If there is something that was previously thought safe and we discover some problem with it, the problem will be on the order of maybe a maximum of 1 death per million users or even lower. People act like suddenly things like this are as harmful as cigarettes.

People are simply unable to be logical about risk.

The trouble is that often any given study (from either side) has been previously refuted, due to poor methodology, or lack of reproducibility. But they still keep getting pushed on the public anyway. And people are always quick to dismiss any research that was in any way funded by any interested party, which probably throws alot of babies out with the bathwater.

To get to the truth requires so much research, the average person just can’t hack it. And often, they don’t even have access to the studies in question anyway. They’re locked away in expensive journals, unavailable to the public that oftentimes actually paid for the actual research in the first place.

I really wish I could find that article I read before. I’m pretty sure it was in either Skeptical Enquirer, or Skeptic magazine. But I’ve gone through my entire collection of each, and couldn’t find it. It seemed like a very good review to me at the time, though I’m sure “skeptical” authors sometimes have unintentional biases of their own.

The main issue, IMHO, is that usually the amounts of BPA released by dental sealants, bottles, food cans, etc. are enough to have documented health impacts on rodents and aquatic life…but it is not well known what they would do in humans. Plus, BPA is not the only foreign estrogenic compound around. Toxicity is a matter of quantity/load, not just of what kind of compound we are ingesting.