Boiling water in Nalgene bottle?

[Disney]

I was once told that putting boiling water in a Nalgene (not using the bottle to boil water) actually does something to the bottle itself and causes some nasty chemical to come off into the water. Sounds like a bit of a fib to me. Does anyone know something either way?

[Appalachian Tater]

Nalgene products can be autoclaved, so they can stand at least 121 degrees Centigrade.

[speedy]

The radio waves from the guy's cell phone in the car next to you will give you cancer before your Nalgene. Polycarbonate is about as inert as plastics get. Drink your coffee without fear. Repeatedly putting boiling water in Nalgenes (usually about 200 times) can cause them to crack around the lid. This is caused from physical expansion and contraction rather than any sort of chemical reaction. :D speedy

[Green Bean]

The radio waves from the guy's cell phone in the car next to you will give you cancer before your Nalgene.


Nice. ~GB

[Toolshed]

There was an article about a year or so ago about traces of chems coming off the Lexans, but they were miniscule IIRC.
Not anything that I would be worried about - mean look at me I have been boiling water and storring them in my Nalgenes for years when winter camping and there's nothing wrong with me nothing wrong with me nothing wrong with me

[BlackCloud]

I am not a scientist. I consulted my phone a friend reisdent genius who works @ Duke Univ. When he speaks science, it's fact, so please don't make yourself look silly by disagreeing:

Nalgene products can be autoclaved, so they can stand at least 121 degrees Centigrade.

Autoclaving is a process of sterilizing that subjects the object to relatively high temperatures. This is generally done with steam so the temperature is always greater than boiling point of water (212F or 100C). This statement is saying that they can be autoclaved without damage. If you try this with a polyethylene container (milk jug type) it would come out severely distorted/melted. Polycarbonate melts at ~310F.

Polycarbonate is about as inert as plastics get.
No. Polycarbonate is an extremely strong and tough plastic but it is not chemically inert. Many solvents will attack it, and it susceptible to UV damage from the sun. Generally the most chemically inert plastics would be Teflon’s, polyethylene, or polypropylenes. Under certain conditions these can still react with other chemicals but you would never run across such conditions in daily life. All are still susceptible to UV damage.

The brand name for polycarbonate is Lexan or Makrolon and is commonly called bullet proof glass.

[speedy]

Whoohoo, I'm the first one that gets to look silly. :jump Well, not really. I agree with pretty much everything you said. My statement regarding the inertness of polycarb was somewhat hyperbolus. I tend to work with the "dirtier" plastics in fabrication and polycarb is quite inert compared to some of them. PTFE (teflon) definitly takes the cake on that one.

One option is the white nalgene bottles (http://www.rei.com/online/store/ProductDisplay?storeId=8000&catalogId=40000008000&productId=457&parent_category_rn=5760748). They're HDPE which is safer at lower temps, but starts to "melt" right above 230 or so. For boiling water, I'd stick with the clear ones, but then again, I'd go to wearing a tin foil hat to keep the aliens away before I'd worry about this anymore. :D speedy

[ARambler]

I am not a scientist. I consulted my phone a friend reisdent genius who works @ Duke Univ. When he speaks science, it's fact, so please don't make yourself look silly by disagreeing:

Nalgene products can be autoclaved, so they can stand at least 121 degrees Centigrade.

Autoclaving is a process of sterilizing that subjects the object to relatively high temperatures. This is generally done with steam so the temperature is always greater than boiling point of water (212F or 100C). This statement is saying that they can be autoclaved without damage. If you try this with a polyethylene container (milk jug type) it would come out severely distorted/melted. Polycarbonate melts at ~310F.

Polycarbonate is about as inert as plastics get.
No. Polycarbonate is an extremely strong and tough plastic but it is not chemically inert. Many solvents will attack it, and it susceptible to UV damage from the sun. Generally the most chemically inert plastics would be Teflon’s, polyethylene, or polypropylenes. Under certain conditions these can still react with other chemicals but you would never run across such conditions in daily life. All are still susceptible to UV damage.

The brand name for polycarbonate is Lexan or Makrolon and is commonly called bullet proof glass.

