what about the signs on the bottles like 2, 5 , 6, ... and the signs of Tableware fork and knife that told us about no toxin of them

Though I have no perfect idea about this but I am sure it might cause because BPA and BPF are the ingredients of plastics which are dangerous. 

Dear @Ahmed Abdelraheem Farghaly,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Niranjan Biswal,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

The most dangerous plastics consist in polychlorinated vinyls. The popularity of these plastic materials reserved for the packaging of our food has sparked the development of test protocols to verify the inertia of materials that contain packaged foods. Migration tests have been tried in which stimulants solvents foods are brought into contact with the materials during a known time interval. These tests highlight the migration of the monomer, vinyl chloride, which could in the long term rather serious toxicological effects and whatever the mode of contamination. In other plastics such as polyethylenes is the migration of additives which are dangerous

Yes it can induce cancer, but neither developed countries nor developing countries are serious about such problems

BPA has been used in packaging for years and it’s estimated that it can be detected in the urine of most adults in the developed world. However, it is possible to reduce your exposure by avoiding BPA in plastic packaging. Most plastics are labelled with a number which allows you to work out whether it contains BPA. The number is inside the triangular recycling mark.

1, 2, 4 or 5 means the plastic is BPA free. They quite often say BPA free on them.

A 3 or a 7 means that the plastic may contain BPA. The BPA may be released if you heat them up or put detergent on them.

A 6 means it’s made from polystyrene.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3JYPnFyHfjDB0jTJFSw97ms/can-plastic-water-bottles-cause-cancer

The re-cycled coloured plastic bottles/plastic bags are more dangerous for heavy metal poisoning. It needs more general awareness among masses.

Would you use a product that used to be tissue and organs of animals (or humans)?

I would leave it alone (now that I know).

A great human invention with many practical applications plastics come directly from fossil fuels, which used to be soft parts of animals. They died, were buried, now are exhumed, resurrected and used as energy source. The health effects by using them here and there are scary. People using them get punished for disturbing their burial grounds. One can study their skeletons, but soft parts should be left alone to be recycled by nature. 

I would be very  much  conservative to  say" I think it has been  investigated thoroughly  before use

Dear Prof Mahmudova,

In my defense (for using plastic) I check if it is B P A (Bisphenol A) free .

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/packag-emball/bpa/index-eng.php

I will trust such organization recommendations /reports.

It has long been known that the effect of toxicity on human health on

the concentration of the toxic substance has a shape of the sawtooth curve.

And this pattern in terms of concentration - covers at least 10-15 decimal orders.

For example: in order to get rid of gray mold on strawberries it is usually recommended to spray the strawberry by a special solution containing, say, 1 kg of active agent of toxic (for gray mold) chemical in 8-10 liters of water.

It was shown however that the same effect could be achieved if to use only 1g (or even 10 mg - it's difficult to imagine !!!) of toxic (for gray mold) agent per 8-10 liters of water.

There is a Laboratory at the Institute of BioChemical Physics which subject is : the Effects of small doses : of radiation, chemical toxins...

By the mentioned above I wanted to say that the real scale of toxicity of chemical substances - is NOT YET KNOWN.

Of course - without any doubt - the Chlorine containing derivatives - can cause cancer... and this fact was repeatedly confirmed by special tests. YET - basing on the above said the ranges - most probably are not established correctly.

In conclusion: for sure - we live in dangerous environments. But we do not know - how dangerous they are.

Do not worry too much

Be Happy,                                                    Leonid

It was funny to see how in one country the price of 2L PET water bottles within 2-3 days dropped down from 150 arb.u. down to 20.

Shafagat,

It seems like a giant fail for both the plastics industry and regulators, including the FDA. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) was the manufacturer's choice in replacing BPA (bisphenol A), a plastics ingredient suspected of causing cancer, neurologic, metabolic, and other diseases. Unfortunately, DEHP is a close cousin to BPA and has some of the same ingredients. Totally astonishing that the industry and regulators saw nothing wrong with this replacement. It seems like a publicity stunt, assuring the public that they are no longer using BPA, while replacing it with something (DEHP) that many scientists are now thinking is worse that BPA.

It seems that the U.S. EPA and FDA are still not too concerned with either chemical, even as scientists have shown that BPA leaching into streams appears to be affecting fish and amphibians. Additionally, leached BPA and DEHP getting into the water table likely will have long-term effects on human health.

