[tinwhiskers] Re: Electronics makers turning green and benefitting?
- From: "Parnagian, Edward" <ed.parnagian@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:58:56 +0100
Hi, Gordon!
BPA is also key to the creation of polycarbonate - an extremely useful
engineering plastic. Polycarbonate is also the source of the
environmentalists' concerns. It seems that hikers have taken a liking to
carrying their water in clear, unbreakable containers made of polycarbonate.
The problem is that the polycarbonate - when in continuous contact with water -
will release some of its BPA into the water where once ingested has been
proven to be carcinogenic.
To me the appropriate solution here is to "outlaw" the use of polycarbonate in
containers rather than the use of BPA. If they "outlaw" BPA, society is going
to have to learn how to live without a lot more than circuit boards.
Best regards,
Ed
From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gordon Davy
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:10 PM
To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: Electronics makers turning green and benefitting?
Bob,
Thanks for posting your rebuttal. Environmental activists hardly even bother
anymore to claim that they are working for the benefit of public health; it's
increasingly clear that they're pursuing political power and redistribution of
wealth. While my posting may appear to be off-topic, it is important to
recognize the reasons for the restrictions that have been imposed on the
electronics industry.
Here's a just-published essay regarding their attempts to ban another chemical,
BPA. See
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2010/01/09/liberals'_go_to_war_on_science;_surrender_on_terror.
BPA is the starting material for epoxy printed wiring boards. TBBPA
(tetra-bromo bisphenol A). So they're at war not just with lead and with
halogens such as bromine (which impart flame retardant properties), but with
epoxy. Fear-mongers, they talk about "risk" but never about actual cases of
poisoning. Their claims about ease of recycling are phony. And of course they
ignore their own Precautionary Principle, since that's intended only to impose
on their adversaries.
While this may sound cynical, since the advocates are lying in their claims,
they will have no interest in hearing the truth in appeals from their victims,
no matter how winsomely it may be propounded.
Gordon Davy
Peoria, AZ
________________________________
Saturday, January 09, 2010
[cid:~WRD000.jpg]<http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell>
Liberals' Go to War on Science; Surrender on Terror
by Ken Blackwell
Two ongoing trends I chronicled during 2009 highlight an ironic situation:
Liberals remain tough on their domestic political opponents, while lax when it
comes to our real common
enemies.<http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/24/welcome-back-carter>
As we recently saw with the Christmas airplane-bombing attempt, liberals seem
bent on treating terrorists with kid gloves, insisting they receive rights
normally reserved for U.S. citizens (even when this means failing to extract
timely information that might save lives).
Conversely, liberals play "hardball" when their opponents are not terrorists or
criminals, but instead, American businesses and industries. One such example is
the left's battle against Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used for more than a
half century to make plastics more durable.
Though clearly less consequential than the war on terror, the Left's war on BPA
serves as a microcosm of the larger attempt to use "junk science" and
litigation to redistribute wealth from job-producing American industries into
the hands of trial lawyers and liberal special interest groups.
In this regard, the Left's attempts are reminiscent of their past battle
against the insecticide DDT. In the 1960s, many developing nation's had nearly
wiped out malaria, but it came back after DDT was banned. It did not matter
that DDT was harmless to humans - and actually saved lives -- the Left attacked
it, ultimately causing 50 million preventable deaths.
Despite the fact that BPA has consistently been proven by the FDA to be
harmless to humans
<http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/kfp266v1> -- and despite
the fact that the FDA is about to release a new study on the chemical in a few
weeks -- several media outlets (most notably the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and
the LA
Times<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/12/fda-word-on-bpa-delayed.html>)
have called on the FDA to rule that the chemical is dangerous -- before the
new study comes out. Talk about pre-judging a case...
Let me stress that BPA has consistently been proven to be harmless in humans.
What is more, as I've previously noted, liberal special interests have a clear
financial stake in attacking the
chemical<http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/a_chemical_scare_campaign_is_g.html>.
Lastly, it is clear that numerous businesses which produce plastics ranging
from sporting equipment to shatterproof water bottles, to eyeglass lenses, to
CDs stand to lose significant amounts of money, possibly causing them to layoff
employees in places such as my home state of Ohio, if BPA is banned.
To be sure, if the new FDA study fairly concludes the chemical is unsafe for
humans (a conclusion that would contradict numerous prior studies), I would
obviously agree that these products should be pulled. But that is precisely why
this premature interference is so pernicious. Now that the jury has effectively
been tampered with, what are the odds that the new study will, in fact, be
accepted as fair? In fact, there is a very real danger we may be allowing media
groups to establish science policy, without the benefit of science.
Liberals would be the first to cry foul if a criminal were presumed guilty and
they would object to the sort of "double jeopardy" which causes a product to
defend itself indefinitely (or, until proven guilty). Yet, they seem to have no
problem when the target is an American industry, not a terrorist or criminal.
After all, a 2009 FDA study concluded BPA was safe. Apparently, that wasn't the
"right" conclusion. ...If only liberals were as tough on terrorists as they are
on American businesses.
###
Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and member of
the Council on Foreign Relations. He was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Human Rights Commission.
________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the
original message.
Other related posts:
