We at ACSH are rarely surprised
by anything we see published. Since it is our job to debunk bad science, we get
a steady diet of it. But we got a special dessert dropped in our laps, and this
one takes the cake. Although the study
in question is from July, it is so jaw-droppingly awful that we decided to
include it today. And when you read it, you may want to discontinue your
subscription to Scientific American, which according to ACSH’s media director
Erik Lief “should really be called Unscientific American.”
We have discussed the rampant
anti-BPA mythology —the poster-child for bad chemical science— regularly,
pointing out that there is nothing even remotely valid about any study that
suggests that the chemical (a component of certain plastics which is found in
minute quantities in virtually everyone) has ever done harm to anyone.
Although it is impossible to
prove that any substance is absolutely safe, ironically, the best evidence of
BPA’s safety comes from an article in Scientific American which attacks the
chemical. But their conclusion, which is about as scientifically incorrect as
possible, may in fact, be the best evidence for the chemical’s safety.
The July 25, 2013 issue of Scientific American contains a study entitled
“Mice Harmed by Low Dose of BPA, Not High.” If this seems counterintuitive, you
are correct…..Read more.
No comments:
Post a Comment