This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This article repeatedly claims that BPA is "an ingredient" in plastics and is used to make plastics. As a chemist, this is grating. BPA is a reactant used in the syntheses of various plastic polymers. In plastics it is present either as a trace contaminant left over from the reaction or possibly as a degradation product. IMHO, wikipedia should be more careful to distinguish between plastics which are materials formulated (or "made from") from polymers, and various other ingredients (plasticizers, stabilizers, pigments, and other additives) and man-made polymers (synthetic polymers). While the term "plastics" can be used to mean either, the distinction between the two is important when discussing ingredients. The fact is, there are all sorts of toxic nasty chemicals used in polymerization. Would it be useful (or accurate) to describe PVC (polyvinyl chloride polymer) plastic as containing the poison gas chlorine as one of its "ingredients"? This seems to have been written by the "all chemicals are bad" (know-nothing) crowd. Polymers are (usually) the majority ingredient in plastics, true, (and some plastics are almost pure polymer, but those are the exception). Using the latter term as a synonym for the former is just sloppy. The reality is that once a chemical molecule reacts it no longer exists, which is different from a chemical mixture where each compound retains its chemical properties and can be separated back into the pure state (usually). The point is that BPA is not (despite the FDA's sloppy wording) a component of plastic any more than you contain fish, beef, or rice as "components". Its called chemistry.Abitslow (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
BPA is employed to make certain plastics and epoxy resins. BPA-based plastic is clear and tough, and is made into a variety of common consumer goods, such as water bottles, sports equipment, CDs, and DVDs Two problems with this. Firstly, BPA is not used in "certain plastics", it is basically used in ONE class of synthetic polymer, which is polycarbonate. Secondly, to list "water bottles" under "common consumer goods" is EXTREMELY misleading. Most readers will assume that "water bottles" means the bottles in which you purchase Evian water at the supermarket (or similar). In fact, polycarbonate is only used to make the 25 litre bottles of water that sit on top of office water dispensers. All drinks bottles including those in which mineral water is sold in shops are made from PET, which has no connection with BPA at all. This sort of thing only adds to the hysteria and pseudoscientific ramblings that we so commonly hear. I would strongly suggest that the sentense is reworded as such: "BPA is used as the base material of the plastic called polycarbonate, and also epoxy resins. Polycarbonate is clear and tough, and can be used as a component of some common consumer goods, such as some sports equipment, CDs, and DVDs. It is also used to fabricate the large 25 litre containers used in water dispensers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.149.5 (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/bpa-free-bps_n_6465214.html?utm_hp_ref=green
Bananasoldier (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest a slight correction: there are two polymer families based on bisphenol-A: polycarbonates as cited and also resole epoxy resins that are glycidyl ether derivatives of BPA (commonly used as the basis for the brown colored coating on the interior of a common steel food can). There are also secondary polymers based on such epoxy resins made by reacting the residual epoxide groups with polymerizeable end groups. A closely related polymer family to the epoxy resoles are the so-called phenoxy resins in which the terminal epoxides have been converted to nonreactive end groups. I fully agree that bisphenol-A is a reacted component in all of these and not a blended ingredient. Slange8780 (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Slange8780
References
((cite web))
: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
In Jan 2015 EFSA announced that there are no consumer health risk from bisphenol A exposure http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/150121.htm, they even updated thei BPA FAQ. There are links to EFSA website in this article and information that should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.166.88.141 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That was a article, not a scholar research. by phoniex--36.225.98.184 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged this article for these potential problems and raised a query about it at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The FDA Science Board, a group of scientists drawn from academia, government and industry that advises the FDA commissioner, voted unanimously yesterday at a meeting in Gaithersburg to accept a report done by a subcommittee that blasted the agency's recent risk assessment of bisphenol-A (BPA), a compound found in baby bottles and the lining of food and soda cans. The report, released earlier this week, said the FDA ignored scores of government-funded studies that linked exposure to low doses of BPA to increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, hyperactivity and cancer in laboratory animals and that its margin of safety was "inadequate."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15689538((dead link))
tag to http://www.afssa.fr/PM9100B6I0.htm((dead link))
tag to http://www.afssa.fr/cgi-bin/countdocs.cgi?Documents%2FMCDA2009sa0270EN.pdf((dead link))
tag to http://www.foodmag.com.au/Article/Significant-bisphenol-A-levels-found-in-canned-food/504393.aspx((dead link))
tag to http://www.center4research.org/BPA.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bisphenol A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC) There are a few things missing from the Environmental Risks section, so look out for changes coming soon. Krcomo Scohen23 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)(talk) 21:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 21:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
According to the usual Wikipedia guidelines, the article should be split (because its size interferes with its maintenance and readability, I guess). So I suggest that we split the basic chemistry, retaining a small fraction of the extensive biomedical reporting, and something focused on the exposure effects.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I am thoroughly dismayed that an article that discusses a toxic substance that is banned from many aplications in most of the civillized world by legislation and has more than adequate references to that effect is medically challenged at all. I must insist in an inquest to the origins and intentions of that challenge. I will check if this notice will not be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSOG1959 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I am trying to upload a gif, in .ogg format, of a rotating BPA molecule, but keep hitting a page that says that the upload is unconstructive to wikipedia. I have reported the issue in Wikimedia, but am looking for advice as to how to upload. Scohen23 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
