Upgrading from Samsung GX20 to K-30 or K-5?

Started Jun 6, 2014 | Questions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Leandros S Senior Member • Posts: 1,789
Re: So you want to read selectively?

jojo81 wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

jojo81 wrote:

Leandros S wrote:

Or do you just have difficulty reading to the end of a sentence?

Maybe you struggle with sarcasm/humour?

The toxicity of polycarbonates clearly isn't an issue for nokia lumia phones, iphones and many other gadgets, i'm not sure why it needed to be raised in this thread.

And you assert this on what basis, exactly?

-- hide signature --

No amount of perceived entitlement can replace actual expertise.

Okay you still seem to be missing the fact that the original comment was a joke, but if you want to take a serious look at the health implications of biosphenol A, I suggest you take a look here:


or here

But to give the cliff notes, the the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 5 milligram/kg body weight/day. For reference that means every day for the rest of your life, with no adverse effects. I weigh approx 80Kg, that would require 4g of the chemical, everyday, forever to have absolutely no measurable effects.

400 milligrams are not 4 grams. Additionally, it has been suggested that endocrine disruptors do not act in a linear way, and may not conform to our assumptions of such things as LD50. Furthermore, BPA is not the only endocrine disruptor you're likely to be exposed to, especially if you live in a country such as the US where use of herbicides, pesticides and hormones is relatively unregulated.

NOAEL is a function of study size. If you take twenty people into your study, you're likely to get a high NOAEL. If you take 10 million people into the study, your NOAEL is likely to be very small indeed. What you may want to take away, rather, is that the chemical is doing something in your body.

In fact, it's doing rather a lot of things:


The website you cite is published by a group who "represents the leading companies" of the chemical industry. I wouldn't turn to them to learn the truth about BPA just as I wouldn't turn to the council of burglars to tell me what sort of lock to put on my door. In fact, there's a study that explicitly warns of this, based on very clear evidence:


The Total Daily Intake (TDI i.e. recommended maximum per day) is set at 1% of the NOAEL.

The best studies collated and examined by the EFSA confirmed that "People’s dietary exposure to BPA, including that of infants and children, is estimated to be well below the new TDI."

And to come full circle, this is still only relevant (as it needs to be inhaled or consumed,)

No, that's simply not true. The figures you're citing are for those kinds of exposures.

BPA can be absorbed through skin:


if the polycarbonate is going to be aerosolised, or used for food/drink storage, or maybe as a plate. All of which would be extremely odd things to do with a new camera, WR or not!

See above.

And finally everything is toxic in the wrong dose. Even water has a toxicity level. LD50 for me would be about 7.2 litres assuming I take no salts or sugars in with it.


That's a very old and stupid cliche. Everything is toxic, so let me eat these death cap mushrooms? I don't think so, bud.

Now, as for that ESFA page you're citing, it seems you did not read it very thoroughly. To wit:

EFSA identified likely adverse effects on the liver and kidney and effects on the mammary gland as being linked to exposure to the chemical. It therefore recommended that the current tolerable daily intake (TDI) be lowered from its current level of 50 µg/kg bw/ day (or 0.05 mg/kg/bw/day) to 5 µg/kg bw/day (0.005 mg/kg/bw/day). The Authority also noted that uncertainties remained over a number of other health hazards considered as less likely.

i.e. the panel explicitly acknowledged that its new, lower limit might still be wrong as not enough is yet known about all of the ways BPA gains access to, and acts in, the body. For me, the fact that it has been demonstrated to be relevant, to name just two of many conditions, diabetes and breast cancer (rates of which are rising), and is already ubiquitous in our daily environments is a clear call for reducing my exposure as much as I know how to.

But if you prefer a different disease, there is a large range to pick from. Obesity, maybe, or brain tumours? (Again, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A )

If you don't eliminate hazards in your personal environment, that's your choice, but I guarantee you'll be thinking back to this moment on the day when your fertility turns out to be insufficient, or you have an ambiguous gender child in the family. Meanwhile, you'd be seen as a much finer human being if you were to acknowledge that not everything that the higher-ups are selling to you is wonderful, and instead joined the ranks of those who call attention and demand action over this form of "substance abuse". I do understand that it's convenient and pleasant to live in a bubble that others define for you, and to defend that bubble against arguments that call into doubt whether it really is the best of all possible worlds. But for once, you might actually look the evidence squarely in the eye and decide that making changes might actually be worthwhile in the long run, and not just for yourself.

-- hide signature --

No amount of perceived entitlement can replace actual expertise.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow