Dr Donohue on BPA

TO YOUR GOOD HEALTH

Jury still out on use of BPA in plastics

PAUL G. DONOHUE

Q: I refill plastic water bottles with regular tap water. When the bottle is empty, I wash it and the cap, and refill it with water.

I hear that toxins are released from plastics when reusing them.

Reusing is cost-efficient and saves the planet from more trash, but it’s not worth the risk if it endangers health. What’s the potential harm in reusing these bottles?

A: The plastic story is complicated and has no unimpeachable, authoritative answer. Most of the attention focuses on bisphenol A, or BPA, an ingredient in many plastic containers and in the lining of many food cans.

A relationship between BPA and heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and liver damage has been suggested. It might affect the fetus. And BPA is a weak estrogenlike substance.

Some European nations and Canada have banned the use of BPA in baby bottles.

One good aspect of BPA is its quick exit from the body. The American Chemical Council views it as safe. The World Health Organization says it’s premature to ban it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration hasn’t taken it off the market.

• The decision to use BPA plastics is up to the user.

Safety tips are worth passing along:

• Don’t use plastics in the microwave or in any reheating . Heat increases the release of BPA.
• Limit the consumption of food from cans lined with BPA plastics, or seek canned goods in containers without the material.
• Don’t put BPA-containing plastics in the dishwasher. Find labels that say “BPA-free.” A “7” on the bottom of plastics indicates BPA.

How great the BPA threat is can’t be determined. It has been used in plastic products for more than 40 years.

(I do understand that Dr Donohue is functioning within his allopathic climate as he is expected to do.  And as expected, if the FDA does not contraindicate – it must be Okay! Right?   No!  Not Okay.    How often does the FDA let us down, refuse to protect the public – - that which it is supposed to be doing.  Instead, it serves the corporate structure and meanwhile everyone keeps getting sicker, more toxic and there seems no end.    I am printing a small excerpt re: the FDA with regard to BPA:

The Food and Drug Administration, true to form, has sided with the chemical industry and against independent scientists in determining the safety of Bisphenol-A, an ingredient in some plastics and in the lining of plastic cans.
. *key in BPA in search bar
It released a draft assessment, declaring the controversial chemical safe*, Friday, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which has led the major media coverage of that and other chemicals, and the apparent bias the FDA has shown for industry studies that often are not peer-reviewed and published in scientific literature.

Independent research has uncovered worrying qualities to Bisphenol A; it mimics hormones, could affect normal development and reproduction and would have its most dramatic effects on young bodies undergoing rapid development. The list of potential effects is long and damning: breast and prostate cancer, obesity, diabetes, brain and liver damage.

(Dr Donohue mentions a good aspect of BPA is the “quick exit” from the body.  That is not true.  I have done numerous articles on the destructiveness of BPA and all it’s various ramifications, which do build up in the body thereby causing great harm to organs throughout.  One that comes to mind is TOXIC WOMBS. . .my god! 12-23-09.  The traces are found in the placenta and cord blood.   There can be damage to our  liver, heart and brain,    as well as a disruptor to the hormone system.

  So to the querant – those plastic bottles are not safe to use.  There are some plastic bottles that are a good deal more expensive which are safer.  Of course, there are the stainless steel choices as well.    You would serve your body so much better if you could find some way to drink water that does not come from the tap.  Municipal water is notorious for chemical infusion.   The chlorine, the fluoride and countless others are damaging every cell in your body, day after day.  Let’s face it – - we are living in a toxic world.  One must take all kinds of steps if we are to survive in any way that seems healthy.   As long as you’ve got your brain to think with and mouth to communicate with, you are 1/2 way there. . .keep thinking, asking questions and speaking up.  . .just keep on keeping on. . . . Jan)

Q: Do 40 years of so-called social drinking have any effect on your muscles or strength? By “social drinking,” I mean three to four drinks at dinnertime.

I play a lot of golf and am losing distance on driving the ball.

I am 80 and in good shape. I am active, too: I swim and exercise. Should I cut down on alcohol?

A: The safe alcohol intake for a healthy man is two drinks a day; for women, it’s one. A drink is considered 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of distilled alcohol.

I would advise you to cut back to one drink, partly because of your age.

