Maine's new governor is an embarassment

[turbo]

Yesterday, Paul Le Page fired Dr. Dora Anne Mills. She supported banning bisphenol-A from children's products, though LePage's spokesperson denied that was a reason for her firing. Mills is very popular with members of both major political parties in the state.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/lepage-team-jettisons-mills-from-new-job_2011-02-23.html

Now, here is what Le Page has to say about BPA. Ignorant, insensitive, and misogynistic are all words that come to mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/maine-gov-paul-lepage-on-_n_827208.html

Conservationists of the left and the right are well-aware that Le Page wants to gut environmental rules that businesses find "burdonsome", undoing the decades of work that it has taken to clean up our rivers to the point that some anadromous fish are beginning to make spawning runs once again. His efforts echo the efforts in the House to curb actions by the EPA to enforce the standards of the Clean Air Act. This tea party will leave us all with regrets, I fear.

 

[talk2glenn]

Won't somebody please think of the spawning fish?

How we got from the termination of the state Medicaid program to the plight of salmon, I cannot say, but surely there's a connection somewhere.

As to BPA:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm064437.htm

...on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects...

This is, of course, code for non-standard tests that find possible correlative effects in small-scale studies of such a tiny magnitude that they aren't differentiable from noise. In larger, standardized testing, the results aren't replicated.

http://www.bisphenol-a.org/pdf/LowDoseUnprovenOctober2002.pdf

Maine jumped on a chemical-scare bandwagon with an unwarranted ban despite both the FDA and EPA finding no experimental basis for changing existing guidelines (which isn't to say they won't be changed; the same politics driving the Maine decision could easily drive new decisions at the federal-level).

With respect, not being a biolgist, I think I'll defer to the results of conventional, large-scale studies whose results are repeatable, controlled, and applicable to the human condition (ie, not involving direct injection of BPA into animal subjects).

 

[turbo]

From the Sentinel article.

Mills, in her capacity as director of the Maine CDC, agreed with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's judgment that BPA is a chemical of "high concern."

"There is no controversy that BPA is an endocrine disruptor, acting by inhibiting the effects of estrogen, a vital reproductive and developmental hormone," she wrote in a letter submitted to the DEP in April 2010. "The current consensus of most scientists, as well as U.S. and international governmental agencies, is that there is sufficient evidence that BPA produces adverse effects at environmentally relevant exposures."

IMO, her position is sensible and protective of children's health, as befitted her position. Now she has been fired.

LePage is quoted in the Bangor Daily News as saying that all he's heard is that "if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."

See how scientific and well-informed his "opinion" is? He is not qualified to hold an opinion on the matter. Dr. Dora Mills is - and she is a specialist in public health.

As for spawning fish, it's not just salmon that can be affected by roll-backs in enforcement of our environmental regulations. Shad, alewives, sturgeon, etc, have all made some pretty decent comebacks in the last decade or so, thanks in part to the removal of a couple of dams whose owners refused to install fish-ladders. And due in part to cleaner rivers. Biodiversity is quite important to the heath of rivers and the raparian environment. George Smith, a very conservative Republican and former president of the Maine's Sportsman's Alliance has been quite vocal about resisting the LePage/tea party drive to gut enforcement of environmental regulations. Believe me, talk to him for 2 minutes and you would be thoroughly disabused of the notion that he is a liberal tree-hugger. A clean environment is good for all of us.

Meanwhile, LePage holds meetings and breakfasts with business leaders to build a wish-list of regulations that need to be ignored or rescinded to the advantage of businesses, while holding conservationists (even very conservative ones like Smith) at arms' length. Ignorance combined with blind ideology is a very dangerous thing.

 

[chemisttree]

Ignorance combined with blind ideology is a very dangerous thing.

He did say that he "... didn't want that!" regarding the little beards. :)

Maybe miscogynistic is a bit strong. He is clearly ignorant and insensitive, though.

Since you are so concerned with the health of fish and BPA's impact on that, I'm sure that you are also http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32848267/ns/technology_and_science-science/"

 

[edward]

When I read about the male smallmouth bass in the Potomac river I was convinced.

The male bass have eggs in their testes.

BHA has already been banned in childrens products in a number of countries.

http://www.batangastoday.com/bpa-use-in-manufacturing-baby-bottles-banned-by-eu/6487/

 

[turbo]

He did say that he "... didn't want that!" regarding the little beards. :)

Maybe miscogynistic is a bit strong. He is clearly ignorant and insensitive, though.

His comments are worse than insensitive, though clearly ignorant, in respect to the actual effects of BPA on humans.

Since you are so concerned with the health of fish and BPA's impact on that, I'm sure that you are also http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32848267/ns/technology_and_science-science/"

I have made NO statements about the effects of BPA on fish. Not a single one. Nor do I intend to, unless there is some actual science. The additional comments that I made were regarding Le Page's intention to roll back all environmental regulations that "encumbered" businesses. His campaign cry was "Maine is open for business" and he pledged to roll back all regulations that businesses complained about. Guess what? Requiring mills not to pollute the air and water and soil are big ones, and it has taken decades to get modest improvements in these regards.