Not everything above is scientifically correct. More importantly, from a non-scientific logical point of view, I can't tell if the author agrees that boiling water can safely be put in a Nalgene bottle or not.
Rambler

[juztyn]

Not everything above is scientifically correct. More importantly, from a non-scientific logical point of view, I can't tell if the author agrees that boiling water can safely be put in a Nalgene bottle or not.
Rambler

^ what i was thinking. but do not bother to reply, the holy one has spoken. maybe he could provide us with the solution to immortality as well

[max patch]

One option is the white nalgene bottles (http://www.rei.com/online/store/ProductDisplay?storeId=8000&catalogId=40000008000&productId=457&parent_category_rn=5760748). They're HDPE which is safer at lower temps, but starts to "melt" right above 230 or so. For boiling water, I'd stick with the clear ones, but then again, I'd go to wearing a tin foil hat to keep the aliens away before I'd worry about this anymore. :D speedy

I use the white ones because they last forever. The clear ones eventually develop cracks in the neck area. Learned that from experience.

BUT, if you are going to put boiling water in a nalgene then you definitely need to use the clear ones. White ones are not designed to be used with boiling water.

[johnny quest]

im not some rocket scientist from duke. so for the great unwashed like me lets be clear about this issue.
nalgene is a brand name. this company makes containers out of several different materials so it would be best to refer to the containere not by the brand name but by its materials
some research has indicated polycarbonates can leach bad things when heated. but i think the research also shows that, as speedy so elegantly put it, there are much more dangerous things out there. aliens and cell phones for example.
polyethelene is supposed to be safer (more "inert" in genius talk) but has a lower melting temp.
i hope i didnt make myself look too silly

[Lanthar Mandragoran]

I am not a scientist. I consulted my phone a friend reisdent genius who works @ Duke Univ. When he speaks science, it's fact, so please don't make yourself look silly by disagreeing:

Nalgene products can be autoclaved, so they can stand at least 121 degrees Centigrade.

Autoclaving is a process of sterilizing that subjects the object to relatively high temperatures. This is generally done with steam so the temperature is always greater than boiling point of water (212F or 100C). This statement is saying that they can be autoclaved without damage. If you try this with a polyethylene container (milk jug type) it would come out severely distorted/melted. Polycarbonate melts at ~310F.

Polycarbonate is about as inert as plastics get.
No. Polycarbonate is an extremely strong and tough plastic but it is not chemically inert. Many solvents will attack it, and it susceptible to UV damage from the sun. Generally the most chemically inert plastics would be Teflon’s, polyethylene, or polypropylenes. Under certain conditions these can still react with other chemicals but you would never run across such conditions in daily life. All are still susceptible to UV damage.

The brand name for polycarbonate is Lexan or Makrolon and is commonly called bullet proof glass.


Er... problem is, boiling water is NOT a solvent. At least not for non-polar materials (polycarbonate and all plastics are non-polar).

Please don't confuse chemical reactivity with thermal stability (macro or micro) they are two different phenomena.

The "dangers" of Polycarbonate and Hot Water come up on a regular basis on this and other sites. People usually confuse actual with theoretical and they forget that there are actually TWO phenomena to consider.

Yes, PE is less chemically reactive than PC. However, it is not structurally stable at higher temperatures (low thermal stability). PC is generally non-reactive with polar materials (most food / soup will fall under this category), and IS thermally stable.

Now, if we were talking about pouring excess frying oil into the PC for storage and trying to reuse it later... we'd be talking about a completely different situtation.

[Creek Dancer]

Just don't do like I did and have your Nalgene bottle branded with an iron. Stupid, I know. We were at Philmont and one of the staff members branded it for me. Didn't leak at first, but now a tiny pin hole has developed. It was my favorite pink one too.

[johnny quest]

moving this along....i have a question. are the dirtcheap polycarbonate bottles springing up at walmart and the convenience stores as good as nalgene brand? and did nalgene lose some protected something (patent???) that cause these things to be so readily available and cheap lately? or are they just popular?

[ed bell]

My older clear nalgene bottles seem to be a bit more thick than the newer ones. I can push my thumb into the newer ones but not into my old ones.

[Lanthar Mandragoran]

moving this along....i have a question. are the dirtcheap polycarbonate bottles springing up at walmart and the convenience stores as good as nalgene brand? and did nalgene lose some protected something (patent???) that cause these things to be so readily available and cheap lately? or are they just popular?

Durability, yes.
Chemical Purity, maybe.
Does it really matter? Not unless you worry about the boiling water issue above (see blue text below).

However, in general PC (Polycarbonate = Lexan) is PC. Nalgene didn't lose any patent, per se, others have just jumped on the bandwagon

PS - NALGENE Outdoor (http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/) makes PC items that are used for medical / scientific labs as well as for consumers. It's unlikely that they would save much money using a 'cheaper' aka 'more toxic' process for the consumer items.

Nalgene actually gives temp ratings on their products, the others may or may not.

