Beer Cans being used as cooking pots.

As an addendum:

It occurred to me that most drinking water in the U.S. is chlorinated. Chlorine and it's derivatives are toxic in small doses, yet we continue to drink the water. The treatment of water to make it safe to drink is probably the single most important development in health in the last century. Many on this forum actually use "chemicals" to treat their water and think nothing of it. Most of those treaters prefer to take the risk of exposure to tiny amounts of this "toxic" chemical as opposed to say — giardia. I do not find this "spooky or cultish", but some do. ( I personally use cancer causing UV light to treat my water :-) There are many examples of risks and benefits in life in general and in backpacking specifically that we all must weigh.

Again, I am not saying my opinion is right. I choose my risks just like you do. I try to do it with logic, reason, a good dose of independent scientific research if available, and common sense (which is not so common). I recommend that you all do the same.

-Mark

So some of us trust Medline for our information while others go to "OurStolenFuture.com".

I would suggest that therein lies our differences.

Mark, its true that the "toxic" chlorine is used by many of us to treat water. Some of us refuse to use chemicals to treat water and I just want to point out 2 things:
1) bottled water in the US is made from plastic containing BPA. You may think you are benefitting from drinking "clean" bottled water as opposed to "chemical" tap water.. but wait, there's more..
2) if you take hot showers as most of us do, and you are not using a filter on your shower head like most of us aren't, then you are inhaling a righteous dose of chlorine and chloramine directly to your bloodstream via your pulmonary system.
3) you would likely ingest less chlorine by drinking tap water than you would by taking a daily hot shower for 15 minutes. And much of this chlorine and its by-products passes right through you.

this information was provided to me by a conversation I have had with a well respected employee of the ADEQ (az dept. of environmental quality) waste-water division.

I would honestly worry less about that Heineken pot in your 6 minute boil than the can of spagetti-o's you ate as a child.

likewise, it was believed that aluminum cookpots caused alzheimer's when in recent news it was discovered the lab's rinse water was contaminated with aluminum, not the patients' brain tissue samples.

oh, i guess you could live totally organic, drink purified water, take cold showers, get a monthly hi-colonic, and switch to no-cook meals. Good luck to you!

My dad used to drag a DDT bar behind the lawnmower, and all us kids would immediately play in the yard. And that might have been one of my better exposures to chemicals. So I'm not going to get too worked up about possible exposre to BPA, from a few days uses of a beer can pot per year.

Joe, your father must have been friends with my father. Mine used to light a barbacue with benzene. It looked like a shuttle launch when it first went up.

Have you guys seen http://www.dhmo.org. Scary stuff if you believe it.

-Tim-

Michael,

You have made my point better than I did. Exposure to "toxic chemicals" is almost unavoidable.

And yes, I am aware of the NON-link between aluminum and Alzheimer's. However, aluminum is toxic in an of itself- acting like heavy metals like lead. I doubt it is of much consequence to people without kidney disease, but some folks on this forum are quibbling over nanograms when toxicity is a trillion times that. So for them the possibility that a few atoms of aluminum are in their water and it could be toxic should be enough to keep them from using aluminum cookware.

-Mark

>>So some of us trust Medline for our information while others go to "OurStolenFuture.com".

I bet you could find these articles on Medline:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/13wyeth.html?hp

I'm a researcher. I love science as much as the next guy. But science is a human endeavor and, to the extent that it is done in the America and the rest of the West, it is concerned predominantly with saleable ideas, not consumer protection.

I would also add that a lot of science in the west is done with the intent to promote certain social / economic / environmental agendas.

And worse, a lot of 'Science' is produced to create confusion.

The book 'Doubt Is Their Product' provides insight to 'science for hire'.

Dismal prospect, trying to determine what is real.