 

[nismaratwork]

BPA is safe?... fine, but there's no tangible benefit to providing in baby bottles, which are at higher risk of being overused and overheated.

I'm with Turbo-1 on this, and frankly I expect the science to catch up now that we're looking at clinical studies and not just warring meta"studies". Firing someone as a result of complete ignorance and stupidity is reason enough to be... relieved... of your position... forget the reasons. It's not as though this fool read or could understand the studies mentioned here, this is a purely ideological move.

Then again, why take away one possible risk among many... it's just your kids. As I understand it, the right wing doesn't care about them once they're out of the womb, or old enough to be placed into the prison system.

 

[Evo]

I agree Maine's governor is a loser. I don't agree that BPA is an issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

Won't somebody please think of the spawning fish?

How we got from the termination of the state Medicaid program to the plight of salmon, I cannot say, but surely there's a connection somewhere.

As to BPA:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm064437.htm



This is, of course, code for non-standard tests that find possible correlative effects in small-scale studies of such a tiny magnitude that they aren't differentiable from noise. In larger, standardized testing, the results aren't replicated.

http://www.bisphenol-a.org/pdf/LowDoseUnprovenOctober2002.pdf

Maine jumped on a chemical-scare bandwagon with an unwarranted ban despite both the FDA and EPA finding no experimental basis for changing existing guidelines (which isn't to say they won't be changed; the same politics driving the Maine decision could easily drive new decisions at the federal-level).

With respect, not being a biolgist, I think I'll defer to the results of conventional, large-scale studies whose results are repeatable, controlled, and applicable to the human condition (ie, not involving direct injection of BPA into animal subjects).

With respect, :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Trust the FDA to be ahead of the game at your own peril... or are you still popping phen-phen?

Oh, and where are you getting this fish thing from?... Is this a form letter you get when you give up your ability to think independently?

 

[edward]

A sub link in the FDA link doesn't sound quite as benign as the FDA statements on BPA.

There is an entire page of advice on how parents can avoid BPA exposure in their babies.

http://www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa/

WE need to be damn sure on this. It is not just plastic bottles, every metal can (food container) is lined with a coating of BPA. Traces of BPA are found in canned liquid baby formula.

 

[russ_watters]

A sub link in the FDA link doesn't sound quite as benign as the FDA statements on BPA.

There is an entire page of advice on how parents can avoid BPA exposure in their babies.

http://www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa/

Really? You don't find this to be benign?

In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration conducted a review of toxicology research and information on BPA, and, at that time, judged food-related materials containing BPA on the market to be safe.

But recent studies have reported subtle effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals. While BPA is not proven to harm children or adults, these newer studies have led federal health officials to express some concern about the safety of BPA.

Translation: 'BPA is almost certainly safe, but worry-warts are freaking out over nothing, so if you're a worry-wart, here's what you can do to calm your freak-out.'

 

[chiro]

Is this the same FDA that suddenly allowed aspartame to be legalized even after it denied it previously for nearly a decade?

 

[nismaratwork]

Really? You don't find this to be benign? Translation: 'BPA is almost certainly safe, but worry-warts are freaking out over nothing, so if you're a worry-wart, here's what you can do to calm your freak-out.'

When there are studies showing what many small doses of endocrine disruptors from multiple sources does, I'd try to minimize exposure in your kid. That is purely IMO, and friendly advice.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is this the same FDA that suddenly allowed aspartame to be legalized even after it denied it previously for nearly a decade?

...And Thalidomide, Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine, Terfenadine, so many others, and... oh yes...


These: (Just the ones being explored by the horribly understaffed FDA) http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety...ormationforPatientsandProviders/ucm111085.htm

That's just the drugs, never mind medical devices, flame retardants, plasticizers... etc.

 

[chemisttree]

That's just the drugs, never mind medical devices, flame retardants, plasticizers... etc.

Don't forget birth control pills.

SAVE THE FISH!

 

[nismaratwork]

Don't forget birth control pills.

SAVE THE FISH!

Save the strokes...

 

[Amp1]

Hopefully, the FDA is being transitioned into people that do care about the health and welfare of their own babies, and kids. Ohh, hasn't plastic or plastic byproducts of some sort been found in the bloodstreams of practically the entire pop. of people in the U.S. that's been tested.

http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/01...ur-bodies-carry-residues-of-kitchen-plastics/

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/21/toxic-chemicals-bpa-lifestyle-health-endocrine-disruptors.html

 

[nismaratwork]

Hopefully, the FDA is being transitioned into people that do care about the health and welfare of their own babies, and kids. Ohh, hasn't plastic or plastic byproducts of some sort been found in the bloodstreams of practically the entire pop. of people in the U.S. that's been tested.

http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/01...ur-bodies-carry-residues-of-kitchen-plastics/

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/21/toxic-chemicals-bpa-lifestyle-health-endocrine-disruptors.html

Watch the funding, not the people... then compare the funding and the task and despair.

