“I hate what passes for scientific research,” writes Charleston Daily Mail columnist Don Surber.
About the recent study purporting to link prenatal bisphenol A exposures with behavioral problems in young girls, Surber writes:
Journalists should realize that a press release from a scientist has the same credibility as a press release from a politician. Science is not a public opinion poll. Public opinion polls are more accurate. Consider the woefully inadequate study of the plastic bisphenol A and behavioral problems in girls. The study could lead to some sort of government restrictions…
I am not saying there is no link between a kid acting up and a plastic bottle; I am saying they have not proved it.
Oh, and I forgot to add, “Aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!”
Why did the “researchers” conclude that the BPA caused behavioral problems in the toddler girls? Since it was the mothers who were polled, and the mothers that were tested to have BPA in their systems, is it not equally probable that, if there was any BPA effect, the mothers’ attitude, patience, and understanding of infantile development may have been compromised to the extent that they reported problems? After all, there is no evidence in the blurb that anyone other than the mothers had actually observed the girls’ behavior.
PBS had an interesting show on last night reviewing the autopsy of a man who was frozen in the alps 5000 years ago. He had arthritis, heart disease, and limes disease, all supposed modern illnesses caused by fat, lazy, fast food eating, modern man. How can this be, with his low BMI, healthy diet, and rural living? Genetics. Stop with the meaningless regulations based upon really bad “science”. Vetting and peer review may be dead.