Talk:Bisphenol A/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Apparently conflicting information?

Paragraph 3, Production, states: "World production capacity of this compound was 1 million tons in the 1980s,[5] and more than 2.2 million tons in 2009.[6] " At 2000 pounds per ton, that would be 4.4 billion pounds in 2009. Paragraph 6, Use, states: "Bisphenol A is used primarily to make plastics, and products using bisphenol A-based plastics have been in commerce use since 1957.[14] At least 8 billion pounds of BPA are used by manufacturers yearly.[15]" There appears to be a conflict. How can 8 billion pounds be used yearly if world production (in 2009) is 4.4 billion pounds? I am not an expert. I'm reluctant to make any changes because I don't know the subject. If my math is correct, one or both statements should be corrected. Thank you.96.233.94.70 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good find. A quick google shows about 4 million tons produced per year may be more accurate. Here [1] Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to create article on Bisphenol A Controversy

This article seems a little too heavy on environmental/health problems with BPA. BPA has had huge technological impact, yet the article is mainly one-sided list of grievances. One way to handle what might be seen as undue weight would be to create Bisphenol A Controversy, as we have done with Thiomersal controversy, Water fluoridation controversy and many others. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I support a split although your suggested name should be Bisphenol A controversy (lower case "C" per the WP:MOS). I have suggested a split in the past with no success. I suggested a title of Health issues with bisphenol A but I can go with "Bisphenol A controversy". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I tried to do a similar split to the DDT article without success. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

U.S. section

I am working on the U.S. section and still have more work to do. I changed it from a monthly division to yearly and will need to do some wording changes and perhaps delete info where appropriate. I will write a new summary as well. Gandydancer (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

found citation asked for in article

I don't know how to edit the pages, so I'm posting this here. I found a citation that is flagged "citation needed" in the article. Under "Expert Panel Conclusions" (4.1) there is a reference to government-funded studies versus industry studies. I found a secondary source, Scientific American, that references the primary source. I have not read the primary source, but this should be enough to find it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics&offset=2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.48.57 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Apparent Non-Reproducable Studies

I'm a bit of a novice to Wikipedia, however this article caught my attention because of the lack of balance in the reporting of only positive results in the research. Positive in the sense that various detrimental effects were found.

It seems to me that there are a number of results that question the validity of these reports. For example there is the overarching article Nature Nature 483, 531–533 (29 March 2012) doi:10.1038/483531a decrying the poor reproducability of pre-clinical cancer studies (about 80% failure to reproduce study results). And to be more specific polemics such as this "Is It Time to End Concerns over the Estrogenic Effects of Bisphenol A?" Toxicol. Sci. (2010) 114 (1): 1-4. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfp299. There are also a variety of reviews such as the German Society of Toxicology's which concluded "the available evidence indicates that BPA exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies." Critical evaluation of key evidence on the human health hazards of exposure to bisphenol A April 2011, Vol. 41, No. 4 , Pages 263-291 (doi:10.3109/10408444.2011.558487

It seems to me that a section pointing out the questions of reproducability, and the negative results that appear would be a very appropriate addition to this article. Otherwise I have to question the balance of the viewpoint presented here. Ehlarson (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

By all means, please include any studies that suggest that the studies presented may be of poor quality! I look forward to any edits to the article that you may make. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem in the literature that a number of BPA studies have not been reproduced. What tends to be lost (such as in the German Society of Toxicology's review) is that few explicit attempts at reproducing findings are made. There is a world of difference between a failure to reproduce because nobody has attempted to duplicate the study (as is mostly the case - often alleged failures to duplicate are in fact experiments condusted with a different methodology, and therefore not true duplications at all), and a failure to reproduce because a duplicate of the study failed to duplicate the findings. Unfortunately, the distinction is rarely clearly drawn, and there is little in the peer-reviewed literature to help with this problem. We should also be cautious about what we mean by "valid", "reproducible" and "reliable", as these have specific meaning in research, and are easily (and to my mind, sometimes deliberately) blurred in discussion of BPA research

Apropos this, Myers et al (2009) PMC2661896 offer a decent working definition: "Reliability and validity are separate issues, although in the experimental research described here, validity and reliability basically refer to research that is credible. Golafshani (2003) noted that “reliability” refers to the extent to which results are consistent over time and are an accurate representation of the total population under study. Of central importance is that the results of a study must be reproduced under a similar methodology to be considered to be reliable. “Validity” refers to whether the research measures what it was intended to measure, and valid findings are considered to be true. In other words, reliability is determined by whether the results are replicable, whereas validity is assessed by whether the methods used result in finding the truth as a result of the investigator actually measuring what the study intended to measure.". Paulwhaley (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. I think the first thing I want to do is clean up the references to the Endocrine Society. They seem to point to a press report rather than the primary source. There is also a statement reporting industry study numbers vs academic that has no citation that I think is a) unlikely to be true now given the passage of time, and b) unverifiable.Ehlarson (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I would think passage of time is less relevant - the paper describes a fact when it happened, and unless it has been superseded still counts as the most current knowledge to date. I can't see where the citation is missing, but I think you may be looking for this: vom Saal FS, Welshons WV. Large effects from small exposures. II. The importance of positive controls in low-dose research on bisphenol A. Environ Res. 2006 Jan;100(1):50-76. Epub 2005 Oct 27. PMID 16256977. Paulwhaley (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Objection to the word "weak" in lead

As a specialist in the field of organic toxins, I object to the word "weak" in the lead. When a substance has no observed safe limit, as do all xenoestrogenic compounds, it cannot have a "weak" effect. It either has an effect or it does not. Weak sounds like industry public relations language designed to minimize the issues and create an opening for controversy. Dioxinfreak (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, except to add that "weak oestrogenicity" in the case of BPA tends to refer to the relatively weak affinity of BPA for nuclear oestrogen receptors, in comparison to endogenous oestrogen. This is misleading because (a) weak affinity doesn't necessarily mean there is no effect, and (b) there are other oestrogen receptors for which BPA has comparable affinity with endogenous oestrogen. Furthermore, although BPA may not have an observed safe limit (my personal opinion is that it doesn't), there are established NOAELs - even if they are incorrect, I would argue that this article should reflect this. Paulwhaley (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

One also has to consider a few other factors along with estrogen receptor binding, if the xenoestrogenic (or any other synthetic compound) compound is easily unbound from the receptor and inactivated. That is two fold, as if it's trivially unbound, but not inactivated, one quickly binds again. If it's difficult or impossible to unbind from a receptor, that is also significant. BOTH instances would be significant as the effect is amplified. If it were a simple analog to estrogen, the issue would be much simpler.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop deleting numerous studies from this article

Please stop deleting years of work on this article! This amounts to vandalism. Please review policy and replace these studies as appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

For instance, the first one you deleted in the obesity section was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, "a peer-reviewed journal published monthly by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The primary purpose of EHP is to communicate recent scientific findings and trends in the environmental health sciences; to improve the environmental health knowledge base among researchers, administrators, and policy makers; and to inform the public about important topics in environmental...". Please replace this and other studies. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for bringing this to talk, Gandydancer. It is absolutely NOT vandalism, it is bringing the article in line with wikipedia policies in WP:OR and within that, WP:PSTS and in line with the WP:MEDRS guideline that clarifies WP:PSTS for anything health-related. Primary sources are to be avoided, and wikipedia content is supposed to be based on secondary and tertiary sources. The article in EHP that you mention above is a primary source as defined in WP:PSTS. Please let me know if you withdraw your objection. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

None of those policies or guidelines say that all primary sources must be removed. Furthermore, rather than simply blanking, it's best to replace weaker sources with strong ones. BURDEN only requires the production of a reliable source, not a secondary one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

When I have time I have found secondary sources. But from my perspective some of the content is just unsalvageable. Also, as BURDEN says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." and for health-related content (and this is unambiguously health-related as all the content was under the section called "Health Effects), reliable sourcing is defined by WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You have presented a great deal of information and it will take me time to get through it. I will respond as time permits. Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for your note.Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

BURDEN has been met: The material was supported by a source that meets or exceeds the minimum standard for reliability. You may (and perhaps should) consider whether this information is unimportant (information available solely in primary sources frequently is not important) and whether it neutrally summarizes the overall view (information available solely in primary sources may be a minority viewpoint), but that is, technically, a reliable source, even though it is not the best possible source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, what are you doing? Where are you coming from? I would appreciate it if you would speak directly to the issue of toxicology and MEDRS. And would you please explain how a primary rat study is acceptable for content about toxicity in a section called "Health Effects"? You seem to be arguing that it is not "health related" information and MEDRS does not apply. Confusing.Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Restore stable version prior to edit conflict.

I have restored the article to it's last stable version. Mass deletion of research without discussion, even if it's agreed that these are primary studies, WP:MEDRS clearly states that primary studies can be used if no secondary source can be found (preferable). If there are no systematic reviews that covers the material, then primary studies meets basic inclusion criteria. We must also, due to weight consideration, have to avoid putting too much emphasis per WP:UNDUE on the primary sources as well. DVMt (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

note - I re-restored the edits I made that were not about sources so they could be considered separately - they are separate.Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You teed up the issue nicely here. I believe that Wikipedia should not have content about health that is just a catalog of primary tox-like studies. And as per BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." and for health-related content, reliable sourcing is defined by WP:MEDRS and the whole thrust of MEDRS is to rely on secondary sources to present the medical consensus; if - and that is a big if - a primary source is used there should be a dramatic reason for it (for instance, results of a huge, NIH run clinical study like SELECT) -- and only until a review comes out that puts it in context. MEDRS says "Use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data"... I keep finding these laundry lists of primary tox studies in "health effects" sections of articles about chemicals, and the message of the editors who insert them is clear - they are cherry picking and cataloging to signal to readers to that these chemicals are dangerous and bad for you, in countless ways. This is not optimal wikipedia editing. I am not saying that chemicals are not bad for you! I am saying that editing this way dramatically runs against the spirit and content of wikipedia as expresseed in "no original research" and refined in MEDRS.Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To be sure I understand you correctly, do you refuse all of the primary studies and is it your intention to remove them all from this article? Do you accept any secondary sources for this article other than reviews such as done by Cochrane? Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! You want to see how hard this will be. :) I don't refuse all primary studies, that would mean i was a rigid crazy person. Primary studies are indeeed allowed under OR and MEDRS but rarely, with great care, with caution. You need a really strong reason for basing any content in any wikipedia article on a primary source alone, and generally it should be temporary, until a secondary source comes out that encompasses it. Under OR any reliable secondary source is fine. Under MEDRS it has to be a medical secondary source. A great wikipedia article that is making a good faith effort to communicate toxicology to readers should rely on 2ndary literature in toxicology. Not review literature by basic scientists (who are always interested in trying to make their research relevant but who are not toxicologists) To say it backwards -- a review of basic science that is not toxicology -- that is not written by a toxicologist who is trying to make sense of the animal studies in order to make judgments about risks to human health - would not be appropriate for a "health effects" section of a wikipedia article that is discussing toxicology. Right? If a source isn't doing toxicology and isn't written by a toxicologist, how can a wikipedia editor use it to provide meaningful health content to readers who are seeking it? There you go, that is where I am coming from. I hope you can see the reasoning even if you do not agree with it. Thank you again for asking.Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, just trying to get a handle on what you'd accept... Would you accept anything from this ?: [2] This ?: [3] ...actually I guess I'm still not sure what you'd accept--since it seems that the pool is quite small, could you please list it? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, visit www.pubmed.gov. Type in the query, click on the left hand side "reviews" which limits the search to systematic reviews (2ndary sources) and you'll know if any of the primary studies have been covered in a review. Add the review, delete the primary study. If no review exists, then the primary study can be included provided it's relevant to the article. DVMt (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DVMc, you speak so authoratitively. On what grounds? I don't agree at all, as explained above. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, but actually I believe that I have said that I am not an expert and need to go to others for advise. At any rate, I would like to know exactly what you accept. Do you, for instance, accept this [4] (and the ones mentioned above)? Gandydancer (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS does not define primary sources as being unreliable. MEDRS says that you should normally prefer using the best possible sources (which are not merely secondary sources, but recent, high-quality secondary sources from reputable scientific and academic publishers), but this is not the same thing as defining primary studies as being unreliable.

Under WP:NOR, any "reliable, published source" (emphasis added) is fine. It's right there in the first sentence of that policy. NB the difference between WP:Published and WP:Secondary. NOR never defines primary sources as being unreliable. NOR only says that they must be used carefully (e.g., not for analysis). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I tried to be super clear. Quick answer, neither of those things is optimal and I would not use either. Let me try again. (This is what guides me here WP:MEDASSESS.) The health information that this section is trying to convey is toxicology. There are people whose job it is to do it - toxicologists. It is an interesting field - pretty much the only one where the job is to look at data from testing a substance on animals and draw conclusions about how they will harm humans. (as you know, people in the field of pharmacology do similar things to estimate what drugs do in people -- they look for side effects as well as efficacy -- but this is another ball of wax since drugs ultimately get tested in people. As you know and as others have pointed out here, it is unethical to test things like pesticides or chemicals like bisphenol A in people, since there is no benefit to the subject of the testing). Lots of basic science researchers make toxicologist-like claims in the course of their research - to make it relevant and get publications and more grants, but they are not necessarily toxicologists. What makes sense, while editing and aiming to meet the goals of wikipedia to provide useful and information about health, under MEDRS, is to present secondary sources about toxicology, based on 2dary sources by toxicologists. To me this is an area where it is especially important to be responsible and present real medical consensus information - there are many wild claims out there, that terrify people. WP:MEDASSESS is really important. An insanely great example of a 2ndary source by toxicologists, is what the NTP did in 2008, here http://web.archive.org/web/20080218195117/http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/BPAFinalEPVF112607.pdf That is the gold standard. Really have a look, and see how they did not just parrot the results of the primary studies but analyzed them, thought about how strong each one was in various ways, what they could generalize to human health risks. Now let's look at something else - -say this reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17868795 This reference presents both a review and some original work on "Effects of xenoestrogens on the differentiation of behaviorally-relevant neural circuits." It analyzes strengths and weaknesses of other studies and offers some sugggestions of its own - but at no point does it step forward and make statements about risks to humans - this is not toxicology yet -- it is basic science on which toxicology is built. This is not a 2ndary source that I would use, to form and source content about human health - it is still uncooked; it doesn't make claims about human health so I do not see how an editor should put it in a section of an article on human health. Do you see what I mean?Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I will just bite my tongue and say nothing for now. Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

a dead horse

multiple people have complained here that I made big changes without discussing them first. The changes were reverted. There is no "edit conflict" beyond the initial change and the reversion. I did not re-revert - I have no interest in edit warring which is a big waste of time. Instead I have opened discussion on the general principle, as well as on each of the items that should be deleted. Wikipedia urges editors to be bold, but yield if people are unhappy with the changes, and discuss. That is what I am doing. So please stop being all aggrieved and beating a dead horse, and let's talk about the issues. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware that describing your fellow editors as complainers that like to feel sorry for themselves and are more interested in beating dead horses than discussing the issues at hand is not a very good way to promote a spirit of cooperation here... Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe you called me a vandal and I did nothing wrong, so pot, kettle, etc etc. Point is - let's move forward. You don't own this page and neither do I.Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS

Above, I wrote that I opened a general discussion, and I didn't. So some points, as concisely as I can say them, to tell you where I am coming from:

Defintion first. 1) "Primary source" is defined in WP:OR to be (among other things) "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment" and the WP:MEDRS guideline confirms this (as it must) saying "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made."

So hopefully nobody is calling a paper in a scientific journal that is publishing new studies in a mouse, a "secondary source".

2) "secondary sources" -- Again both WP:OR and WP:MEDRS make it super clear that articles are to be based on secondary sources and they make it clear that the ideal secondary sources are reviews of the topic that provide the scientific consensus of the topic. Any book that briefly mentions a primary source doesn't suddenly make that book or the primary source an ideal secondary source to use for wikipedia content. We want to do the best we can. Literally [[[WP:OR]] says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided."

WP:MEDRS makes it clear that the policy to base content on 2ndary and 3iary sources is even stronger, and the admonition that "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided" is even stronger, for content about health.

When I look at passages like those that I was deleting....they are a meaningless laundry list of one-off studies. And the list could go on and on and on. Why is one primary study there, and not another? (that is a real question!!!) I don't understand how you justify the creation and maintenance of these laundry lists. The selection of which ones is there, is OR in itself. But should they all be there? (rhetorical question) Absolutely not, that is crazy. This is why WP:PSTS emphasizes so strongly that you base articles on secondary sources. Some of the authors of WP:MEDRS take this so far as to say, if it is about health, and it is not discussed in a secondary source, it does not belong in Wikipedia That is a ~bit~ extreme but I totally get where they are coming from.

There you go.Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

For the most part I do not feel that I am an expert on sourcing and rely on others for input when I am unsure. However, it seems to me that our article is based on secondary sources per policy "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. We use the various government and other secondary sources for our basic information. The primary studies that we are mentioning are mentioned only very briefly and done in a manner to make it obvious that they are only an individual study and that they have not concluded anything. That is not to say they they do not need to be looked at with a critical eye...which by the way is exactly what I was in the process of doing when you made your "bold" edits and deleted many of them without talk page discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

invited comments at talk page for WP:MEDRS

I made a note in the talk page of MEDRS to get other people interested in this issue to join the discussion.Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

specific content #2

I deleted the following, and the deletion was reverted.

"DNA methylation
At least one study has suggested that bisphenol A suppresses DNA methylation which is involved in epigenetic changes."

As with #1, there are several problems:

First, this is some kind of icky editing. The first source is a book (that is hard to find, btw). I found the book and it references one study - the one cited at the end of the sentence above. The book offers a one sentence summary and says nothing more about the study. So citing the book doesn't lend a lot of value - kind of smoke-screeny. We are really talking about the study, which is a primary study in rats - let's call a spade a spade.Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If a study gets reported or commented on in a book or other paper, then that's a secondary source for our purposes, no matter how limited the original experimental work seems to any editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

From my view this is not common sense - you have an argument sure -- a toss off one-sentence comment in a book. But this is not the spirit of WP:MEDRS.Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Second as above this is incomprehensible to your average educated person.Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It made perfect sense to me, but copyediting, if that's desirable, isn't achieved by removing accurate information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad you are open to that.Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Normality

Thirdly as above, the source is about rodents, not humans - it is building some basic science, which is great. but the content does not make it clear that the study was not about humans. This violates the part of WP:MEDRS as above.Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It is normal for this type of study to be carried out in non-human animals (in fact, it is unethical and in most places actually illegal to conduct this type of study in humans), and the results in this type of study are accepted as applying to all animals, including humans. Furthermore, this doesn't seem to be a point that is disputed by reputable scientists in the relevant field, so even a far weaker source can support such a trivial claim as this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)ent

Yep it is normal, normal science. You are missing the point of WP:MEDRS which is to rely on secondary sources to present the medical consensus; if - and that is a big if - a primary source is used there should be a dramatic reason for it (for instance, a huge, NIH run clinical study like SELECT -- and only until a review comes out that puts it in context. Making some point like that made here, using a single primary study is against WP:MEDRS all the way.Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS supports the use of primary sources to fill in details, but it doesn't matter, because the book is not a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Study vs source

Fourth, it is a primary study, not a secondary one, and so content should not be based on it, not under WP:PSTS and definitely not under WP:MEDRS.Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There are no "secondary studies", but this book is definitely a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources, how do you justify that this is notable without committing OR? A one off reference in a book does not make the study notable - especially with the burden against primary studies being used at all.04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There are secondary sources. There are no secondary studies. This is a secondary source, not a primary source.

We don't care whether the study is WP:Notable, because we are not trying to write an separate article about the study. We care whether the information is supported by (or, more correctly, possible to support from) a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Altogether, this content just does not belong here.Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this one does sound like it's too "icky" for the article, however what you actually did was delete was delete numerous studies that are not "icky". The following recent study was published in the journal Endocrinology, a publication of The Endocrine Society. It is here: [5] It is written up here like this:

A 2012 study found that the neurological effects of BPA are trans-generational in mice. Genetic expression was found to extend into the fourth generation. The authors stated that they believe that their study is the first to have demonstrated that BPA has trans-generational actions on social behavior and neural expression.[82]

According to WP:RS:

Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above (see: Wikipedia:No original research). When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight.

This inclusion properly notes that the study was done with mice, which would of course be the only way a 4 generation study could be done. Please discuss any changes that you plan for the article first as it seems that we have a considerable amount of disagreement here. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer with your permission I would like to copy the above into a new section so we can independently discuss it. Is that OK?Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

NB - I went ahead and opened a section for this - it is #5 below. I will not move your content without your permission.Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What's done is done, however I do not like it at all that you have rearranged the discussion to suit your needs and preferences. I now see below that you expect me to again answer your generational study deletion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

no i don't expect you to. I offered to move it which offer still stands. You are not the only participant and these discussions are hard enough without confused sections.Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

specific content #3

I deleted the following from the section called "Health effects" and it was reverted:

"A 2008 study by the Yale School of Medicine demonstrated that adverse neurological effects occur in non-human primates regularly exposed to bisphenol A at levels equal to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum safe dose of 50 µg/kg/day. This research found a connection between BPA and interference with brain cell connections vital to memory, learning, and mood.

First the article is a primary source. As above, primary sources are "to be avoided"; content is to be based on secondary and tertiary studies. If they are included, there needs to be some exceptional reason, provided by a WP:MEDRS secondary source. No reason is given in this content. And as per below, the "popular press" article is not a useful guide to weight.Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Second, the article is about primates, not humans. But it is not about humans. This violates the part of WP:MEDRS that says: "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources. If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or i isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted. In other situations, such as randomized controlled trials, it may be helpful temporarily to cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Wikipedia should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. When in doubt, omit mention of the primary study (in accordance with recentism) because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them). If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning, they should be described as being from a single study"Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So this content just does not belong here.Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That statement could just as easily be supported by reviews like PMID 20609373. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you with respect to PMID 20609373. Again, this is in a section called "Health effects"! On the "use it" side, (1) it is a review; (2) a recent one; (3) they discuss non-human primate as well as rodent data; and (4)the authors are very clearly trying to draw implications for humans from animal research. On the "don't use" side, the authors are not toxicologists, and for me, the killer one (2) they seem quite biased and inflamed. Here is the key statement that led me to (2): "Recently, our attention has turned toward the potential consequences of BPA exposure during the perinatal period. We have documented that even circulating serum BPA levels normally found in adult human beings (0.3–4.4 ng/ml) are devastating for spine synapses, at least in a rodent model." So this is crazy talk, right? Does your average adult have "devastated" spinal signalling? (rhetorical question). So I would not use this source, not if I am trying to provide good health information to wikipedia readers in a section called "health effects." I would probably not fuss over this if it were in a section called "research".Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, you have suggested that you would like to do the searches for this article and present what you find for approval on the talk page. Your last post is good reason to object to that plan due to the bias that would likely result, IMO. Now you are suggesting that the authors concerns are "crazy talk" and good reason to rule this review out. The authors are not talking about a "spine", as in a person's backbone, which is what you seem to think. I would almost think that you are joking here except that you seem to be quite serious. The authors say, steroid-induced synaptogenesis and the resulting loss of spine synapses. We have shown in both rats and nonhuman primates that BPA completely negates the ~70–100% increase in the number of hippocampal and prefrontal spine synapses induced by both estrogens and androgens. Synaptic loss of this magnitude may have significant consequences, potentially causing cognitive decline, depression, and schizophrenia, to mention those that our laboratory has shown to be associated with synaptic loss. Finally, we discuss why children may particularly be vulnerable to BPA, which represents future direction of research in our laboratory.

