BPA in Your CPAP is Killing You, Not

JohnBFisher wrote: You know the type.

Is that an unprecedented JohnBFisher stereotype? However, John, I think your point is very well taken: irrational anxiety about BPA in our CPAP machines probably stands to affect people more than the chemical exposure itself. That's not the first time this message board has discussed irrational BPA fears either: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34026&p=300042&hili ... ng#p300042.

However, as BlackSpinner well pointed out, the real scientific concern over BPA has more to do with suspected subsequent-generation epigenetic issues rather than first-hand BPA exposure-related adversity. If I had infants I would probably feed them from glass bottles rather than plastic. If I was going to cast my genetic seed to future offspring, then I would probably minimize my exposure to BPA. It's a personal choice based on how I happen to interpret the ongoing scientific research. I tend to place more stock in what many independent scientists currently think than I place in chemical-industry damage control campaigns. I think Trevor Butterworth linked above is doing a fine job of representing the interests of the chemical manufacturers.

I'll also point out that since that older BPA thread I have linked above, I have personally gone from using no humidification whatsoever, to using heated humidification with my RemStar plastic chamber. Why did I use no CPAP humidity for so many years? Because I find humidity to be initially very uncomfortable. So why did I go back to using heated humidity after those old BPA discussions? Because the last two years I have suffered prolonged bronchitis/infection type problems without the humidity. I perceive that as a faaaaar worse health risk than ANY incidental BPA exposure I might encounter using my CPAP humidifier.

Yes, I was being a bit condescending. "You know the type." I've recently had to deal with a spate of issues (personal as well as at work) where the phrase "It's obvious" was used as the "proof" and not the facts.

But, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should NOT worry about BPA exposure. It should be addressed, since it has some serious consequences. However, in the priority of things, apnea is MUCH more dangerous than BPA. Of course, if an xPAP unit catches on fire, the fumes would be very bad for anyone.

I am a true moderate in a lot of things. "All things in moderation - even moderation!". Don't ignore BPA. But until the evidence/facts show a casual link to bad things, it should be put in the spectrum of other risks / issues. If apnea is a clear high risk and a product with BPA will address it, then I favor focusing on the high risk first.

ANYTHING can be dangerous under certain circumstances. Like water, as Rooster pointed out. Some things are, obviously, more dangerous than others, or dangerous under a much wider variety of circumstances. So it seems to me like a question of balance. BPA MIGHT be creating health issues for me due to inhalation and skin contact during cpap use. But inadequate oxygen due to apnea events every minute while trying to sleep is CERTAINLY creating health issues for me. Is there a better option than cpap with BPA? Not right now. So, if I've got no choice I've got no problem. I'll trade the risk of BPA exposure for the benefit of effective cpap therapy. That said, it seems smart to limit exposure to BPA and other such substances as much as possible, whenever possible. So,I store the leftovers in glass containers instead of plastic ones, pay attention to what I'm putting on and in my body. But give up my cpap because the BPA in it MIGHT be a problem later? Nah, I'll keep breathing, thank you very much.

JohnBFisher wrote:Rooster, sure it hurts a few of the more fragile types. You know the type. I'm talking about folks who are really impacted by the threat that BPA presents. It's not the BPA that does the damage. It's the anxiety of the BPA that does the real damage!

It is called chemophobia.

JohnBFisher wrote: But, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should NOT worry about BPA exposure. It should be addressed, since it has some serious consequences. However, in the priority of things, apnea is MUCH more dangerous than BPA. Of course, if an xPAP unit catches on fire, the fumes would be very bad for anyone.

Yes which is why I continue to use it. Besides I have already made my donations to the gene pool.

BlackSpinner wrote:I certainly didn't wait for direct proof of the effect of smoking on the lungs.

Say what? The direct effects of smoking have been known for a very long time. Unless you're like 90 years old you can't have been smoking before they knew what it did to the body.

No BPA won't kill 'ya ... but then neither will DDT, low dose radiation, arsenic, HFCS, waterboarding, and GOP conservativism (although some of the tea types can be deadly stupid) ... but none are healthy for you.

Have at it!

Guest wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:I certainly didn't wait for direct proof of the effect of smoking on the lungs.

Say what? The direct effects of smoking have been known for a very long time. Unless you're like 90 years old you can't have been smoking before they knew what it did to the body.

The tobacco industry has only recently accept that this might be possible.