I find this little water purifier intriguing. I'm also making the switch from plastic water bottles in the backcountry to the stainless steel Kleen Kanteens that I have been using at home for the past 4-5 years.

In watching Steripen's video demo though, I'm wondering if the narrow mouth (compared to the wide mouthed Nalgene in the video) of the Kleen Kanteen is wide enough to get the Steripen deep enough inside?

Assuming the Steripen fits, I'm also wondering if its lamp is strong enough to be tapping against the insides of the steel Kleen Kanteen? While in therory, the lamp wouldn't have to touch the bottles inside but with so little room in this case, I think it would be inevitable in such confines.

Any first hand input from Steripen users?

BTW. I'm aware of all my other purifying options so no need to suggest Aqua Mira or iodine tabs and such.:-)

Thanks.

I have used a Steripen Adventurer for about 1 1/2 years now and really like it unless the water is really murky; for murky water I use a MSR Sweetwater with a prefilter.

For stirring water with the Steripen, I use the cut off bottom of a 2 liter pop bottle. I have 0.5 and 1.0 liter levels marked on the side of the bottle bottom. I fill it to the appropriate level, start the pen and start stirring. The open top of the container gives one plenty of room for stirring, the rim can be pinched into a pouring spout when needed and the bottle bottom weighs less than an ounce. The bottle bottom fits neatly over the top of my rolled Prolite 3.

I tried to get a good stirring action with a wide mouth Nalgene Lexan bottle and wasn't satisfied (heavy bottle and hard to stir) so I went to this pop bottle arrangement. Since I have never had a failure with a plastic pop bottle as a water container, I continue to use them in preference to metal. In my opinion, there is the potential for heavy metal contamination of water when using a stainless container.

> In my opinion, there is the potential for heavy metal contamination of water when using a
> stainless container.

Uh, no. But there's plenty of potential for that heavy metal container to contaminate your pack.

Stainless steel contains, in addition to iron, chromium, nickel and possibly molybdenum; some of them in the 10% to 20% range. Any of these could easily leach out of the container walls and contaminate your water. Small amounts of these elements won't hurt you and, in fact, are required in trace amounts for synthesis of enzymes and hormones in our bodies. The only problem with stainless is that the amount of these elements that you get from leaching of the container is uncontrolled. This leaching is probably not a major problem but personally, I would rather get my trace elements in my food or in vitamins than from a water bottle. Having said that, I must admit that I carried my coffee in a stainless steel thermos for somewhere around 40 years and I'm still kicking. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

.. nevermind that who knows what sort of stuff we get in trace amounts from plastic.. (including the plastic pop bottle).

My solution is simple. if it isn't gonna kill me quickly, and only kills rats in large doses, I don't worry about it. I just assume the modern world is slowly poisoning me, and there's nothing I can do about it.

I do a similar thing as Pika with my Steripen Adventurer. Keep in mind that it's not important to store your water in the same container you sterilize it in. Sterilize the water in some convenient and lightweight container and then pour it into whatever you use to drink from. If you think about it that's really the only way to use a Steripen with a Platypus or other hydration bladder right?

I carry a Tupperware-type container with a volume of a bit over a quart (call it a liter). The real reason I carry it is to use as a cozy when rehydrating my food. I add boiling water to my bag, seal the bag, and drop in in this container and screw the lid on. It holds the heat quite well so that my food cooks better. It never touches the food directly. I also use it to carry my stove, matches, and fuel. When I come to a water source I take this stuff out, fill it with water, use the Steripen, and then pour the water into the container I'm actually going to drink from.

You're absolutely correct that "the modern world is slowly poisoning" us. That we can not eliminate. BUT, we can minimize it by arming ourselves with awareness.

Also, this is directed more to the general audience rather than you Phat, but acute poisoning and how much of something will cause cancer isn't so much the focus any more. It's what these contaminates do to us in chronic low dosage exposures and how they react when combined with other chemicals (those things happen to everyone everyday. Acute poisoning is rare). I'm referring to the undermining of the immune system and in our offspring, deficits in IQ, delayed neuromuscular development and neurobehavioral effects, to name just a few ramifications. The implications are scary. If you like to read, check out Our Stolen Future, co-authored by Cleo Colborn.

At any rate, thanks for your post!:-)

Thanks for the helpful replies, everyone!

Steripens, as you've discovered, aren't ideal for tall, narrow-mouth containers. The little mUV from Meridian Design will act as a plug for a "standard" plastic water bottle opening, allowing for simple inversion to mix the water--very handy. I'm not familar with your metal container, so can't comment on whether it would work in that fashion with one.

Whatever container you use, you need to be able to create consistent agitation while treating to ensure good results. Without effective water mixing, UV is not the answer for you.

The key word is "easily." These metals aren't particularly soluble in water and thus, aren't bioavailable. That's why stainless can be used to store all sorts of nasty things.

Of course, saying "stainless steel" is about as specific as saying "meat," since there are thousands of types. Food-grade stainless is formulated to not dissolve.

Of course toys aren't designed to deliver lead either, so it behooves us to patronize manufacturers we trust.

Did you know that most metal water bottles have a plastic coating inside? You might want to check your water bottle.

Some plastics are safer than others. Here is a quick guide. The big furore right now is over polycarbonate (#7) items, the clear hard stuff used in the newer Nalgenes. The old style (#2) Nalgenes are quite safe. That's the only kind I have, although I have them only for my dog (because they're tough enough that when my dog bashes his pack into a tree or rock the bottles come out unharmed).

I'm not going to carry the weight of metal bottles or give up freezer bag cooking without a lot more hard evidence. On the other hand, I do try to avoid the suspect plastic types.

There are a number of cases in which plastic (such as the plastic lining of food cans) is probably safer than the alternative, which is the acidic food leaching metals out of the cans.

Question--Platypus bottles: The Platypus Hydration website doesn't say what type of plastic the inner liner is, just that it's "food grade," and there are no numbers on the bottles. Does anyone here know what plastic type the liner is? IF nobody here has this info already, I'll try to contact Platypus and post back. Thank you!

Hi OregonMouse,

Thanks for your post. Questions for you though...and anyone else who cares to chime in. Keeping my eyes and ears peeled, I have noticed that many people (majority perhaps) have similar responses to yours in regards to this and related topics. They want "more hard evidence" before making a lifestyle change. Where will this "evidence" need to come from? How much "evidence" have you seen? And, where are you currently getting your "evidence"?

As a parallel example, many are under the assumption that chemicals in general are safe if they have made it through the regulatory process and into commerce. Yet, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been stating since 1980 that the chemical regulatory process is ineffectual (millions of our tax dollars have helped fund innumerable pages of these report cards). On top of that is mounting scientific evidence that is painting a very bleak and disturbing picture. However, in the 20 yrs I have taken a special interest in the topic, I infrequently see mention in mainstream media...and don't ever recall seeing any mention of what the GAO has been saying all these yrs.

There's more information out there than there is time to read it. I can only assume though that because it is not a "hot" or regular topic in mainstream media, people will not take it too seriously....perhaps due to not wanting to make a change in their lifestyle. Thoughts, anyone?

I hope these questions aren't construed as being negative or otherwise argumentative. I'm genuinely curious and as interested in the psychology as I am the physical side of this.

Thanks.

I've done a lot of searching on the internet and have yet to find any real scientific data about the plastic issue. There's a lot of anecdotal information out there, with vague references (but no actual literature citations!) to "studies" and "evidence." Anecdotes are not data! If you have found some hard scientific data on plastics in scientific studies out there, please post the references--I'd very much like to read them!

