Interesting interview on CBC, sort of.
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/news/features/bisphenol-faq-071121.wmv
She says she's 'not a scientist but', yet she goes on to give advice and CBC calls that reporting. Anyhow, raises some issues, but I am still confused. At least I learned something about those numbers on the bottom. Resin Identification Codes. They are primarily for the recyclers, not for us. But isn't it only the #7's that contain some Biphenol A? I think that's what she said. So why did she spend most of her time warning against using a water bottle more than once?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code
1. PETE or PET Polyethylene terephthalate Polyester fibres, thermoformed sheet, strapping, soft drink bottles.
2. HDPE High density polyethylene Bottles, grocery bags, recycling bins, agricultural pipe, base cups, car stops, playground equipment, and plastic lumber.
7. OTHER Other plastics, including acrylic, polycarbonate, polylactic acid , nylon and fiberglass.

So here is what I still don't know:

Which is safer for carrying water and drinking cold drinks when backpacking?
1. PET water bottle, re-used a few times before recycling.
2. HDPE Nalgene Bottle, re-used many times.
7. Polycarbonate Nalgene Bottle, re-used many times.

Which is safer for pouring hot water into for making tea?
1. Re-used Gatoraid or Poweraid type bottle.
2. HDPE Nalgene Bottle, re-used many times.
7. Polycarbonate Nalgene Bottle, re-used a few times before recycling.

That interview really didn't answer this. In fact I think it provided as much misinformation as information, because its intention seemed to be influence consumers, not to educate them. They want us to buy water, and recycle the container, but not re-use it, not even once. Why not? What does that have to do with Biphenol A? Yet they still sell Nalgene bottles. WTF?


I am sticking with the #1 options until I learn more.

I think the biggest concern should be about baby bottles.
What we do while backpacking, as adults, is not so important.
I am also more curious about what to put in a microwave or dishwasher.

So what is safe to use for baby bottles these days?
How should people heat them or wash them?

Also, what plastics are safe to use in a microwave or dishwasher?
When they say microwave or dishwasher safe, do they mean for us, or the machine?

First off, I don't get too worked up about any studies any more that say "blah, blah, blah,... may be harmful to you." Pretty much everything can be harmful to you. Live you life without being afraid of everything and you'll really begin to live.

Second, Nalgene is NOT a water bottle company. Their primary income is in laboratory equipment. When I worked at a tire factory all the recepticles, test tubes, etc, were Nalgene. If Nalgenes leeched out chemicals the way that this current wave of "studies" indicate, they would have gone out of business a long time ago for skewing lab results. Folks, this stuff is as safe as you could want.

In the last couple of months I've had a wave of yuppies come into REI looking for Nalgenes or other water bottles that won't "hurt" their water. They ask a bunch of technical questions, and all I want to do is scream at them and tell them to drink TAP water from a cup, go buy their annual North Face jacket, and get out of my store!

Yeah, I'm practicing to be a professional curmudgeon. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

An interesting little tidbit here... it actually WAS skewed lab studies that led to the discovery that bisphenol-A leached from nalgene.

Bisphenol-A is an estrogen-like compound, and as such is related to diseases related to estrogen (i.e. breast cancer). Many years ago now (I want to say mid-90's) a researcher was doing breast cancer research, and kept finding that her control samples were 'contaminated' because they kept growing breast cancer cells. After extensive and exhaustive investigation they discovered that the containers they were using for the studies were the culprit, as the containers were leaching bisphenol-A under the conditions they were exposing their cells. I don't recall the details, but that was what lead to the discovery. It took probably close to a decade before it became "common" knowledge as the implications of the discovery for consumers was not made clear initially.

My take on it has always been that if you have a predisposition for a sensitivity to a certain type of disease mediated by a chemical (like a family history of breast or hormone related cancers), then it might behoove you to avoid plastic containers that might leach bisphenol-A. There are a couple of other situations where it might be prudent to avoid (if you're wanting to have children (men and women), are planning pregnancy (men and women), or are pregnant (if you find a pregnant man, let me know)), but otherwise... it really isn't any bigger of an issue than any other chemical exposure you might have (tobacco smoke comes to mind, or air pollution, or ozone from an unmaintained copier or printer, or pesticides, or...).

MNS

Take it from a certified professional curmudgeon, you're a prodigy. And the world could use many more!

As a fellow practicing curmudgeon, I've found that curmudgeonry, selectively practiced, can be quite liberating. The amount of pure, unadulterated bulls**t that you no longer have to pretend to tolerate is astonishing.

Don't scare the yuppies away bearpaw! They keep REI and MEC in the black so they can have the occasional bit of useful gear for the rest of us! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> As long as the big margins are on heavy packs, giant tents, and backpacking expresso machines I say send more yuppies!

That's why I tell them to get their annual Denali at $169 a pop for $25 worth of 300 weight Polartech and $100 worth of advertising. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

BP:
We need to strap a crittercam on you for the next time a yuppie comes into the store. I'd buy that video, "Curmudgeons Gone Wild," just for the chase scenes. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

JAK - Polycarbonate bottles (Lexan Nalegene, clear plastic like acrylic are the ones made with Bisphenol A. It's the second ingredient in the reaction, and the reaction occurs under pretty high heat. They are not 'supposed' to leak much Bisphenol A at room temperature, and heating them up makes more leak. The extent of leakage is much up to debate, as is the true magnitude of effect with Bisphenol A. All the science says "Uh, there might be/probably is a problem, hold on while we spend a lot of time and money checking it out!"

I don't use Lexan for much, it's too heavy. I do have a half liter Lexan bottle I tote water around in the house and in the car. I don't put hot things in it, but I know plenty of people who do. I prefer a thermos for long term heat retention, unless I'm on the trail.

I use a polyethylene bottle (cloudy plastic nalgene) on the trail. Polyethylene is just ethylene molecules all chained together in interesting configurations. No Bisphenol A. I still don't put hot things in it as it deforms with heat. I also use a platypus bladder, which I bet is also made with some sandwiched layers of plastic involving polyethylene. I don't put hot things in -it- either. The only thing that gets hot liquid is a plastic brown cup! Yeah, I'm not worried enough about leachates to carry an aluminum bottle or anything.

Freezer Bag Cooking uses bags that are made of variants of polyethylene sometimes in interesting sandwich layers. They shouldn't contain Bisphenol A, and they shouldn't leak much in any case.

Old water bottles, the crazy interview lady must be talking about the funny taste you sometimes get. The off taste you might get from polyethylene plastic bottles is acetaldehyde forming from the breakdown of polyethylene in sun + heat. It happens very very slowly and humans can taste incredibly small concentrations such as 20 parts per billion. It shouldn't be a concern.

Hey, since when did Yuppies care about "hurting their water'? These are the same people drinking who knows what at Starbucks.

The funny thing is, tap water is generally as safe, if not more so than any bottled water. I reuse my water bottles all the time and I have no idea if they are somehow killing me or not. I toss them into the recycle bin when they start to look a bit ragged.


btw,on Trailspace, there are a whole bunch of TNF jacket collectors who somehow wound up posting in the classified. The rest of us wonder what is so special about those old jackets. And no, it isn't hikers who are buying them . We've asked.

TomD
My wife still wears a goretex TNF Mountain light jacket - the first model. It must be 20 years old, zipper still perfect, infact besides a bit of color bleached out of the red, its like new.
Jim
P.S. It still works great as a breathable jacket. I wash and recoat it every 5 years os so.

Jim, I'm not knocking them, I have an old TNF jacket in my closet. No idea what model. It is Gore-Tex and plain blue. I took it to New Zealand, but never wore it much after that. It is too small for me. Not that I got bigger, I just bought the wrong size.

I also have a heavy Descente ski jacket. Rarely wear that either.

The collectors are looking for the old Steep Tech, RTG and Heli jackets and vests for the most part. Stuff ski patrollers used to wear as best I can figure out.

Most likely they have older tried and true TNF shells made prior to 2001. In 2001, YKK changed all their zippers due to issued with teeth damaging too easily. What this means is that a pre-2001 YKK zipper will only mate with a post-2001 YKK zipper on the left side. The right will not zip, which means if you have an older shell, you have to hunt down a 2001 or earlier Denali/Pumori/Salathe to zip into the interior.

I had the misfortune to work at REI in clothing in Fall 2001 and had many unhappy customers.

I guess what anoyed me most about the lady and the CBC interviewer was the "I'm not a scientist but" and yet she still spoke and they still interviewed her like she was some sort of expert, which she clearly was not. I will always be sceptical when news channels or the government is trying to get me to spend more money instead of doing their real job. If Nalgene is reasonably safe, then it seems to me that PET is even more reasonably safe. It is also lighter and cheaper and more readily available. The people that tell you not to use them more than once... they've sold out. Thrift is a virtue.

Reduce, RE-USE, Recycle ... and don't pay for water!

Bearpaw,
So my Denali is the same age as my old TNF mountain light. Still wear both of em. Haven't actually zipped em together since the first time just to try it... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Ah, but these are not hikers looking for them, remember?

For any one layering, zip-ins are a pain, but I know many in Nashville in the Casual-twice-a-year-ski-vacationer category that INSIST their shell and liner should zip together. One once informed me that to not do so was "tacky". She obviously knew a lot more about outdoor gear than I did.......

After all, The North Face sure caters to her needs, not mine. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> (Sorry Penny, TNF jackets are a sore point at my store.)

What amazes me is what runners wear. I would have thought a running store would be a great place to look for super light weight wind and rain suits. Apparently not so. Cheap light nylon is very hard to find, especially pants. As for skiers. What a bunch of pretentious losers. Even the snowboarders. They are even more pretentious and conforming than the skiers. Too funny really, because they are supposed to be the opposite. I use pretty much the same stuff no matter what the activity. I suppose in my own way I am just as bad. Otherwise it wouldn't bother me.

And I resemble that remark, and do it well....fellow curmudgeon here <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, I'll buy a copy of that BearPaw <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Keep up the good work, sell the yuppies all the gear we love to hate, and that leaves all the other stuff to go on clearence for us <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Jak,

I wouldn't worry about it. Its like most things nowadays, there is atleast one "expert" claiming its bad for you to get grant money to study it for the next 10 years, then need more grant money so they link it with something or another, kinda like how everything you can possibly do in your life nowadays "can cause cancer". <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I've poured hot water into many plastic containers, never bothered checking the type of plastic it is, and I'm not sick or dying cause of it. So there is no reason for me to stop doing it.

Dimitri

Being a (somewhat) young person, the term "curmudgeon" eluded me. Although a lot can be said by how the word is used, I still wanted to look it up, and see if it actually exists.

Here is from Merriam-Webster:

curmudgeon

Main Entry: cur·mud·geon
Pronunciation: \(&#716;)k&#601;r-&#712;m&#601;-j&#601;n\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1568
1archaic : miser
2: a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man
— cur·mud·geon·li·ness \-l&#275;-n&#601;s\ noun
— cur·mud·geon·ly \-l&#275;\ adjective


Nice..... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yep, that's right on the money, you smart alecky whippersnapper! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Excellent summary. Since this was posted MEC has pulled the Polycarbonate (Lexan) Nalgene bottles off their shelves because of the concern over Bisphenol A even in low doses. So let the discussion ensue. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

This is a concern for me because I use a Kelly Kettle and need to be able to pour rolling boil hot water into something, and I drink a lot of tea an like to carry it still hot while hiking. So I liked the Lexan even though it was heavy, but now that I understand all these plastics better ( I just taught a Materials Science so I finally got around to seperating my monomers from my copolymers and my cis and trans from my cis boom bah) I don't want to use Lexan in this way.

So what is the best water carrier if you want to pour boiling water into it? I understand some of aluminum flasks are coated in plastic. What's up with that? Some of the PET bottles hold up to boiling water reasonably well, but it might still be better to pour it into a metal cup or pot or flask first. I tested boiling water on a Poweraid. It held up fairly well but must have shrunk a bit because the lid doesn't fit as tight. Is there any way to make a corked flask out of an aluminum beverage can and re-inforce and insulate it on sides somehow?

Best/safest/lightest water bottle solutions for carrying boiling hot beverages?

Hey another Mat Sci guy. Good stuff.
I wold think that the HDPE Nalgenes would fit your criteria. Polyethelne is the same stuff that freezer bag, milk jugs are made out of, and so far is considered very safe. If you want to try a lighter/cheaper version, see if you can find a 1qrt/L HDPE milk jug and try that out. The melting point of PE is 115C so you should be fine with boiling water.

More stores pull Nalgene bottles from shelves...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/17/bisphenola-stores.html

I think our Leave No Trace philosophy has been seriously misplaced.
We should all spent our next 3 days 2 nights at a land fill.

So that's what they're saying to me.

But it isn't good for the ol' career.
OH, do I bite my tongue sometimes.

OK...so where will these bottles end up? In a landfill? Will the BPA leach into the groundwater and still get to us along with the hormones, drugs and who-knows-what?

Probably. All the more reason to stop making the stuff.

I just read that it is also found in dental sealants. Also CD's, DVD's, eyeglasses, food can liners, and other household items. So, either way, we will be ingesting the chemical whether or not a Lexan bottle is used maybe a few times a year when all these goods are dumped into a landfill...unless the landfill has a liner...which_might_be_made_of_BPA. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, but there are really two issues that each person needs to deal with. One is to reduce their personal intake by not carrying and drinking boiling hot tea etc. directly out of the stuff. The second is to stop putting it into the environment by consuming it for any purpose, because the environment is where it ends up. But just because there will always be some stuff out there is certainly no argument not to stop using Lexan Nalgene bottles. If you like to hike while drinking hot tea as I do they are really one of the worst possible applications for BPA, other than baby bottles.

For years they kept implying Lexan was the only safe plastic for hot beverages.
Now they say safe for their intended purpose, cold water only, more total BS.
If you just want them for cold drinks, why not some safer plastic like PP ???

Bottom line. Lexan Nalgene Water Bottles are NOT a safe product. They never were.

The ban has been long overdue, and is still dragging its feet. I don't want anything to do with the company or anyone that sells them. It drives me nuts to see how many are stocked on shelves everywhere, along with all the other plastic consumer junk. We gotta stop buying so much plastic. As outdoor and hiking enthusiasts, we should be the LAST group to be dragging our feet on this.

Bottom line. Less consuming. More Hiking.

So, what about the Platypus and MSR Dromlite and Cloudliner hydration systems. Does anyone know if they contain the dreaded BPA. I just looked at the lid on my new GSI Soloist cookpot and it is also made with BPA.

I police a University that has a professor that is one of the forerunners in this research. I use the white Nygene Bottles with the #2 on the bottom of it. The number 2 has a recycle symbol around it. Number 7 is the number that has the chemicals that those are concerned of.

I don't put hot water in my number 7 bottles, however there are studies that show that continuous washing can release the chemical.

But then again this comes from a hiker that is worried about getting cancer from a bottle yet I smoke...lol.


Tom

Here is a quick guide to the types of plastic, and which to avoid.

However, the problem not completely addressed on that site is that #7 is a mixed bag classification--items made of several different kinds of plastics or from a polycarbonate that is (allegedly) bisphenol-A free are still marked #7. So some #7's are fine and some are not!

I emailed Cascade Designs about their Platypus bottles (which I use) and got the following answer:



While their citing FDA regs does not particularly reassure me (the FDA's fault, not Cascade Designs), I'll take their word for it on the bisphenol-A.

Note that the old-fashioned Nalgene bottles--the cloudy kind that "give" a little when pressed--are made of #2 plastic, HDPE. You can still get baby bottles of HDPE, too. I'd rather trust them than glass with older infants who tend to throw the bottle across the room when they've finished.

I don't know if the earlier attempts at polycarbonate plastic contained bisphenol-A. I do know that when my kids were small, these items always cracked the first time they were dropped from a high chair or thrown across the room. Since my toddlers performed these consumer tests at every meal, their exposure to the stuff was quite minimal!

I'm a little more concerned about the use of BPA in dental sealants, although not enough to spend $15K replacing my current dental work....

I am usually a "whatever" person...and believe in bucking up and being flexible...not backing down. For years I was of the impression that I grew up consuming god knows what and that it must have made me super untouchable, strong in a martian manner, and able to resist all strains of everything. Remember playing with mercury? What was ever organic in the 70's? I am doubtful the past ten years has eradicated chemicals from my body... though I juice two times a year and eat WAY better than I ever did as a child! ...and I am NEVER sick. I am leaving my job with 2 months of sick time in the bank. If only I could convert them into vacation. sigh.

However...a new allergy study is coming out I hear, which is really giving me pause on my theory of our chemical induced super hero generation. Just why are there so many new, severe peanut/nut/egg etc allergies? A new study (not sure where I would find it, it was reported to me by a mother of a child with them) suggests that our particular generation (we are turning 40) were so exposed to so many chemicals in childhood, that they effected female and possibly male reproductive organs of this generation, and therefore pregnancies and the children who are born. Most of the surge is taking place at this time with current children in preschool. Just ten years ago it was not as bad...let alone when I first began teaching 20 years ago... wow...so dating myself. This does circumstantially add up from my experience working with kids...but of course that isn't science so who knows. I am not having children (though it was determined that it would be challenging for me ten years ago...and the use of fertility specialists have also spiked over the past decade...but that could be linked to so many other things I know), so it probably isn't a big deal for me. No breast cancer or the like in my family (instead, other fun genetic diseases ).

I still refuse to get carried away...I want to have water to drink...and coffee in the morning while I backpack...but if it is as easy as a number...what is the number bottle I want? 2? not 7s? I find numbers and chemical compounds... confounding. I need something clear and simple!

Look at the post above for that info. site.

This release on the Nalgene site last Friday:

Quote:

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (April 18, 2008) – In response to consumer demand, Nalgene® will phase out production of its Outdoor line of polycarbonate containers that include the chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) over the next several months, it announced today. Nalgene’s existing product mix, including the recently launched Everyday line, already features a number of containers made from materials that do not contain BPA.

“We have always been focused on responding to the needs and concerns of our customers,” said Steven Silverman, general manager of the Nalgene business. “With 10 different product lines in several different materials, we have the largest bottle offering on the market today. By eliminating containers containing BPA from our consumer product mix, our customers can have confidence that their needs are being met.”

That's the bad news. The good news, at least if you're Marijn Dekkers, the CEO of Thermo Fisher, parent of Nalgene, is that although he received compensation of only $3.3 million in 2007 (after receiving $19.8 million in compensation in 2006,) he was able to exercise stock options in 2007 that brought in another $65,000,000.00 to add to his income last year. Dekkers was able to exercise his stock options for as low as $19.67 apiece and then sold shares the same day for prices as high as $57.14.

Nalgene outdoor and its sports water bottles are just a small division of Thermo Fisher Scientific. The stock has been hanging around $56 before and after the announcement, and the ending of production of Nalgene's bisphenol-A bottles didn't earn a mention in current news on the corporate parent's site.

Interesting that Nalgene/Thermo Fisher announced this prior to the Canadian ban. (Nine US states are considering a similar ban.) Wonder when all the knock-off makers of Nalgene-type bottles will follow suit? How long will bisphenol-A bottles be on our shelves? And, since I'm a little confused, please tell me again how we know we're drinking from a bisphenol-A bottle right now?

What I find the most disturbing is not what my water bottles have or don't have in them, is what was in the plastic of baby bottles of warm formula my son used to drink when he was a baby.

But then again when I was a baby we used to be able to eat food with peanuts and egg in them, sat in highchairs and car seats, laid in cribs, and playpens painted with lead paint that are now considered death traps. (I still am the proud owner of a old Jarts "giant death dart" set.)

Tom

Being Cheap, I only bought the white Nalgene bottles made from what I believe is Polyethylene. They were half the price of the lexan ones and in my experience just as durable.

““In response to consumer demand, Nalgene® will phase out production …””

That about sums it up. No scientific reason. Just consumer reaction to Media scare. Bearpaw stated it well.

We get these alarms every day of our lives.
There is strong scientific support for the safeness of polycarbonate (that uses BPA). Humans excrete BPA fast; lab rats do not. The media will not tell you this.

Use polycarbonate all you want; wash it, boil it, microwave it. You are not going to overdose with BPA. There have been too many studies about this.

I will now start the new scare. Folks you heard it here first. Coffee has more toxicity than BPA. And this has been proven with humans! And to make it worse, drink hot coffee from a clear Nalgene bottle--- guaranteed physiological disorders, I tell you!

-Barry

I have to disagree.

Here we go.

The first class action lawsuit. Here's the part of the article I find most interesting:

"The lawsuit does not describe any physical ailment suffered by the plaintiffs and seeks unspecified damages."

The insidious nature of chemicals is that they can mess you up over long periods of time without you knowing.
The insidious nature of greed is that you end up weighing the cost of poisoning people vs the loss of revenues.
I am not sure hiding behind the "all knowing" government (FDA) is the best defense.

JAK:

Looks like concern with bisphenol A is heating up in the mainstream media. This video about stories in the Dallas Morning News tomorrow - 5/20/08 - about how to ID what's got BPA in it. Thing to remember, though, is that some manufacturers of cans and plastic bottles -- Nalgene's Everyday line as an example -- have already got the BPA's out of them.

I'd think a big concern would be what is the impact of this BPA scare on recycling -- our trust of recycled plastics, the viability of plastics recycling in the face of this, since if used in food containers we could just be reexposing ourselves to BPA's over and over. Plastics!

Oh to live in a Country that has the time to concern its self with how many parts per billion of Biphenol A One might ingest on a two week walkabout.

Does anyone remember the Alar pesticide frenzy of the 80s, or how public concern trumped scientific fact and bankrupted Dow Corning concerning silicone in breast implants (which are available again) Lets not forget DDT, bad science and Rachel Carsons book got it band in the 70s. Sure we've got a lot more Eagles now, (not connected to the DDT ban), but countless millions have died from malaria infected insect bites.

My point is, the Media has become judge, jury,and executioner for many of these type of public concerns. It has no time to wait for the science to confirm or disprove the initial headline. "Man made" global warming is just the most recent example. We are an impatient people, this fact has cost us dearly in the past.

Lets just take a deep breath shall we?

Sorry to answer your post this way, but I must:

Oh, to live in a country that has time to concern itself with how many parts per billion of Bisphenol A one might ingest on a two-week walkabout – or to concern itself with how many parts per TRILLION of dioxin one might encounter on a day hike, since a few parts per trillion of dioxin will cause some seriously bad health effects that include death.

Does anyone remember the Fen-phen diet craze of the ‘90s, or how "public concern" didn’t help the stock price of American Home Products (later called WYETH) when “they” (NOT the “Media”) -- they being “public concern,” I guess – reported in Mayo Clinic studies of heart-valve disease in women who took the drug? Reluctantly, the FDA “requested” the withdrawal of the drug for obesity in September of 1997. BTW, there are an estimated $14 billion in liability claims in Fen-phen lawsuits – and before you point at the lawyers for getting rich, try to think of all those women with damaged aortic and mitral valves in their hearts who are plaintiffs in those suits.

Let’s not forget THALIDOMIDE (C13H10N2O4), where it was “good” science that got it banned in the early ‘60s before even more babies were born without arms or legs. Here was a drug that was prescribed to women with morning sickness that caused their babies to be born without arms or legs. ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE. Aren’t you glad we ARE an impatient people?? Or how many more would have been born without limbs? (Imagine how many more could have been born WITH their limbs if we had been MORE impatient.)

This fact – our impatience – has SAVED COUNTLESS LIVES, and saved countless others from being victims of “bad science” sold to us with insufficient safeguards that end in the lawsuits that some of us apparently feel are wrong. You market a bad product, get rich off the IPO and your stock splitting, and then can’t face the fallout when you get sued? I have NO pity for you. Sure, we’ve got all those pregnant women still having to deal with morning sickness that can't take Nibrol (thalidomide), but then countless millions of babies have been born with two arms and two legs.

I’m CERTAINLY not sure how this collective ogre labeled the “MEDIA” is responsible for any of the bans or even the questioning of dangerous products in the recent past. The “Media” you describe is now but a few corporations who try to earn a profit by wrapping an innocuous few words or seconds in the guise of an article or TV show around what really matters – ads and commercials. The last thing they EVER WANT TO DO is p-ss off or anger the other corporations who provide them with their income and profits. Basically, almost all news or “news-type-shows” are simply reading the press releases or doing voice-overs for the clips provided by the corporations who produce products that we, as consumers, hoped they would spend the time and money to investigate. Face it, the 4th estate is virtually dead in America. (B4U think I'm corporaphobic, I realize they are what they are -- not just Exxon and Wyeth, but these entities that we created to insulate the investors behind them from being personally sued.)

Give me a break. The only reason you EVER heard about Bisphenol A is because the consumer watchdogs that some of us support did the research that questioned what kind of crap we were putting our crystal-clear (and expensive) water in. It WAS NOT the “Media” – they simply ran the watchdog’s press release (like they do all others) because it was, well, it was CHEAP and certainly more interesting than that endless drivel that they run that’s provided by those few corporations huckstering their questionably dangerous products. (Who do you think shoots all those plastic surgery bits you see on every local news show in their “Medical Segment”? The Media? ‘Fraid not. It is hand-delivered to them by the ones making $$ off those frivolous and often questionable surgical procedures.)

Next time you feel sorry for Wyeth or another pharmaceutical taking some heat, then click here to see the 56 pages of products banned by the FDA, which day-by-day, as more and more money flows from the corporations who are supposed to be regulated by it (now to the tune of $200 million a year), might be less and less willing to even “request” that a dangerous product be pulled from the consumer (that’s you-'n-me) market. Meridia (sibutramine), ephedra, Serzone, statins -- a few of the drugs that are being scrutinized, yet still are hidden under a veil of FDA legitimacy.

I’m taking a deep breath here, and I promise that I’ll spend all my remaining breaths to support and fight for those dwindling few who question that admittedly small percentage of questionable products that continues to be foisted on us to make a quick buck.

Ever since I read about that first defective wooden spoke on the early automobile, I’ve always felt we should ere on the side of the consumer. Isn’t that the safer route for us, who they've defined simply as consumers? Isn't the BIGGER problem our impatience in making a buck by rushing unsafe products to market? Or to reluctantly shut off the money flow from what is determined to be an unsafe product.? Don't be poo-pooing the concerns over bisphenol-A just yet . . .

(Wild isn't it that I'm no lawyer, have no vested interest in those questioning Bisphenol A, and only just wonder what it is I'm drinking and maybe why so many are jumpin' on those who wonder too.)

I didn't know malaria was in the USA. Thank you for clearing up that misconception of mine. Unless, of course, you are referring to malaria found in the Third World countries that we alone should find a way to iradicate it. As if we alone have the ability to do this. As if we alone in this world should take full responsibilty to cure the ills of the world. Give me abreak as well. Do you know for a fact that some university or research center in this country isn't working on iradicating malaria? Are other countries?

wow. you have enlightened me so much. Oh to live in this country...yes, thank you very much.

Kevon,
(topic drift)
I greatly admire the way you write. In fact there are few people on this board that write as well (me being at the bottom of the list). There are 3 people on this board, that if they write for Backpacking Magazine, I would read it more (you being one). Anyway…

I like to listen to consumer watchdogs. When they bring up an issue, then I also want all the science that has been done on it. Since this is the BPA topic, I will use that as an example. I see all this data on lab rats. But I want to know “what does it do on humans?”. But our American media (and I mean collectively) won’t report any of the extensive findings that were actually done on humans (at least I haven’t seen a report). I don’t appreciate watchdogs giving a scare on rat results, w/o more tests done on humans. And they are in. There has been extensive human research. And I’m shocked that Europe will publish this since they tend to the liberal side. And this has been out a while.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620772817.htm

-Barry

That was an interesting report, Barry, but even the EFSA is rethinking its findings in that study released in Jan of '07.

This from May 7th at vitabeat.com:

EU Mulls Banning Baby Bottle Chemical Bisphenol A
May 7, 2008 -
The European Union's food safety watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), may review the chemical bisphenol A, which is used in the manufacture of plastic baby bottles, after Canada banned the substance.

"EFSA is aware of the studies on bisphenol published in the United States and Canada. The agency will examine whether it should review its opinion on this product, which dates from January 2007," spokeswoman Anne-Laure Gassin said.

The Canadian government announced in April that it was seeking public comment on whether to ban baby bottles made using bisphenol, considered "potentially harmful." BPA is still permitted for use in food contact materials in EU, Japan and the United States. A US government report last month also found that bisphenol A could endanger reproductive health and the nervous system. EFSA is also expected to issue its latest stance on BPA.

EFSA said in its January 2007 risk assessment that a daily intake of 0.05 milligrams of bisphenol A per kilogram of body weight was tolerable, and that this amount was much greater than that ingested by infants in an average day.

Perhaps the cumulative effects of all that we ingest that has leached some BPA is what is the new concern, especially for infants and children. And one other note: some of the studies that have shown how "safe" polycarbonates and BPA are have been funded by the Polycarbonate / BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council. If we had relied on the smoking & health effects studies churned out by scientists on the payroll of Big Tobacco, things would be quite different today. We'd probably have a thread on My Favorite Trailside Smokes on this forum. (Interesting article on BPAs in Feb. Scientific American here.)

Kevon,
Good SA article. They point out both sides. Several extensive tests have been conducted. Since adults tested immune to BPA (so far-- after only 40+ years) they are now going after infants.

Maybe that’s why breast-fed babies are healthier than bottle-fed! How’s that for a trolling statement Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />?

-Barry

I guess I will have to evoke an emotional response after that troll. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

So, that statement got me thinking....Now that I am at the age were most of my siblings, and my wife's siblings, and many of our friends are at the stage in life were they want to get pregnant, it seems there are many who are having problems getting pregnant. My wife and I have no problems, we look at each other funny across the room, and 9 months later the stork shows up with a surprise. But, my sister, and my wife's sisters have all had difficulty. We could also look at the number of women searching out fertility clinics. Is it rising? In my non-researched, non-fact based observation, I see the affluent needing more fertility services while the poor don't seem to have any problem popping them out. Is this because the wealthy generally bottle-feed and the poor breast feed, which in turn is related to BPA? Something to think about. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Just a couple of random comments - on animal studies, they can give much higher doses than they can to humans, so if there are problems with the substance being studied, it will show up much sooner in the animal studies than in the human ones.

Regarding the infertility question, there's also the phenomenon (as I see it anyway) that the more affluent tend to have their children later, which gets increasingly difficult for biological reasons. (Not to rule out the chances of effects of bottle vs breast feeding, though, on fertility or many other things.)

Why so quick to say it's the women having trouble concieving? One thing I know they have documented is that sperm counts and viability in humans has been going down. by a lot. Could be
pollution, could be environment, could be all that backpacking and knocking 'em around slathered
in body glide to keep 'em from chafing - or heck could even be all that tea drinking out of a nalgene bottle. Short answer is they don't know *why* in general it's dropping, but it is.

An interesting line in that Scientific American[/i] article was that when the polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins made from the chemical are exposed to hot liquids, BPA leaches out 55 times faster than it does under normal conditions.

Tea drinkers should be aware of what they're heating their tea in, and others of what their drinking their hot coffee from.

I stopped eating chicken with hormones etc. But I had a vasectomy when I was in my mid twentys. I didn't want any more children. But it's funny that I keep trying to make babies anyway. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Sorry to refresh an old thread but this is something I have to do a little rant on.

I saw that Nalgene now makes the "Everyday" line BPA free. On the store shelves the new line of bottles the new bottles cost 10 bucks.

They still have the old ones on the shelves with BPA for 8 bucks.

A) Why would they still have the old bottles for sale?

B) Why would they charge more (a little more, but still messed up), for a bottle that does not have the potential for harming you?

Oh wait, I already know the answer...greed.


Tom

Nalgene isn't making the store sell their old stock. Ask the store manager why they haven't complied with the recall.

This from yesterday's Washington Post article about a sweeping new European Union law that will require testing of products considered possibly harmful:

In the United States, laws in place for three decades have made banning or restricting chemicals extremely difficult. The nation's chemical policy, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals then in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report toxicity information to the government, which would decide if additional tests were needed.

In more than 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals, a fraction of the 80,000 chemicals that are part of the U.S. market. The government has had little or no information about the health hazards or risks of most of those chemicals.

The story is here.

We don't test "old products" in new ways because they're grandfathered in. We don't pull products from shelves that might be deemed unsafe, since what were supposedly governmental regulatory agencies now "ask" or "suggest" that the products be pulled, making it "voluntary."

So they discount the suspect products on the dollar stores' and big-box retailers' shelves, ship the remainder to our foreign, poorer neighbors, where we can study the effects of the possibly carcinogenic or harmful chemicals on our nation's or the world's poor.

It was a great system for maximizing profits, but that new EU law might really hurt that bottom line.

So, what is safe anymore? I'm certainly not a chemist. I rely on media information that is probably misleading at best. I loaded my nalgean bottle with ice and tea to take with me. I drank it and left the bottle (forgot it) but it will stay till it hits the trash. You believe none of what your told and only half of what you see.

OK, I’ll play along.

“A) Why would they still have the old bottles for sale?”

There will be no recall if they are safe to use. After years of extensive testing they have not proved harmful to humans—only to lab rats. Thus, they have a lifetime of proven human safety. Do not use these for your hamsters though!

“B) Why would they charge more (a little more, but still messed up), for a bottle that does not have the potential for harming you?”

Because BPA plastic is cheaper to produce (at least for clear). Plus we don’t know if the new plastics will harm us yet since they haven’t been through 40+ years of trial like BPA has.

We have a classic liberal scare. We’ve had scares throughout history and we will continue to have them. For example, ban Freon and use R14 instead. The replacement is more expensive and requires more energy to use and, in the end, it didn’t affect mother earth’s ozone <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />. This is funny to me because now we produce more liberal’s CO2 because of that specific ban.

There will always be scientists on both sides of the alley. Which ones do you listen too? I always like the adage “the proof is in the pudding.” A scientist starts out with a theory and then does extensive testing to see if the theory is wrong or right. I like to look at results and methods of all tests-- instead of relying on the media to interpret the results <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

The media keeps saying ‘test it again!’, ‘test it again!’, and the FDA will continue to do extensive testing again and again on BPA. Oh well; pacify the masses.

-Barry

So I guess I'm going with answer "C" Greed.

kevonionia has some important info. I'm no where close to as smart as him <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The store is Dick's (properly named <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />). I am kind of ashamed to admit to shop there, but I really don't feel like driving across town to a backpacking outfitter to pay the same price, maybe a buck or two cheaper for a water bottle.

I use my water bottle everyday on and off duty.

I take these "scares" seriously (thanks to kevon's info), and some of the info on BPA from a professor at the University I work at. I have a two year old, and to think I was possibly releasing BPA to my son when he was a infant with his bottles makes me sick to my stomach.

He used Playtex bottles years ago. I'm kinda afraid to research to see if they contained BPA or not. It really doesent matter much at this point if it did because turning back time is an option I seem not to have at the moment.

So lori (and everyone else), if you have a Dick's store and they are selling the old bottles call them out on it. They will probably not give a crap. The one near me didn't.


Tom