What is so crazy about this? If you don't know what they're talking about you should not pretend to know and then say you know better. Here you can see a synapse. Gandydancer (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your personal objection that the authors are "biased" or "inflamed" is irrelevant. WP:MEDASSESS says you are only supposed to care about the type of study, not your personal objections to their word choices or about whether people who identify themselves as "neuroscientists" or "toxicologists" are the people who ought to be doing this type of research on the toxic effects of a chemical on neurons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear you on the biased, inflamed thing. And I love what you say about this paper being fine for toxic effect of a chemical on neurons. What I struggle with, as I wrote below, is using this in a section called "health effects." It doesn't reach all the way to "health effects". It ~may~ reach to health risks (and I would probably withdraw my rejection if it were in a section called something like "Potential health risks" or in a section called "Research" but if we are talking about health risks that we going to put in a section called "Health effects", then I think the credentials of the authors ~do~ matter.Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, HI, OK that is a clean bust. Yes, I know what dendritic spines are, I read this way too fast and wrote something stupid. My apologies. I am very serious about the issues about health-related content sourcing - and I did indeed make a real boner with this source. My apologies again. However, the authors still seem to me a bit alarmist - given all the clinical ramifications they draw with respect to the potential role of dendritic spines in cognitive decline, depression, and schizophrenia, etc, their statement about the level of circulating BPA in adults and the devastating damage those levels cause in rats, would mean that most adults should be walking around with those issues...and I think it safe to say that most adults are not walking around with those conditions. See what I mean? I think what I said at the start of my comment is true -- there is much to recommend this review but there are also things to dis-recommend it. This review exactly the kind of thing that would be perfect in a research section (which maybe we should create for this article) but that, in my judgement, is not reasonable to include a "health effects" section. The authors themselves are not making health claims - they do make claims about what they see as risks. And as I said, they are not toxicologists (http://www.szbk.u-szeged.hu/file/cv/hajszan_tibor_eng.pdf and http://www.med.yale.edu/obgyn/neuromorph/index.html) In my view, this source is at the level of research (interesting and important for sure), not at the level of presenting actual health information to encyclopedia readers.Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not wild about ==Health effects== as a section title, but ==Research== is perhaps a bit too broad. Practically everything in this article could be filed under that heading, and much more that isn't in the article. ==Research== could be a history of experiments, experts' views on what future work should be done, physical chemistry about how to make it more cheaply or how to make it less likely to leach into food, or even market research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

specific content #4

I deleted the following and it was reverted:

"A 2010 study with rats prenatally exposed to 40 µg/kg bw BPA has concluded that corticosterone and its actions in the brain are sensitive to the programming effects of BPA."

As above, it is a primary study. It is a primary study done in animals. No secondary source is provided to show it is important. As the edit comment (which I didn't add), no health meaning is drawn from this for the everyday reader. So this content should go.Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The cited study is briefly reviewed in the previous work section of PMID 22543054 (a study in humans) and the general idea (that low/everyday exposure levels have effects) could be just as easily supported by PMID 18949834 or other reviews.

You need to stop assuming that the cited source is the only possible way to verify the information. If you think something needs a better source, then look for one. If you can't find one, then tag it as {{primary-inline}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

My issue is as much with the atomized "information" as much as with the sources. Again, in a section called "health effects". Not in a section called "research". What is the point of this "information"? How is picking all these primary sources and writing some random biochemical/cell biology blurb based on them (or any of 1000 others) providing useful health information and how is the content, based on these blurbs reporting on primary sources, not violating WP:OR? By saying "oh that pixel of data there can be supported by a secondary source" I feel you are missing my big point, which is how health-related content should be generated. We should start with reviews, right? If a primary study pops up on your radar, you look for a review that encompasses it and base your content on the secondary source. Right? That is how we provide good health content. Frankly I think the toxicology section of this article (and many others) is just irresponsible. It is not presenting toxicology, it is just a rollcall for nightmares - a laundry list. The whole laundry list thing does not belong in wikipedia and especially not in a section called "health effects". How is editing and keeping sections like this, any different from irresponsible marketing of many dietary supplements, that throws "science" at consumers and says "see, there is "science" here. buy me buy me." How is this "health information"? Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, if you aren't arguing the sources, and there's no consensus that I can see to change section titles, I would urge caution. The mass-deleting primary sources from medical articles without finding a sufficient secondary source is a concern too. It's one thing to argue the sources but you must be careful of not making this political. Unless you want a section regarding the politcs of BA.... ;) DVMt (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is more or less inappropriate in some ways, but I will respond. Please assume WP:AGF. BPA seems to be a toxin alright - I am not concern trolling. It is just that a "Health Effects" section must have content about health backed up with MEDRS-compliant sources - it is as simple as that. You cannot jump to "health" from basic research, and I believe that primary sources were used inappropriately on this page - way too freely. You end up with BS and if you look at my userpage you will see I have a thing about BS. I don't know where you got the idea that I would want to rename the section. I never said that nor meant it. And with respect to your repetition of the "mass delete" complaint, as I wrote above to, I was bold and made changes, my changes were reverted, and I opened a discussion on talk. I did nothing wrong. Would I do it again? Probably not - I did not anticipate this emotional reaction and wikipedia is a community and the trust of other users matters. Instead I will just add medrs-citation-needed tags and when i have time will just find medrs 2ndary sources at the time and generate content from them, replacing what was there.Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you interpreted I wasn't inferring good faith. I am. I have learned the hard way myself. Tagging is better than deleting, when in doubt. It seems like there is good discussion ongoing now between editors who are more competent than I in this subject. On that note, happy editing. DVMt (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, very much.Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, to make around ten edits within an hour, edits that removed a great deal of long-standing material without any mention of your intent on the talk page is not, in my understanding anyway, of what WP:BOLD means at all. I was very appreciative that DVMt went ahead and just reverted to a stable version because I had already spent a great deal of time reverting and wasn't done yet. And then you keep saying that you took it to the talk page after I complained--no you did not. I took it to the talk page and left a note on your talk page. Also, we'd all get along a lot better if you would quit portraying the other editors here as being too "emotional" and so on in their responses, suggesting that you of course are the only one being level-headed.

