Topic

Beer Cans being used as cooking pots.


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Gear Forums Gear (General) Beer Cans being used as cooking pots.

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 8 posts - 76 through 83 (of 83 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1467499
    Tom Clark
    BPL Member

    @tomclark

    Locale: East Coast

    Craig,
    I agree with your comments, and cringe when I hear people paint a broad brush of things being dangerous or harmless. Read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. It's decades old, but still relevent and wonderfully written.
    Tom

    #1467852
    Lynn Tramper
    Member

    @retropump

    Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna

    >This thread is about whether there are toxic chemicals in the beer can linings or not, not about its comparative risks to all other substances in the world.

    There ARE toxins in pretty much everything we come into contact with . It is appropriate to weigh up the risks of stuff we come into contact with, via skin, air, food or water. Brian is unusual in his dietary regime, and good for him! It is a move in the right direction IMHO. I have also weighed up the risks, and I have concluded that the risks of cooking in a coated beer can are so miniscule to non-exsistent that I am not going to worry about, but I AM going to worry about the impact of all that BPA being dumped into the environment.

    >Babyboomers have less testosterone than their parents and each generation is getting worst.

    This is true for the middle-aged and older crowd, but the curious thing is that testosterone in YOUNG males is increasing each generation. Again this is most likely due to a cruddy lifestyle, though we don't know if BPA levels in pregnant mothers are a contributing factor. Early and harsh puberty followed by a rapid decline in virility and an increased rate of reproductive disorders and cancers is the price we pay for our modern lifestyle. At least we are still living longer…as I head for 50 years of age, I am looking forward to a vibrant and active lifestyle that previous generations never dreamed of.

    As for titanium, me thinks that anything that can withstand the rigours of being a joint replacement is probably not going to be very toxic to cook in, but we may never know as titanium cookware is so uncommonly used outside of our little group of fanatics. Those that choose to worry about these things would best avoid titanium as it's "unknown" if it's toxic or not.

    Here's an interesting study that shows that glass or cast iron is the only safe cooking material (and only glass if you have high iron disease)!

    "Culinary utensils may release some inorganic elements during food preparation. Mineral migration can be beneficial for as long as it occurs in amounts adequate to the needs of the consumer or no toxicological implications are involved. In this study, the migrations of Fe, Mg, Mn, Cr, Ni and Ca, along seven cooking cycles were evaluated for two food preparations (polished rice and commercial tomato sauce, the latter as an acid food), performed in unused stainless steel, cast iron and soapstone pans, taking refractory glass as a blank. Minerals were determined by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry. The utensils studied exhibited different rates, patterns and variability of migration depending on the type of food. Regression analysis of the data revealed that, as a function of the number of cycles, the iron pans released increasing amounts of iron when tomato sauce was cooked. The soapstone pans released calcium (35 and 26 mg/kg), magnesium (25 and 15 mg/kg) into the tomato sauce and rice preparations, respectively. Additionally, the commercial tomato sauce drew manganese (3.9 and 0.6 mg/kg) and some undesirable nickel (1.0 mg/kg) from the soapstone material, whereas the stainless steel pans released nickel at a lower rate than steatite and in a diminishing fashion with the number of cooking cycles, while still transferring some iron and chromium to the food. We conclude that cast iron and glass could be best for the consumer's nutritional health, stainless steel and steatite can be used with relatively low risk, provided acid foods are not routinely prepared in those materials"

    And

    "Migration of aluminum (Al) from packaging materials and cooking utensils into foods and beverages was determined at intervals during cooking or during storage by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy. High amounts of Al migrated into acidic products such as mashed tomatoes during normal processing in normal, non-coated Al pans. After 60 min cooking an Al content of 10-15 mg/kg was measured in tomato sauce. Surprisingly, the Al concentration was also increased up to 2.6 mg/L after boiling tap water for 15 min in Al pans. Storage of Coca-Cola in internally lacquered Al cans resulted in Al levels below 0.25 mg/L. In contrast, NON-coated Al camping bottles containing tea acidified with lemon juice released up to 7 mg Al/L within 5 days. The Al concentration in coffee was lower than that of the tap water used in its preparation, even if prepared in Al heaters"

    And

    "Stainless steels are widely used materials in food preparation and in home and commercial cookware. Stainless is readily attacked by organic acids, particularly at cooking temperatures; hence iron, chromium, and nickel should be released from the material into the food. Nickel is implicated in numerous health problems. Conversely, chromium and iron are essential nutrients for which stainless could be a useful source. Home cookware was examined by atomic absorption spectroscopy: seven different stainless utensils as well as cast iron, mild steel, aluminum and enamelled steel. The materials were exposed to mildly acidic conditions at boiling temperature. Nickel was a major corrosion product from stainless steel utensils; chromium and iron were also detected. It is recommended that nickel-sensitive patients switch to a material other than stainless, and that the stainless steel cookware industry seriously consider switching to a non-nickel formulation."

    "INTRODUCTION: Stainless steel and commercially pure titanium are widely used materials in orthopedic implants. However, it is still being controversially discussed whether there are significant differences in tissue reaction and metallic release, which should result in a recommendation for preferred use in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative study was performed using 14 stainless steel and 8 commercially pure titanium plates retrieved after a 12-month implantation period. To avoid contamination of the tissue with the elements under investigation, surgical instruments made of zirconium dioxide were used. The tissue samples were analyzed histologically and by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) for accumulation of the metals Fe, Cr, Mo, Ni, and Ti in the local tissues. Implant corrosion was determined by the use of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: With grades 2 or higher in 9 implants, steel plates revealed a higher extent of corrosion in the SEM compared with titanium, where only one implant showed corrosion grade 2. Metal uptake of all measured ions (Fe, Cr, Mo, Ni) was significantly increased after stainless steel implantation, whereas titanium revealed only high concentrations for Ti. For the two implant materials, a different distribution of the accumulated metals was found by histological examination. Whereas specimens after steel implantation revealed a diffuse siderosis of connective tissue cells, those after titanium exhibited occasionally a focal siderosis due to implantation-associated bleeding. Neither titanium- nor stainless steel-loaded tissues revealed any signs of foreign-body reaction. CONCLUSION: We conclude from the increased release of toxic, allergic, and potentially carcinogenic ions adjacent to stainless steel that commercially pure Ti should be treated as the preferred material for osteosyntheses if a removal of the implant is not intended. However, neither material provoked a foreign-body reaction in the local tissues, thus cpTi cannot be recommend as the 'golden standard' for osteosynthesis material in general."

    etc…

    #1467872
    Tony Beasley
    BPL Member

    @tbeasley

    Locale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle

    Hi Allison,

    Thanks for the excellent information, I read with interest about using iron cooking pots as I have members of my family with high iron disease (haemochromtosis).

    Some years ago in an oceanography modeling experiment I had to use some very pure Milli Q water and after talking to the chemists on how to store it I was told not to use glass as pure water is acidic and leaches chemicals from glass (and air), I was advised the best way to store Milli Q and distilled water to keep them from contamination was to use plastic containers but only after several uses did they stop leaching chemicals out of plastic.

    I am wondering if this would be the same for BPA it would stop leaching out after a few uses.

    I still think the main danger is from the fumes from some of the alcohols used to heat water in the beer cans.

    Tony

    #1467882
    Lynn Tramper
    Member

    @retropump

    Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna

    >I have members of my family with high iron disease (haemochromtosis).

    Yeah, ast iron is good for people with iron deficiency, bad for haemochromtosis. But in reality (this being BPL) I don't imagine any of us would consider cast iron OR glass as alternative cookware!

    >I am wondering if this would be the same for BPA it would stop leaching out after a few uses.

    Myself nd several others I have spoke with feel this is likely to be the case with beer cans, as the lining is so thin that it might not be a very big reserve of BPA. Polycarbonate plastic containers, OTOH, are an almost endless reservoir of BPA if used at hime temps. Even I would avoid cooking in these.

    >after talking to the chemists on how to store it I was told not to use glass as pure water is acidic and leaches chemicals from glass (and air), I was advised the best way to store Milli Q and distilled water to keep them from contamination was to use plastic containers but only after several uses did they stop leaching chemicals out of plastic.

    Depends on the plastic and how it's treated. For chemically pure water, glass with an inert gas over the top (often argon) is still the gold standard, though polypropylene plastics are a good second. However, if I were going to treat my water to high temps (eg autoclave), I would still go with glass. You can get pharmaceutical grade water in both storage formats, so there's not much in it at low temps.

    >I still think the main danger is from the fumes from some of the alcohols used to heat water in the beer cans.

    I think the world is full of dangers, and amazingly the human body is well equipped to deal with much of what it encounters. Brian mentioned falling testosterone levels as being a bad thing, yet testosterone is a pretty toxic chemical, and probably indirectly results in more deaths than any other compound the human body is exposed to. Eunichs live, on average, much longer than entire men (and the same thing is seen with neutered pets and livestock). So don't sweat the small stuff. I worry more about war, famine, climate change and crime than I could ever get uptight about cooking in a beer can (or using an Esbit stove etc…). Last year in NZ (population ~4 million) almost 400 people died in car accidents alone. I think getting to the start of the hike is the biggest risk I take when I go backpacking.

    #1467899
    Brian UL
    Member

    @maynard76

    Locale: New England

    "At least we are still living longer…as I head for 50 years of age, I am looking forward to a vibrant and active lifestyle that previous generations never dreamed of."

    I am personally highly skeptical of this popular view.
    Yes "on average" we may make the claim but it says nothing at all about the HEALTH of people in the past. For instance a Spartan was as healthy as a horse, yet we in a society that has an obesity and diabetic epidemic (just to name a few) claim to have a vibrant and active life style like they could only dream? All thats changed is the math- An ancient Greek or Roman (lets assume they arnt poor and starved) IF he could survive war and infection after
    surviving childbirth would live as long if not longer than anyone today and I wonder if he would not be healthier as well. Since they had good nutrition, had decent hygiene for ancient standards, and regularly exorcised. In fact they invented all those things! But most of all they eat nothing but organic foods, whole grains and mostly wild game and fish. No chemicals like BPA at all. Well, the wealthy Romans had lead pipes -but if they knew it dangers….

    "testosterone is a pretty toxic chemical"
    Lets overlook the feminist view on this one;)
    But ALL hormones are toxic when they are out of balance which is my point. My focus on estrogen was relevant to BPA.
    Avoid toxins and eat well and your hormones (thyroid) will thank you

    #1467907
    Lynn Tramper
    Member

    @retropump

    Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna

    >Lets overlook the feminist view on this one;)
    But ALL hormones are toxic when they are out of balance which is my point. My focus on estrogen was relevant to BPA.
    Avoid toxins and eat well and your hormones (thyroid) will thank you

    As I said before, estrogen is also toxic. We know this, in animals at least, from spayed dog and cat data. Both hormones, at natural levels, lead to a shortened life expectancy and increased risk of certain cancers compared to not having those hormones. It's fact, not speculation or feminism. To be honest, if I were allowed and could afford it, I would have my breast and ovaries removed right now, as they are the biggest risk for breast and ovarian cancer, and I don't need or want them. If we really wanted our children to have long and healthful lifes, aside from teaching them good eating and exercise habits, we would also de-sex them. There is good evidence that this would also lead to less by-stander death and harm due to reduced violence and dangerous driving. But my point is not really to diss reproductive hormones, more to assert my point of view that sometimes (often) we rationalise things that are good for us when they're not, and equally we can rationalise that things that are bad for us when they are not. There is no evidence that BPA is bad for me or you at the levels we are exposed to. There is plenty of evidence that our reproductive hormones are.

    >No chemicals like BPA at all.

    I hope this isn't leading to "because it's natural it isn't just as bad for us"? As you yourself realise, there are many plant and animal compounds that can have nasty effects. You mentioned several that you knew to avoid, but our ancestors didn't know this, and eating all that soy didn't seem to stop Asians from reproducing. Now, more than ever, we CAN choose our poisons as science discovers more about the world we live in. That's how we know BPA might not be good for young people or pregnant mothers (though this is still speculative as the work has really only been done in non-humans thus far).

    I certainly would not trade my circumstances for that of a Spartan, no matter how legendary their health was. But I agree that eating a healthy diet and getting lots of exercise is important to long term health and longevity. In fact, everyone knows this, so once again people choose their poison knowingly. If someone develops diabetes, obesity, heart disease or whatever, at least they know WHY, and how they likely could have avoided it.

