Eating From Foam Food Containers Is Risky Business: Thailand

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

"Sytrofoam containers contain the chemical styrene, which has a molecular structure similar to estrogen hormone in females, Dr. Weerachat said"

WRONG!!! It's chemical structure is absolutely NOTHING like similar to oestrogens chemical formula!!!!

oestrogen MF = C20H24O2

styrene MF = C8H8

If you substitute the ethyl group for a hydroxyl group on the styrene you end up with a completely different chemical in phenol.

phenol MF = C6H5OH

Bear this in mind when deciding whether the 4 benzene ringed oestrogen molecule with a number of various differing side chains is similar to styrene structurally!!!

End of subject I think.

That's a big load off of my mind. Thanks for the explanation.

Still would be interesting to see what studies was driving the Drs. belief.

It would be fairly simple experiment to monitor blood panel to measure endocrine properties from specific chemical residues. That's why I was curious to see some sources or citations.

Is it possible it has indirect effect on the endocrine system resulting in disregulated estrogen levels? It seems Endocrinology is rapidly evolving field.

I am not an expert in plastics as my work was on design and development of synthetic emulsion polymers (aqueous rubber).

I am not questioning his concerns about the health hazards of styrofoam but I just wish he wouldn't make basic flawed statements such as he has done as it dilutes the seriousness of his intentions to warn the public on the issue of serving food in polystyrene containers (especially oil based foods)!!!

Might just have been a translation or english issue. There are lots of chemical compounds that screw with estrogen that don't have estrogen in their molecular structure.

Hops(beer) and Licorice come to mind.

Interesting topic though.. Like others have mentioned definitely not the biggest health fish to fry. Probably the food itself is much more significant health issue.

[max2u]

oh, sorry you couldn't find a scientific source.

http://ntp.niehs.nih...e_Monograph.pdf

HTH!

Ok keep on keeping on. It only talks about human reproduction and development and no mention of microwaveing plastics. They used to think smokeing was ok. up to you

Reproduction and development are highly sensitive outcome measures, when assaying exposure to compounds alleged to have steroidal-analogous effects (such as 'estrogenic').

The fact that major effects were NOT seen in humans who are regularly exposed to high levels of styrenes in their industrial workplaces, and that lab rats given dosages of 5-6 orders of magnitude higher per respective kg of body mass than humans ordinarily receive, and yet had no noticable effects, relates VERY well to a dosage level HIGHER than the postulated 'spike' of styrene ingestion gotten by those folks who microwave oily (<greater solubility of plastics) foods in polyfoam containers.

Eating that laad na out of a polyfoam clamshell box presents truly a negligible threat to the street food 'gourmet'

Oh, and as 'they used to think smoking was ok' before 'they' actually did any proper epidemiological studies, that's not much of an argument

your very defensive of the plastics industry. your argument presumes that science has now stopped advanceing

I don't care about the plastics industry. (nor about typings of "your" instead of the contraction of "you are"

. .while some claim that I presume science stopped advancing is absurd absent some showing of more recent studies than I've cited--and you present NONE.

I DO care about studies that examine humans who are chronically exposed to HIGH levels of styrenes, and studies that dose lab animals to levels of styrenes that EXCEED those that humans would receive if the humans ate the polyfoam containers along with the food contained within!

That these studies did not find the postulated bad effects? These you choose to ignore--so be it. Ignorance, whether passive or 'intentional' of the constraint of "dose dependency" upon any consideration of toxicity serves only irrationality.

Much more of a worry have I regarding the contents of polyfoam containers (whether of food preservatives or bacteria in the food!) than the minuscule amounts of hydrocarbon derivative molecules acquired in transit.

[Greer]

HANG ON A MINUTE...

"Although there are no definitive studies of the long-term effect of styrene and other chemicals...." and "Statistically, a person who eats at least one meal daily from Styrofoam containers for 10 years will increase his cancer risk 6 times above normal, he said. Other studies suggest similar risks from the plastic bags also used for takeout foods."

So - which is it - there HAVE been long term studies - as the second statement implies - or the HAVE NOT been studies, as indicated in the first statement?

Which?????

[BradWilkins]

ok EAT UP max2u

Edited February 11, 2013 by BradWilkins

[SICHONSTEVE]

HANG ON A MINUTE...

"Although there are no definitive studies of the long-term effect of styrene and other chemicals...." and "Statistically, a person who eats at least one meal daily from Styrofoam containers for 10 years will increase his cancer risk 6 times above normal, he said. Other studies suggest similar risks from the plastic bags also used for takeout foods."

So - which is it - there HAVE been long term studies - as the second statement implies - or the HAVE NOT been studies, as indicated in the first statement?

Which?????

I think that what they should do is back to an old English sea-side tradition and serve food in the Nation!!!!

Then I suppose there will be chemicals leaching out of the paper and printing inks - you just can't win.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

HANG ON A MINUTE...

"Although there are no definitive studies of the long-term effect of styrene and other chemicals...." and "Statistically, a person who eats at least one meal daily from Styrofoam containers for 10 years will increase his cancer risk 6 times above normal, he said. Other studies suggest similar risks from the plastic bags also used for takeout foods."

So - which is it - there HAVE been long term studies - as the second statement implies - or the HAVE NOT been studies, as indicated in the first statement?

Which?????

These are either epidemiological studies or animal experiments. Each have weaknesses such as reporting error and confounding influences or in the case of animal studies results often don't translate to humans because the doses are much smaller.

When someone points to a study then that is just the beginning of the analysis.

[max2u]

HANG ON A MINUTE...

"Although there are no definitive studies of the long-term effect of styrene and other chemicals...." and "Statistically, a person who eats at least one meal daily from Styrofoam containers for 10 years will increase his cancer risk 6 times above normal, he said. Other studies suggest similar risks from the plastic bags also used for takeout foods."

So - which is it - there HAVE been long term studies - as the second statement implies - or the HAVE NOT been studies, as indicated in the first statement?

Which?????

These are either epidemiological studies or animal experiments. Each have weaknesses such as reporting error and confounding influences or in the case of animal studies results often don't translate to humans because the doses are much smaller.

When someone points to a study then that is just the beginning of the analysis.

Very well, then (and as my earlier posts cited studies WRT postulated estrogenic or other steroidal analogue FX and garnered no substantive response, citation for this post will treat with cancer--hey, plenty old falangs I've seen have larger mammaries than Thai women, styrofoam or no styrofoam

. . and as the Kingdom has thoughtfully provided grotesque gore panels on every pack of ciggies, let's give that polystyrene devil its due !

. . .oh, BTW, smokers have more styrenes in 'em than do non-smokers . .though neither have a tiny fraction of styrene industrial workers' exposure (unless they are also such workers, of course

1. Epidemiological studies.

Khun CSN, your declaration that these studies have confounding and/or reporting errors is both unsupported and unfounded.

If anything, since the only suspected effects of styrenes upon humans have been found among industrial workers (and possibly those unfortunates who dwell near the efflux of chemical plants), who may also be exposed to other chemicals (and even these folks show a low incidence of increased risk above general population baseline), these confounds are more likely to increase, rather than decrease toxicity effects found to be associated along with styrenes--HOWEVER, to at least partly control for these putative effects (while synergy is a more difficult proposition), epidemiological studies are done of industrial workers who are exposed to the two major chemicals styrene workers inhale/ingest--but absent styrenes. (e.g., rubber plant workers re: butadienes)

Furthermore, the levels of chronic exposure of workers in chemical and fabrication industries are SO much higher than the public at large as to be reported in parts per million for workers vs parts per billion for the public. So, "dose dependency" must not be ignored.

As far as 'no long term studies,' this is simply not so, as mutliple industrial cohorts in stryrene industries who've had chronic exposure for periods up to greater than ten years have been surveyed.

2. Animal studies 'don't translate to humans because doses are smaller' is in fact a falsehood of the worst order, because the mg/kg doses given to animals (primarily mice and rats) are MUCH LARGER than the mcg/kg levels (that's right--3 orders magnitude larger!) typically gotten by humans.

Oh, and it seems that even giving dose equivalents to rodents that are well-above those gotten by industrial workers often impacts strongly on mice . .but not rats.

~they've been studied long-term, too..okay, for lab rodents, that's only about, hmm, the falang punter's equivalent of about 4 visa runs, but they dose the bejayzuz out of the poor devils

(relation of dosage over time, eh? . .ah, but there's a fly in that particular ointment *

Now if you would care to 'begin the analysis,' I'm game, and here's some serious meat to chew on (no styrofoam container moto delivery included ) . .. but hey, everything I've written about here can be had in one pdf.

*. . and as for that 'fly' ? There's a not-so-little problem when trying to extrapolate the low increase of FX seen in chronically-exposed industrial workers, even to people who microwave foam containers day in and day out: Styrenes aren't retained very well.

The biochemistry of this (solubility, half lives in circulation, metabolic paths, excretion . . .)and even the quantification of styrenes leached from microwaving several kinds of food container, and much more is there to be seen:

(pdf 2.9mb)

http://ntp.niehs.nih...-29-08)F[1].pdf

(erratum/addendum 100kb)

http://ntp.niehs.nih...tumAddendum.pdf

Chok dee khrap !

Edited February 11, 2013 by max2u

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

HANG ON A MINUTE...

"Although there are no definitive studies of the long-term effect of styrene and other chemicals...." and "Statistically, a person who eats at least one meal daily from Styrofoam containers for 10 years will increase his cancer risk 6 times above normal, he said. Other studies suggest similar risks from the plastic bags also used for takeout foods."

So - which is it - there HAVE been long term studies - as the second statement implies - or the HAVE NOT been studies, as indicated in the first statement?

Which?????

These are either epidemiological studies or animal experiments. Each have weaknesses such as reporting error and confounding influences or in the case of animal studies results often don't translate to humans because the doses are much smaller.

When someone points to a study then that is just the beginning of the analysis.

Very well, then (and as my earlier posts cited studies WRT postulated estrogenic or other steroidal analogue FX and garnered no substantive response, citation for this post will treat with cancer--hey, plenty old falangs I've seen have larger mammaries than Thai women, styrofoam or no styrofoam

. . and as the Kingdom has thoughtfully provided grotesque gore panels on every pack of ciggies, let's give that polystyrene devil its due !

. . .oh, BTW, smokers have more styrenes in 'em than do non-smokers . .though neither have a tiny fraction of styrene industrial workers' exposure (unless they are also such workers, of course

1. Epidemiological studies.

Khun CSN, your declaration that these studies have confounding and/or reporting errors is both unsupported and unfounded.

If anything, since the only suspected effects of styrenes upon humans have been found among industrial workers (and possibly those unfortunates who dwell near the efflux of chemical plants), who may also be exposed to other chemicals (and even these folks show a low incidence of increased risk above general population baseline), these confounds are more likely to increase, rather than decrease toxicity effects found to be associated along with styrenes--HOWEVER, to at least partly control for these putative effects (while synergy is a more difficult proposition), epidemiological studies are done of industrial workers who are exposed to the two major chemicals styrene workers inhale/ingest--but absent styrenes. (as in rubber plant workers re: butadienes, e.g.)

Furthermore, the levels of chronic exposure of workers in chemical and fabrication industries are SO much higher than the public at large as to be reported in parts per million for workers vs parts per billion for the public. So, "dose dependency" must not be ignored.

As far as 'no long term studies,' this is simply not so, as mutliple industrial cohorts in stryrene industries who've had chronic exposure for periods up to greater than ten years have been surveyed.

2. Animal studies 'don't translate to humans because doses are smaller' is in fact an outright falsehood of the worse order, because the mg/kg doses given to animals (primarily mice and rats) are MUCH LARGER than the mcg/kg levels

(that's right--3 orders magnitude!) typically gotten by humans.

Oh, and it seems that even giving dose equivalents to rodents that are well-above those gotten by industrial workers impacts strongly on mice . .but not rats.

..they've been studied long-term, too (okay, for lab rodents, that's only about, hmm, the falang punter's equivalent of about 4 visa runs, but they dose the bejayzuz out of the poor devils

(relation of dosage over time, eh? . .ah, but there's a little fly* in that ointment

Now if you would care to 'begin the analysis,' I'm game, and here's some serious meat to chew on (no styrofoam container moto delivery included ) . .. but hey, everything I've written about here can be had in one pdf.

*. . and as for that 'fly' ? There's a not-so-little problem when trying to extrapolate the low increase of FX seen in chronically-exposed industrial workers, even to people who microwave foam containers day in and day out:

Styrenes aren't retained very well.

The biochemistry of this (solubility, half lives in circulation, metabolic paths, excretion . . .)and even the quantification of styrenes leached from microwaving several kinds of food container, and much more is there.

(pdf 2.9mb):

http://ntp.niehs.nih...-29-08)F[1].pdf

(erratum/addendum 100kb):

http://ntp.niehs.nih...tumAddendum.pdf

Chok dee khrap !

I thought we are talking about human styrene exposure for Styrofoam type food containers.

Your talking about styrene intake from smoking and mfg environments? Do you really think those are interchangeable?

I don't have a dog in this fight but have yet to see any studies that try to measure styrene impact from food containers..

Do you have any to share? I was simply saying it's not enough to just cite a study but then one needs to analyse the type of study and its relative merits and weaknesses.

Edited February 11, 2013 by CobraSnakeNecktie

[max2u]

<presumption pruned>

i hope the overwhelming weight of evidence of the health concerns is all proved wrong, but it is still a huge problem in the environment.Like the island of plastic in the middle of the pacific. Hopefully when we become waterworld kevin costner can clean it up like he tried with the oil spill in the gulf of mexico.

Your ecology is as worthy as your epidemiology is not

( . . and thanks for the animated image--though it seems to have had a half-life less than circulating styrenes, alas

[max2u]

HANG ON A MINUTE...

"Although there are no definitive studies of the long-term effect of styrene and other chemicals...." and "Statistically, a person who eats at least one meal daily from Styrofoam containers for 10 years will increase his cancer risk 6 times above normal, he said. Other studies suggest similar risks from the plastic bags also used for takeout foods."

So - which is it - there HAVE been long term studies - as the second statement implies - or the HAVE NOT been studies, as indicated in the first statement?

Which?????

These are either epidemiological studies or animal experiments. Each have weaknesses such as reporting error and confounding influences or in the case of animal studies results often don't translate to humans because the doses are much smaller.

When someone points to a study then that is just the beginning of the analysis.

Very well, then (and as my earlier posts cited studies WRT postulated estrogenic or other steroidal analogue FX and garnered no substantive response, citation for this post will treat with cancer--hey, plenty old falangs I've seen have larger mammaries than Thai women, styrofoam or no styrofoam

. . and as the Kingdom has thoughtfully provided grotesque gore panels on every pack of ciggies, let's give that polystyrene devil its due !

. . .oh, BTW, smokers have more styrenes in 'em than do non-smokers . .though neither have a tiny fraction of styrene industrial workers' exposure (unless they are also such workers, of course

1. Epidemiological studies.

Khun CSN, your declaration that these studies have confounding and/or reporting errors is both unsupported and unfounded.

If anything, since the only suspected effects of styrenes upon humans have been found among industrial workers (and possibly those unfortunates who dwell near the efflux of chemical plants), who may also be exposed to other chemicals (and even these folks show a low incidence of increased risk above general population baseline), these confounds are more likely to increase, rather than decrease toxicity effects found to be associated along with styrenes--HOWEVER, to at least partly control for these putative effects (while synergy is a more difficult proposition), epidemiological studies are done of industrial workers who are exposed to the two major chemicals styrene workers inhale/ingest--but absent styrenes. (as in rubber plant workers re: butadienes, e.g.)

Furthermore, the levels of chronic exposure of workers in chemical and fabrication industries are SO much higher than the public at large as to be reported in parts per million for workers vs parts per billion for the public. So, "dose dependency" must not be ignored.

As far as 'no long term studies,' this is simply not so, as mutliple industrial cohorts in stryrene industries who've had chronic exposure for periods up to greater than ten years have been surveyed.

2. Animal studies 'don't translate to humans because doses are smaller' is in fact an outright falsehood of the worse order, because the mg/kg doses given to animals (primarily mice and rats) are MUCH LARGER than the mcg/kg levels

(that's right--3 orders magnitude!) typically gotten by humans.

Oh, and it seems that even giving dose equivalents to rodents that are well-above those gotten by industrial workers impacts strongly on mice . .but not rats.

..they've been studied long-term, too (okay, for lab rodents, that's only about, hmm, the falang punter's equivalent of about 4 visa runs, but they dose the bejayzuz out of the poor devils

(relation of dosage over time, eh? . .ah, but there's a little fly* in that ointment

Now if you would care to 'begin the analysis,' I'm game, and here's some serious meat to chew on (no styrofoam container moto delivery included ) . .. but hey, everything I've written about here can be had in one pdf.

*. . and as for that 'fly' ? There's a not-so-little problem when trying to extrapolate the low increase of FX seen in chronically-exposed industrial workers, even to people who microwave foam containers day in and day out:

Styrenes aren't retained very well.

The biochemistry of this (solubility, half lives in circulation, metabolic paths, excretion . . .)and even the quantification of styrenes leached from microwaving several kinds of food container, and much more is there.

(pdf 2.9mb):

http://ntp.niehs.nih...-29-08)F[1].pdf

(erratum/addendum 100kb):

http://ntp.niehs.nih...tumAddendum.pdf

Chok dee khrap !

~replies inline:

I thought we are talking about human styrene exposure for Styrofoam type food containers.

~We are.

Your talking about styrene intake from smoking and mfg environments? Do you really think those are interchangeable?

~Most styrene ingested is from the environment. The styrene in an industrial environment is at a FAR higher level than in ordinary atmospheres--even that of when the blessed villagers are burning trash upwind--well, maybe not if your neighbour has a great smoking heap of takeout clamshells alight. Ack!

~The fact that even at the many times higher ingestions of styrene daily, AND over time, that is gotten by production and fabrication workers, only some cancers have slightly higher prevalence puts the burden of proof to show:

~1. That food containers transfer sufficiently large amounts of styrene into foods to have possible impacy--at very least, significantly higher than from 'normal' environments.

~2. That styrene accumulates in the body. (as lab mice needed levels thousands of times higher by relative mass than normal human exposure to show tumor development, we'd need a build-up effect to expect that even if humans were much more sensitive than mice, that there'd sufficient accumulation over time. Unfortunately for the 'styrene bad' hypothesis, styrene is rather soluble/metabolizable/excretable.

I don't have a dog in this fight but have yet to see any studies that try to measure styrene impact from food containers..

~Please type "microwave" into the search box of the pdf reader of the dociment I linked to, and you'll find info regarding amounts of styrene leached into food via microwaving containers. Nearby to that will be discussion of leaching into food when in storage.

~There will need to be some subsequent maths, and conversions between values seen in epidemiological quantifications, and in styrene>microwave>food assays, relating to amounts leached into foods microwaved, the fraction of such retained, for how long retained, and effectual amount in the body ongoing (given steady dosing, 3X daily, if not like the industrial worker's concentration level, then at least satisfying a constraint of 'long term').

~For the sake of the 'styro in foods makes you sick' argument, we can assume a person microwaves all their meals in styro containers, every day, and also use the highest leach values among container varieties.

~What became apparent when I did a 'top of the head' cursory crunch of the numbers was that humans not 'in the belly of the styrene industrial beast' did not get anywhere near to industrial levels of ingestion, even if they were to burst from gluttonous consumption of microwaved-in-containers foods . . unless they ate the containers, too.