I am sorry about this. I am also not that level-headed as per my boner on the "spine" thing (not thinking straight). The record above is accurate.Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

On a more happy note, I am actually appreciative that you arrived on the scene here and I believe that your efforts have begun to improve the article. I was hoping that we could continue to hammer out something here and I thought that we were beginning to make progress. Sometimes when we see only a small slice of another editor we can get an unfair picture of them. Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this.Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

About building content: if you want to write a really good section on toxicology, then the ideal way to go about it would be to get about three books and major review papers and write one from scratch. But deleting valid information—information that, in some form, would likely be included in a well-written and well-researched section, is not actually an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Clear, thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

specific content #5

I deleted the following from the "Health Effects section:

"A 2012 study found that the neurological effects of BPA are trans-generational in mice. Genetic expression was found to extend into the fourth generation. The authors stated that they believe that their study is the first to have demonstrated that BPA has trans-generational actions on social behavior and neural expression."

As above, it is a primary study. It is a primary study done in animals. No secondary source is provided to show it is important. Editor did do a good job using source itself to say why this matters for health and to the everyday reader, but that is not enough. So this content should go.Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that effects are transgenerational could easily be supported by PMID 22949852 or PMID 20568270 or several other reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can wrap up this section (Neurological) as well. There are only three primary studies, the one mentioned above that Waid found a review for, the primate study, and this one:

A 2010 study with rats prenatally exposed to 40 µg/kg bw BPA has concluded that corticosterone and its actions in the brain are sensitive to the programming effects of BPA.[81] I would agree to just delete this. However, I would like to keep the primate study since, as far as I know, it's the only one of this type. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Disruption of the dopaminergic system in the neurology section has four primary studies. I would be willing to delete them. However, I would like to see something more recent in the neurological section and I suggest this review: [6]. Gandydancer (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a great source! All in. This one is done.Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

specific content #6

I deleted the following from the section "Health Effects", subsection "Obesity"

"A later study on rats has suggested that perinatal exposure to drinking water containing 1 mg/L of BPA increased adipogenesis in females at weaning. Another study suggested that larger size-for-age was due to a faster growth rate rather than obesity."

This section starts out great with content is based on review articles, and then these sentences follow with more recent primary studies. As above, these are primary studies. The content for the second article approaches SYNTH - and in any case the two primary studies muddy the picture. What is the article communicating to readers? This is why secondary sources are essential especially for health issues -- if consensus is unclear because the science is still emerging, get that from a review. So this content should go.Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to delete non-reviews now that they are available. Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)'

Progress! Onward we go... Gandydancer (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

section rename?

Jytdog, has brought up a concern re the naming of the section "Health effects" and I agree it could be improved. Some studies show human effects but most studies have been done on rats, mice, etc. Do others think that perhaps "Health concerns" would be better? Other ideas? Gandydancer (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer that is unbelievably gracious of you. I took the liberty of making this a new section.
Least disruptive option: I would be comfortable leaving the "Health effects" title and including only content based on really authoritative reviews like NTD and regulatory bodies, and having a following section called "Potential health effects" or "Research".
More disruptive and maybe too fussy but the most accurate (I think): Change section name to "Definitive statements of health risks" and include only content based on really authoritative reviews like NTD and those from regulatory bodies, and having a following section called "Emerging research on health risks" and include content based on reviews (like the neurobiology one) that are more recent than the sources covered by the "definitive" sources.Jytdog (talk)

At a glance, I like, ""Health effects" title and including only content based on really authoritative reviews like NTD and regulatory bodies, and having a following section called... "Research"." I'll read any input and may change my mind but your suggestion of a following research section seems like an excellent idea to me and could perhaps be used in other articles with similar problems... Gandydancer (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opps--looking at the article I see we have a "General research" section...and then there is the Lang study...so perhaps we need to take those into consideration as well? Furthermore, my plan was to see how often "concern" was used and how often "effect" was used in the "official" information, so I will look at that as well and perhaps change my mind...or not ;-). Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

for what it is worth, i think the key word is "risk" - that is what regulators think about.Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Given my experience with Gandydancer, I'd say that it's quite believably gracious. (She has faults, though: she doesn't cat her images at Commons. )

Maybe something like "Risks to human health" or "Health concerns" would work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

specific content #1

I deleted the following from the article, and the deletion was reverted. Instead of edit warring, I am bringing it here.

"A 2009 review raised concerns about BPA effect on anteroventral periventricular nucleus."

Anatomy

First of all, this content violates one of the pillars of wikipedia - namely that wikipedia is an encyclopedia aimed at the general public. WP:NOTJARGON #8 and #7. The content above is incomprehensible to the average person. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in WP:5P that prohibits what you call "jargon", and what anyone else would call the only possible name for that particular bit of anatomy. 5P directly says that the English Wikipedia includes material appropriate for specialized encyclopedias as well as general ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but the link above - the one to WP:NOTJARGON is in the article describing the first pillar. Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither 5P nor prohibits editors from using the only correct name for an anatomical structure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are fussing over here. Should a given article jump wildly between accessible and inaccessible language? Great wikipedia articles should strive to be accessible to everyday people and gracefully go technical where they must. The content we are talking about is crazy to include in wikipedia. "A 2009 review raised concerns about BPA effect on anteroventral periventricular nucleus." It could just as well been edited to say "A 2009 review raised concerns about the effect of BPA on the region of the brain thought to control sex-typical physiology and behaviors (the anteroventral periventricular nucleus)." And yes, I could have edited it myself to say that. This is just one of my several strikes against the content and its sourcing.Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rodents

Secondly, the source is about rodents, not humans - it is building some basic science, which is great, and talks about how the author is directing research in his lab to lead the field. But it is not about humans. This violates the part of WP:MEDRS that says:

Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies

In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in biomedical research, and are invaluable in elucidating mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that the reported findings necessarily hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to the reader.

