Apr 1, 2008 at 7:38 pm #1228121
I don't know if everyone is aware of this or not, but all aluminum cans on the market today have a plastic lining in them. This lining was created to eliminate the chemical reaction beer had with the aluminum. I just thought I should tell everyone because cooking out of a plastic pot is probably a bad idea.
Do other people know this?Apr 1, 2008 at 8:16 pm #1426623
@geneticLocale: Out back, brewing beer in BPA.
I think the cans are lined with an epoxy resin that is water based.
Sigg does this in their bottles.Apr 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm #1426629
Don't forget that what are reading is coming from the manufactures of these BPA products. Lately there is a huge debate on whether BPAs are hazardous to human health or not. It is no question that miniscule parts of BPA in plastics migrate into the food or beverage that they are holding, especially when heated! I guess as of currently it's all just the articles you read about plastics.
I just looked into the Sigg water bottle liner and you're right, it is some type of polymer lining. The reason I bought a sigg was not to drink out of plastic, and all along they've been fooling me. Time to sell it to a friend and buy a Klean Kanteen.Apr 1, 2008 at 8:53 pm #1426634
I'm with Max. I don't trust any "food grade" plastic products. And I'm skeptical of the Sigg bottle linings.
I realize that the Platy bottles are great from a weight perspective, but I've been thinking about switching to a Klean Kanteen myself. It'd be a couple ounces of peace of mind. Well worth it I think.
When it comes to re-hydrating food, I do it in a pot in a cozy rather than in a plastic freezer bag. It means I end up carrying a pot and a mug, but again, the weight "penalty" is worth the peace of mind and lack of health risks.
You just can't trust the manufacturers of a given product to be honest about the health risks associated with it.Apr 1, 2008 at 9:22 pm #1426641
You do realize that right now you can go down to your local REI and buy clear bottles made from copolyester that are BPA free. But oh, I am sure someone out there will find something to be scared of about that as well .
Thing is ALL of your cans in the US you buy are lined, be it food or drink. It is either that or your food is in a plastic tub or bag. So take your choice!
Even the metal lids on glass jars are lined!
But even then? Even if you used a GLASS container on the trail if it isn't made in the US there is no guarantee that it is lead free.
You either worry or you just live!Apr 1, 2008 at 10:32 pm #1426655
Yeah! Just live! With a tumor you could have avoided in the first place!
Or not.Apr 1, 2008 at 11:37 pm #1426658
@geneticLocale: Out back, brewing beer in BPA.
The problem with Klean Kanteens is that they often are laden with dihydrogen monoxide. With a high enough dihydrogen monoxide toxicity, you can die in just minutes.Apr 2, 2008 at 6:09 am #1426677
– -K.T.- –Participant
David, Play nice. No need for name calling here. None of us will make it out of here alive anyway. I would rather enjoy my outings, than worry if my plastic ( )will kill me over an extremely long period of time. Life is a one way ticket. Any long term users of the questioned item have anything negative to report?Apr 2, 2008 at 6:32 am #1426678
Ben 2 WorldParticipant
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
Some of us read about the fabulous Roman aqueducts and plumbing systems — the most advanced in the world in their time — and shake our heads at how the Romans could be 'stupid enough' to line some of the pipes and containers with lead! I bet some Romans had suspected something wrong all along, but the experts of their day didn't have the technology to detect the cause/effect of lead.
Who's to know if a few hundred years into the future, folks will shake their heads at the way we poison ourselves — what with cell phone radiation, plastic and aluminum "food grade" containers, etc.??? Unfortunately, we don't have definitive ways of measuring the cause/effect today — nor do we have any safe/economical ways of replacing/eliminating plastics and metals…Apr 2, 2008 at 7:04 am #1426685
@pgfogelLocale: Western Slope, Colorado
If in fact, life is only a one way ticket, we do still possess the the ability to select the destination of our own choosing. Choose wisely my children.
PeterApr 2, 2008 at 7:39 am #1426693
I'm not arguing that we're not all headed for a dirt nap someday, 'cause we are. But if we only have a finite amount of time to live, doesn't that make it even more important to safeguard it?
I'm a big fan of consumer advocacy. In another era I might have been one of Nader's Raiders. But since the Reagan years, government deregulation has made it easy for manufacturers to produce and sell products that are undeniably harmful. I can't help but think that, if we each spent less time on this board obsessing about gear and more time writing congress etc. that this wouldn't be the case. The market is literally flooded with poison because, collectively, we're too busy shopping to protect ourselves.