I read about this topic in many studies which said that plastic bottles are made from chemicals and suggests that all plastics may leach chemicals if they're scratched or heated. They also strongly suggests that at certain exposure levels, some of the chemicals in these products, such as bisphenol A (BPA), may cause cancer in people.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cancer-controversies/plastic-bottles-and-cling-film

Dear Shafagat,

There is here a little general news on your issue https://www.banthebottle.net/articles/plastic-water-bottles-can-release-cancer-causing-toxins/

and also these two

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cancer-controversies/plastic-bottles-and-cling-film

https://plasticsinfo.org/Functional-Nav/FAQs/Beverage-Bottles

I'm not a specialist in the field of your question but have found that the Web page "Exposure to Chemicals in Plastic" (http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/plastic) of Breastcancer.org, which complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information, describes as follows:

"Research suggests that all plastics may leach chemicals if they're scratched or heated. Research also strongly suggests that at certain exposure levels, some of the chemicals in these products, such as bisphenol A (BPA), may cause cancer in people.

"BPA is a weak synthetic estrogen found in many rigid plastic products, food and formula can linings, dental sealants, and on the shiny side of paper cashier receipts (to stabilize the ink). Its estrogen-like activity makes it a hormone disruptor, like many other chemicals in plastics. Hormone disruptors can affect how estrogen and other hormones act in the body, by blocking them or mimicking them, which throws off the body's hormonal balance. Because estrogen can make hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer develop and grow, many women choose to limit their exposure to these chemicals that can act like estrogen.

"BPA also seems to affect brain development in the womb. In 2011, a study found that pregnant women with high levels of BPA in their urine were more likely to have daughters who showed signs of hyperactivity, anxiety, and depression. The symptoms were seen in girls as young as 3. It’s not clear why boys aren’t affected in the same way."

Store water in stainless steel or glass to avoid chemical contaminants such as BPA that can leach from plastic bottles.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38865802/ns/health-cancer/t/everyday-ways-avoid-cancer/

Dear @Barbara Sawicka,

Thanks a lot for your perfect answers.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Fadel Djamel,

Your answer is highly appreciated.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Michael Issigonis,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Krishnan Umachandran,

Thank you very much for useful link.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Tatsuo Tabata,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @András Bozsik,

Thank you very much for useful links.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear 2Jeanan Shafiq,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Waldemar Koczkodaj,

Thank you very much for interesting opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Napoleon Ono Imaah,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @C. Lewis Kausel,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Mushtaq Ahmad,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards. Shafagat

Dear @Mushtaq Ahmad,

Thanks a lot for your perfect answer and useful link.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @D.P.S. RATHORE,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Ishag Adam,

thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Leonid V Vladimirov ,

Thank you very much for useful opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Waldemar Koczkodaj,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

 Dear @Sofia Cividini,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @James A Green,

Thank you very much for interesting opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear Barbar Thanku so much for more valuable information. 

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Is plastic is carcinogenic?

Dioxin is formed in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or #3 plastic. Dioxin has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known human carcinogen, and is also an endocrine disruptor.

Dear @Hazim Hashim Tahir ,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Chemicals in Plastics

Plastic is everywhere—it's used in consumer products and packaging of all kinds. And while it solves a lot of problems for manufacturers and can seem convenient to consumers, there are also serious risks to human health and the environment from its widespread use.

Three plastics have been shown to leach toxic chemicals when heated, worn or put under pressure: polycarbonate, which leaches bisphenol A; polystyrene, which leaches styrene; and PVC, or polyvinyl chloride, which break down into vinyl chloride and sometimes contains phthalates that can leach.

And for more specific information about these and other chemicals found in plastics, including what they do and why they're bad for you, look below.

Bisphenol A (BPA)

Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. It's a building block of polycarbonate (#7 is often polycarbonate) plastic and is used in thousands of consumer products, including food packaging. BPA exposure may disrupt normal breast development in ways that predispose women for later life breast cancer.

Phthalates

Phthalates are a group of endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in PVC or #3 plastic. Phthalate exposure has been linked toearly puberty in girls, a risk factor for later-life breast cancer. Some phthalates also act as weakestrogens in cell culture systems.

Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl chloride is formed in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or #3 plastic. It was one of the first chemicals designated as a known human carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It has also been linked to increased mortality from breast cancer among workers involved in its manufacture.

Dioxin

Dioxin is formed in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or #3 plastic. Dioxin has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known human carcinogen, and is also an endocrine disruptor.