Life is full of risks. In fact, living itself is 100% fatal because the one of the certain things about life is that all of us will die! (The other certain thing, of course, was very much in evidence when I visited the post office this afternoon.... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> ) Many of these risks have to be offset: witness the example I cited earlier of the risks of plastic linings of food cans vs. the risks of metal corrosion from acidic substances in unlined cans. All plastics are not dangerous. Some plastics appear to be, although I haven't seen any real data or even citations of scientific studies. Some of the alternatives to plastic may be more dangerous than the plastics--or they may not be. I have to weigh the risks of using plastics and other petroleum-based products (what is silnylon doing to us?) against no longer being able to backpack because my gear is too heavy (the borderline gets closer every year). Giving up backpacking means that I probably won't exercise enough (no motivation) and, given my family history, will die of good old-fashioned heart disease.

I think that most people realize that government regulatory agencies are a sham. Just in the past few weeks we've had the FDA, the USDA and now the FAA exposed as ineffective or venal (in the pockets of the industries they're supposed to regulate) or both. And of course all regulatory agencies operate under a contradictory patchwork (full of holes) of laws passed by Congress, many of them antiquated in today's environment. And the more these agencies try to regulate, the more ridiculous they get (will someone please tell me why the difference of 1/4" between ties bundling the wires in airplane wheel wells is a safety hazard?). Not that the absence of regulation is the answer, either, as those of us who have studied history and American Literature (the muckrakers) are well aware. Unfortunately many of the laws governing government regulatory agencies were passed back at the time of the muckrakers (early 1900's).

I've long since learned not to believe everything I see on the internet or in the more traditional media (garbage in, garbage out, and there's lots of that commodity going around). As I get older I get more and more skeptical about most things, especially claims based on computer modeling (a real opportunity for garbage) or a few preliminary studies. I've also seen "scientific" fads come and go, especially in the medical and health area where things seem to go from one extreme to the other. Just one small example: when I was a baby, solid foods were supposed to be withheld until the baby was 6 months old--supposedly young infants couldn't digest solid food. When my children came along, I was scolded by several pediatricians for not starting solid food as soon as baby and I went home from the hospital. When I became a grandmother, I discovered that the "experts" were back to forbidding solid food until six months, stating that young infants don't digest solid food. I have no idea what the truth of the matter is---my children and grandchildren both thrived under the opposing regimens (more anecdotal evidence)--but these extreme changes back and forth are awfully hard on intergenerational relations!

I've decided that common sense and moderation are probably the best guides. So I try to find a middle ground between hiding my head in the sand and succumbing to panic every time some minor, inconclusive study says that we are killing ourselves with this or that. I've already noted that I try to avoid the plastics considered as possibly harmful.

You enjoy the plastic cap (#5) and the extra weight of your Kleen Kanteen, and I'll continue to hike along with my much lighter Platypus bottles, unless I find out that they are made of one of the supposedly "nasty" plastics. Oh, our water filters are made mostly of plastic, too, as is the housing of your Steripen. And who knows what that UV light is releasing into your water! Given my history of nasty reactions to chemical disinfectants, though, I don't have much choice. Of course I could always catch giardiasis, but I'd really rather not. Friends who've had it have told me that it won't kill you but makes you wish it would!

Please do post whatever references you have to scientific journal articles on the plastics issue!

OregonMouse,

Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful reply! Hope I didn't offend or hit a nerve in any way. Wasn't my intent.

As far as references, I don't know if this will be of help/interest to you but Our Stolen Future website has what I believe to be the most up to date and credible literature available. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/ Look under "Read about the latest scientific results and what they mean" centered in the main page. The book was very enlightening too, IMHO.

rusty

BTW. It might be worth mentioning that Klean Kanteen also sells stainless caps. I know, just more weight....and I dislike every extra carried ounce as much as anyone. Besides my strong philosophical and health concerns though, I'm wanting to use stainless in the backcountry to better satisfy my ultra sensitive taste buds. I'll just figure out a way to shave the extra few ounces else where in my load.

OregonMouse and I share the skeptical view of this. Rumors about plastics have floated about in the media and online for years. I get panicked emails from friends all the time - "I'm throwing away my plastic containers!" - and it's usually a rehash of a message that started ten years ago and just won't die. Like the Johns Hopkins email claiming that scientists there said there were dioxins that cause cancer when you cook with plastic. That was false. Then there are other emails about freezing water bottles, or leaching bisphynol A (however you spell it) that sound about the same - it makes me wonder why anyone believes anything read in email.