[mweinstone]

scratch with a pin the letters or design and color with markers. then rub and reapply. its permenent. all plactic suffers the same fate. the moisture content releases and they dry and crack . or in cold,. shatter. so allways start the season with new nalge. or every other season or three.to test a nalge. freeze it empty and squeeze it as hard as you can.( soft nalges only)it will crack if its old enough. as far as the hard ones,.. they suck for anything but looking cool.

[hikerjohnd]

Er... problem is, boiling water is NOT a solvent.

I vaguely recall from my college science days that water is considered the universal solvent.

[Lanthar Mandragoran]

I vaguely recall from my college science days that water is considered the universal solvent.

Only for polar substances... plastics are non-polar (mostly).

[ARambler]

Nalgene is a company name or brand name for bottles made of several types of plastics. Thanks to the Recycle Plastic stamp on the bottom it is pretty easy to tell the difference.

1) Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE #4) are the soft translucent bottles. These are not good for boiling liquids. I've seen some on e-bay which are not specified, but are probably low density PE.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nalgene-Heavy-Gauge-Soft-Plastic-Wide-Mouth-Bottles-8_W0QQitemZ300028365365QQihZ020QQcategoryZ2020QQss PageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Again not good for boiling liquids.

2) High density polyethylene (HDPE #2) are the hard white bottles. Theoretically, these bottles will soften in boiling water. A HDPE milk bottle will really shrivel. However, the heavy wall Nalgene bottles may very well stand up to boiling water. I put coffee in one once. I tested a HDPE Tide bottle with boiling water and it held up very well to pretty severe abuse. However, I would switch to polypropylene or polycarbonate.

3) Polypropylene (PP #5) are also hard white bottles and would be very good for boiling water. Unfortunately, they are not common. I have only seen them in the lab, and am not sure they are certified for food grade applications. (It wouldn't be the PP but the additives or manufacturing conditions that I would worry about.)

4) Polycarbonate (PC) are the clear (often tinted) bottles most people are talking about. These will hold up to boiling water. I would throw them away if they get crazed (or at least clean them well with boiling water;) ) because bacteria can get caught in the small cracks.

5) Leave one of the above at home and take a polyester (PETE #1) Gatorade or soda bottle. I poured boiling water in a Gatorade bottle and it distorted a fair amount. It is also very thin and gets very hot. So maybe not so good for boiling water. However, I have to recommend the lighter (and cheaper) bottles over Nalgene.

6) In 1974, I was still using an aluminum canteen. This stands up very well to boiling water. On my last hike of the season, made soup in the canteen; Just put it on the butane stove. Obviously, the narrow mouth canteen was hard to clean, so I used this as an excuse to buy a wide mouth Nalgene bottle. Wide mouth bottles are easier to fill in a shallow stream. However, I have been pumping for a number of years and Gatorade bottles are good enough in the vast majority of streams (if you are using chemicals, or nothing).

Rambler

[Brrrb Oregon]

If you'd put it in the dishwasher--that is, repeatedly expose it to a scalding hot base bath--and would still be willing to drink out of it, I wouldn't worry about pouring boiling hot water into it on the trail. Personally, I would rather drink from plastics that can take some heat without deforming.

Would hot water make some vanishingly small amount of plastic leftover leach into your water more quickly and at a higher concentration than cold water would? I suppose it could....it would be analogous to if you had a little grease on the inside of the bottle. As someone pointed out earlier, due to the likelihood that the impurities are nonpolar, cold whole milk would probably do a better job of that, though.

Of course, if you never put hot water or soap or anything else in your bottle that would tend to coax some miniscule amount nasty organic compounds out of it (assuming that they are there), it will probably harbor some nasty bacteria that will kill you nature's way.

Take your pick.

[refreeman]

You were told correctly: Nalgene bottles are made from polycarbonate plastic. Bisphenol A (BPA), does leach from polycarbonate plastic bottles. I first became awear of this from an article in Backpacker Magazine several years ago.

Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that mimics the action of the human hormone estrogen, can leach from polycarbonate plastic.3 Human exposure to BPA is widespread. A Centers for Disease Control study detected BPA in the urine of 95 percent of adults sampled.4 Scientists have measured BPA in the blood of pregnant women, in umbilical cord blood and in the placenta, all at levels demonstrated in animals to alter development.5,6

Hormones stimulate certain cancers. Bisphenol A has been found to stimulate prostate cancer cells7 and causes breast tissue changes in mice that resemble early stages of breast cancer in both mice and humans.8,9 One study found an association between ovarian dysfunction and higher levels of BPA in urine.10
Early-life exposure to BPA can also cause genetic damage. Researchers found that BPA causes chromosomal errors at low levels of exposure in mice, which can lead to spontaneous miscarriages and birth defects.11 As for human data, one study found that women with a history of recurrent miscarriages had over threefold higher levels of BPA in their blood compared to women without a miscarriage history.12