Styrene

Styrene can leach from polystyrene or #6 plastic and is found in Styrofoam food trays, egg cartons, disposable cups and bowls, carryout containers and opaque plastic cutlery. It has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a possible human carcinogen."

Please, see the original article ....

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/environmental-breast-cancer-links/plastics/?referrer=https://www.google.iq/

Dear Shafagat

It is important to consider the method of storage and the environment.

Regards

Dear all

Barbara Sawicka is giving much information regarding this topic i want to add some more information that  Plastics actually release different chemicals in different situations. Dioxins are a group of chemicals that are formed unintentionally by industrial processes such as burning fuels and incinerating waste. Only one dioxin, known as TCDD, has been shown to cause cancer in people.

 good day

Unfortunately its has taken us a long time to realize the consequences of plastic but it makes no difference now, as the whole world is plasticized with no alternative to look forward too. The interesting thing is that plastic comes from fossil fuels or oil which the whole world is fighting for; oil which is a non-renewable source of energy is being utilized to create plastic which is non-biodegradable.

Thanks for your invitation.

I have not found a evidence based on, for example, a double study or a long term mirate study. The problem is that if I assume nanograms of a substance, I have not immediatly evidence of any damage. Is a big challenge understand that some efffects present  when i am 50 years old are caused from what i have done when i was 20 yeras old.

I agree with Napoleon: Plastics, plastics, plastics everywhere

The problem of the containers has been known for a long time.

For example Nero, Roman emperor, loved the sweet wine of Falerno. The wine was sweet because of lead caps, which gave the wine its particular taste.

It is assumed that one of the causes of madness that hit Nero and other Roman emperors had the lead (long-term lead poisoning.)

Probably only glass bottles (non-radioactive) do not release anything. Must be assessed, Nero Docet, that usually caps have plastic trimming or PVC.

The problem of the bottles in my opinion, in the end, it is a false problem. Because?

1- Because the bottles are just the visible part of the water chain.

2- Becase we have the free will  of decide whether to use plastic bottles or less: the use of plastic bottle is under our control.

3- Because the water pumped from a well or from a river of from a lake etc, passes in a plastic tube, normally HDPE or PVC.

In Europe, in theory, today any tube containing water intended to come into contact with humans, is regulated from the point of view of the releases. (Directive 98/83/CE, 98/34/CE)

BUT:

Many pipes are laid ante regulation. An aqueduct is designed for an average life of at least 50-80 years before replacement. So the 1980 aqueducts are in service today.

The pipes used for water are of various materials: Cast iron pipes with cementitious coatings, steel, iron, copper, polyethylene for cold water, polyethylene for hot water, PVC,etc.

When the water flows from the taps has also undergone several treatments:

Flocculation with iron hydroxide or aluminum sulphate. No one has ever found a red or white mud at the bottom of big reservoirs of potable water?

In agriculture now there is large use of LDPE/HDPE pipes. A lot of these pipe are exposed for all day to sun. PE is black because it has carbon black to resist UV.

LDPE often is not marked specific for human use.

I could go on, but the fact is this: the plastic bottles are like a mote in the eye. The beam is elsewhere.

Anyhow :

Safe storage for plastic bottle is crucial:

Leave a bottle of mineral water in the car for two days under the southern summer sun (60-80 ° C in the cockpit). The taste of that water: a fairy tale....

There are several risk factors, such as uncontrolled storage temperature, non-compliance of food packaging with regulations, purity specifications and with the established concentration / migration limit of chemicals (especially for heavy metals used as additives). Moreover, plastic is a mixture of chemical compounds difficult to assess in terms of possible interactions between chemicals, so the remaining uncertainty can be qualitative and not quantifiable. Genotoxic carcinogens are non-threshold compounds but there is an acceptable risk level usually set at 1/1,000,000.

Dear All

Thank you so much in advance, all our daily manipulated things are manufactured from polymers even in medical issue, but I think the best material is glass!

Regards

Dear Giorgio,

Crystal glass can release lead, which is potential carcinogen to humans.

Beethoven, Caravaggio and Goya were also supposed to be poisoned with lead (wine; wine & paint). 

Best regards!

Dear @Mihaela Stoia ,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Emad Kamil Hussein ,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Giorgio Demontis,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Contzen Pereira,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @ Rajesh Singh Shekhawat  and @ Muzhir Al-Ani,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Yes, I endorse all the contributions above. We do have a problem with the disposable bottles that are thrown in our city streets and drains that cause a lot of flooding during the rainy season.