Did you know that teflon when overheated causes a documented respiratory difficulty known as the teflon flu in people? did you know that it kills pet birds in unknown and underreported numbers because people don't widely know that and think Polly just keeled over one day? I know this. Veterinarians have verified this, from the few people who bother to take little feathered corpses to find out what went wrong. It's alarming when your ten parakeets all drop dead at the same time; people want to know why before the cockatiels in the aviary start dropping too. But you don't get emails circulating about it. I don't own a teflon pan because not only do I value my parrots, I value my lungs and my paid time off. Nor do I own a space heater, which frequently contain teflon coated elements. This isn't paranoia; DuPont has an article on its own website about teflon flu. They won't cop to the problem of killing birds, however. You want to be paranoid, read on and follow a few links. There's a whole lot more documentation about teflon than I've ever seen on plastic. How do you know if there's teflon? Anything labeled non-stick that isn't silicone, that's teflon, sometimes under a different brand name (which is what Teflon really is, just a brand name). It's another chemical that's everywhere you don't know to look, yet it's really dangerous.

However - you'll have to give me some backup on the notion that plastic is dangerous. I'm willing to believe veterinarians who say people's healthy parrots died of respiratory issues caused by the chemicals given off by teflon in their new carpet, their space heater, their curling iron, their nice new frypan left on the burner too long, or even microwave popcorn bags - birds are pretty sensitive critters when it comes to chemicals. I'd be willing to buy into the notion of plastic being probably dangerous if there was SOMETHING other than rumor, but there just isn't. Where are all the sick people who used plastics all their lives? Why aren't they in the hospital next to the smokers with emphysema? Why am I not suffering somehow because mama used plastic bottles to feed me formula - instead of breastfeeding, gasp!

I think that the toxins in the environment that affect us the most are directly linkable to the manufacture of things like Teflon and plastic. Not that anything will ever change that so long as the Big Corporations can give the politicians money.

And to be back on topic, no, I don't use a nonstick pan while backpacking, either.

Lori,

I fully understand what you're saying in regards to all the silly panicky emails. However, there's a big difference between that and legitimate peer reviewed scientific research.

Take a close look at the literature in the link I provided above.



Classic questions and remarks. There is no possible way I or anyone else could convey, in a single post here, what an entire book is dedicated to. There's far more to this than a pin-pointable acute sickness. If you are interested and think there could possibly be more to learn than what you may have read on "Urban Legends" and in a few other paragraphs here and there on the Web, I would highly recommend taking the time to read the book, Our Stolen Future. At the very least, go to their web site and take more than a cursory look. Read the "Book Basics" and check out their credentials, etc, etc. That would be a start and provide more of a basis for an opinion.

With regards,
rusty

While on the subject, the New York Times ran an article just today stating that Canada was ready to label BPA as "toxic". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/business/worldbusiness/16plastic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This comes in 20 yrs after it was accidentally discovered by scientists at Stanford University School of Medicine that BPA leached from containers (they found a substance contaminating their tests and traced it back to polycarbonate lab flasks they were using) and 11 yrs after Our Stolen Future reported it and subsequent findings implicating it to a host of health concerns.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

“Where are all the sick people who used plastics all their lives?”

It’s sad, but it’s that simple.
We ingest AT LEAST 1,000 times more natural carcinogens daily than man-made chemicals. That’s why NIH is approaching BPA cautiously as there is more important carcinogens to look at.

But if you want to go along with this line of thinking, shouldn’t we prioritize which is the worse carcinogen and work on banning that first? Let’s start with smoking, alcohol, coffee, and then coke. Those have much deadlier effects than BPA (especially when tested on mice!).

Rusty,
About your “Our Stolen Future website” reference--- only uses anecdotal evidence about humans and shows only scientific evidence on rats. You can’t correlate rats/mice with humans. The correlation factor is all over the map; it could be 1,000,000; it could be 1.

