6 pointsby doener9 hours ago2 comments

magicalhippo9 hours ago
Bisphenol A (BPA) appeared in 98% of samples, and its substitute, bisphenol S (BPS), was found in more than three-quarters. Synthetic chemicals used to stiffen plastic, BPA and BPS mimic the action of oestrogen inside organisms, causing a range of adverse effects including the feminisation of males, early onset puberty in girls, and cancer. Previous studies have shown that bisphenols can migrate from synthetic materials into sweat, and that they can be absorbed through the skin.
Well that sucks...
A challenge is that we operate with deny lists, not allow lists of these materials. A product may switch to be BPA-free, but what did they switch to and what are the effects of the substitute? Often we only get to know a decade later or more. From the linked article on the previous study which found shocking amounts of bisphenols in women's underwear[1]:
Experience shows that it can take up to 6 months for manufacturers to introduce a new chemical to the market. On the other hand, if these substances are found to be harmful, it takes on average 20 years (!) to ban them from consumer goods’ production.
[1]: https://tudatosvasarlo.hu/toxic-chemicals-in-underwear-read-...
Pete-Codes5 hours ago
Yeah, this sucks. What are we supposed to do?
I'd be interested if people are going to wear their headphones less often or just say "screw it, everything has plastic now"