In different sections BPA is described as poorly soluble in water and also having high solubility in water. Both can't be right! Recent Runes (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The text says colorless, but the side panel says "Appearance White solid." Jidanni (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think Health Effects, Environmental Effects, Toxicity, and Uses should at the top, in the order that I just listed. That seems to be what the general public would be most interested in reading about when they are searching about BPA. There should be more health effects added to that section, because currently there is only general information about how it is an endocrine disruptor. We should add that it is linked to cancers, hormonal imbalances, fetal developmental disruption, CNS effects, and much more potentially. Other possible edits would be to make the sentences flow smoother grammatically. Lastly, I will hyperlink certain words that may be unfamiliar to people, such as epoxy resin, to other wikipedia articles about them for reference. After reading feedback from Group 18, I have decided I will add some examples of the state legislations that were placed to regulate BPA content in products like cups and baby bottles. Lucy H Ahn (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to elaborate more about how BPA actually gets into the body. I can add this under the health effects section. Ebang21 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)ebang21
Under the "Toxicity" section, I wanted to include more toxicity studies by the FDA to show the latest research on how BPA may or may not be accumulating in living organisms through doses that are much higher than human exposure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexjennifer (talk • contribs) 07:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I included more information about toxicity in the toxicity section, including the possible irritation that BPA can cause. Toxicity is a common concern with this chemical, so I thought it would be useful to add more information that is already available. Amunoz18 (talk)
Hi there group 19! Note to other active editors on this page: this is a required assignment for our class to post on this. If there are any concerns, we can provide contact info to our instructors regarding this issue. Thanks!
Grace:
1. I do believe Group 19's suggestion on including a Toxicity section to the article does substantially improve the article. They added current studies examining BPA toxicity. Another focus of the group was to include hyperlink for key words that may require more in-depth understanding. I found that to be a great addition to the article as some words or terms may not be familiar to all.
2. The draft does reflect a neutral point of view. The language displayed a neutral tone in summarizing the FDA's research premises and the conclusion from the finding. I hope that others will be able to continue the work Group 19 has started and expand on this section further.
Ghuynh (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Angela
1. From the edits that have been made, I believe it's improved the article by providing more information regarding the toxicity of BPA and linked information regarding research studies performed to test toxicity, just as Grace mentioned. I liked how each member had different focuses on parts of the essay that helps generally improve the overall article (i.e. toxicity section, history, introduction). Based on what they mentioned for potential edits, I believe they have achieved their goals thus far in making the changes to the article.
2. I believe I see they cited a source under toxicity, but to what I saw, it was a primary article. It was easily accessible, and I think it's appropriate for this article. It's likely this is a growing field of findings and interest regarding BPA toxicity. It does not seem to be an issue and I think group 19 is doing a great job with their edits!
Chang2021 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Jessica Sodhi:
1. I believe that the edits Group 19 has made thus far have improved the article by providing additional information regarding BPA toxicity, which has been a topic of concern in recent years. I also agree with Grace that the hyperlinks are useful contribution to the article and very nicely done. Overall, it appears that Group 19 has done a good job in implementing the changes they desired based on their discussion for potential edits.
2. As Angela said, the findings and interest regarding BPA toxicity have grown in recent years and I believe a primary article is appropriate. Group 19 has done a great job in maintaining a neutral tone and presenting findings in a well rounded way, which is important when discussing a controversial topic. Keep it up Group 19! Jsodhi1 (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Harini Bhat:
1. I agree with my colleagues above that group 19 did a good job of surveying the already provided information and pinpointing the areas that need more support. I believe another area that would be good to add to are any updates in legislation surrounding BPA in the United States. The most recent legislation seems to be from 2016, but I'm sure there have been further programs or policies since then, so that could be a good addition.
2. Group 19 did a good job of maintaining the integrity of their resources via links back to the original primary source and appropriate phrasing in their own words. I don't see any issues of plagiarism here. Good work!
Bisphenol A is not a plastizicer, but it is often referred to as such, even in the scientific literature doi:10.3390/genes8100269. I intend to add a note to the lead trying to explain this but I'm struggling to find a really good ref to back it up. It would need to be a secondary source or better, like Ullmann's Encyclopedia. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? Look at the article polycarbonate where in the lead Bisphenol A is actually described as a monomer. In PC production it is a monomer. In epoxy production it is a monomer precursor. GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Again @Smokefoot - I slightly disagree. The first polymerization I ever witnessed was the Nylon rope trick. Even Nylon 66 is a polycondensation. It may be difficult to get consensus on this issue. I prefer on balance to leave as is at the moment and to carry on looking for suitable secondary or tertiary sources for definitions. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
It is however, sometimes included in phthalates as a stabiliser (antioxidant),[1] which might explain the confusion. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
References