I've heard of Estrogen mimics in Soy products and in soaps (tea tree oil & lavander). Today I read that some plastics have it as well. Does anyone here know how to avoid ingesting estrogen? From what i've read, too much estrogen is not good for men or for women. Would it be overkill to limit the use of plastics in order to avoid Estrogen? I mean not using plastic spoons or water bottles..that sort of thing. What do you guys think? Am I being paranoid?

Link to an article about the subject

I wouldn't heat up things in plastics, but remember that polypropylene (number 5 on the bottom of the plastic) and high density or low density polyethylene (number 2 on the bottom) have been shown to be safer and not leech as many estrogen mimetics. There was some issue about polycarbonates (lexan bottles that are so popular) leeching bisphenol A, but most believe the dose is too low to be of any significance. The way I see it, if people are active enough to require a Nalgene bottle, the activity and lack of sedentary lifestyle "probably" more than compensates for the small amount of estrogens.

Eric

*sigh*

You are being paranoid.

-Blast

Do not live downstream from large groups of promiscuous women. You should always try and live upstream from them.

I must admit, you Scots are quite amusing at times...lol

Jist wait till ah get ma hauns oan ye, ya wee bugger. Ah'll gie ye laldie....LOL

I suspect paranoia.

Although I have been having this urge to watch the Lifetime channel.

You're way beyond medical help if you start watching lifetime..lol

Throw in the “300” for good measure .
Pete

If you're body is infused with too much estrogen, I'd steer clear of 300. If not, you may begin to admire those Spartan physiques a little too much...LOL

I'll be a bit of a contrarian here. I've posted on BisA in the past and my thinking has evolved some since then. I haven't worried about soy-based compounds, so I'll limit my remarks to Bisphenol-A, but the truth is that we really don't know if BisA does cause the changes that scientists see in animals. There are actually quite a lot of animal studies of very low concentrations that show the possibility of harmful changes for people. But, without the proper human studies, we really can't say one way or the other. The EPA says it is safe, but that is based on very limited data so far.

Honestly, though, it may be very difficult to observe harmful changes in humans just because we live so long and have such varied diets and lifestyles. There's just a lot of other crap in our lives that cause all sorts of similar or competing health problems. Someone just posted a thread about Chernobyl so I'll use that to illustrate this point. I posted about this a while ago, too.

We all "know" that radiation causes cancer, and Chernobyl spewed a ton of radioactivity into the atmosphere, much of it settling on the area near the plant. It's everywhere--in the air, water, soil, etc. Well, even after studying affected populations in Russia, Ukraine, and other countries for the past 20 years, scientists have only seen a small increase in one specific type of cancer (and only in children) above the normal rates of cancer. Does that mean that no one got cancer from radioactivity? Hard to say based on the evidence. These people may also smoke, have crappy diets, bad genes, etc. and it's hard to tease out the contribution of Chernobyl when you don't see a dramatic and obvious spike in cancers after the accident.

So, are you being paranoid? Well, I'd say the jury is still out, and we may never really definitively answer the question. But watch Braveheart and chow down on some haggis in the meantime, laddie.