@conn
sorry, I've been on an argumentative roll lately. It's not you. My deepest apologies my friend, I did not mean to go on the offensive (or defensive) on purpose. I see your point and those of others. All in all, IMO, without actual factual evidence in front of me to refute it, just instinct-wise I don't really think PM poses a significant immediate health risk (or else I'd not let my kids play with them still).
It is interesting to note that the evidence presented about BPA varies depending on the source. From the few articles I read today, it seems those who present evidence negating any significant danger tend to be from those who have an interest in preserving the chemical industry, while those presenting evidence against it tend to be from organizations that do not have a vested interest in it directly. And other authorities tend to not want to answer definitively at the risk of making an unwarranted scare which they could be blamed for (if they said it was dangerous), or at the risk of being held liable for personal damages in case the product did end up harming some consumers after they gave an official endorsement of its alleged safety.
As far as I'm concerned, the question is still up in the air, and I think that's the same issue politicians are facing (some of which may also have vested interests related to its continued production).
My main point, though, was to affirm the whole idea of giving serious pause and examining BPA rather than dismissing it so easily (in general, not by anyone in particular). Sorry if it sounded personal dear conniefrere....I did spend a greater portion of the past 48 hours dealing with a personal argument unrelated to this, but it bled over here in my tone. Sorry!
