> "An analysis of the literature on bisphenol A leachate low-dose 
> effects by vom Saal and Hughes published in August 2005 seems to 
> have found a suggestive correlation between the source of funding 
> and the conclusion drawn. Industry funded studies tend to find no 
> significant effects while government funded studies tend to find 
> significant effects.[2]"
>
> Sounds familiar.
> In this case it's re bisphenol A, but that finding would apply in 
> most areas.
>
>        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate


And, this is how they do the smoke and mirrors.
Including":
    - small sample size
    - selective samples
    - lying
    - bad methodology
    - inappropriate test subjects

Very creative :-)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A


_________________________

The plastics industry has long claimed that bisphenol A is safe at 
typical levels of human exposure, minimizing or discounting all tests 
to the contrary. Eleven industry-funded studies found no risk from 
bisphenol A, while 90% of 104 independent studies showed possible 
risks, says a December 2004 report from scientists Fred vom Saal and 
Claude Hughes [6]. A previous report, released by the Harvard Center 
for Risk Analysis and funded by the American Plastics Council, called 
the evidence for risks "weak" and "inconsistent". Claude Hughes, who 
co-authored the 2004 paper with vom Saal, had served on the Harvard 
Center for Risk Analysis panel. As indicated in his publication with 
vom Saal, he regards that assessment as out-of-date because it 
considered so few of the many papers published on low-dose BPA since 
2001.

In 2006, vom Saal and Welshons published a detailed analysis of why a 
small number of studies, mostly conducted in industry-funded 
laboratories, failed to replicate findings on low-level effects of 
BPA[8]. Independent review by a scientific panel convened by a US 
government agency found through reanalysis of the data in one of those 
papers that it in fact had found an effect, even though its 
conclusions stated otherwise. Several of the studies failed to use 
positive controls, and comparisons with other studies suggest that the 
negative controls were contaminated. Finally, several use a variety of 
rat that is known to be extremely insensitive to estrogens.

Belcher and coworkers demonstrated that even very low levels of BPA 
can disrupt neural development in the fetus (rat)[7]. While a 
"low-dose hypothesis" has been debated for years [1], this study 
questions the assumption that a simple "dose-equals-effect" model is 
adequate to assess endocrine disruptor activity.

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist