I Feel Vindicated

[TheRustyScupper]

One of the divisions I run is a plastics company. I have been involved in plastics for better than 20-years.

1) I have warned people about using plastic bottles for water.
2) We actually published a paper about it.
3) People have pooh-poohed me for years!
4) Now, a government study almost vindicates me.
5) It shows that plastic bottles with 1-3-6-or-7 on the bottom can be harmful.
6) They release an agent mimicking some hormones in the body.
7) Those hormones in pregnant women can cause birth defects in some.
8) Including autism.
9) And some of these are baby bottles!
10) The release level of agents are different, and affect people differently.
11) This is why I haven't used plastic water bottles in years.

NOTE:
A "1" bottle is safe for one use only, unless it gets heated, then can be unsafe.
A "3", "6", or "7" bottle can be dangerous during the first use.
Look inside the triangle on the bottle bottom.
For a clip of this, go to the website for "NBC Today Show", 4/9/08.

 

[mom2zandjsquared]

My FIL was just talking about this today to me because our DD will only drink water out of the dasani bottle that it comes in.

 

[SueM in MN]

I am going to move this to the disABILITIES Community thread, where it will be on topic.
I think it is an interesting subject.

 

[Schmeck]

Have they done any tests on humans yet, or is still just the overdose-the-rat-til-it-dies testing? I thought that there was no hard evidence yet of the human kind, just the rats.

 

[BeckyScott]

What I just don't get...

From what I've seen on mainstream media there isn't much (if any) hard proof (or any that they're willing to admit) but the bottles are getting pulled off the shelves.

In the meantime, there are other things that many people think contribute to learning difficulties-- like artificial coloring/ flavoring and ADHD, the vaccine-autism debate, stuff like that-- that have been issues for quite some time and I don't see anyone pulling things off the shelf.

For example, Feingold has been around since the early 70's (maybe longer, but I do remember my mom trying to Feingold my brother in 1974), now in 2008 the AAP finally admits that (quoting directly from AAP Grand Rounds) "the overall findings of the studies are clear and require that even we skeptics who have long doubted parental claims of the effects of various foods on the behavior of their children, admit we might have been wrong". But I don't see food manufacturers going crazy pulling those ingredients out, nor do I see the local grocery store refusing to stock anything with artificial ingredients. (oh that would be funny, nothing left but a couple of apples and a bag of flour!)

Okay, the autism-vaccine thing, the thimerisol was pulled (with no admission that there might be a link) but even today, to suggest altering the vaccine schedule is met with criticism, and new vaccines continue to be added.

And I personally think we should have sent China all their toys back, until they figured out how to make them properly. Sure everyone freaked for a couple of months, but it didn't take us long to "forget".

I'm all for pulling those bottles, don't get me wrong, we are past baby bottles but still buy bottled water occasionally. I'm just trying to figure out why some things attract so much attention, while others do not.

 

[WheeledTraveler]

I have to ask what the solution is here if it's not plastic bottles for water?

I just checked my Nalgene and other water bottle (I can't carry regular cups and walk or wheel and I need to be able to transport water to things like classes anyway and some days I can't drink out of anything with a wide brim) and they're both "unsafe" according to the OP. My guess is that if they aren't safe, then its unlikely that there are many durable water bottles that are safe and for some of us not using water bottles isn't possible.

Also, if it's so much of a risk, why aren't safe water bottles more prevalent in the market?

Personally, I haven't seen specific enough results out there in studies using humans to be worried.

 

[bookwormde]

While it is a common misconception, autism is not a “birth defect” it is a multigenerational neurological genetic variant.

It is certainly greatly effected by any other complicating issue like reduced cognitive abilities from such issues as mercury exposure, lead expose, exposure to certain organic chemicals or possibly “hormone mimicking agents released from certain plastic bottles), or other birth, negative environmental expose, and other genetic factors,)

So while it makes good “headlines” to say something causes autism, it does not have any basis in fact. It may however have an influence where a person is on the “spectrum” dependent on its impact on cognitive or other factors.

bookwormde

 

[Schmeck]

While it is a common misconception, autism is not a “birth defect” it is a multigenerational neurological genetic variant.

They've found the gene, or gene markers for autism? How many genes are involved? What are the variants?

 

[bookwormde]

Schmeck

No such luck, but there is some research going on. Only a very few of the genetic based variants, characteristics and diseases have had the actual gene(s) identified, though there existence is broadly accepted within both the scientific and clinical communities. We are on the way now that some of the better clinicians are becoming more experienced and efficient in identifying spectrum characteristics in family members who do not meet the DSM-IV standards. My training and studies are that of a scientist and engineer so I understand the difference between theory and proof, and there is very little in our universe that is truly proven (if anything) they are just theories that have become broadly accepted.

bookwormde

 

[BeckyScott]

I think the current conventional wisdom is that autism is caused by:

A genetic predisposition

and then Something Happens to kick it in

The "something" is, of course, the topic of much debate.

I've also never heard it lumped in with Birth Defects. I think that many parents of kids with autism would balk at that label. Defective is a word best used to describe a broken cordless screwdriver, not a child. Frankly, probably parents of most kids with any special need would balk at the word "defect", whether it's considered the proper term or not. JMHO and no I haven't got any scientific research to back me up.

Do I think plastic bottles caused my son's autism? Aahh, maybe contributed, maybe not. Sure didn't cause it alone. I can probably come up with 10 or 15 different possible contributors, anyone who's done a lot of reading can. But in every case, there are children who used the product or had that thing happen, who don't have autism. So it's more than that, too.

Let's see, my son:
was breech and was turned by the OB
had more than one sonogram (because he was breech)
was induced (so he wouldn't go breech again)
I was bordering on "old" (no comments from the peanut gallery, please)
And DH is the same age
could not tolerate regular formula (which implies a milk allergy was already in place from birth)
had numerous vaccines (until the day he was diagnosed)
was exposed to secondhand smoke
chewed on toys (which were probably covered in bad paint)
lived in an older home (unknown chemical exposure there)
I have numerous allergies and gastrointestinal problems
I am an artist (visual learner)
DH is a mechanic (aww, how cute, our son is spinning car wheels just like Daddy)
we used Playtex drop-ins (with warm water!)

Well, that's 14. Give me a little while, I'll come up with another 4 or 5 for ya. But I betcha there is some other kid in the universe, somewhere, with the same history and no autism. We do have two kids, and while I believe our oldest is borderline Aspie, he isn't autistic. The only difference between the two is that the oldest wasn't breech, and DH and I were a couple years younger. So something else is going on. And if someone could please tell me what that something else is, I'd sure appreciate it. And after you get done figuring it out, call CNN, I'm sure they'd be interested.

 

[bookwormde]

Yes that is true I a sense. There is a sense now that it is more that there is an event (mostly loss some portion of cognitive capabilities or some other neurological difficulty or just the standard variations in cognitive abilities that comes from genes coming from 2 sources) that impacts the individuals’ ability to develop the intellectual replacements for the innate social skills abilities and to “manage” some of the other atypical characteristics. They still would have had the genetics characteristics but they would not have had the same level of manifestations and challenges and would be able to use the “extra” capabilities that spectrum people have. Also so far there is no indication that it is impacted by genetic degradation.

bookwormde