Debra

Hi Sharafat,

The truth, in a nutshell, is for everybody: please carefully look for "BPA-free" label on the battle. It's about an assessment of bisphenol A (BPA) released from reusable plastic water bottles. BPA is a ubiquitous high-volume industrial chemical that is an estrogen and an environmental endocrine disrupting chemical. Bisphenol A is used extensively in the production of consumer goods and polycarbonate plastics. There is great concern regarding the possible harmful effects from exposures that result from BPA leaching into foods and beverages from packaging or storage containers. The objective of this study was to independently assess whether BPA contamination of water was occurring from different types of reusable drinking bottles marketed as alternatives to BPA-containing polycarbonate plastics. Using a sensitive and quantitative BPA-specific competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were used to evaluated whether BPA migrated into water stored in polycarbonate or copolyester plastic bottles, and different lined or unlined metallic reusable water bottles. At room temperature, the concentration of BPA migrating from polycarbonate bottles ranged from 0.2 to 0.3 mg L⁻¹. Boiling water significantly increased migration of BPA from the epoxy-lined bottles. No detectable BPA contamination was observed in water stored in bottles made from Tritan™ copolyester plastic, uncoated stainless steel, or aluminium lined with EcoCare™. The results  demonstrated that when used according to manufacturers' recommendations reusable water bottles constructed from "BPA-free" alternative materials are suitable for consumption of beverages free of BPA contamination.

Best wishes,

Ilya

Dear @Ilya Tsyrlov ,

Thank you very much for interesting opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Debra Sharon Ferdinand,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Ilya,

The problem in using plastic bottles marked BPA-free is that, to my knowledge, manufacturers are not marking bottles containing DEHP, which indications are worse on health. In fact, those marked BPA-free likely could contain DEHP.

Plastics & Plastic Bottles

Dear Shafagat, 

Plastics is a value added non-renewable product, manufactured from toxic chemicals produced by the petroleum industry, is energy as well as resource-intensive, besides being non-biodegradable and  environmentally unacceptable.

PET or polyethylene terephthalate, is the type of plastic used for bottling water, but it is recommended for one time use only, and not for refill. Plastic used in food applications or for liquid storage can get worn out. Polyvinyl-chloride manufacturing releases dioxins, as does its incineration.

HDPE (high density polyethylene),  LDPE (low density polyethylene), and PP (polypropylene) bottles are so far declared safe; their fate is however hanging in balance because it is only a question of time when the derivatives from petroleum products would be declared carcinogens.

Water and several soft drinks are invariably bottled in PET or PETE (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles, which do leach DEHA, a known carcinogen, into the stored water. There is growing evidence to the effect that PET and PETE plastic bottles should be restricted to one-time use. Plastic bottles made from bis-phenol A (BPA) are suspected of causing neurological and behavioral problems in fetuses and children. BPA mimics the female hormone estrogen, which has been shown to have detrimental effects, including cancer of the brain, breast, and prostate, on the female reproductive system and the immune system in adults.

Manufacture of plastic bottles consumes a fair share of petroleum products. Production of PET, the plastic used in most water bottles, is reported to consume 1.5 million barrels of oil per year that is sufficient to fuel 100,000 cars a year in America. Tremendous amount of energy is also needed for transporting bottled water despite access to clean water from kitchen faucets. Substantially large amount of resources are transformed and fixed into irreversible forms that constitute waste of material and energy.

Plastics recycling is accompanied with its degradation since each recycling of the original bottle lowers the quality of the subsequent batch, until it finds the way to the landfill or flies into the nearest wastewater channel. Use of a reusable water bottle, filled with own filtered water, segregating the single-use bottles for energy production, thus minimizing the burden on the landfill is recommended.

Mirza Arshad Ali Beg

Dear @Mirza Arshad Ali Beg,

Thannks for interesting opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @James A Green,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

While it's likely impossible to completely avoid all plastic products, try to use as little plastic as possible, especially if you're pregnant, and never use it around food.

To reduce your exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), which may cause cancer in people.:

- Carry your own glass, steel, or ceramic water bottle filled with filtered tap water.

- Reduce how much canned food you eat and how much canned formula your baby uses.

- Use baby bottles with labels that say "BPA free."

- Avoid handling carbonless copy cash register receipts. If you get a carbonless receipt, don't recycle it. Recycling receipts with BPA in them can spread the BPA to other products made with recycled paper, including napkins and toilet paper.

- Look closely at plastics with a number 7 recycling symbol on the bottom. If the plastic doesn't also say "PLA" or have a leaf symbol on it, it may contain BPA. See the chart below for more information on plastic types.

