4 ms·

We link to respected news sources, a paper in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, and our competitors. This isn't fearmongering. It's true. I handle a lot

We link to respected news sources, a paper in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, and our competitors. This isn't fearmongering. It's true. I handle a lot of receipts running a business and so do a lot of other entrepreneurs. If you don't care, that's fine. Other people might. Also, your argument that all things are equally toxic in enough quantity is nonsensical.

phren0logy 16y ago
From the journal article linked: > "If this BPA ends up in the human metabolism, exposure of a person repeatedly touching thermal printer paper for 10 h/day, such as at a cash register, could reach 71 μg/day, which is 42 times less than the present tolerable daily intake (TDI)." Dose is everything in toxicology. That's why I mentioned water. Literally everything is toxic in the right dose, but I never said that all things are equally toxic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication It's not an issue of caring or not caring, it's an issue of hyping a threat that doesn't seem to be present, and asking people to contact lawmakers about it. You may have a very fine product. This is not, in my medical opinion, a reasonable way to go about promoting it.
- thinkcomp 16y ago
  The next sentence in the journal article reads "However, if more than just the finger pads contact the BPA-containing paper or a hand cream enhances permeability of the skin, this margin might be smaller." The paper earlier mentions that moisture can increase uptake by a factor of 10. The TDI as it currently stands was presumably established before this research and other related research was done. You are assuming that its current level is correct, which in my opinion, isn't a very good assumption. Your analogy to water intoxication remains puzzling to me. The typical cashier or accounting clerk might reasonably touch thermal paper receipts 10 hours per day, and use hand lotion. The typical cashier would not typically drink 20 liters or more of water per day to the point of experiencing water toxicity. The point is that it is not unreasonable to voice concern over this issue.

phren0logy 16y ago

From the journal article linked: > "If this BPA ends up in the human metabolism, exposure of a person repeatedly touching thermal printer paper for 10 h/day, such as at a cash register, could reach 71 μg/day, which is 42 times less than the present tolerable daily intake (TDI)." Dose is everything in toxicology. That's why I mentioned water. Literally everything is toxic in the right dose, but I never said that all things are equally toxic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication It's not an issue of caring or not caring, it's an issue of hyping a threat that doesn't seem to be present, and asking people to contact lawmakers about it. You may have a very fine product. This is not, in my medical opinion, a reasonable way to go about promoting it.

thinkcomp 16y ago
The next sentence in the journal article reads "However, if more than just the finger pads contact the BPA-containing paper or a hand cream enhances permeability of the skin, this margin might be smaller." The paper earlier mentions that moisture can increase uptake by a factor of 10. The TDI as it currently stands was presumably established before this research and other related research was done. You are assuming that its current level is correct, which in my opinion, isn't a very good assumption. Your analogy to water intoxication remains puzzling to me. The typical cashier or accounting clerk might reasonably touch thermal paper receipts 10 hours per day, and use hand lotion. The typical cashier would not typically drink 20 liters or more of water per day to the point of experiencing water toxicity. The point is that it is not unreasonable to voice concern over this issue.