Do you have any to share? I was simply saying it's not enough to just cite a study but then one needs to analyse the type of study and its relative merits and weaknesses.

~I know it's a great hulking document and a lot of 'scientese' (that I can 'translate' fairly well) but there are oodles of good studies there. Pick one or a few?

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Max2u

Why don't you log in as your usual username so we know it's a pedantic troll.

I was responding to a previous poster who was confused by some contradictory studies. I was trying to shed some light on how study types vary in application.

I am not interested in getting into a contrived argument because of your petty personality.

Please everybody don't eat or drink from plastics... It might not be so important but why take a risk?

[max2u]

Max2u

Why don't you log in as your usual username so we know it's a pedantic troll.

I was responding to a previous poster who was confused by some contradictory studies. I was trying to shed some light on how study types vary in application.

I am not interested in getting into a contrived argument because of your petty personality.

Please everybody don't eat or drink from plastics... It might not be so important but why take a risk?

'shed some light' is some rather self-congatulatory spin to attribute to your shedding some sh*te

Thanks, anyway, for allowing me the favour of some ad hominem kee ngu--flattered I am to be treated akin to such illustrious scientific company as you blithely wish to impugn

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Max2u

Why don't you log in as your usual username so we know it's a pedantic troll.

I was responding to a previous poster who was confused by some contradictory studies. I was trying to shed some light on how study types vary in application.

I am not interested in getting into a contrived argument because of your petty personality.

Please everybody don't eat or drink from plastics... It might not be so important but why take a risk?

'shed some light' is some rather self-congatulatory spin to attribute to your shedding some sh*te

Thanks, anyway, for allowing me the favour of some ad hominem kee ngu--flattered I am to be treated akin to such illustrious scientific company as you blithely wish to impugn

Power Weasel ---> Max2u aka http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/user/61914-orang37/

[max2u]

Max2u

<ad hominisms axed>

Please everybody don't eat or drink from plastics... It might not be so important but why take a risk?

'shed some light' is some rather self-congatulatory spin to attribute to your shedding some sh*te

Thanks, anyway, for allowing me the favour of some ad hominem kee ngu--flattered I am to be treated akin to such illustrious scientific company as you blithely wish to impugn

Power Weasel ---> Max2u aka http://www.thaivisa..../61914-orang37/

Good Heavens--to call me my favorite of the apes is further unintended flattery. Thanks Again

[orang37]

Max2u

Why don't you log in as your usual username so we know it's a pedantic troll.

I was responding to a previous poster who was confused by some contradictory studies. I was trying to shed some light on how study types vary in application.

I am not interested in getting into a contrived argument because of your petty personality.

Please everybody don't eat or drink from plastics... It might not be so important but why take a risk?

'shed some light' is some rather self-congatulatory spin to attribute to your shedding some sh*te

Thanks, anyway, for allowing me the favour of some ad hominem kee ngu--flattered I am to be treated akin to such illustrious scientific company as you blithely wish to impugn

Power Weasel ---> Max2u aka http://www.thaivisa..../61914-orang37/

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun CobraSnakeNeckTie,

Let me clear up a little evident confusion for you, first: I am not "Max2u," and "Max2u," is not moi. We are two separate people, biologically, at least in this hallucinatory labyrinth of fictions known as "human life." In fact, I've met Max2u a few times, face-to-face, mano a mano, and enjoyed cognitive szygzy (in the sense of that term developed by the philosopher Vladimir Solovyov) with his quite interesting mind.

Second, if you are referring to the entity who is writing this now, Orang37: I am not a "Power Weasel:" I am a born-human biological male who has undergone, via a cosmic singularity, a type of union with a dying Orangutan's soul, and mind. This union is hard to define because: as Prince wrote, and Sinead (more famously) sang : "nothing compares to u." And, there really are no ways except through paradox, and infinitely recursive self-reference, to even give an indication of the rather unique non-linear symbiotic relationship between these two souls and minds that now inhabit one aging human meat-package: the communication between us cannot be classified as any of: "thoughts," "emotions," or "symbols."