For more information you may refer to the following link

http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/plastic

Dear S.

A bit of information.

I had look to GESTIS SUBSTANCE DATABASE,

(Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance in Sankt Augustin/Germany, Source: IFA

The IFA is an institute for research and testing of the German Social Accident Insurance in Germany. It is located in Sankt Augustin near Bonn/Germany.)

Report is very very interesting:

One side say : Practically insoluble in water

Other side say Classification: Hazardous to the aquatic environment, Chronic Category 4; H413-May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life.

Now, after a  first look, my brain ask:

Why a pratically insoluble substance in water

• can cause  long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life?
• is chronic category 4?

This, for me, need more information.

My first step : Pratically insoluble in water implies it is non zero. But how many and when?

At Today  I stop here.

Have a nice day.

Giorgio

**********************************

SOLUBILITY IN WATER : practically insoluble

EUROPEAN GHS CLASSIFICATION AND LABELLING:

Classification: Hazardous to the aquatic environment, Chronic Category 4; H413

Hazard Statement - H-phrases:

H413: May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life.

GERMAN WATER HAZARD CLASS : WGK 1 - low hazard to waters

Formula : (C10H8O4)n

Polyethylene terephthalate

CAS No: 25038-59-9

From Gestis Database : (DE)Add your answer

IDENTIFICATION

Polyethylene terephthalate

PET

PETP

ZVG No: 530566

CAS No: 25038-59-9

SUBSTANCE GROUP CODE

163000 High molecular compounds, polymers

STATE OF AGGREGATION

The substance is solid.

PROPERTIES

Pellets

yellowish

odourless

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION

Combustible substance, poorly flammable.

Practically insoluble in water.

SOLUBILITY IN WATER : practically insoluble

EUROPEAN GHS CLASSIFICATION AND LABELLING

Classification:

Hazardous to the aquatic environment, Chronic Category 4; H413

Hazard Statement- H-phrases:

H413: May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life.

Precautionary Statement - P-phrases:

P273: Avoid release to the environment.

P501: Dispose of contents/ container to an approved waste disposal plant.

Manufacturer's specification by BASF

Reference: 01271

GHS-CLASSIFICATION OF MIXTURES (classification of German)

The classification of mixtures containing this substance results from Annex 1 of Regulation (EC) 1272/2008.

Reference: 99999

GERMAN WATER HAZARD CLASS

WGK 1 - low hazard to waters

Manufacturer's specification by BASF(is the German manufacturer)

http://gestis-en.itrust.de/nxt/gateway.dll/gestis_en/530566.xml?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0

Dear S.

Category Chronic 4 derive from  poorly solubility of PET, its stability ( It is not rapidly degradable)  and from a IPOTHESIS of POTENTIAL  to bioaccumulate !!!!!!!

This classification, Chronic 4,  is called "Safety Net".

I can put in safety net pratically all i think CAN be harmful and you must demonstrate "not harmful".

Precautionary principle, detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU), has not the power of the "safety net".

Safety Net is  an example of a common European way to open a backdoor for politics and stakeholders in scientific field.

A stone  may have same classification if drop in water......

Regards.

Category Chronic 4:

Poorly soluble substances for which no acute toxicity is recorded at levels up to the water solubility, and which are not rapidly degradable and have a log Kow ≥4, indicating a potential to bioaccumulate, will be  classified in this category unless other scientific evidence exists showing classification to be unnecessary.

Such evidence would include an experimentally determined BCF < 500, or a chronic toxicity NOECs > 1 mg/l, or evidence of rapid degradation in the environment.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

" Can plastic water bottles cause cancer?

There always seem to be claims going around about harmful chemicals in the plastic packaging used for some food and drink. For instance, there is an infamous email circulating saying that leaving plastic water bottles in the sun can cause chemicals to leach into the water causing cancer, and sometimes even cites a university research paper – like many others this is a hoax.

However, there have been some genuine scientific concerns about a chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA.

BPA is found in a huge range of things from polycarbonate containers and the linings of cans of food to the heat-sensitive paper used in receipts and tickets. There have been claims that BPA can cause harm by acting like a female hormone, and it has been linked to, although not proven to be a cause of a range of health issues. But is there evidence that this chemical can be harmful?

Studies have shown that at very high concentrations BPA can be harmful to mice, particularly pregnant or very young mice. But humans metabolise chemicals like BPA very differently. At present there is no strong, conclusive evidence that at the everyday concentrations we may be exposed to, BPA can cause harm.