Are you doing any strength-enhancing exercises with weights? They can keep your muscles strong.

Aging probably has more to do with your strength loss than has alcohol, but cut back all the same.

(Well Healthy Man,  I would say you can do just about anything you want to do.  Sounds like you are doing fine to me.  Its a question of preference isn’t it?  I too, imbibe around the dinner hour and have regarded this as one of life’s gracious pleasures.  .  .  tho not always, just when I feel like it.

As to the muscle strength question,  there are many approaches to be sure,   including  bands and/or resistance exercises.  I would however, defer to my son Jeff at Fit2Play (in the blogroll)  You can call or Email him with the same question you have presented here and tell him his Mom over at smokinchoices suggested that you call.  Jeff’s life has pretty much been devoted to  athleticism and sports area and he would certainly be better equipt to advise on whether or not some form of supplement might be helpful along with any ideas  for strengthening those muscles. 

I say, keep on doing what you’re doing and stay happy.  Jan)

Dr. Donohue answers letters only in his North America Syndicate column but provides an order form of available health newsletters. Write him at P.O. Box 536475, Orlando, FL 32853-6475.

6 Coal-burning plants closing

NEW EPA REGULATIONS

FirstEnergy to close six coal-burning power plants

ASSOCIATED PRESS

AKRON — FirstEnergy Corp. said yesterday that new environmental regulations led to a decision to shut down six older, coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, affecting more than 500 employees.

The plants, in Cleveland, Ashtabula, Oregon and Eastlake in Ohio;  Adrian, Pa.;  and Williams-port, Md.,  will be retired by Sept. 1. They have generated about 10 percent of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy in the past three years, the company said.

James Lash, head of the company’s generation unit, indicated in a statement that a review of the company’s coal-fired plants determined that it would not be economical to get the older ones into compliance with environmental regulations that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in December.

The new standards are designed to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. An Associated Press survey found that the changes were likely to result in the mothballing of dozens of units in the Midwest and in the coal belt — Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia.

• The Obama administration was under court order to issue the new rules after a court threw out an attempt by the Bush administration to exempt power plants from controls for toxic air pollution.

Two factors have made it easier for utilities to close old coal plants in recent years. Power demand has been weakening in recent years because of the slow economy and energy-efficiency programs. And natural-gas prices, which have fallen to decade-low levels in recent weeks, have allowed utilities to switch from coal to natural gas without raising customers’ bills. Meanwhile, demand from China and elsewhere has driven up the price of coal.

FirstEnergy said its decision would directly affect 529 employees. Some of them could end up working at other FirstEnergy facilities and work sites, while others could take advantage of a retirement benefit being offered to employees 55 years and older, the company said.

FirstEnergy has a total of 17 coal power plants, including those that will close by September.

The plants targeted to shut down have been producing less power over the past few years, mainly during times of peak demand, the company said.

Eastlake, a community of about 18,500 people alongside Lake Erie northeast of Cleveland, will lose $590,000 a year in taxes, or about 4.5 percent of its regular budget, Mayor Ted Andrzejewski said.

FirstEnergy’s electricity system has 6 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. Coal and nuclear power plants generate about 80 percent of the company’s output.

The company employs about 17,000 people.

Power rates STUN small business

New AEP rates STUN  small businesses

By Dan Gearino THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Some small-business owners are furious about a sudden rise in electricity costs, the result of a new American Electric Power rate plan that took effect this month.   With immediate increases of up to 40 percent, business owners said they are faced with cutting workers, reducing investment and making other changes as they struggle to deal with an increased expense that many of them did not see coming.

“Honestly, am I going to put my next machine here or in my plant in Tennessee?” asked Patrick Castro Jr., vice president of Electro General Plastics in Grove City, whose electricity costs have risen 35 percent.    “Tennessee is looking a little bit more business-friendly.”