Here's a thought: in the '70s a free marketeer challenged Nader's notion that air bags made cars safer, saying that they'd make people feel safer and thus they'd drive more dangerously. Nader replied that, if you take that sort of thinking to its terminus, you end mounting a spear aimed at the driver's chest on the steering column in order to force the driver to drive safely. Sarah seems to be saying that monitoring your own patterns of consumption and product usage is hopelessly complex and, thus, we shouldn't bother caring or engaging with the problem. I say, why don't you take that logic to its natural terminus and start intentionally sprinkling some PBAs on your oatmeal in the morning. After all, you're going to die anyway.Apr 2, 2008 at 8:10 am #1426704
@splproductionsLocale: Salt Lake City, UT
This will be the first time I have ever "engaged" myself in one of these posting debates. I'm a lover, not a fighter, and I don't like the thought of people on the board thinking "that Ryan guy is a freakin idiot!"
Taking someone's view of not stressing out over some BPA's that might be in a container and then saying "if you have that view, why don't you just sprinkle it on your breakfast" is called the "slippery slope" fallacy. Politicians use it all the time (perfect example – the Nader/air bags issue). It is invalid logic, and a good way to make someone's view look ridiculous (which is why politicians use it).
A couple good examples:
Person A: "We should legalize marajuana".
Person B: "If we legalize marajuana, pretty soon we'll be legalizing heroine, and crack, and meth! There will be no end!"
Person A: "We should allow homosexual marriage".
Person B: "Then what!? Where do we draw the line? Should we allow people to marry horses?"
These responses avoid confronting the real issues and having an intelligent debate.Apr 2, 2008 at 8:13 am #1426705
@bjamesdLocale: South Coast of BC
BPA cannot be completely avoided.
You can, however, influence the manufacturers by voting with your wallet. Just like CFC-free products became the norm because they started selling better, BPA-free is a new and growing class of products. When MEC stopped carrying Lexan Nalgene bottles, I bet that Nalgene noticed.
The other thing you can do is spread consumer awareness. I bet that most people don't know that *anything* they buy that comes in a metal can, a foil pack, and possibly plastic packaging (=almost all processed food) has BPA leaching into it while it's sitting on the shelves.
As soon as consumers become savvy, the switch will take place quickly for free market reasons.
It's happening with Teflon right now too. And with pesticides. And with GMOs. It happened with CFCs and intestine-shrinking food dyes and smoking.Apr 2, 2008 at 8:17 am #1426706
"Sarah seems to be saying that monitoring your own patterns of consumption and product usage is hopelessly complex and, thus, we shouldn't bother caring or engaging with the problem."
Don't put words in my mouth – that is NOT what I am saying.
Rather I am saying is we get stressed about little things in life and not looking at the BIG picture of life.
Lets say this: so we get worried about a sprayed on liner in our metal cans? That liner allows us to have clean food something people in the past didn't have. It prevents metal seep through from reactions with acids in foods. It keep rust away.
But what is worse? That liner or inedible food?
Plastic bags are used for nearly any food you can think of these days. Why? It is a water tight way to seal food, keeping out moisture that rots food and invites bugs. Do you want to go back to the days of picking bugs out of your rice?
Our ability to have clean water and food is vastly superior to even 20 years ago.
And the tumor mention up above – which is worse: worrying about something that may or may not happen or instead change the things in your life that DO matter now?
How about these:
Lower you consumption of sodium by a third to lower your risk of silent high blood pressure that is directly related to heart attacks, heart disease and kidney disease.
Eat a plant based diet high in fiber to significantly lower your risk of colon cancer.
Live outside a city in the country to lower your intake of heavy metals and other pollutants.
If on a well have your water tested twice a year for pollutants, disease and heavy metals.
If you live in an old house get tested for lead levels.
Keep your oral health in top shape. Not only will you have healthy teeth but you can prevent heart disease and other issues.
Abandon your car and walk everywhere. Not only will you get in good shape you won't sitting inside a box that spews toxins in and outside.
Lest us not forget, only wear natural clothing that was treated organically. So don't go buying all them fancy hiking clothes….
Oh yeah, throw out your toothbrush, your commercial toothpaste, shampoo, laundry detergent, dish soap – all which contain many interesting chemicals. If you cannot read the package or understand what the words mean start looking them up.
Just don't get all preachy if you don't do the above. I don't have an issue using plastics made in the US (Rubbermaid, Glad, Ziploc and Nalgene are all made here) because I DO realize they offer something in return – such as clean food stored tightly sealed. On the other hand? I quit using nearly all commercial cleaners and beauty products years ago due to the added scents and colors. I don't drink pop, high fructose corn syrup and I consume a very low sodium diet full of beans (which of course come in plastic bags).
Then again I also take medication that "could" in theory killing me if I wanted to get paranoid. But rather I realize all those meds I swallow give me a better life – the trade off is worth it. The same people who hate on plastics also seem to hate on giving kids immunizations around here. Oh yeah, becuase having your kids get mumps is so much better than a shot.
