Like the better-known chemical BPA, BPS is an endocrine disruptor linked to breast cancer and reproductive toxicity.
If your bullshit detectors are going off on this one, you’re not alone. Can we please quantify the risk?
You’re always welcome to read the article - I find that they often include additional information related to the headline!
Since you were the slightly snarkier of the two responses, can you point out where in the article it quantities the risk? Not the concentration vs limits. If it’s discussed in the links, just tell me which link to follow. No need to show where.
I would normally follow the links to the primary peer-reviewed journal article, but there isn’t one.
Click the links in the article and follow back to the source my guy. It’s not hard and I don’t understand why you expect these people to prove your claim wrong, you should be the one to substantiate it and to do that you might start following some of the links and reading the source material for it.
It’s pretty obvious that quantitative risk data were not provided in the articles or links. The study doesn’t claim to produce such data.
I’m not even convinced you would know such data if you saw it, but you’re quite confident that if one digs hard enough, one will find it.
Uh fuckin how
How do you do studies that require generations of actual people? That are then peer-reviewed?
How are you “quantifying risk”
Math. The answer is math.
Eww
Yeah they’re using it. In labs. Where they study things.
You don’t get to just model reality, you have to study it
Sure. There’s quantitiative information in the article, and more if you click the links.