Don’t worry about stepping on toes. This is actually good questions that should be brought up <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. And that’s why NIH has been studying it for a while.

-Barry

Barry,

You and many others are still thinking and talking about "carcinogens" and cancer. BPA is an endocrine disrupting chemical, a contaminate that can change how one functions due to exposure during embryogenesis. And while the evidence may be "anecdotal" in the sense that this has only been proven in mice, it is still very scientific (antonym of anecdotal is unscientific). And, correlations can be made between mice and humans. The "effects found in mice are highly predictive of effects found in people" (OSF) and that is why they are used in studies, not because those wearing white lab coats find them cute and cuddly.

I am no scientist. I can however listen to what they are saying. And I hear them loud and clear. In the whole scope of things, not much is known about these toxins. The implications being discovered, however, paint a bleak and disturbing picture. I really like this quote, on chemicals, by Don Wigle, past Health Canada epidemiologist: "We should not be arrogant or ignorant. Arrogant in the sense that we think we know a lot about the significance of these contaminants, or ignorant in not admitting what we don't know. And there's a lot we don't know."

An interview w/ Theo Colborn, co-author of Our Stolen Future can give a great deal of insight.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/interviews/colborn.html



Thanks! I do worry though as I don't have the time to convey my thoughts on this subject in the manner I'd prefer. My intent is to stimulate peoples thinking...to bring more awareness by goading them to read, something that is a vanishing past-time. http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html See, there I go.....ha;-)

I have read that coffee is the most consumed and the most studied beverage on the planet (besides water). No study has identified a correlation between coffee consumption and any significant health risks. People with heart arrhythmia do need to be careful of consuming caffeine, but that is about all that has been found.

To the contrary, several potential health benefits have been demonstrated. A possible reduction of Alzheimer's risk comes to mind. Article

Well, coffee has hydrogen peroxide and methylglyoxal both of which are carcinogens.

Is it enough to ‘hurt’ us? Maybe as much as BPA! Sorry Rusty; I’m just having fun with this.

-Barry

Coffee is supposed to be good for you - keeps you from turning into a diabetic.

The problem a lot of us have is in the quantities - too much water will kill you, too. So will not enough water. The thing about chemistry, some substances are poisons, like alcohol or botox, yet in moderate amounts they are perfectly tolerable without long term ill effects. We use poisons all the time, to treat things like heart disease. Too much ibuprofen kills your ilver. Too much chronic alcohol use turns your brain into swiss cheese and gives you Wiernecke's Syndrome (probably didn't spell that right). Aspartame is supposedly easily broken down at 80-90F temps into chemistry that causes tumors in rats and formaldihyde - if your diet soda loses its sweetness, that's probably what's happened. I stopped using it because it gave me headaches and because I stopped drinking soda altogether. it's either good ol' cane sugar, or nothing - I rarely succumb to the lure of things containing high fructose corn syrup.

All things in moderation. I sincerely doubt I will suffer lasting harm because I have been using a polycarb container to drink coffee six times a year on a camping trip. (The other camping trips I used my mug from REI that's straight up plastic.)

Also, wow, we are off topic.

I'll pass on cyanide in moderation...

So if you end up in the ER needing a rapid decrease in blood pressure, you'll be wearing a medi-alert that says no cyanide?

You'll also be skipping your Vitamin B12.

lori -
concerning your comments on Teflon, I just want to stress that Teflon is only dangerous when heated to a decomposition point. Otherwise Teflon is a very inert product that reacts with very little (on of the reasons it makes such great no-stick) to the point that it is one of the best materials for medical implants.

As with most of these things, we need to be more careful about where we apply these materials. For instance, maybe polycarbonate with BPA should not be used in water bottles, but theres no reason we can't still use it affectively as hockey glass.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes down. I think one of the reasons that the BPA has gotten so much traction in the media is that it is/was very trendy to carry your water around in a PC bottle every day, not just a couple of times a year when you hit the trail. Every day exposure can be a very different deal.