for your perspective, Oreal. It IS hard to know (given revelations like the one in Sunday's Times about military analysts acting as puppets for the Pentagon) who is behind the news we read. And each person has to decide for themselves whether they want to believe the news or not, I guess. To me, that's why public libraries are so important in today's society: they are free places where you can get access to unbiased information.
It's funny, too, to think there are very important issues today in which people vehemently believe both sides of the issue: evolution, abortion, global warming, oil exploration/reserves, gun control...now add water to this mix. I encourage you to find sources in WorldCat and then visit your local library to sort out fact from fiction.
On April 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM tim said:
I would be hard pressed to think that a report issued by the NIH would be heavily influenced by the "anti-plastic lobby," whoever that is. Obviously there are people who are against plastics, but I think their influence pales in comparison to that of the plastics ("plastics makes it possible" ring any bells?, chemical, and oil lobbies (remember, plastics are petroleum derived). The LA Times piece discusses some of the controversies.
That said, the evidentiary level in the NIH report don't reach the level that seem to be represented by much of the news coverage on the report. That is, the report makes a more tepid conclusion ("some concern") about the possibility of harm than it seems the media are presenting.
On April 23, 2008 at 12:27 PM Alice Sneary
said:
It does bring to mind the recent U.S. government censorship issues that have to light: removing abortion from the health database and one of the many global warming discussions. Sometimes it's not what you're reading to be worried about...it's what you're not reading!