AEP says the new rates reflect the cost to provide service , and that what might seem like a big increase is because the previous rates were unusually low for certain types of customers.  (Well, duh,  those rates were established in Courts with the help of the Consumer’s Protection agency which Ohio had – paid for from a small stipend  in our utility bills.  This was a most effective agency who fought for the Ohio consumer with regard to utilities.  Consequently,  this was one of the first thing Gov Kasich went after when he started.  Boom it was gone.  He creatively did that by stripping down their operating costs more than 50%, effectively, paralyzing them. Staff was slashed, their director of 6 – 7 years was gone.  It was just a question of time. . .all knew that.    Jan)

The Dispatch reported last month that the AEP plan would lead to large rate increases for small businesses, much larger than the average rates disclosed by the utility. The story cited internal emails from a Public Utilities Com- mission of Ohio staff member who raised concerns that the rates were unfair and would be harmful to many businesses.

At Plastic Packaging Technologies on the Northwest Side, executives are reconsidering plans to expand. The company is based in Kansas City, Kan., and could shift its resources elsewhere. (Kasich calls himself a business-friendly governor.)

“This is very dangerous and very damaging,” said David Potter, the vice president and general manager. “We’re in a very competitive market, and to slap us with a $28,000 (annual) increase is just outrageous and could definitely dampen expansion plans.”

The PUCO has fielded about 25 complaints about rates from small businesses this week, said commission spokesman Matt Butler.  (About all they do is ‘receive complaints’.  They side with the utility companies thus are ineffective for the consumer.)    “We certainly do understand the impact this has had on certain small-business customers,” he said.

Jeff Rennie, an AEP spokesman, said the new rates are the result of a compromise between AEP, the PUCO and many other companies and groups. The plan calls for AEP to change gradually to prices set by market forces.    “In the past, those rates might have been subsidized by other rate classes, but now those rates will reflect the cost to provide service to that customer,” he said.

The PUCO and several other groups crafted the rates in a way that provides a discount for large manufacturers, one that essentially is paid for by rate increases for others, including small businesses. Supporters of the plan say it helps the economy by reducing costs for the largest employers. (Is this supposed to be a joke?.  If so, I am not laughing.  Jan)

The largest rate increases are hitting businesses in the “General Service 2” rate class, which represents about 15 percent of AEP’s customer base in Ohio. Within that rate group, the average increase is less than 10 percent in AEP’s Columbus Southern Power service territory and less than 20 percent in AEP’s Ohio Power territory, according to the PUCO.

• The end result: Electricity costs are rising for many small businesses but falling for many large ones.

Debbie Taranto, owner of Taranto’s Pizzeria in Lewis Center, said this approach is unfair. She said she might have to raise prices or lay off workers.   “While the small-business owner is struggling to hold their head above the quicksand of the national recession that torpedoed us, our fine state has allowed this increase, thus showing how ‘pro-business’ they are and working to help the middle class,” she said in an email.

But some customers are seeing even-larger increases. They are:

• Companies that buy their electricity-generation service from a company other than AEP. The new rate plan increases AEP’s distribution charges, the part of the electricity bill that everybody pays, and decreases the generation charge for small businesses that get this service from AEP. This leads to a disproportionately large increase for many of the customers that have chosen an alternative provider.

• Businesses with a low “load factor,” which means they have high electricity usage for short periods of time and low usage the rest of the time. This describes many small manufacturers.

Together, those two categories include thousands of businesses.

The rate changes vary from customer to customer because of different usage patterns and the complexity of the rate structure.

• The rate increases are the result of a process that lasted most of last year. The PUCO staff oversaw private talks that included AEP, the PUCO staff and several dozen other companies or groups. The framework of the current plan came from those talks and was modified and approved by the PUCO’s governing board.

Several groups participated and signed on to the plan, including the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association. None of those groups exclusively represents small businesses.

“I guess if you’re big enough and have people who can lobby for you, you can get your rates down,” said Fran Vendetta, owner of Appian Manufacturing on the South Side.

Robert Fortney, the PUCO staff member who helped oversee the case, wrote several emails last summer in which he called the rates unfair to small businesses. He warned that the state faced a public-relations nightmare once businesses saw their bills. The messages were obtained through a public-records request.

• He speculated that his agency would have to find a way to fix the problem.

• Now, a few weeks after those bills began to arrive, the PUCO is considering appeals from several groups.

“Although I can’t speculate as to whether the small-business issue will be revisited, applications for rehearing on a variety of AEP rate issues are currently pending before the commission and will be addressed in the near future,” Butler said.

dgearino@dispatch.com