[tinwhiskers] Re: Electronics makers turning green and benefitting?
- From: Steve Smith <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Parnagian, Edward" <ed.parnagian@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:26:09 -0800
A point of clarification, folks: Tetrabromobisphenol-A is NOT
Bisphenol-A.
Bisphenol-a is used in making many kinds of plastics.
Tetrabromo bisphenol-A is a compound containing bromine, considerably
more expensive that ordinary bisphenol-a, and used as the
startign-material for making a fire-retardant resin used in making
some things including printed circuit boards.
Brominated resins are not used in making drinking water bottles.
I would take a very close look at claims of polycarbonate releasing
bisphenol-A, and ask for the actual science behind it, and *who paid*
the particular institution who did the research and published their
results, and if the research has been validated by institutions not
paid by vested interests. Then I would look at the statistics of just
how many cancers were caused by what amount of bisphenol-a, as
high-altitude air travel and living in high-altitude cities also
causes cancer, as does breathing oxygen, whose metabolism in the body
makes oxygen-containing free-radicals, known also to be carcinogens.
Not that I'm cynical or anything...but just about anything can be
found to "cause" cancer if you look hard enough.
Steve Smith
PE> Hi, Gordon!
PE> BPA is also key to the creation of polycarbonate - an extremely
PE> useful engineering plastic. Polycarbonate is also the source of
PE> the environmentalists' concerns. It seems that hikers have taken
PE> a liking to carrying their water in clear, unbreakable containers
PE> made of polycarbonate. The problem is that the polycarbonate -
PE> when in continuous contact with water - will release some of its
PE> BPA into the water where once ingested has been proven to be carcinogenic.
PE> To me the appropriate solution here is to "outlaw" the use of
PE> polycarbonate in containers rather than the use of BPA. If they
PE> "outlaw" BPA, society is going to have to learn how to live
PE> without a lot more than circuit boards.
PE> Best regards,
PE> Ed
PE> From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
PE> [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gordon Davy
PE> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:10 PM
PE> To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
PE> Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: Electronics makers turning green and benefitting?
PE> Bob,
PE> Thanks for posting your rebuttal. Environmental activists hardly
PE> even bother anymore to claim that they are working for the benefit
PE> of public health; it's increasingly clear that they're pursuing
PE> political power and redistribution of wealth. While my posting may
PE> appear to be off-topic, it is important to recognize the reasons
PE> for the restrictions that have been imposed on the electronics industry.
PE> Here's a just-published essay regarding their attempts to ban
PE> another chemical, BPA. See
PE>
http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2010/01/09/liberals'_go_to_war_on_science;_surrender_on_terror.
PE> BPA is the starting material for epoxy printed wiring boards.
PE> TBBPA (tetra-bromo bisphenol A). So they're at war not just with
PE> lead and with halogens such as bromine (which impart flame
PE> retardant properties), but with epoxy. Fear-mongers, they talk
PE> about "risk" but never about actual cases of poisoning. Their
PE> claims about ease of recycling are phony. And of course they
PE> ignore their own Precautionary Principle, since that's intended
PE> only to impose on their adversaries.
PE> While this may sound cynical, since the advocates are lying in
PE> their claims, they will have no interest in hearing the truth in
PE> appeals from their victims, no matter how winsomely it may be propounded.
PE> Gordon Davy
PE> Peoria, AZ
PE> ________________________________
PE> Saturday, January 09, 2010
PE> [cid:~WRD000.jpg]<http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell>
PE> Liberals' Go to War on Science; Surrender on Terror
PE> by Ken Blackwell
PE> Two ongoing trends I chronicled during 2009 highlight an ironic
PE> situation: Liberals remain tough on their domestic political
PE> opponents, while lax when it comes to our real common
PE> enemies.<http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/24/welcome-back-carter>
PE> As we recently saw with the Christmas airplane-bombing attempt,
PE> liberals seem bent on treating terrorists with kid gloves,
PE> insisting they receive rights normally reserved for U.S. citizens
PE> (even when this means failing to extract timely information that might save
lives).
PE> Conversely, liberals play "hardball" when their opponents are not
PE> terrorists or criminals, but instead, American businesses and
PE> industries. One such example is the left's battle against
PE> Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used for more than a half century to make
plastics more durable.
PE> Though clearly less consequential than the war on terror, the
PE> Left's war on BPA serves as a microcosm of the larger attempt to
PE> use "junk science" and litigation to redistribute wealth from
PE> job-producing American industries into the hands of trial lawyers
PE> and liberal special interest groups.
PE> In this regard, the Left's attempts are reminiscent of their past
PE> battle against the insecticide DDT. In the 1960s, many developing
PE> nation's had nearly wiped out malaria, but it came back after DDT
PE> was banned. It did not matter that DDT was harmless to humans -
PE> and actually saved lives -- the Left attacked it, ultimately
PE> causing 50 million preventable deaths.
PE> Despite the fact that BPA has consistently been proven by the FDA
PE> to be harmless to humans
PE> <http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/kfp266v1>
PE> -- and despite the fact that the FDA is about to release a new
PE> study on the chemical in a few weeks -- several media outlets
PE> (most notably the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the LA
PE>
Times<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/12/fda-word-on-bpa-delayed.html>)
PE> have called on the FDA to rule that the chemical is dangerous --
PE> before the new study comes out. Talk about pre-judging a case...
PE> Let me stress that BPA has consistently been proven to be
PE> harmless in humans. What is more, as I've previously noted,
PE> liberal special interests have a clear financial stake in
PE> attacking the
PE>
chemical<http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/a_chemical_scare_campaign_is_g.html>.
PE> Lastly, it is clear that numerous businesses which produce
PE> plastics ranging from sporting equipment to shatterproof water
PE> bottles, to eyeglass lenses, to CDs stand to lose significant
PE> amounts of money, possibly causing them to layoff employees in
PE> places such as my home state of Ohio, if BPA is banned.
PE> To be sure, if the new FDA study fairly concludes the chemical is
PE> unsafe for humans (a conclusion that would contradict numerous
PE> prior studies), I would obviously agree that these products should
PE> be pulled. But that is precisely why this premature interference
PE> is so pernicious. Now that the jury has effectively been tampered
PE> with, what are the odds that the new study will, in fact, be
PE> accepted as fair? In fact, there is a very real danger we may be
PE> allowing media groups to establish science policy, without the benefit of
science.
PE> Liberals would be the first to cry foul if a criminal were
PE> presumed guilty and they would object to the sort of "double
PE> jeopardy" which causes a product to defend itself indefinitely
PE> (or, until proven guilty). Yet, they seem to have no problem when
PE> the target is an American industry, not a terrorist or criminal.
PE> After all, a 2009 FDA study concluded BPA was safe. Apparently,
PE> that wasn't the "right" conclusion. ...If only liberals were as
PE> tough on terrorists as they are on American businesses.
PE> ###
PE> Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council
PE> and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was U.S.
PE> Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
PE> ________________________________
PE> The information contained in this message may be confidential and
PE> legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended
PE> solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended
PE> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding,
PE> dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly
PE> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
PE> recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy
PE> all copies of the original message.
PE> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
PE> virus signature database 4762 (20100111) __________
PE> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
PE> http://www.eset.com
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.consultingscientist.us
http://www.pickensplan.com/
Other related posts:
