Forum Index » GEAR » Warning for any aluminum can pot users


Display Avatars Sort By:
Max Hoagland
(maxhoagland) - F
WARNING for any aluminum can pot users on 04/01/2008 20:38:33 MDT Print View

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?

Edited by maxhoagland on 04/01/2008 20:45:10 MDT.

Rob Blazoff
(Genetic) - F

Locale: Out back, brewing beer in BPA.
Epoxy on 04/01/2008 21:16:53 MDT Print View

I think the cans are lined with an epoxy resin that is water based.

http://www.bisphenol-a.org/human/epoxycan.html

Sigg does this in their bottles.

Max Hoagland
(maxhoagland) - F
Aluminum cans on 04/01/2008 21:39:33 MDT Print View

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.

Edited by maxhoagland on 04/01/2008 21:40:15 MDT.

Dave .
(Ramapo) - F
Aluminum cans on 04/01/2008 21:53:46 MDT Print View

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.

Sarah Kirkconnell
(sarbar) - F

Locale: In the shadow of Mt. Rainier
For those who obbsesively worry on 04/01/2008 22:22:01 MDT Print View

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!

Dave .
(Ramapo) - F
Idiocy on 04/01/2008 23:32:55 MDT Print View

Yeah! Just live! With a tumor you could have avoided in the first place!

Or not.

Rob Blazoff
(Genetic) - F

Locale: Out back, brewing beer in BPA.
Klean Kanteen dangers... on 04/02/2008 00:37:55 MDT Print View

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.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Obsessed on 04/02/2008 07:09:53 MDT Print View

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?

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Time Will Tell on 04/02/2008 07:32:18 MDT Print View

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...

Peter Fogel
(pgfogel) - F

Locale: Western Slope, Colorado
Water containers....................Choose with wisdom. on 04/02/2008 08:04:15 MDT Print View

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.

Peter

Dave .
(Ramapo) - F
Exactly on 04/02/2008 08:39:25 MDT Print View

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.

Edited by Ramapo on 04/02/2008 08:43:14 MDT.

Ryan Gardner
(splproductions) - F - M

Locale: Salt Lake City, UT
Logical fallacy... on 04/02/2008 09:10:13 MDT Print View

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!"

But....

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.

Edited by splproductions on 04/02/2008 09:19:05 MDT.

Brian James
(bjamesd) - F

Locale: South Coast of BC
Re: Exactly on 04/02/2008 09:13:12 MDT Print View

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.

Sarah Kirkconnell
(sarbar) - F

Locale: In the shadow of Mt. Rainier
That is NOT what I am saying on 04/02/2008 09:17:09 MDT Print View

"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.

Sarah Kirkconnell
(sarbar) - F

Locale: In the shadow of Mt. Rainier
Re: Re: Exactly on 04/02/2008 09:19:36 MDT Print View

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......

Rusty Beaver
(rustyb) - F

Locale: Rocky Mountains
Good to see this subject being discussed. on 04/02/2008 11:32:45 MDT Print View

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 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.

Cheers,
r
goneyaknATmsnDOTcom

Edited by rustyb on 04/02/2008 11:42:11 MDT.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
PLEASE... on 04/02/2008 11:44:57 MDT Print View

... move this thread to Chaff.

Monty Montana
(TarasBulba) - MLife

Locale: Rocky Mountains
Re:Aluminum cans on 04/02/2008 12:07:43 MDT Print View

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.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
re: aluminum cans on 04/02/2008 12:32:43 MDT Print View

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.

: )

Rusty Beaver
(rustyb) - F

Locale: Rocky Mountains
Re: Re:Aluminum cans on 04/02/2008 12:39:39 MDT Print View

Monty,

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.

r

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: That is NOT what I am saying on 04/02/2008 13:28:04 MDT Print View

I agree wholeheartedly with Sarah. To me, the biggest threats to our health are:

-stress
-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...

Mike W
(skopeo) - F

Locale: British Columbia
Aluminum cans... on 04/02/2008 13:55:32 MDT Print View

I like to have a choice in the products I choose to buy and as long as the risks are on the label then I can at least make an informed decision (ie. any smokers out there?).

Aluminum contamination has been implicated in Alzheimer's Disease. So do I pick coated aluminum or uncoated aluminum containers? Many of the anti-perspirants we use contain aluminum but I sometimes use them anyway... my choice and it's on the label.

I don't like having my choices removed to save me from myself, I want proper labelling so I can decide. It still bugs me that MEC took the Nalgene bottles away. I'd be OK if they had just stuck up a warning sign.

Interestingly, my family worries more about BPA than I do and they just bought me a stanless steel water bottle the other day. Interestingly, the new SS water bottle weighs .1 oz less than the same size Nalgene. Now that's a good reason to switch!!

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Aluminum cans... on 04/02/2008 18:59:24 MDT Print View

>>> Interestingly, the new SS water bottle weighs .1 oz less than the same size Nalgene.

Mike W,

What is the brand? I just did a search and did not find much.

Ryan Gardner
(splproductions) - F - M

Locale: Salt Lake City, UT
Lighter weight SS bottle... on 04/02/2008 19:38:35 MDT Print View

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)

Edited by splproductions on 04/02/2008 19:39:43 MDT.

Greg Mihalik
(greg23) - M

Locale: Colorado
Re: Lighter weight SS bottle... on 04/02/2008 20:10:50 MDT Print View

Oh, fellas....

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."

From PubMed

So, as mentioned above, where do You draw the line?

Edited by greg23 on 04/02/2008 20:16:37 MDT.

Ryan Gardner
(splproductions) - F - M

Locale: Salt Lake City, UT
Uh oh... on 04/02/2008 20:55:20 MDT Print View

Affecting spermatogenesis? That means a massive spermatoexodus!

Max Hoagland
(maxhoagland) - F
Re: That is NOT what I am saying on 04/02/2008 22:00:48 MDT Print View

"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."

In addition to these things, I don't want to eat food cooked in a plastic container.

Rob Blazoff
(Genetic) - F

Locale: Out back, brewing beer in BPA.
dawg on 04/02/2008 23:37:57 MDT Print View

"dihydrogen monoxide"

Come on! Someone throw me a friggin' bone here, people.

Mike W
(skopeo) - F

Locale: British Columbia
Stainless water bottle... on 04/03/2008 01:51:39 MDT Print View

I'm more than happy to turn this back into a gear related thread!

My new stainless bottle is made by Chinook Technical Outdoor
http://www.chinooktec.com

This was a gift, I don't know anything about this company or their products and I suspect this bottle will only get used on day trips or packed in the car because I prefer a smaller/lighter bottle when backpacking. That said, it appears to be really well made.

I'm obviously getting to my family because when they gave me the bottle they apologized for the weight. It actually seemed pretty light for stainless so I compared it to a Nalgene wide mouth and it's .1 oz lighter (and that includes the carabiner and split ring). A narrow top Nalgene may have the edge!

SS bottle

Joshua Mitchell
(jdmitch) - F

Locale: Kansas
Re: dawg on 04/03/2008 10:01:22 MDT Print View

====
"dihydrogen monoxide"

Come on! Someone throw me a friggin' bone here, people.
====

I got it, I'm just late to the party.

PS - If you want a wide-mouthed stainless... check out Guyot Designs...

PPS - Okay, injecting colloidal SS into your body is way different than holding items in SS. The chemistry and temps are way different... that study was done to determine if SS implants were feasible (like permanent bone supports and such)

Ryan Gardner
(splproductions) - F - M

Locale: Salt Lake City, UT
The amount of time spent using the product... on 04/03/2008 12:53:40 MDT Print View

For all who fall into the camp of "I don't want to drink from water bottle A or eat my food out of a Ziplock bag" etc.

I realize the can and liner issue extends beyond backpacking, and some of this discussion is much broader in scope. But for backpacking, and the water bottles or bag-meals specifically:

Would you still refrain from using the product if you were only using it 3 days a month (the amount of time I actually am able to get out backpacking)? I might think twice if I was doing triple crown hikes every other year, but do you really think for the weekend-warrior the amount of contaminant is worth worrying over?

(This isn't a rhetorical bash, I am curious as to your thought).

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: The amount of time spent using the product... on 04/03/2008 13:33:35 MDT Print View

I do a lot of things when I'm backpacking that I don't otherwise do, including wearing synthetic clothing, not washing my hands (or any other body part) as often as I should, drinking water of unknown purity, sometimes taking sleeping pills, and eating a lot less fresh fruits and veggies. I also use a Platypus on trips. It's all about balancing risks and benefits, and I feel the "perceived risks" of drinking out of my Platypus a few days a month is worth the benefits.

I don't eat a lot of canned foods either, so when I occassionally do, I don't worry too much about trace toxic chemicals. But I DO have a stockpile of foods stored in cans and plastic in my attic for emercencies. Again, in an emergency I wouldn't think twice about consuming them, but on a day-to-day basis I prefer to eat freshly prepared foods made with fresh ingredients. Fortunately, where I live the tap water is superb, so there's no need for me to expose my drinking water to plastics on a day-to-day basis.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: That is NOT what I am saying on 04/03/2008 18:13:44 MDT Print View

> Lest us not forget, only wear natural clothing that was treated organically. So don't go buying all them fancy hiking clothes...

Two of the most destructive agricultural crops in the world are cotton (massive water consumption draining rivers and massive pesticide use) and wool (devastation of rangelands due to sheep eating plant roots as well as stalks, causing huge wind erosion soil loss).

Compared to those fibres, the production of synthetics is actually a relatively benign process. So much for 'folk wisdom'.

Thom Darrah
(thomdarrah) - MLife

Locale: Southern Oregon
"warning" on 04/03/2008 18:40:06 MDT Print View

One must also consider that many of the synthetic insulation's being used today, by Patagonia and others, are derived largely from recycled plastics. A win win for hikers and the planet.

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
500 lbs. a day... on 04/03/2008 18:42:57 MDT Print View

According to the FDA at least... you'd have to eat something like 500 pounds of canned for PER DAY in order to get the levels of BPA in your system above the "safe limit".

Max Hoagland
(maxhoagland) - F
Re: 500 lbs. a day... on 04/03/2008 20:38:19 MDT Print View

Particles of all kind enter your body, when you use a wooden spoon to cook soup, microscopic particles from that spoon end up in your soup. If you cook in copper pots or iron pots your body will absorb copper or iron molecules from the food you cook. Same with whatever you drink out of, be it plastic water bottles, aluminum bottles, or steel water bottles. The problem is however, that all these substances that end up in your body can be passed, except for plastic (and pesticides which is why you buy organic foods (health reason wise)). Plastic particles are stored in your body fat and can end up in different parts of your body depending on many variables, and possibly causing any number of health risks (mostly chemicals in your body end up in your lymph nodes and create tumors and/ or cancer). Granted you have to have a lot of these chemicals in your body to create health problems. These chemicals can also be ingested from the fat in other animals (fish in the ocean who are filled with toxic plastic particles and other pesticide particles - and other edible animals.)

The bottom line is you don't want these plastic particles - or any synthesized material - in your body.

I started this post originally questioning whether people knew about the plastic coated lining in the aluminum cans they use to boil water. Or if they had any opinions or knowledge about this, like if there was a method to remove it.

Thanks

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
Re: Re: 500 lbs. a day... on 04/04/2008 05:10:21 MDT Print View

Max,

In all of the posts here and all of the research I have done... I have not be able to find out if the plastic in the lining even contains BPA in the first place!! So this entire discussion may be moot anyway. The only thing I could find on Google is that pretty much ALL canned foods have a lining that contains BPA and "some" aluminum can linings also contain BPA. Some. Not all. As for finding out which ones do and don't... good luck! I had no luck finding any information on this at all.

Bottom line for me is... I very much appreciate the info you posted above. It is something to think about for sure. Good point. But personally, I'm not too worried about the dozen or so meals a year I might eat that are made from boiling 2 cups of water in my beer can stove.

As for removing the lining... I imagine it could be burned off... but then you're boiling water against raw aluminum... which might bring up other issues?

Anyway... the first real step would be to find out for sure is those Heineken can's even USE BPA in their lining in the first place.

David Rowenhorst
(row435) - MLife

Locale: Mid Atlantic
Not the biggest risk... on 04/04/2008 07:14:52 MDT Print View

I have to believe that the paint heating up on the outside of the can would pose a much much greater risk. And thats the thing - while I can not say that there is no risk, it is such a low risk compared to the rest of my living conditions that I have much bigger issues to take care of first.

For example, I live in Washington DC, with all sorts of nasties coming out of car tail pipes, buses, coal fired power plants, etc etc. These are much bigger carcinogen risks than a can I might cook out of a dozen nights a year.

Having said that, I choose not to drink out of Nalgenes on a daily basis (or for that matter on the trail, but that has a lot more to do with weight). I just reuse my old soda bottle that I get my diet coke out of for a couple of days, then recycle it (diet coke, which has nutrisweet, which will probably give me cancer, and there is probably something in PETE that will kill me too).

The sun is probably your biggest cancer risk while backpacking, but getting some sun to me is part of the fun.

Martin Clark
(Marty_Mcfly) - F

Locale: Southeast US
Safe Cookware on 04/04/2008 08:19:29 MDT Print View

Though not ultralight maybe we should all switch back to stainless steel or maybe even cast iron cookware. Or since those are metals and may also further expose us to health risks we should revert to the safest and most primitive options. Leather water bottles, and hand spun pottery for a cook pot. Sure it'll carry a weight penalty, but it will give you a peice of mind, and go with your new ultralight clothing: a loincloth.

steven rarey
(laptraffic) - F

Locale: Washington
wow on 04/04/2008 08:36:20 MDT Print View

I cant believe I just read this whole thread...

I think I refuse to live in fear.

That does not mean that I choose to live ignorantly. I prefer to be well informed, but I promise you that I willfully put myself at FAR greater risk solo camping 15 miles from the road for 3 days than I do when I take a sip out of my platypus.

I am quite certain that if you put stainless steel, aluminum, wood et all through the same rigors that polycarbonate has recently been exposed to you would be appaled at what you are ingesting into your body.

Rick Dreher
(halfturbo) - MLife

Locale: Northernish California
Re: wow on 04/04/2008 11:08:30 MDT Print View

I've just discovered a heavy backpack can kill.
Coupled, evidently, with a rare case of too much beer.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004326678_backpack04m.html

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
Re: wow on 04/04/2008 18:46:54 MDT Print View

The opinions about risk management have been beaten to death. We get it. No need for everyone to add their own analogy. And I don't disagree with any of those opinions either! But you know... a little less crowing and a little more facts would be more productive and I'm sure the original poster would appreciate it too. I'd be interested to know if the lining in aluminum cans (specifically Heineken cans) contains BPA. Almost no chance that would stop me from using it to boil my water... but regardless... facts are a good (and interesting) thing. Yet another soliloquy about how it's more dangerous to breathe the air (yup) or eat cheese whiz (no kidding) than drink from an aluminum can... not so interesting.

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
Some Info on 04/04/2008 18:58:58 MDT Print View

Ok... I reviewed that link from the second post in this thread. I still can't find out for sure if all beverage can coatings include BPA (I found one google hit that said "some" or "many" of them do while ALL food cans do)... but there were a few interesting points on that page...

-----
1. Using appropriate analytical methods, no BPA was detected from beverage/beer cans with a limit of detection of 5 parts per billion. Bisphenol A migration levels from food cans averages 37 parts per billion.
-----

So... no BPA detected in beverage cans.

-----
2. The estimated daily intake of BPA from canned food and beverages is over 450 times lower than the maximum acceptable or reference dose for BPA of 0.05 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day.
-----

So... you'd have to eat 450 cans of food per day to get your daily BPA dosage over the "safe" level of 5 parts per billion.

Edited by davidlewis on 04/04/2008 18:59:42 MDT.

Max Hoagland
(maxhoagland) - F
Re: Some Info on 04/04/2008 20:08:04 MDT Print View

Thanks for keeping us on track David.

I stated before my skepticism about how truthful information is about BPAs that comes from a site financed by the American Plastics Council (part of the American Chemistry Council, in case anyone was wondering), which is a group financed by plastic and other chemical industries. This is where those "plastic makes it possible" commercials and ad campaigns come from.

That being said, EVERY aluminum can does have a plastic lining (which do contain BPAs). Here is a popular picture from google that shows the lining of the can once the aluminum has been removed.Plastic lining

And again, your body cannot pass plastic. Once you ingest it, it stays in your body.

"Health effects attributed to endocrine disrupting compounds include a range of reproductive problems (reduced fertility, male and female reproductive tract abnormalities, and skewed male/female sex ratios, loss of fetus, menstrual problems, changes in hormone levels; early puberty; brain and behavior problems; impaired immune functions; and various cancers." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor)

Plastic is an endocrine disruptor! So for those of you that think you have to eat over 50 kg of BPA a day (the considered safe amount to ingest by the EPA) to see health risks, you're wrong. Not only is it not uncommon to ingest over 10 kg a day, but if you take into account how many days you live in your life - that's a lot of endocrine disruptors in your body.

Demand your food be wrapped in containers without known toxins!

And don't use aluminum cans to boil water in!

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Alternatives? on 04/04/2008 21:00:33 MDT Print View

Ok, so I've removed the BPA laden lining from my aluminium pot. But wait a minute, aluminium ingestion is associated with alzheimers disease.

Hmm

Any problems with Titanium?

On a lighter note, 5 parts per billion is a lot less than max's 10kg a day. Eating that much will certainly increase your packweight and bodyweight.

hat does BPA stand for again?

Billionth Perennial Ambiguity?

JR Redding
(GrinchMT) - F
Silliness (in my nicest humble opinion) on 04/08/2008 22:06:20 MDT Print View

Someone asked if anyone had long term experience with the aluminum cans. I didn't see any response to that so I thought I would offer one.

I have been using the Heineken 24 ounce in a variety of ways and tests now for the past 8-9 months. I have a couple of them that got way too overheated during outdoor snow tests (flames from stove crawling too high) wherein the outside and the inside of the pit got discolored. However, no material came off. Regardless, I relegated those particular pots to the testing only pile. I have 3 or 4 that we have been using steadily on our trips since February that are just fine.

I realize there are a great deal of opinions on this plastic topic but, I eat from freezerbags, and I boil my water in a Heineken pot. I have been in remission from Non Hodkins Lymphoma now for 7 years. Do you honestly think it really matters anymore? Alot of you are probably the same people that go and purchase ground beef from a grocery store. Got nay idea what's in that? Or how about that water your drinking? How many parts per million of anti depressants and other drugs does it contain?

Ya know, since my cancer battle a long time ago, I don't really care that much about every scenario there is. All I do is try to eat as healthy as I can and live as clean a life as I can. That's all that matters.

GrinchMT
Bozeman, MT

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Some Info on 04/09/2008 01:49:21 MDT Print View

> Not only is it not uncommon to ingest over 10 kg a day,
Ah ... has someone got the units wrong here? I don't think many people on this planet would ingest 10 kg of FOOD per day, let alone that much plastic!

> And again, your body cannot pass plastic. Once you ingest it, it stays in your body.
It would help if you could give a reference for this rather extreme claim. The body is very good at getting rid of all sorts of things. Slowly maybe, but enzymes are very clever things.

> I stated before my skepticism about how truthful information is about BPAs that comes from a site financed by the American Plastics Council (part of the American Chemistry Council, in case anyone was wondering),
I agree entirely with a healthy dose of cynicism, but in fact industry organisations like that do have to be a bit carefull these days about what they publish. Organisations like the FDA and EPA can and do prosecute. Just read carefully.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Alternatives? on 04/09/2008 01:57:33 MDT Print View

> But wait a minute, aluminium ingestion is associated with alzheimers disease.
Another urban myth.

ONE (note: ONE) research paper claimed that aluminium had been found in Alzheimers plaques. In true human mass-hysteria fashion this precipitated a landslide of 'ban aluminium from cooking' messages.

More careful research in the form of many studies, which of course never got the same treatment in the popular press, found zero correlation between aluminium and Alzheimers. Odd?

Then some very careful research found that the aluminium which had been found in the plaques tested had been put in there as a contaminant during sample preparation AFTER the patient had died. Do you think this got the same degree of publicity in the popular press? Of course not. We love our urban myths too much.

Sigh.

darren stephens
(darren5576) - F

Locale: Down Under
what was this thread about again? on 04/09/2008 14:20:07 MDT Print View

Ill Have to remember not to get caught around the campfire with you cheery lot...

Max Hoagland
(maxhoagland) - F
Re: Re: Re: Some Info on 04/09/2008 19:23:46 MDT Print View

kg = mg/kg or ppm (sorry)

"And again, your body cannot pass all *plastics"
Sorry about that, meant to say BPA, not plastic. Why: BPAs are endocrine disruptors, which stay in your body. Reference: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (granted she never uses the term endocrine disruptors; I don't think the term was around back then.)

The skepticism comes from the fact that the American Chemistry Council gives money to the U.S. congress.

Charles Mason
(guesting) - F
The real issue on 04/09/2008 19:48:15 MDT Print View

There are three diversions on health and safety issues which usually come up. Firstly the jokes which are not funny and tedious. Secondly the personal philosophies of life and look at 'devil-may-care' brave me 'life-is-short' attitude which are worse by being unintelligent, boring and irresponsible considering numerous historic cases of ignorance. Finally monetary motivations which make individuals or organizations put the lives of others at risk even when the issue is not exactly related to their specific product(s). This unsightly solidarity of greed applies evenly from large corporations to home/cottage industries.

Heineken has been silent on the use of their pots for cooking. They make no noticeable money from people cooking with their pots. I assume they prefer it never happened. However if they announce that cooking with plastic which is in their linings is hazardous , then that would be a negative health association in the zeitgeist with their brand that they could do well without. Even if %99.99 of their sales has nothing to do with people ripping open the top and cooking with the disposable part-plastic can. So their silence is understandable as is the silence of people out there making small amounts on the sales of the cans as pots and happy to continue to do so even if it is a potential risk to their customers. No surprises there. However the real issue is:

Since: storage, usage (eating out of and stirring and contact with hot food), cooking and finally washing up scrapes the plastic lining, these particles will unavoidably end up in the people using them. And thanks to the poster above, we now know these particles will not be passed by the body but are permanently absorbed which is frankly shocking. Even if they are not carcinogenic in all cases once the absorbed doses build up over time (highly unlikely), they can not be ruled out from causing other diseases in some cases if not many by regular users given enough time.

It is clear to me that as a fairly educated conscientious community, if we don't raise the alarm no one will. And that many future cases of diseased users will be on our conscience.

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
Re: The real issue on 04/09/2008 20:22:58 MDT Print View

So... any thoughts on how to remove the lining? We're just boiling water... most of us... so we don't really need a 'freshness' lining.

darren stephens
(darren5576) - F

Locale: Down Under
Conspiracy on 04/09/2008 21:26:56 MDT Print View

Have people started re joining BPL under a different name in order to hide there identity or is all this paranoia just rubbing off ????

Max Hoagland
(maxhoagland) - F
Re: Conspiracy on 04/09/2008 21:46:43 MDT Print View

I'll tell you what is a conspiracy: the person who started this post only created it so that all of you guys will ditch your aluminum cans and but really expensive titanium pots from BPL!!!!!

Daniel Strange
(strangdj) - F
Cooking vs. storage on 04/10/2008 12:09:53 MDT Print View

There is a pretty big difference between storing food in plastic and cooking/boiling in plastic. The "leach" or chemical diffusion rate increases dramatically with temperature. I doubt any of the tests paid for by the Chemical Industry were performed at anything resembling boiling. At one point in time I did published research on the leaching of lead from leaded crystal containers. I would not hesitates to drink wine from a leaded glass but I would NOT boil anything acidic in them! You can easily exceed the recommended exposure limits. The amount of lead release at 90C is about 20x the lead release at 22C. (And, much like BPA, the "exposure limits" are entirely arbitrary since there actually is no known "safe" dose).

I don't microwave my food in plastic containers and I wouldn't boil in a plastic container either. Maybe overly cautious, but hey it's not too hard to find substitutes.

EDIT:

I just found a link which says that BPA leaches out of polycarbonate bottles 55 times faster using boiling water instead of room temperature.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-29-plastic-chemical_N.htm

Edited by strangdj on 04/10/2008 12:27:11 MDT.

Joshua Mitchell
(jdmitch) - F

Locale: Kansas
Re: Cooking vs. storage on 04/10/2008 12:57:54 MDT Print View

Rule of thumb (from my Chemical Engineering education), the rate at which chemical reactions proceed approximately double with every 10 Deg F increase in temperature.

Obviously, this is a rule of thumb, and really only works for smaller increases in temp (say 90 Deg to 120 Deg) but it's a good way to highlight what D Strange mentioned.

I'm not surprised at all that the 'junk' leaches at 55 times the normal rate at boiling (actually its far less than what I would knee jerk believe if someone told me as 212-80=130, 2^13 > 8000).

Dylan Skola
(phageghost) - F

Locale: Southern California
Just to clarify for an earlier poster on 04/10/2008 13:38:51 MDT Print View

The plastic _particles_ produced by mechanical action are not going to be "absorbed" by the body. The digestive system only absorbs small molecules, which is why proteins and fats have to be enzymatically digested and emulsified before they can be absorbed across the intestinal mucosa. Any particle of plastic is going to be absolutely huge at these scales and should be passed without a hitch (you know where to look for them).

The issue is individual _molecules_ of plastic in solution, which can potentially be absorbed. BPA is one of those compounds, as it does slowly dissolve or "leach" into water. It is not present in all plastics. The presence or absence of BPA, rate of leaching under various conditions, and the health significance of such leaching are the relevant issues. Merely scraping up your pot isn't going to embed plastic particles permanently in your fat tissues or anywhere else. It may, however, increase the rate of leaching by presenting more plastic surface area to the water. These particles may leach the BPA they contain (if any) more rapidly under acidic digestive conditions, but from what I remember for polycarbonate, BPA is actually much more soluble under alkaline conditions than acidic.

Now back to our broadcast . . .

Edited by phageghost on 04/10/2008 13:42:22 MDT.

Ryan Gardner
(splproductions) - F - M

Locale: Salt Lake City, UT
Info... on 04/19/2008 18:17:33 MDT Print View

I didn't bother posting it because I assumed others would have already jumped on it, but on Yahoo (they have those articles) there was an article about BPA's in food containers and some recent studies done. The next day there was an article saying that Nalgene is phasing out their BPA containing bottles.

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
Re: Info... on 04/20/2008 06:38:49 MDT Print View

Do you have a link Ryan?

Max Planck
(maxplanck) - F
Re: Time Will Tell on 04/20/2008 07:08:06 MDT Print View

"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..."


Oh, there are ways. One of these ways is called "scientific experiment," or "rational inquiry." These experiments are being performed all the time, and the results are published in peer reviewed scientific journals. The Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Nature, etc.