Hi Mark, you said (quote) "Which is true, but BPA is not very toxic especially in the amounts that might be in the hot water. A study at U of Cincinnati got something like 32 nanograms of BPA released/ hour of boiling in a polycarbonate bottle. It takes well over 3 gm/kg of body wt for a toxic dose which is roughly a trillion (10^9) time more than you get in a hour of boiling."(end quote)

I keep thinking about that statement and I keep wondering why the polycarbonate "Water Bottles" used by hikers and others, were taken off the store shelves and deemed unworthy of use. They were'nt even being heated. What or who was the determining factor that caused those bottles to be removed? Was it an alarmist? Explain if you would please. Thank You

"I bet you could find these articles on Medline:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/13wyeth.html?hp"

Dave,

You are definitely right that big business is involved in science ( or the bastardization of science ) for profit. As a researcher you are probably more aware than most of biased reports and unreported results. I am a physician and I have to base my care on the best facts I can get. We don't allow drug reps in the clinic because talk about biased…! I daily weigh the risks and benefits of various treatment options for my patients. Sometimes that means choosing between bad and worse. "Well yes, there is a remote chance that this cholesterol medicine can damage your liver, but there is a very high probability that you will have a heart attack if we don't do something about it." There is no perfect answer.

So I come back to my original post which was my reasoning for Jay's question on whether it was safe to use his beer can pot or not. I looked over the information, I did the math, and I came to my own conclusion that the amounts of BPA were basically negligible by a huge margin compared to the EPA recommendation which I will agree at this point are somewhat suspect, but not completely unbelievable. The alcohol in the stove and the fumes are far more toxic than the miniscule amount of BPA in the boiled water.

Risk verses benefit that is what my post was meant to be about. Spooky?Cultish? Maybe, or maybe it is a matter of degree.

Thanks for your comments.

-Mark

The statement of facts is quite reasonable.

> What or who was the determining factor that caused those bottles to be removed? Was it an alarmist?

I think you have two factors here.

One is that every now and then one particular subject captures the public (or media) fancy. The media LOVES alarmist scandals: they sell copy. You have only to read through Snopes.com to see how true thus is.

The other factor is the hazard presented, not by BPA, but by the American Tort Lawyers. It is getting so that no USA company dares take any position except the most ultra-conservative one, for fear that someone is going to sue them using a very high-powered lawyer. Even if you win the cost (time, worry and $) of the litigation is crippling. Fortunately the rest of the world does not have this disease quite the same.

Cheers

I am trying to come up with a good wood burning stove to work with my Heineken can. Has anyone made a good hobo variant that works well?

"I keep thinking about that statement and I keep wondering why the polycarbonate "Water Bottles" used by hikers and others, were taken off the store shelves and deemed unworthy of use. They were'nt even being heated. What or who was the determining factor that caused those bottles to be removed? Was it an alarmist? Explain if you would please."

Dan,

Do you have any old Nalgene or Platypus containers? I must have half a dozen. Do they every wear out or break? Occasionally but pretty rare in my experience- except for a Platy that I dropped in a lava field, but that is another story :-). So lets say you were in the business of selling these containers, but a lot of people already had all they needed and they never wear out. Lets also say that even though you thought your product was safe and dozens of international regulator agencies agreed with you, still you were getting request from customers who were concerned with trace amounts of BPA that might be present. OPPORTUNITY!! Change the formulation to eliminate the perceived bad chemical, look like you are really responsive to your customers, and sell a whole bunch of new containers even to folks like you and me who already have more than we need. Sales increase, profit increases, and you look like one of the good guys. Ah Free Enterprise! So the determining factor that caused those bottles to be removed was the company itself!

I would like to correct one misperception you keep restating and that is that the polycarbonate containers "were taken off the store shelves and deemed unworthy of use." In fact there was never a "recall." Nalgene let the existing stock be sold and replaced them with the new bottles. You can be excused for not knowing this because the headlines of articles on this all say "RECALL", but if you go to the Nalgene site listed below you will see that they did not recall anything. They had their cake and ate it, too.

http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/technical/bpaInfo.html

Happy Trails,

-Mark

P.S. – I also agree with Roger.

Dan’s post of the information I posted on another forum was missing the links to the data. Someone asked for more info so here’s the complete post again, this time with the links.

OK, here’s what I know.

Pretty much any beer can is going to have an interior coating over the aluminum (pg. 26).

Waterborne coatings contain a polymer or resin base, water, and organic solvent. The
organic polymers found in water-based coatings include alkyds, polyesters, vinyl acetates,
acrylics, and epoxies, which can be dissolved, dispersed, or emulsified. The water acts as the
main carrier or dispersant, while the organic solvent aids in wetting, viscosity control, and
pigment dispersion.
…
Beverage can manufacturers use waterborne coatings extensively. Waterborne coatings
are used for 2-piece beverage can base coats, overvarnishes, inside sprays, and rim coats.

The interior coating of a beer can is not developed to withstand boiling water at 212 degrees (pg. 29).

In general, coatings must exhibit resistance to chemicals, flexibility, and adhesion to
the metal surface. Coatings for beer and certain beverage cans must be able to survive an
aqueous pasteurization cycle of 20-30 minutes at temperatures ranging from 140F to 160F

Heating plastics promotes leaching of toxins into the food.

Studies have shown when cans are heated in the manufacturing process, BPA leaches out of the linings. Foods are first sealed in cans and heated to kill bacteria in the food. Cans are heated to temperatures between 116 C and 121 C, and the length of time varies according to the type of food.
…
Note: This testing also included two beer cans and found they leached between 8 and 9 parts per billion of BPA. As well, a can of apple juice leached 18 parts per billion.

Ziploc freezer bags do not leach toxins so freezer bag cooking is OK (FAQs Page). And since Ziploc may be biased, here’s a second resource stating that Polyethylene bags are safe.

My conclusion is that boiling water in just about any aluminum can is unsafe. If the makeup of the internal coating of Heineken 24oz cans can be determined and the coating is of safe materials that’s great. But until then it is logical to assume that there is no difference between the Heineken 24oz cans and most other aluminum cans.
Freezer bag cooking, in contrast, is safe until proven otherwise.

Brett,
There are two fairly current threads on the MYOG forum. I was looking at them yesterday. One used a Heineken can pot.

Ehh Mark

> OPPORTUNITY!!
You know, that aspect did not occur to me!
But it seems obvious now you have raised it.

And thanks for the URL.

Cheers

Hi Mark, great information in the link to Nalgene Outdoor.

Let me just post this for this evening. One of the organizations that Nalgene was waiting on was Health Canada with their findings. Here is what I found in a quick google search:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e81a7270-aec9-48cb-aad3-b74df38feec0

October 16, 2008 Sarah Schmidt, Canwest News Service, published: October 16, 2008…….

OTTAWA – Canada on Saturday will become the first country to formally declare bisphenol A hazardous to human health and officially inform the baby-product industry it will no longer be able to use the chemical in baby bottles.

Canada's announcement comes six months after Health Minister Tony Clement surprised the chemical industry by announcing the government's plan to place bisphenol A on its list of toxic substances and ban its use in baby bottles.

In unveiling the "precautionary and prudent" move, Clement proposed a limited ban of the widely used chemical, also found in hard plastic sports bottles and the lining of food cans.

This is just for starters, I'll be back tomorrow with other comments.

Happy Trails

Dan

Dan,

You must have accidentally left out the very next paragraph in that article, but I will put it in here so you won't have to:-)

"Most Canadians "need not be concerned" about the health effects of bisphenol A, Clement said at the time. "This is not the case for newborns and infants."

Of course this is what I said in my first post including the issue with newborns and infants if you read my post.

I think it is a good thing for them to discontinue the use of BPA. Maybe with the clout of the Canadian government other governments will jump on board. I wish the beer can liners were BPA free so there would be no worry for people like you who are apparently concerned with even the slightest exposure. Something I also addressed in my first post.

I think that somehow you believe that I am an advocate for BPA which is not true. I am an advocate for reasoned choices and "reason" seems to be in short supply. I hope you are happy with your choices. I am with mine.

This is just for enders. I won't be back tomorrow with other comments.

And Dan, Happy Trails to you. ;-) (with apologies to Roy Rogers)

-Mark

Addendum: Dan- After I wrote the above I visited your site: bplite.com and looked at your "Plastic lined beer cans as pots" thread. I am truly disappointed. This whole thing is not really about BPA, plasticizers, or reasoned choices–its about Tinny and MiniBullDesigns. Very sad.

Here is the finalized report from the NTP:

September 2008: NTP Finalizes Report on Bisphenol A
Since You Asked – Bisphenol A (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/media/questions/sya-bpa.cfm)
NTP Finalizes Report on Bisphenol A

Current human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in many polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, is of “some concern” for effects on development of the prostate gland and brain and for behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children, according to a final report released today by the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

The NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) conducted the BPA evaluation. The CERHR follows a formal process for review and evaluation of nominated chemicals that includes convening panels of scientific experts to review the world’s scientific literature on the chemical being studied and a peer review process, as well as numerous opportunities for public input. For a summary of the NTP evaluation of BPA, please see http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/media/questions/sya-bpa.cfm#4.

This information is submitted for your review and considertion. It is what Nalgene was waiting for to be finalized. We now see what Canada and the United States has made final in regards to BPA.

It seems without question that feeding BPA to infants is bad practice. I did not think that was the issue here, unless there are unsuspecting parents who boil their baby's formula in old beer cans!

FYI, I just noticed that Camelbak bottles now come with a large advertisment claiming they are BPA free.

And I agree with Mark that the linked thread was more about bashing Tinny than anything reasoned or scientific. Tinny is certainly not the only one selling or using recycled beer cans to cook in, and there is still no evidence to show that the BPA from beer cans is particularly toxic to adult humans in the doses likely administered from this use.

The beer can subject came up in a bunch of comments in regards to a video that was posted on YouTube. The video shows a bios2 stove made by tinny overflowing. Tinny and friends gathered and spammed the comment section while I made my comment giving my opinion of why the stove was having the problem. The spam was deleted by the one that posted the video so you won't see all that when you view the video and read the comments. Take the time to read the comments. You'll see that someone brings up the subject of the lining in beer cans. That's where the subject started and drifted over into bplite.com On bplite there are three threads that are related to tinny and his tactics. His guys came into bplite and sent spam through out the site. They sent their spam via Personnal Messages to countless members. The threads are in the "General" forum and are locked at the top of the forum. You can view all three. You can see in the threads that there is someone that brings up the subject of Lining in Beer Can Pots. I thought the information about bpa was interesting and deserved it's own thread. Just by coincidence, Tinny sells beer can pots and was brought into the subject. Tinny has a way of getting people attracted to his site, one way or another. The two of you can call it bashing and that's ok. I call it informing the Joe The Plumbers's out there what tinnys all about. The guy had a problem with the bios2 and I gave my opinion what could be causing the problem. Tinny and his group took command of the comment section and the rest is history. For every action there is a reaction.

Watch the video and read the comments. Then we can get back to the subject of this thread. Mark and Allison, Remember, I didn't bring up the subject of Tinny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anN0HU-9IKU

.

"I am an advocate for reasoned choices and "reason" seems to be in short supply. I hope you are happy with your choices. I am with mine."

What in the world is reasonable about knowingly ingesting toxic chemicals (no matter how small) when there is absolutely no reason at all to be doing so?

I assume everything in our world today is toxic. LOOK AT OUR AIR. We can live without a lightweight beer can pot, but no breathing and what is in the air is far worse! I am sticking with my Heini!

this seems to be a circular post.

-we all know beer cans have toxic linings
-we all know we interact with toxins everyday

is using a beer can as a pot safe?

-its safer than a lead bucket
-its not as safe as deep sea water pockets

how about we all go hiking tomorrow instead of finding the safest, lightest, bestest cook pot.

2cents