Use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data. Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in sufficient context that readers can determine their reliability.Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's review, so it's not "a single study" for MEDRS's purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Missed the point. It is a review of rodent studies.Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point: that MEDRS section is primarily focused on the use of single studies, not animal studies. I agree that it would be better to say "Studies in rodents show effects on this part of the brain", but blanking doesn't have the effect of adding that qualifier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Third, it is a primary study, not a secondary one, and so content should not be based on it, not under WP:PSTS and definitely not under WP:MEDRS.Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please go to the PubMed entry for the source. Click the link that says "Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances, Grant Support". Look at the third item under "Publication Types", where is says "Review". That word "Review" means "this is a secondary source for Wikipedia's purposes, and you may not remove it on the bogus grounds that you personally decided it was a primary source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right on this one.Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Fourthly and maybe most importantly, the author of this source no where actually says that she is "raising concerns about BPA effect on anteroventral periventricular nucleus"; perhaps the review raised concerns in the editor who added this, but that is OR.Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to read sources before assuming that you know what they say. Usually, when an author is using words like "aberrant exposure" and 2124861390 I assume that the author considers something to be a potential problem. But in this case, the author says it quite directly: "Such observations raise concerns about permanent effects of exposures to environmental toxicants, not just to exposed individuals but also to future generations." So, yes, this review article did "raise concerns" and did so quite directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the whole article, please WP:AGF. Yep you find the one place where the word "concern" appears in the article. I did the same search. The review covers EDs in general and this statement is not limited to nor specific to bisphenol A - but the editor made it say that. Also that statement (and the whole review) is not limited to "anteroventral periventricular nucleus" but covers many things. The anteroventral periventricular nucleus is one of the two regions specifically discussed, this is true. Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If the author is concerned about all EDs, it logically follows that the author is concerned about this particular ED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Man you are arguing me to the mat. While i appreciate you taking the time to respond, I think you are moving to fast there. We cannot go past what the sources say. We cannot. Otherwise it is OR. She did not "raise concerns about BPA effect on anteroventral periventricular nucleus." The editor did.Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading the paper, do you honestly think that the author is actually concerned about this (among other things), or not? Do you think that if you happened to see the author and asked her whether she was concerned about BPA's effects on this part of the brain, do you think that she would say "Oh, no, not really"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Altogether, this content just does not belong here.Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So one point out of four was knocked down...Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I returned this and other studies because you deleted numerous studies in a matter of minutes (that have been in this article for years) without talk page discussion. This information should remain in the article while it is discussed. I am short on time and will spend as much time as I can for comments. Gandydancer (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

We will go on ahead talking, join when you can!Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, I don't want to revive this discussion, but I did notice the following in the paper:

  Early postnatal exposure of rat pups to genistein or bisphenol A decreased both the number and the percentage of cells in the AVPV that coexpressed tyrosine hydroxylase (an enzyme involved in dopamine synthesis) and ERα in the AVPV of female rats; this effect was seen just for number (not percentage) of double-labeled cells in males, suggesting that female rats are more sensitive to this early EDC exposure [113]. Similar results were reported in mice by Rubin et al. [130], who showed that the sex difference in AVPV size, and tyrosine hydroxylase expression in the AVPV, were diminished by prenatal bisphenol A, primarily due to effects in the females.

  I think based on this that the concern includes BPA. However, I think there's probably better reviews on BPA than this. II | (t - c) 04:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS discusssion

FYI, I opened a discussion on MEDRS talk about use of sources in this article - discusion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#toxicity Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

HI, so as per the discussion above, I would like to start working through this article and eliminating primary sources and keeping content that can be supported by reviews. This is backwards from how things are supposed be done - namely, read reviews and generate content from them - but in light of my history here and the hard work that gandy has done, it would be too disruptive to rewrite the whole section. So I intend to work from what is here and see what can be supported from reviews, and keep what can be supported and delete what cannot. The creation of a new section for "asthma" prompted me to do a pubmed search to see if there are any reviews that deal with this. I searched for reviews in pubmed for "bisphenol toxicity (lung or asthma or respiratory)" and there were no results. Therefore, the content in the new Asthma should be deleted from the article until a review treats it. Agreed? Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS doesn't require "review articles"; it requires secondary sources. That category includes most books as well, which aren't going to be found through a PubMed search.

Have you identified any reviews or reference works that you think are good? Even if you don't want to re-write from scratch, it would be valuable to read a couple of decent sources first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have done the broader search on pubmed for bisphenol toxicity (as we discussed on the MEDRS talk page) and have downloaded the most recent ones, written after the broader reviews by the expert panels, and have read them. I completely hear you that books are good too but I prefer to use review articles as they are more accessible to editors {and to me :) } and for contentious articles is best to have sources everybody can see. I am not going to rewrite this from scratch based on those sources - it would be way too upsetting to editors here - I am going to start with existing content and either re-source it to reviews (if it can stand as is) or amend it as per reviews, and if there is no review that supports it, delete it. That is what I intend to do. The train wreck of primary sources needs to be fixed and I intend to do it. So what about this Asthma matter? Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you so much for your spirit of cooperation and taking this go-slow approach. I really appreciate it. I just did some editing of the section. I removed the xenoestrogen info that somehow ended up in the asthma section. It is my understanding that the section as written should now be an acceptable inclusion in this article. Although you say above that you plan to delete everything that does not have a review, that is not my understanding of WP policy. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank for talking Gandy. WP:PSTS says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." WP:MEDRS raises that bar higher for health related content: "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse." And there has been endless discussion of use of primary sources on MEDRS talk (here is one: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Primary_sources) - the community that edits health related content seems to me to be (generally) really committed to using only secondary sources and using primary sources rarely, if ever.... there are some key editors there who I see as a bit more relaxed on primary sources (e.g. whatamidoing) and some who I see as pretty fiercely opposed to ever using them (e.g. Colin) but as I see the consensus, pretty much everybody thinks you should be really careful when using them to avoid OR and cherry-picking, and especially avoid creating extensive chunks of text based on them to avoid issues with WEIGHT. I tend to be more where Colin is because primary in vitro and animal studies are often (80% of the time!) not replicable. And we are communicating health information here and want to be as accurate as we can. I think Wikipedia should never be scary (or overly optimistic) and probably wrong on health matters. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you disclose which reviews you are going to rely on primarily? The 2007 NIH report is about 400 pages. I haven't looked into this topic in a while, but if I recall correctly some of these reviews run into over a thousand pages. II | (t - c) 04:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been no more reviews of that scope since the last one published in late 2007. I have read about twenty published in the last couple of years which you can see too by searching "bisphenol toxicity" on pubmed and selecting the "review" filter. Why do you ask? Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just curious as to which ones you think are the most appropriate. It sounds like you're planning a lot major changes so I figured maybe I'll glance at the ones you want to use as preparation. II | (t - c) 04:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