BPA has been used in packaging for years and it’s estimated that it can be detected in the urine of most adults in the developed world. However, it is possible to reduce your exposure by avoiding BPA in plastic packaging. Most plastics are labelled with a number which allows you to work out whether it contains BPA. The number is inside the triangular recycling mark.

• 1, 2, 4 or 5 means the plastic is BPA free. They quite often say BPA free on them.
• A 3 or a 7 means that the plastic may contain BPA. The BPA may be released if you heat them up or put detergent on them.
• A 6 means it’s made from polystyrene.

In the EU, plastics used for baby bottles and toys must be BPA free.

However, the plastic linings of cans of food, and the common heat-sensitive receipt paper still contain BPA so it’s almost impossible to avoid it entirely in daily life."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3JYPnFyHfjDB0jTJFSw97ms/can-plastic-water-bottles-cause-cancer

Study reports on this issue are contradictory. According to an expert, plastics actually release different chemicals in different situations. Heat can release cancer-causing toxins, which leak from plastic into water and even food. The two products named Dioxin and Bisphenol A (BPA) has been associated with a whole host of health issues including birth defects and cancer. However, another expert downplays the connection saying high levels of BPA have been linked to an increased risk of reproductive issues, not cancer. Further, Dioxins are a group of chemicals that are formed unintentionally by industrial processes such as burning fuels and incinerating waste. Only one dioxin, known as TCDD, has been shown to cause cancer in people. It’s not clear whether plastics used in water bottles contain this dioxin. Burning some types of plastic, such as PVC, at very high temperatures can release dioxins into the atmosphere. But there is no evidence to support the idea that dioxins are produced when plastics are heated in a microwave oven, as opposed to actually burned in an incinerator. In conclusion, till now enough evidence is lacking to substantiate these health warnings against plastics.

Dear @Waldemar Koczkodaj,

Thank you very much for opinion and article.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Mahfuz Judeh,

Thank you very much for opinion and link.

Regards, Shafagat

Hello.

I search about Bisphenol A. It not seem a hard killing agent for humans. This aboslutely not implied that it is sure also for ingestion of micrograms for a long time.

Values exclude that the BisphenoI A contained in  a cluster of PET bottle can kill me.

Identification of Bisphenol A : CAS No: 80-05-7. (4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol)

IDENTIFICATION : 4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol, Bisphenol A, Bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)dimethylmethane, Bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane . ZVG No: 13980, CAS No: 80-05-7, EC No: 201-245-8,. INDEX No: 604-030-00-0

TOXICOLOGICAL DATA

LD50 oral rat

Value: 3250 mg/kg == 227 grams for  70 kg human.

American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. Vol. 28, Pg. 301, 1967.

LD50 dermal, Species: Rabbit

Value: 3590 mg/kg == 251 grams for  70 kg human.

AMA Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine. Vol. 4, Pg. 119, 1951.

Reference: 02071

The value of LD50 (Lethal Dose 50%) for a substance is the (single) dose required to kill half the members of a tested population after a specified test duration. (Half died, half Surviive).

Number say that Bishenol A it is not able to kill a human easy. (more toxic: Table salt LD50, rat 3000 mg/kg, Paracetamol,rat: 1944 mg/kg).

LC50 Fish (96 hours)  Median: 7,05 mg/l or 7,050 g/mc. In a 150cc  Bottle:10.5 mg.

http://gestis-en.itrust.de/nxt/gateway.dll/gestis_en/000000.xml?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0

Concerning BPA, why not err on the side of caution? Look at all of the chemicals that once were considered safe and when scientists raised concerns about them, those industries did everything in their power to refute or discredit those scientists. It still happens every day. There have been many recent cases where 4 or 5 studies found a chemical harmful to humans, but a company or industry releases a report from their own study that claimed the opposite. Look at the formaldehyde industry and the FEMA trailer controversy after Hurricane Katrina.

If you were told "eat this and you might have a 10% increased chance of dying from cancer in 30 years, but it is not certain", would you still eat it?

Hello

The first link is to niesh.nih.gov, it contains probably the mother  of debate about BPA.

In the document there are many other links to US.gov sites.

The second link is a guide to BPA, written probably from  producer's association.

The third link is to a very interesting study "Toxicity Evaluation of Bisphenol A Administered by Gavage to Sprague Dawley Rats From Gestation Day 6 Through Postnatal Day 90".