Peer reviewed scientific journals are the closest you can get to the truth, short of performing your own experiments, as any student of science will tell you. (I know, I majored in Chemistry and minored in Mathematics.)

If you read many of the peer reviewed scientific journal articles that have been published regarding human health, and compare what these studies suggest with what government/industry recommends, you will be shocked.


It's true that industry/government tries to squash such information, and that honest studies of potentially hazardous consumer product materials/ingredients tend not to receive funding, but such studies occur nonetheless, due to some Universities' and Professors' commitment to scientific and academic integrity.


www.storyofstuff.com

Edited by maxplanck on 04/20/2008 07:41:02 MDT.

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
Re: Re: Time Will Tell on 04/20/2008 07:41:03 MDT Print View

Ya... same story. God forbid anything should ever get in the way of making money. Everything comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Meat regulation and inspection for instance is far more lax in the US than in Europe. When filling orders for shipment to Europe, processing plants have to slow the line down. The best thing you can do as a consumer I guess is just to be informed and vote with your wallet. I'm trying to cast more "votes" at my local Farmer's Market lately.

Rob Blazoff
(Genetic) - F

Locale: Out back, brewing beer in BPA.
BPA on 04/20/2008 23:53:45 MDT Print View

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

http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/

Links to Nalgene Bisphenol-A phase out.

Charles Mason
(guesting) - F
Re: BPA products such as Nalgene, Heini cans: on 04/29/2008 14:22:53 MDT Print View

Imminent Canada & US declarations/actions probably forced greedy Nalgene into action, not their conscience. Will they be sued in future like the tobacco industry?

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/04/18/wal-mart-nalgene-move-away-from-bisphenol-a/?mod=WSJBlog

Chris Chastain
(Thangfish) - F

Locale: S. Central NC, USA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Info on 04/29/2008 15:16:17 MDT Print View

> Reference: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring

Thanks for citing that reference!
In my opinion, she has even less credibility than Al Gore.
Her book was probably (indirectly) responsible for more human deaths than Mein Kampf.
If indeed she did have any valid arguments, it was completely accidental, with scientific evidence ranging from weak to nonexistent even to this day.

DDT is the safest (to humans), most effective and cheapest (thus making it a life-saver to Third Worlders) insecticide ever invented. That alone should be enough to discredit any other claims she might make.

BTW:
This is not to say that DDT wasn't being terribly abused, probably because of it being so safe and effective along with its lack of expense...

I think maybe I should go off and hide now.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
down with... on 04/29/2008 15:20:33 MDT Print View

down with peregrines,

up with people!

chlordane for everyone!

Charles Mason
(guesting) - F
plastics on 04/30/2008 11:06:39 MDT Print View

The link below was in one of the comments in the URL above and is worth a read, particularly the bullet pointed highlights in the gray box. I have never cooked with plastics, for example heating in the oven and never put them in the microwave despite printed instructions. Speificlly as microwaves are only a generation old and we don't know how they react with plastics fully over a long time of extended exposure. And no I'm not a health freak and regularly abuse my body to excess and have various problems as a result, mainly due to stupid negligence. However instinctively I never liked the idea of heated plastics next to food. Furthermore if one decides to ignore scientific warnings due to whatever current mental state, it is only ethical not to extend that decision to affect others, specially if they are children.
http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.com/plog/index.php?m=200804

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: plastics on 04/30/2008 16:16:26 MDT Print View

This is an emotive issue, and one which I swore I would try to keep my mouth shut on...but the BPA hype is really way overboard IMHO. I say this for several reasons:

1)A large study of urinary BPA in US citizens of all ages and gender showed the median intake of BPA was 3 orders of magnitude below the generally accepted "safe" level.

2) All the direct evidence linking BPA to cancers was done in rodents, and by-in-large the rodent strains were chosen/bred for their known sensitivity to estrogenic compounds

3) Even between differnt rodent strains there was a huge variation in sensitivity to BPA.

4) BPA is 1000-5000 times LESS ESTROGENIC than our own endogenous estrogens

5) And this one I consider to be the biggest reason we're scare-mongering up the wrong tree, is that obesity is far-and-away the biggest risk for excess estrogen exposure in humans. When these estrogen sesnitive rodents were exposed to either 50ug of BPA or 1ug of estrogen, the estrogenic response was still much greater in the estrogen treated rats. ESTROGEN IS A TOXIN (so is testosterone since it is the source of all estrogen in humans, but that's almost off-topic). We live in an obesogenic society, and the estrogen exposure to ourselves and our children from excess adipose tissue (body fat), for most people, completely swamps the effects of trace exposure to weakly estrogenic compounds. not to mention many women also choose to overdose on estrogens via oral contraceptives or HRT on top of carrying too much bodyfat

This is not to negate our own choices to be informed and select products that we consider to be safe, and to know the risks associated with different packaging or additives. But I honestly suspect most parents would do far better towards their children's future health to ask for bans on institutions like McDonald's, and teach/enforce good nutrition, exercise and weight control in their kids rather than obsess about trace amounts of weakly estrogenic compounds in their water bottles.

Charles Mason
(guesting) - F
? on 05/03/2008 22:11:15 MDT Print View

No defender addresses the question of cooking with these carcinogenic plastics on a regular basis which is widely taking place.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: ? on 05/04/2008 13:44:49 MDT Print View

Well, that's an unknown for sure. For me, the question might be better phrased as "how much BPA might come from the lining of one Heineken can with repeated cooking"? Canned foods, are, almost by definition, exposed to a very high temperature and pressure at time of manufacture. I know normal cooking doesn't reach those kinds of pressure, and normal boiling doesn't reach those temps, but how bad is it to burn a meal in a heine?????? How many potential micrograms of BPA are in one can?

Charles Mason
(guesting) - F
??? on 05/05/2008 12:06:19 MDT Print View

I think the factory process is for a short time and not comparable to sticking a plastic lunch into the office microwave every day or regular cooking with a Heini or someone consuming their hot nourishment daily in a Nalgene, and so on. In fact the most worrying universal use is probably the baby food containers which have replaced glass and metal as they don't transfer as much heat. So it would be nice to see data on any research into such studies on 'sustained exposure' measurements which I am sure has been secretly done somewhere.

Secondly I would like to see figures on other agents than BPA too. It's not just BPA.

Thirdly, is it possible that some of these historically recent compounds which have not been examined for long could increase the triggering of genetic reactions in a person's body depending on the person's DNA and/or age?

It would be nice to hear from experts like you and also see any links to 'independent' studies on such issues.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: ??? on 05/05/2008 14:28:42 MDT Print View

If you can access this article, it has all the relevant research cited at the end. it was published in February 2008, adn as of publication date, the authors state :

"Another critical research direction is for studies on bisphenol A, widely used to manufacture polycarbonate plastics and for the lining of metal cans (64). Because of the consistent animal data, epidemiologic studies on BPA are needed, especially in high-exposure subpopulations.

Critical research directions for chemicals with widespread low-dose exposure overlap with those described above for chemicals with high exposure. Apart from identifying high BPA exposure subpopulations, we need to conduct studies among members of the general population with low-level environmental BPA exposure. Another critical research need is to design studies that collect data on and allow for analysis of risks from mixtures of chemicals. Individuals are exposed to most if not all of the chemicals and metals described above, and developing methods to understand fertility impacts of mixtures is desperately needed."

So, no, the human data is still lacking. The non-human and in-vitro studies are conflicting and not necessarily relevant to the human situation.

As for age, genetics and gender, I think there is little doubt that some folks will be more sensitive or at risk to some chemicals than other people. At present we don't have the technology to fully identify all the risk genes for all possible chemical exposures. The classic example of this genetic risk to "chemicals" was the smoking study showing that people who had extra copies of a liver gene called CYP2D6, were twice as likely to get lung cancer. This turned out to be because this gene's protein converts non-carcinogneic compounds in cigarettes to carcinogenic ones. The more of this protein you have (ie more gene copies) the more carcinogenic compounds you get exposed to when you smoke.

Of course many doctors/scientists would say this is a good reason to screen smokers for this gene. WHY???? How stupid. Just tell people to stop smoking and the problem goes away without spending billions of dollars doing genetic screens on smokers so that you can tell SOME of them to stop smoking?? That's craziness.

Charles Mason
(guesting) - F
! on 05/05/2008 15:55:06 MDT Print View

cocktails.

Edited by guesting on 06/12/2008 19:00:45 MDT.

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
New "Trappers" Mug on 06/04/2008 04:32:49 MDT Print View

Well... I'm very excited to see the new BPL Firelite Trappers mug. At 37 grams, it's a real pot/cup that actually comes close to the insanely light weight of a Heineken can.

Heineken - 26 oz volume, 29 gram weight (1 oz)
Trappers Mug - 17 oz volume, 37 gram weight (1.3 oz)

I never boil much more than a cup or cup and a half of water for my single serving meals... so 17 oz should be plenty. And now... no BPA lining! Of course... the debate above beats that dead horse a few times... LOL... but given a choice between a BPA lining or not... all else being ALMOST equal... who wouldn't choose to go BPA-free?

Pros (compared to Heineken system):
- No BPA lining
- Don't have to worry about accidently crushing it
- Works with BPL wing stove (which is LIGHTER than my stainless mesh stand + energy can bottom)
- Rolled lip means I can still use my BPL Ti rod handle
- Overall system weight is virtually identical!

Cons (compared to Heineken system):
- No lid, and my 3 gram aluminum cat food can bottom trick won't work :-(
- Less water volume

I really wish it came with a lid. You could always leave it at home if you are anti-lid. It's useful not just for boiling, but for stowing. Aluminum foil is fine for boiling, but useless for keeping things inside the pot (your stand, water treatment chemicals, windscreen, lighter etc.). Maybe I can find another solution.

BTW... my comparisons here are based on this stove... which I designed and have been using and loving for a couple years now...

http://www.davidlewis.ca/stove/

For the gram counters... here is the breakdown of my beer can system vs. this new option:

Trappers Mug System: 55 grams
-----------------------------
Mug: 37 g
Wing stand: 11 g
Ti Windscreen: 3 g
Handle: 3 g
Lid: 1 g? (aluminum foil... 3 grams for something more solid?)

Heineken Can System: 55 grams
-----------------------------
Can: 29 g
Stainless Stand: 14 g (7 g for galvanized)
Esbit holder: 3 g
Ti Windscreen: 3 g
Handle: 3 g
Lid: 3 g

Edited by davidlewis on 06/04/2008 04:49:46 MDT.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: New "Trappers" Mug on 06/04/2008 10:18:37 MDT Print View

Thanks for the excellent comparison between Heineken vs Trappers. Makes a good argument to get the Trappers if you have the BPL Wing. Looks like a good way to get a sub2 oz set up.

