![]() ![]() SWAN: We did a whole series of studies showing that when a mother had higher levels of those phthalates in her urine the sons were born with genital changes and then we showed that the changes in adults were related to sperm count.ĬURWOOD: That and more this week on Living on Earth – Stick Around! ![]() And they identified some of the specific health risks and then went on and approved the chemicals.ĬURWOOD: Chemicals like PFAS and phthalates can disrupt the hormone system and reproduction. GOTTLIEB: They knew that these chemicals were extremely dangerous, and that the chemicals that they were looking at specifically could break down into PFAS. REPORTERS: Peter Dykstra, Aynsley O’NeillĬURWOOD: From PRX – this is Living On Earth.ĭespite warning signs, toxic chemicals linked to the emerging fertility crisis were approved for fracking by the Obama Administration. I imagine that they will quickly pick up on this post and remove it, but here it is for now.GUESTS: Gloria Majiga-Kamoto, Shanna Swan, Ami Zota Thanks again to her for spotting this.Īt the time of writing the entry on Polyparaben was still on the Skin Deep database. Lisa is based in Denmark and has developed her own range of products. Here is the link to Lisa Lise’s original post. If I were the manufacturers I would get onto the Environmental Working Group to ask for a correction. A couple of products are also referenced that are supposed to contain this non-existent material. Presumably as the material doesn’t exist the data gap ought to be infinite.īut the sloppiness doesn’t end with the science. I am not sure how they arrived at a data gap of 94%. Anyone can make a mistake, but this particular mistake would only have been made by someone completely ignorant about basic science. To a scientist the name gives a clue as to what the material actually is – and in this case isn’t even very advanced science either.Ĭlearly the assessments are carried out by somebody with little idea of what they are doing. Ethene is a flammable gas and polythene, well you know what polythene is. Polyparaben would instantly suggest a polymer of a paraben, which would have properties quite different to those of a simple paraben.Ī familiar example is polythene. Propyl and poly may seem similar enough if you aren’t used to chemical names.īut to someone with a technical background you recognise the meaning straight away. You don’t have any feel for its meaning so you don’t see its pattern. It would be like transcribing words in a language you don’t speak. It’s the kind of error a non-scientist is quite likely to make. ![]() Lisa Lise suggests that somebody somewhere has misread propylparaben. Polyparaben, which the Environmental Working Group has strong concerns over, including emerging concerns that it is an endocrine disrupter, has never been used in cosmetics.Īs far as I can tell, although it would in principle be possible to polymerise some kind of paraben to produce a material that could be described as polyparaben, nobody has ever actually done so. But even I thought that the materials that they have set up their database to malign do actually exist. Given I that I regard it as highly misleading and often wrong, this is quite an achievement. Reading Lisa Lise’s blog the other day lowered my opinion of the Skin Deep database.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |