4 ms·

Furthermore, data obtained in human and different cell lines show that BPA interferes with thyroid hormones synthesis, secretion, and signaling. Due to its anti

by elif 4y ago

Furthermore, data obtained in human and different cell lines show that BPA interferes with thyroid hormones synthesis, secretion, and signaling. Due to its anti-androgenic action, BPA works as an agonist on estrogen receptors and antagonist on androgen receptors[0] BPA exerts endocrine disruptor action due to its weak binding affinity for the estrogen receptors ERα and ERβ. BPA exerts other effects by activating the membrane receptor GPER (GPR30) and/or other receptors such as the estrogen-related receptors (ERRs).[1] In the presence of BPA and DES, the ER-binding region of the HOTAIR promoter was enriched by trimethylation on lysine 4 of histone 3 (H3K4) and by H3K4-specific methyltransferases, which are known to activate transcription73 (Table 2). Moreover, developmental BPA exposure enhances H3K4 trimethylation on genes, which are subsequently more sensitive to regulation by testosterone [2] [0] https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/16/5761#:~:text=Furthermore%2C%20data%20obtained%20in%20human,on%20androgen%20receptors%20%5B35%5D https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/16/5761#:~:text=Furthermor.... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6864600/#:~:text=BPA%20exerts%20endocrine%20disruptor%20action,%2Drelated%20receptors%20(ERRs) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6864600/#:~:tex.... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0273-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0273-8 As for your point about FDA not being "industry" https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/4956945... (The same FDA also banned bpa in products for children under 3)

dragontamer 4y ago
You've copy/pasted a couple of lines from various studies, seemingly without any rhyme or reason. I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, but you're not exactly making it easy. EDIT: I know the stupid "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trick. Just because scary chemical words are used in a paper doesn't mean anything. You're gonna have to make an actual point and argument if you want to convince me of anything. Hint: What does BPA do, and why are you scared of it? In your own words, supported by the quotes you chose above.
- elif 4y ago
  You specifically attacked the publication credibility of bpa studies... So my focus was in providing high quality sources. I assumed you could understand the papers if I linked them. The summary of those excerpts are "endocrine disruption and hormone modulation" If that is still jargon to you, the effects of those processes which have been substantially linked to bpa are reproductive problems, developmental delays, and increased risk of certain cancers.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Sure. So you should be able to link a study demonstrating these reproductive problems. IE: X people have less exposure to BPA, Y people have more exposure to BPA, and Y people have said problems. -------- Traditionally, that's the kind of study that's done. For example, X people are non-smokers, Y people are smokers. Y people have Z% more cancer than X people. A quickie look through the papers you copy/pasted from are not of this traditional style of research. The links are rather... weak.
    - elif 4y ago
      The reason you will struggle to find data like that is that there is no "non-smoker" group. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674187/ BPA is in every person, and fetal and childhood exposure is the most critical period, and cancers don't develop until later in life.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > BPA is in every person I severely doubt that. Different people have different habits. I go to the grocery store. I can look at my neighbors food choices and see that some people buy cans, other people buy frozen. Any hypothetical BPA-issue will affect the canned people more, and the frozen-buyers less.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > Commercial production of BPA began in the United States in 1957 and then in Europe a year later A quote from the article you posted. This suggests that older people born before 1957 should have different properties compared to people born after that year, especially if you are alleging that babies are especially sensitive to this plastic. I know my Grandma is older than 1957. There's probably plenty of people who can participate in such a study of the anti-BPA crowd cared.

by elif 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago

You've copy/pasted a couple of lines from various studies, seemingly without any rhyme or reason. I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, but you're not exactly making it easy. EDIT: I know the stupid "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trick. Just because scary chemical words are used in a paper doesn't mean anything. You're gonna have to make an actual point and argument if you want to convince me of anything. Hint: What does BPA do, and why are you scared of it? In your own words, supported by the quotes you chose above.

elif 4y ago
You specifically attacked the publication credibility of bpa studies... So my focus was in providing high quality sources. I assumed you could understand the papers if I linked them. The summary of those excerpts are "endocrine disruption and hormone modulation" If that is still jargon to you, the effects of those processes which have been substantially linked to bpa are reproductive problems, developmental delays, and increased risk of certain cancers.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Sure. So you should be able to link a study demonstrating these reproductive problems. IE: X people have less exposure to BPA, Y people have more exposure to BPA, and Y people have said problems. -------- Traditionally, that's the kind of study that's done. For example, X people are non-smokers, Y people are smokers. Y people have Z% more cancer than X people. A quickie look through the papers you copy/pasted from are not of this traditional style of research. The links are rather... weak.
  - elif 4y ago
    The reason you will struggle to find data like that is that there is no "non-smoker" group. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674187/ BPA is in every person, and fetal and childhood exposure is the most critical period, and cancers don't develop until later in life.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > BPA is in every person I severely doubt that. Different people have different habits. I go to the grocery store. I can look at my neighbors food choices and see that some people buy cans, other people buy frozen. Any hypothetical BPA-issue will affect the canned people more, and the frozen-buyers less.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > Commercial production of BPA began in the United States in 1957 and then in Europe a year later A quote from the article you posted. This suggests that older people born before 1957 should have different properties compared to people born after that year, especially if you are alleging that babies are especially sensitive to this plastic. I know my Grandma is older than 1957. There's probably plenty of people who can participate in such a study of the anti-BPA crowd cared.