David Lewis
(davidlewis) - MLife

Locale: Nova Scotia, Canada
Re: Re: New "Trappers" Mug on 06/04/2008 10:22:08 MDT Print View

Ya. I'm pretty excited about it! I love the beer can... but I've always thought it would be nice to have a "real" pot... and I've always wanted to use my BLP Ti wing stove! The only thing, as I say, I'm not keen on is the lack of a lid. But I'll figured something out. Maybe tin foil for boiling and a super ultra light stuff sack for keeping stuff stowed inside the cup.

steve parsons
(stevoparsons) - F
noobs of backpackinglight.com on 09/30/2010 16:50:51 MDT Print View

noobs

Travis Leanna
(T.L.) - MLife

Locale: Wisconsin
Re: noobs of backpackinglight.com on 09/30/2010 17:01:05 MDT Print View

-Deleted-

...shouldn't feed the trolls...

Edited by T.L. on 09/30/2010 17:27:55 MDT.

Roy Staggs
(onepaddlejunkie) - F

Locale: SEC
From the FDA on 10/01/2010 12:28:45 MDT Print View

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1861/healthissue_detail.asp

James D Buch
(rocketman) - F

Locale: Midwest
Re: plastics on 10/01/2010 13:57:27 MDT Print View

Charles Mason wrote:

"Speificlly as microwaves are only a generation old "

I went to the Belville Illinois fair in the summer of 1949 when I was 9 years old. My dad was working as an electrician setting up and maintaining the electrical distribution to the exhibits and vendors. We got in free as a result, and I went and spent every day there.

My favorite exhibit was the Raytheon microwave exhibit. God the machine was pretty good sized back then. But is made darned good bacon, and I managed to get some nearly every day.

1 generation = 30 years

2 generations = 60 years

1949+60 = 2009.

So, the microwave is at least two generations old. Actually it is much older than that because microwave technology was in use in World War II 1940-1945. It was classified information at that time. This led to the establishment of the

The story goes that a technician/engineer noted that while working on a microwave device, a candy bar in his shirt pocket melted. This ultimately led to the use of microwave as a heating method. The first food heating demonstrations involved popcorn and eggs.

Ike Mouser
(isaac.mouser) - F
bpa on 10/01/2010 16:15:28 MDT Print View

im gonna tell my wife not to cook potroast in those bak-in plastic bags anymore. otherwise im fine with my other plasic interactions. i love platy bottles! :P
0

Edited by isaac.mouser on 10/01/2010 16:16:09 MDT.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: bpa on 10/03/2010 14:09:33 MDT Print View

Ah, am oldie but a goodie thread resurrected. The most up to date research, in humans, shows several interesting things.

a) BPA is excreted, so it is untruthful to say it stays in the body forever.
b) Young men, younger folks in general, and folks with higher waist circumferences had the highest excretion rates, but they also had the hgihest BPA exposure.
c) In men, but not women, BPA exposure raised testosterone levels. Might be a good thing to know if you're trying to pack on some muscle and lean up, might be a bad thing if you are at risk of prostrate cancer.
d) Those with the highest BPA exposure had an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. Probably not surprising given these were also the most obese folks.

My guess: BPA levels are a marker for eating and drinking lots of calorie dense (and often chemically laden) stuff from cans, which leads to obesity, heart disease and diabetes. BPA is not necessarily causing these diseases, but is just along for the ride as a marker of poor dietary choices.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/11/1303/JOC80072F1

Greg Mihalik
(greg23) - M

Locale: Colorado
Re: BPA - Cash register receipts on 10/03/2010 14:37:44 MDT Print View

From article #1:
"Extraordinarily high levels of BPA were found on two-fifths of the paper receipts tested recently by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C.

"In some cases, the amount of BPA on a given receipt was 1,000 times the levels found in a can of food.

"Receipts were collected from ATM's, grocery stores, fast food restaurants, gas stations and the like. "Wipe tests" showed that the coating of BPA of paper receipts would likely stick to the skin of anyone who handled them."

From article #2:
"Two of the new studies also showed that the BPA coating easily rubs off onto fingers. And one found evidence that BPA from receipts may penetrate skin.

"... based on 10 receipts recently collected in the Boston area. Six contained 1.09 to 1.70 percent BPA by mass. Another two contained 0.30 to 0.83 percent BPA; the final pair had no measurable amounts. Their findings appear online in Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews.

"A Swiss study published online July 11 in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry assayed 13 European sales receipts. Eleven contained BPA in quantities ranging from 0.8 to 1.7 percent of the paper’s mass.

"And that BPA rubbed off easily, notes study coauthor Koni Grob, an analytical chemist with the Official Food Control Authority of the Canton of Zurich. Just holding receipt paper deposited substantial BPA onto dry fingers. Wet fingers picked up 10 times as much.

"When fingers are dry, he explains, BPA probably enters fatty or waxy constituents of the skin. The ironic result: “you get more intimate contact” than when wet fingers disintegrate a paper’s fibers and carry them to — but not necessarily into — skin. Indeed, two hours after dry fingers held a receipt, Grob reports, nearly 30 percent of the transferred BPA “was no longer extractable — could not be washed off.”

"“The shocking thing,” he says, “is what happened when I applied a bit of BPA onto my fingers with ethanol [alcohol]. After two hours it had disappeared. Totally.” The BPA likely penetrated deeply into the skin, he says, perhaps as far as the bloodstream."



Seems like things are not quite as simple as once thought.

Edited by greg23 on 10/03/2010 14:43:37 MDT.