Anytime you want to go back to living an 1800's lifestyle no will stop you. Just think really hard how hard having a clean life will be – that is clean water and food.Apr 2, 2008 at 8:19 am #1426707
Brian…I can only hope someday fake food dyes go away (we have natural alternatives out there that work just as good!) but sadly, no they are quite heavily used still. Walk a supermarket and read boxes. The big companies use them in nearly everything. Yellow and blue are their favorites these days……Apr 2, 2008 at 10:32 am #1426742
I just happened to stumble upon this thread while looking for a Cloudburst tent to purchase (please tell me you still have it, Ken:-)).
At any rate, I think you'd all find the U.S. chemical regulatory process of interest. You can learn about it on the U.S. Government Accountability Office website. Your tax dollars help pay for these reports so why not? Go to http://www.gao.gov and in the search box, type in "TSCA" which, stands for Toxic Substances Control Act. The GAO begins reporting on this issue in 1980. To save time and get the gist, click on the "Abstracts" rather than the full blown PDF reports.
And to compliment that, I can't recommend the book 'Our Stolen Future' enough. It's co-authored by Theo Colborn, past World Wildlife Fund senior scientist and one of the worlds leading authorities on endocrine disrupting chemicals.
goneyaknATmsnDOTcomApr 2, 2008 at 10:44 am #1426747
.Apr 2, 2008 at 11:07 am #1426750
@tarasbulbaLocale: Rocky Mountains
And if I remember right, the TSCA grandfathered in all pre-existing toxic substances, i.e., non-regulatory!
Max, to return to the subject – sort of – if you're concerned about your Sigg bottle being lined, just hie yourself over to your nearest Army-Navy surplus and get a genuine GI alu canteen. They're not lined. In fact, back in the day when in Scouting, we were always warned not to fill them with oj, as a chemical reaction would happen and we'd get sick from drinking it. So use only water. If you can trust your local water supply that is…might be loaded with perscription drugs.Apr 2, 2008 at 11:32 am #1426757
Fear not my friends, the aluminum cans are safe. It's their contents that are poison to us mortals. Avoid them and also our planet's air and water – it's pretty schitzy.
: )Apr 2, 2008 at 11:39 am #1426760
You're basically correct. And 62,000 chemicals were already in commerce when the TSCA was enacted in 1976. Also, it should be noted that since that time, the EPA has used its authorities under the TSCA to test fewer than 200 of those 62,000….primarily because under the current law, the burden is placed upon the EPA rather than the chemical companies. It's an extremely complex, time consuming and costly process which the EPA does not have the resources for.
rApr 2, 2008 at 12:28 pm #1426764
@retropumpLocale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
I agree wholeheartedly with Sarah. To me, the biggest threats to our health are:
-over-eating/eating the wrong foods,
-lack of exercise (for your average American, not us ULers…).
Life expectancy has increased at an astronomical pace, due to better hygeine, 'better' nutrition (hey, over-nutrition is better than under-nutrition after all), and of course better medicine (which happens to include a lot of drugs/chemicals which also hurt a lot of folks as well as help many). A large part of these advances is due to having better storage of food, water and drugs. It seems clear to me that the pros outweigh the cons by a large margin. This doesn't mean I am complacent, and if there is a consumer based push for better packaging, I'm all for it.
I put stress at the top of my list, but it's just my personal opinion. When you're chronically stressed, you don't sleep as well, you don't eat as well, you are less inclined to exercise, plus all those stress hormones floating around HAVE to be worse for you than trace amounts of estrogenic chemicals in your water bottle or tin can.
I have a friend who was stressing over this issue, and wanted to know what was safe to drink out of. I looked at her dumbstruck, and said "You are taking HRT! I think you have better things to stress about" This is true even more for women taking, eg estrogenic contraceptives. Drinking alcohol will have more impact on your estrogen levels than drinking water out of a plastic bottle. So will obesity, and the list goes on…Apr 2, 2008 at 12:55 pm #1426766
@skopeoLocale: British Columbia
…Apr 2, 2008 at 5:59 pm #1426811
>>> Interestingly, the new SS water bottle weighs .1 oz less than the same size Nalgene.
What is the brand? I just did a search and did not find much.Apr 2, 2008 at 6:38 pm #1426814
@splproductionsLocale: Salt Lake City, UT
A savings of .1oz and no lining! The choice is clear!
We can all go home now folks. Show's over. :)
(But do tell us the brand)Apr 2, 2008 at 7:10 pm #1426820
The subject is toxicity of SS implants.
"Chemical elements from stainless steel were released into a physiological medium using an electrochemical method. This metallic solution was injected subcutaneously into male Charles River mice at 72 h intervals for 10 days. Electron microscopic observations of seminiferous tubule thin sections showed that the metallic suspension caused tissue vacuolation, cell degeneration, and multinucleated cell formation. This apparent tissue toxicity induced by stainless steel corrosion products suggests that long term implantation of such biomaterials may impair spermatogenesis."
So, as mentioned above, where do You draw the line?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.