From the Daily Mail: "Gender-bending chemicals found in plastic"

[Famous Mortimer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

Do you ever like to talk about things that aren't controversial?

[Famous Mortimer]

Do you ever like to talk about things that aren't controversial?

In real life? All the time. On a politics message board? No. What would be the point of that? Do you expect this entire site to just be people quoting each other's paragraphs about how Trump is racist? What exactly do you get out of that? Is this like a replacement for religious services for you? Is that why you guys get so mad? I'm basically being sacrilegious, coming into your house of worship, and telling you your God isn't real?

[The Dowager Mod]

So you admit you started this thread to start trouble, Good enough reason for me to lock it then.

[Virginiá]

Do you ever like to talk about things that aren't controversial?

In real life? All the time. On a politics message board? No. What would be the point of that? Do you expect this entire site to just be people quoting each other's paragraphs about how Trump is racist? What exactly do you get out of that? Is this like a replacement for religious services for you? Is that why you guys get so mad? I'm basically being sacrilegious, coming into your house of worship, and telling you your God isn't real?

Uhmm no. Just not constantly be harping on controversial issues. There are plenty of disagreements had on here over more general issues. But with you, it's like you are obsessed with immigration and a few other issues that frequently intersect with race and I guess lately, sexuality/gender.

I'm not mad or annoyed even. I'm just kind of curious why you have such a narrow focus on here. I do also find it interesting how questioning your posting habits made you think I expect people to just sit around calling Trump racist. Straw man if I ever saw one, and once again involving race too!

[muon2]

What's too bad about the way this issue got posted is that this aspect of the BPA controversy probably has a better scientific claim than the notion that BPA is carcinogenic. Hormonal effects were reported in low dose studies, while carcinogenic effects in rats required unrealistically high doses. A few years ago I was at an environmental conference for policy makers that had a detailed presentation on the hormone-disrupting effects of various chemicals, including BPA.

The debate was important enough that Scientific American ran an article in 2013 putting forth both sides of the BPA-as-endocrine-disrupter controversy. SA followed up the next year with an article after FDA scientists weighed in on the side of those claiming no effects. Academic studies on both sides continue to be published, so it's not surprising that conventional media outlets will occasionally pick up on one and write a story.