actually, I am not going to do this

I have been reflecting on revising this article a lot. I have decided not to do it. The reason? Current wikipedia guidelines and polices are not adequate to deal with discussions of toxicity. Most of the recent reviews that I have read are written by basic researchers in one field or another, who have no clue how about toxicity as it is practiced by toxicologists. Here is what I mean. Water is toxic. Plain clean water. If, that is, you hold someone's head underwater for a few minutes. The point being, that dose is absolutely essential to have a rational discussion of toxicity, as is route of exposure. Experiments have to be designed with that in mind. Review after review that I have read (written by non-toxicologists) do not take these key things into account, nor do almost any of the primary studies currently used in the article. They are bad science from a tox perspective. And since there are editors who believe that this article should ring the alarm bell very loudly on BPA by citing every negative thing they can ( I assume because they have a good faith desire to communicate what they see as the truth to the public), and since we cannot even agree that primary studies should not be in a health-related section, and since there is no basis in wiki policy or guidelines to define what are appropriate sources for tox content, I have zero hope of ever arriving at consensus for appropriate sources on which to base content for this article - and especially for what content should not remain because it is not supported by good tox science. BPA may well be banned one day but that doesn't make studies and reviews that are bad science from a toxicological standpoint any more valid than they are now. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you a toxicologist? You don't have to answer. I am not; however, professionals vary significantly in their attitudes. Even using animal models is controversial with varying perspectives among toxicologsts. A few years back I added to the animal model article a citation to Olson et al's Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals. II | (t - c) 04:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not, but I play one on TV. :) No really I am not. I am very "imperfectly informed" on this but working on wikipedia led me to read a lot about it, including the whole 2007 study you mention in the section above, as well as a couple of textbooks and other sources. I realize that I might sound like a fringe person. I have never tried to change wiki policy or guidelines before, but this tox thing is a real problem (at least in my eyes). I tried to explain above the core reasoning toxicologists use -- if you want to understand how something is likely to effect humans, you have to think through the in vitro and animal experiments really carefully. Ditto, conducting an epidemiological study, after a product has been introduced. The training of a toxiologist is exactly focused on these things. In the section of MEDRS talk that I linked to above, I copy/pasted a key section from the 2007 report and showed how the monkey study used as a source in this article (neuro section) is useless from a tox perspective -- a real tragedy as primate studies are expensive (a ton of precious grant funding wasted) and these monkeys were experimented on for nothing. About the article on pharma tox that you linked to (nice "add" by the way!) -- I don't understand what controversy you are mentioning (seems like industry practices are pretty consistent, and that everybody at the workshop was focused on improving tox science and practice.) The FDA requires IND applications to show tox tests for drug candidates in at least three different mammals, and they have standard things they look for companies to have assayed in those studies. That there are still 29% of side effects of drugs that are undetected after standard tox studies of drug candidates, is one of the reasons that clinical studies are so carefully structured and expensive - there is still significant risk that a drug candidate will not be safe when human clinical trials begin, as well as uncertainty whether it will work - and the risk of side effects is the reason that both the NIH, through its "Critical Path" and "Advancing Regulatory Science" initiatives, and the pharma industry, are always on the lookout for better preclinical tests. What is the controversy you mention on that Concordance study? Now I am curious! Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's just that animal models have significant problems in extrapolating to humans, both false negatives and false positives. If you're so deep into the toxicology literature, I'm sure you aware of the Tox21 project (a summary of its progress was recently published in EHP - a long way from prime time). See Toxicology for the twenty-first century (2009) for another discussion. In the meantime, we have to work with what we've got. II | (t - c) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of all that and agree, yes. And I appreciate the real-worldness of your follow-on edit!. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that were unable to find any review articles written by toxicologists in reputable journals during the last 10 years? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No I found a few. But they do not make the strong kind of statements that are in the article now. And there is no basis in policy or guideline to rely only on them and exclude others. And we would not need to go back 10 years - just back to 2007 to cover the time since the expert panels did their work. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We can, without falling afoul of any policy, replace (nearly) any primary source with any secondary source that is equal or better in quality, and there is nothing at all that prevents us from adding secondary sources to provide a fuller view of the subject. So even if you don't want to do anything more, it would be helpful just to have a list of the PMIDs or DOIs for the couple of sources that you think are most interesting or most appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

sure here you go

This is great - the French gov't just did a big review of BPA and published a summary English (so kind of them)

• http://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/documents/CHIM2009sa0331Ra-0EN.PDF
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21216193 also written up in this article
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=22296744 has a NTP workshop report on environmental chemicals in diabetes and obesity - has a section on BPA - super great (only that section should be used)
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21438738 great report from german tox group

prenatal/perinatal/pediatric

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21293273 pediatric epidemiology
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21136531 perinatal tox studies

good for exposure

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=22889897 good for exposure
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21596439 in china
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21664675 useful analysis of exposure from dental fillings

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In my mind (and I understand I am alone in this), these sources, along with the 2007 NTP report, should be the only sources for the human "health effects" section (there could be a separate section under that for tox to wildlife). There would be no primary sources at all. The result would be very solid, reliable information on expert assessment of risk to humans. There are a significant number of scientists and people who, based on the ED hypothesis, make much less cautious assessments of risk (and even make outright statements about what EDs like BPA do to humans). (There is no dispute that BPA is an ED; the controversy as I see it, is how people assess risk and how they assess the underlying data) There would be another section for those assessments and statements, titled something like, "Stronger concerns about health effects by strong proponents of the ED hypothesis) describing the controversy over it, followed by content describing the more strident (or maybe better, less cautious) claims by those proponents, supported by reviews (not primary sources), in that section. My goal here is not to "whitewash" but rather to deal with the real messiness here - there is not a lot of reliable tox data, and professional and especially regulatory toxicologists are generally more cautious about making strong claims based on the data we have now (throwing a lot of it away because it is not useful), while others make much stronger claims and are less selective in examining the data. Wikipedia should reflect this and not moosh these different perspectives together. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You are not alone in this, I 100% support these proposed changes. Zad68 12:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

|| Your childish analogue discussing the toxiciy of water is utterly stupid. You clearly do not understand the topic or the word. You are NOT qualified to submit an article on this topic. || DrP