Now, paradox can be extremely useful in the development of awareness, but, for me to say here, on behalf of all the entities inside this particular human body: "we are not us, but not in the same way that I am not I:" well, my estimate, based on observation of what appears to be your addiction to literal-mindedness suggests: that would be of no benefit to you, at this stage of your life.

I sincerely hope you can get over this apparent residue of gall in your psychic system that seems to be causing you to "bear grudges," and engage in fantasies that this being writing to you now is a multiply incarnated poster on ThaiVisa using the nym Max2u. I believe that Max2u is undoubtedly much more scientifically intelligently well-informed than I am, although, I dare to say: I think I can meet him as an equal in the area of literature.

The few of the posts on this thread I read seemed to me like you and Max2u, at one point, were having a good dialogue: what "lit the fuse" that propelled you into ad hominem paranoiac ozone ?

"Grudges," in my view, are kind of the mutant spawn of nursing small wounds: when they fully fester, they are: heavy, dense, corrosive, and they can lead to a clouding of the mind by emotional "static:" I personally think grudges may be more dangerous, in the long run, than styrofoam. At least: styrofoam floats

in karuna metta, ~o:37;

[HerbalEd]

Sytrofoam containers contain the chemical styrene, which has a molecular structure similar to estrogen hormone in females

What you trying to say doc? That eating from a styrofoam pack, can turn a give a man a dose of feminine hormone. What an accusation, if that were the case, Thailand would have a disproportionately large amount of men who want to be or act like women.

Can't possibly be the case.

I can see that after complete review of all the many studies on this subject you have weighed all the evidence and concluded this "can't possible be the case." I feel so much better now. Edited February 11, 2013 by HerbalEd

[spidermike007]

Hazard Summary-Created in April 1992; Revised in January 2000

• 
  

Styrene is primarily used in the production of polystyrene plastics and resins. Acute (short-term) exposure to styrene in humans results in mucous membrane and eye irritation, and gastrointestinal effects. Chronic (long-term) exposure to styrene in humans results in effects on the central nervous system (CNS), such as headache, fatigue, weakness, and depression, CSN dysfunction, hearing loss, and peripheral neuropathy. Human studies are inconclusive on the reproductive and developmental effects of styrene; several studies did not report an increase in developmental effects in women who worked in the plastics industry, while an increased frequency of spontaneous abortions and decreased frequency of births were reported in another study. Several epidemiologic studies suggest there may be an association between styrene exposure and an increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma. However, the evidence is inconclusive due to confounding factors. EPA has not given a formal carcinogen classification to styrene.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/styrene.html

So question is, if my local Kao Mhan Ghai, or Pad Thai seller wraps the food up in a piece of paper with a rubber band, (we will worry about the ecological aspects later), why does my local Kao Pad man put it in a styrofoam box. It is a crappy material, takes forever to break down, can float for ever on the surface of a waterway, and is virtually useless to be used a second time unlike a plastic bag at least. I will ask next time to not put it in a styrofoam box and see the reaction.

Always nice to see a man start to develop a conscious mind. We are culpable, every time we accept a foam container. It is up to us. I refuse them, all the time. Yes, it surprises people, but who cares? So what? I ask them to put my take away food in a small plastic bag instead. You are saving them money, and avoiding using one of these hideous containers.

Mike Macarelli

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[spidermike007]

Sytrofoam containers contain the chemical styrene, which has a molecular structure similar to estrogen hormone in females

What you trying to say doc? That eating from a styrofoam pack, can turn a give a man a dose of feminine hormone. What an accusation, if that were the case, Thailand would have a disproportionately large amount of men who want to be or act like women.

Can't possibly be the case.

I can see that after complete review of all the many studies on this subject you have weighed all the evidence and concluded this "can't possible be the case." I feel so much better now.

And his nickname is herbal Ed. Sounds like he is the one in need of some Ed (ucation).

Mike Macarelli

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app