    #1467909
    Sarah Kirkconnell
    BPL Member

    @sarbar

    Locale: Homesteading On An Island In The PNW

    As I have said many times and will say again:

    Overall even with all the plastics, oil and god knows what else we use we are still better off than our ancestors – and by that, I mean even 20 to 30 years ago – with every advance we are still better off than the generation before.

    We cry about BPA linings used in cans, yet those linings keep our food fresh and free of rust. Anyone over 25 will remember cans going "bad". First the humidity got to the cans, then the rust got in, then you had bloated cans that could kill you if you ate the food inside.

    How about the days of food being invaded by bugs? Wasn't that long ago for modern countries that it was considered normal to pick them out of flour, grains, rice, etc. Heck, I am only 35 and can remember that!

    My son drank out of baby bottles that were Lexan branded.
    He drank soy formula. He also drinks a pint of soy milk a day. And is a slender male. Who is all male. Heck, my husband drinks soy milk (so do I) and we eat plenty of tofu as well. Oh yeah…and I drank water often out of Nalgenes when I was PG with him. But ooh, I did have clean water – which is more important – I wasn't facing the nasties that many do in third world countries have in their water – that often make them very sick and kill often.

    We worry about so many things that are very insignificant in the big scheme. Yet the important things we gloss over:

    A good example: Are your teeth in perfect shape? If not, you have more to worry about than the risk of drinking soup out of a beer can 4 times a year. Let your teeth rot (and many here, I more than sure of, have not seen a dentist in at least 3 years)and you face the diseases that your ancestors died of (or even your parents). A simple cleaning can prevent much of it, the rest can be treated with fillings.

    One favorite cry is the wail on BPA and children. Think about this: In the not so distant past many children died in childbirth or were blinded at birth due to a lack of hand washing and ragged fingernails/cuticles. Why did women die after bearing a child in our history? Often, due to filthy hands shoved in there – leaving a breeding ground that gave women septic shock, they would die from it within days. Yet the invention of chemical soaps, gloves and other items can stop almost all cases of that happening. You can bet that if given the choice back then most women would have wanted their child to have a chance to live – just having the child survive is a major advancement. Yet, your chance of getting past 5 was pretty dim up to the past 100-200 years. Did I mention dirty water and rotten food? Yes, and what was that? Oh yeah, those pesky plastics protect food and water, keeping it clean. Something in the past humans didn't have.

    Whenever I worry about the implications of drinking out of a plastic container I stop and think about the drugs I take to control my blood pressure (hereditary, I have had high BP since I was a teen). Those meds help my health, yet are still a poison in the end. Yet, I know that they are worth it. They will help me prevent kidney failure and heart issues as I age.

    Do you ignore health issues and never see a Dr? Your cholesterol or BP is going to cause many more issues than drinking out of an old Nalgene bottle over the years. Yet many never check it. Have you ever had complete check over for life insurance? (I have) Many haven't – maybe a fear of what will be found, yet if found in time, could be treatable and provide a better life.

    Do you drink more than a couple drinks a week? Pop painkillers like candy? Drive a car often? Live in a city? Smoke? Do you work in a sealed office with circulated air? Live in a tightly sealed house full of carpet? Do you have a 'toxic' life full of stress? Do you have depression that is untreated?

    If you are going to worry then look at the big picture – the little things that you do when backpacking are just not that important! What you do DAILY at home does matter though. I live life pretty much on the straight and then enjoy a Ho-Ho when I hike :-P And I have never gotten rid of my Nalgenes. I happen to like them and since I use them only when hiking….whoppie-doo.

    That is all I have to say about this. If people are fine with it, then let them have their pots! And don't worry so freaking much over the little things in life. You would have a lot more to worry about if you were living in 1909…..

    #1467915
    Brian UL
    Member

    @maynard76

    Locale: New England

    You are all free to do what you will. Not a problem for me. I would like to know whats in my food and environment so I can make the choice.
    We dont need BPA to can our food :
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12636.cfm

    And we dont need it to cook with either. So I personally say why worry about it? Just remove it from my life where I see it -and problem solved.

Viewing 8 posts - 76 through 83 (of 83 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...