To close the circle,  now i need to know how many micrograms/Liter  of BPA are present in the water contained in a plastic bottle. I thnk this will be very very hard, for me this is the key of the question.

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/assets/docs_a_e/bisphenol_a_bpa_508.pdf

http://bisphenol-a.org/pdf/BPA%20Handling%20Guide%20-%20Single%20Page%20Layout%20-%20February%202013.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038785/

My concerns are threefold.

• First, there are a few chemicals that were said to be safe for decades and decades, but actually have been found to be unacceptable for humans in any amount. If I remember correctly, one was found to affect human cells at the genetic level.
• Second is the cases where pharmaceutical or industrial labs have intentionally downplayed or falsified questionable findings in order to get approval.
• Third, just like the Scientific American paper noted that BPA has been known to mimic estrogen and link to the human body, certain chemicals are considered crucial by industry and they will do anything they can to continue their use, even if it endangers human health. BPA seems to be one of those critical chemicals and one of their solutions in stopping its use was to instead use its 1st cousin, which might be worse.

Fact is that we have the EPA issuing "wavers" for things that are known risks to human health but are too important to industry and have no known substitutes.

Out today, pet sperm decline possibly tied to DEHP.

http://www.mnn.com/family/pets/stories/dog-fertility-decline-could-be-wake-up-call-humans

Dear All,

It seems France has found evidences on BPA’s harmfulness:

“In February 2016, France announced that it intends to propose BPA as a REACH Regulation candidate substance of very high concern (SVHC ).”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-current-svhc-intentions/-/substance-rev/12537/term

Dear @András Bozsik ,

Thanks for interesting links.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @James A Green,

Thank you very much for interesting opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Brenda Jacono ,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards,Shafagat

According to the European Food Safety Authority "BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels".

In 2012, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of BPA in baby bottles;however, theEnvironmental Working Group called the ban "purely cosmetic" and stated "If the agency truly wants to prevent people from being exposed to this toxic chemical associated with a variety of serious and chronic conditions it should ban its use in cans of infant formula, food and beverages." The Natural Resources Defense Council called the move inadequate, saying the FDA needed to ban BPA from all food packaging. The FDA maintains that the agency continues to support the safety of BPA for use in products that hold food.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also holds the position that BPA is not a health concern. In 2011, Andrew Wadge, the chief scientist of the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency, commented on a 2011 US study on dietary exposure of adult humans to BPA, saying, "This corroborates other independent studies and adds to the evidence that BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans – therefore is not a health concern."

The Endocrine Society said in 2015 that the results of ongoing laboratory research gave grounds for concern about the potential hazards of endocrine-disrupting chemicals – including BPA – in the environment, and that on the basis of theprecautionary principle these substances should continue to be assessed and tightly regulated.

According to the WHO's INFOSAN, carcinogenicity studies conducted under the US National Toxicology Program, have shown increases in leukemia and testicular interstitial cell tumors in male rats. However, according to the note "these studies have not been considered as convincing evidence of a potential cancer risk because of the doubtful statistical significance of the small differences in incidences from controls."

A 2010 review concluded that bisphenol A may increase cancer risk.

At least one study suggested that bisphenol A suppresses DNA methylation, which is involved in epigenetic changes.

Evidence from animal models is accumulating that perinatal exposure to BPA alters breast development and increases breast cancer risk.

Higher susceptibility to breast cancer has been found in many studies of rodents and primates exposed to BPA. However, the association between BPA and subsequent development of breast cancer in humans is unclear.

BPA promotes the growth, invasiveness and metastasis of cells from a laboratory neuroblastoma cancer cell line, SK-N-SH.

(Mirmira, P; Evans-Molina, C. "Bisphenol A, obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus: genuine concern or unnecessary preoccupation?". Translational research: the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine (Review). 164 (1): 13–21. doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2014.03.003. PMC 4058392free to read. PMID 24686036.

^ Jump up to: a b "FDA to Ban BPA from Baby Bottles; Plan Falls Short of Needed Protections: Scientists". Common Dreams.

Jump up ^ Teeguarden JG, Calafat AM, Ye X, Doerge DR, Churchwell MI, Gunawan R, Graham MK (September 2011). "Twenty-four hour human urine and serum profiles of bisphenol A during high-dietary exposure". Toxicological Sciences. 123 (1): 48–57. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfr160. PMID 21705716.

Jump up ^ Wage, Andrew (27 July 2011). "Small pond, same big issues". FSA. Retrieved 3 August 2011.

Jump up ^ Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, Flaws JA, Nadal A, Prins GS, Toppari J, Zoeller RT (2015). "Executive Summary to EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals". Endocr. Rev. 36 (6): 593–602. doi:10.1210/er.2015-1093. PMID 26414233.

"BISPHENOL A (BPA) – Current state of knowledge and future actions by WHO and FAO" (PDF). 27 November 2009. Retrieved 2 December 2009.

Jump up ^ Soto AM, Sonnenschein C (2010). "Environmental causes of cancer: Endocrine disruptors as carcinogens". Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 6 (7): 363–70. doi:10.1038/nrendo.2010.87. PMID 20498677.

Jump up ^ Bagchi, Debasis (2010). Genomics, Proteomics and Metabolomics in Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods. Wiley. p. 319. ISBN 0-8138-1402-2.

Jump up ^ Dolinoy DC, Huang D, Jirtle RL (2007). "Maternal nutrient supplementation counteracts bisphenol A-induced DNA hypomethylation in early development". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (32): 13056–61. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10413056D. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703739104. PMC 1941790free to read. PMID 17670942.

Jump up ^ Brisken, Cathrin (2008). "Endocrine Disruptors and Breast Cancer". CHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry. 62 (5): 406–409. doi:10.2533/chimia.2008.406.

^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Rochester, JR (December 2013). "Bisphenol A and human health: a review of the literature". Reproductive Toxicology. 42: 132–55. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2013.08.008. PMID 23994667.

Jump up ^ Zhu H, Zheng J, Xiao X, Zheng S, Dong K, Liu J, Wang Y (2010). "Environmental endocrine disruptors promote invasion and metastasis of SK-N-SH human neuroblastoma cells". Oncology Reports. 23 (1): 129–39.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

Perhaps the data contained here may be of interest to you.

Water Bottles and Cancer - WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE SAY?

The concerned is about the exposure to dioxins. Technically some studies have shown that high levels of exposure could potentially cause cancer. It is true that dioxins could be potentially hazardous, but it does not seem that the average person would be getting anywhere near the exposure that could be harmful. And it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with water bottles. The FDA has a page about dioxins that makes absolutely no mention of plastic bottles. See the thread :

https://whatdoesthesciencesay.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/water-bottles-and-cancer/

Dear @P.F. Zabrodskii,

Thanks a lot for your perfect answers.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear  Shafagat,

Complete depends upon the quality of the bottle material.

Dioxins are a group of chemicals that are formed unintentionally by industrial processes such as burning fuels and incinerating waste. Only one dioxin, known as TCDD, has been shown to cause cancer in people. It’s not clear whether plastics used in water bottles or cling film contain dioxins.

“The problem with water bottles is, it’s made of plastic,”  with Comprehensive Blood and Cancer Center. ”And there’s different kinds of plastic. Plastics actually release different chemicals in different situations.”

Heat can release cancer-causing toxins, which leak from plastic into water and even food.

“Dioxin and another one, BPA, Bisphenol A, These two products are connected to plastics and that has been associated with a whole host of health issues including birth defects, cancer. A variety of things,

“You don’t want to wait for all the evidence to show you it causes cancer. There’s enough evidence right now that it can be carcinogens. So if it’s easy and simple to avoid the product in your life, you should try to avoid it.”

regards,

Prem Baboo

Dear @Prem Baboo,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear Shafagat,

   Thanks for your interesting about the topics of human health. Beside the topic of harmful effects of plastic bottles on the human health specially if it were exposed directly to sun rays or have hot drinks, although I think there are harmful effects of many new technological instruments like cellular phones, Wifi, ... etc., when I ask many of our scientist colleagues they told me there is no scientific confirmation regarding this claim. Other noticeable thing, why these companies have licenses to produce these materials if it is harmful???

Regards, Khaled

Evidence suggests that common chemicals found in plastics including phthalates, bisphenol-A, flame retardants, formaldehyde, and perfluorochemicals play a role in cancer, immune dysfunction, endocrine disruption, and neurological damage.

www.employee-aware.com/app/.../March+2014+-+Plastic+Pollution+Epidemic+-+.pdf

Dear @Khaled G. Mohamed,

Thank you very much for answer.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @Krishnan Umachandran,

Thanks for opinion and link.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear @YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI ,

Thank you very much for opinion.

Regards, Shafagat

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks a lot for your perfect answers and useful links.

Your answer is highly appreciated.

I decided to drink water out of a glass bottle. It is safe.

Regards, Shafagat