 

[Amp1]

Well yeah the funding is down, which leads to attrition. What I was referring to though; was there were previously and maybe still are a lot of former pharmaceutical execs and drug company execs that made major decisions, iow, the ones in charge didn't comprehend or understand the science but were motivated to do what their former employers wanted. I've got to see if I can find a few things I read about it so its Just my opinion for now.

Sorry, got OT. anyways this makes putting your trust in - let's say my elected officials - more difficult. Well at least they haven't been doing that in my state, I think?

 

[turbo]

Regarding BPA:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/newscience/2007/2007-0803chapelhillconsensus.html

What did they find? Among the conclusions in the consensus:
We are confident of the following:
• "Human exposure to BPA is widespread."
• "Commonly reported circulating levels in humans exceed the circulating levels extrapolated from acute exposure studies in laboratory animals." This is a key finding: levels causing adverse effects in animals are lower than what is already in people.
• "BPA levels in the fetal mouse exposed to BPA by maternal delivery of 25 microgram/kg, a dose that has produced adverse effects in multiple experiments, are well within the range of unconjugated BPA levels observed in human fetal blood."
• "BPA alters “epigenetic programming” of genes in experimental animals and wildlife that results in persistent effects that are expressed later in life. ... Specifically, prenatal and/or neonatal exposure to low doses of BPA results in organizational changes in the prostate, breast, testis, mammary glands, body size, brain structure and chemistry, and behavior of laboratory animals."
• “Adult exposure studies cannot be presumed to predict the results of exposure during development.”
• “Actions mediated by membrane associated receptor signaling may underlie much of the low-dose BPA phenomena (effects have been reported at doses as low as 1 pM [picomolar] or 0.23 ppt [parts per trillion]).”

And from the side-bar:

Scientific studies with laboratory animals over the past 10 years have identified a series of adverse effects that implicate low-level exposure to BPA in a range of human health problems, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, spontaneous miscarriage, type 2 diabetes and obesity. Although over 90% of government-funded studies of BPA at low levels find adverse effects, no industry-funded studies have been able to replicate the academic research. Government policy-makers have used the industry results to justify taking no action on BPA.

Bolding mine: I'm not surprised that the industry fails to replicate academic results. They produce over 6 billion pounds of the stuff a year and have quite a serious disincentive to conduct honest studies.

Edit corrected tons to pounds. That was a 2000x brain-cramp!

 

[nismaratwork]

Regarding BPA:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/newscience/2007/2007-0803chapelhillconsensus.html



And from the side-bar:



Bolding mine: I'm not surprised that the industry fails to replicate academic results. They produce over 6 billion tons of the stuff a year and have quite a serious disincentive to conduct honest studies.

When it comes to trusting industry, we both have first order relatives who (I suspect in your case as well) worked in the NE mills. Given modern say, paper mills, I'm not impressed.

Even more, if people want an example of an existing industry taking them in the alamentary canal... how about the TOBACCO industry?! Truuussssssstttt in theeeeemmmmmmm... :rofl:

 

[Amp1]

I'm not surprised that the Gov't (how many admins) took the industry study over the academic - as you say Turbo there's a whole lot of greed/money involved. What suprised me a little is this "...BPA alters “epigenetic programming” of genes in experimental animals and wildlife that results in persistent effects that are expressed later in life..."

I was watching a program on PBS about epigenomes and how dietary behavior even caused changes.

 

[russ_watters]

Hopefully, the FDA is being transitioned into people that do care about the health and welfare of their own babies, and kids. Ohh, hasn't plastic or plastic byproducts of some sort been found in the bloodstreams of practically the entire pop. of people in the U.S. that's been tested.

Hopefully the FDA won't fall for hyperbole and scaremongering.

The fact that you can find trace amounts of all sorts of things in your water or bloodstream doesn't say anything at all about our health. It is a biproduct of the fact that our testing methods have improved to the point where you can measure things in ppb instead of ppm.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hopefully the FDA won't fall for hyperbole and scaremongering.

The fact that you can find trace amounts of all sorts of things in your water or bloodstream doesn't say anything at all about our health. It is a biproduct of the fact that our testing methods have improved to the point where you can measure things in ppb instead of ppm.

Do you have any evidence to back that claim, because there is plenty to refute it. We're talking about a known endocrine disruptor, not some random compound. I'm not seeing strong evidence against BPA, but this is hardly a vaccine issue now is it? Can you give me any reason NOT to err on the side of caution, in this specific case?

I'd add, unless you'd like me to list those things which, in ppb or ppm, are quite lethal and/or carcinogenic... please in some way support your assertions.

Here, I'll start with, PCBs, Dioxin, oh yes, and those medications I mentioned plus another dozen or so we probably could both rattle off the top of our heads, the trace amounts of polonium 210 found in tobacco...

 

[Newai]

Watch the funding, not the people... then compare the funding and the task and despair.

Are you actually implying anything here?

 

[nismaratwork]

Are you actually implying anything here?

I think you need to look up the definition of, "imply". I'm saying that the FDA is underfunded and understaffed to follow its mission. That isn't implication, it's a direct argument.