Of 115 published animal studies, 81 percent found signifi cant effects from even low-level exposure to BPA. While none of the 11 industry-funded studies found significant effects, over 90 percent of government-funded
studies did so. Adverse effects include:13
• Early onset of puberty, and stimulation of mammary
gland development in females
• Changes in gender-specific behavior
• Changes in hormones, including decreased testosterone
• Increased prostate size
• Decreased sperm production
• Altered immune function
• Behavioral effects including hyperactivity, increased
aggressiveness, impaired learning and other changes in
behavior


If you do use plastic water bottles, take precautions:
If you use a polycarbonate water bottle, to reduce leaching of BPA, do not use for warm or hot liquids and discard old or scratched bottles. Water bottles from #1 or #2 plastics are recommended for single use only.
For all types of plastic, you can reduce bacterial contamination by thoroughly washing daily. However, avoid using harsh detergents that can break down the plastic and increase chemical leaching.


Here's a link to the complete guide on platics and health.
http://www.environmentalobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=77083

Looks like #5 plastic is the safest.

PP: Polypropylene, used in most Rubbermaid, deli soup, syrup and yogurt containers, straws and other clouded plastic containers, including baby bottles.

I still use a Nalgene bottle, but I only use it with cold plain water. I have a First Need water pump that is made to attach a Nalgene to the pump and fill it with the purified water. So, I pump into the Nalgene and then put the water into a non plastic bottle. I use Sigg water bottles and stainless steel water bottles to reduce my exposure to Bisphenol-A. Also, I don't wash the Nalgene with harsh soaps. When hiking long sections of the trail with no water I do keep water in the Nalgene. However, I only add drink mixes, like iced tea powder, to the Sigg and stainless steel water bottles.

[StarLyte]

Gosh Freeman, thank you for this incredibly informative article!
I really mean that.

[refreeman]

Thanks StarLyte,

I was shocked when I first found out my beloved Nalgene was not as great as I thought, but investigation revealed the Nalgene down side.

Interestingly, you will find that no one debates that polycarbonate leaches Bisphenol A (BPA) into your beverage. They only debate how much Bisphenol A (BPA) is leached.

Of course, we'd all prefer no poison at all :)

[Brrrb Oregon]

Wow. Now that is data. It is by chance that my stuff is polypropylene, but no more.

[Disney]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I never thought this thread would break 5 posts, let alone 25. After reading the article noted above I think I'll stick with cold water in the nalgene only.

[Darwin again]

I did away with the nalgene problem/questions when I started using 1-liter platypus water containers, especially since I don't use my water bottles for hot or boiling water. (7/10ths of an ounce, versus 7 ounces works for me, too! No use carrying a half a pound or more of plastic a couple thousand miles.)

[Lanthar Mandragoran]

Interestingly, you will find that no one debates that polycarbonate leaches Bisphenol A (BPA) into your beverage. They only debate how much Bisphenol A (BPA) is leached.

Yup, pretty mugh. IMO, the 'worry' people have is unfounded compared to the other placed they are ingesting toxins.

[JAK]

Mountain Equipment Co-op has announced they will no longer sell the polucarbonate Nalgene bottles because of the Bisphenol A.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071206/bisphenol_a_071206/20071206?hub=TopStories

[CoyoteWhips]

Mountain Equipment Co-op has announced they will no longer sell the polucarbonate Nalgene bottles because of the Bisphenol A.

Those wacky Canadians!

Exposing a general population with a chemical that reduces fertility just reeks of conspiracy opportunities.

Sadly, it's probably just economics.

Does make me feel better for choosing the cheap PETE, #1 plastic bottles over the trendy polycarbonates.

[nitewalker]

how does the traditional gatorade bottle stack up against the big boys? i leave my nalgenes at home in favor of the gatorade bottle 32oz size 2 bottles..they are much lighter and are pretty durable also you can find them everywhere....

[JAK]

Those wacky Canadians!

Exposing a general population with a chemical that reduces fertility just reeks of conspiracy opportunities.

Sadly, it's probably just economics.

Does make me feel better for choosing the cheap PETE, #1 plastic bottles over the trendy polycarbonates.I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

[Tipi Walter]

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Ah, Sterling Hayden. Cigar smoke and a silent Mandrake. General Jack D. Ripper.

[Johnny Thunder]

Cooking/boiling in plastic is bad news.

Watch out, freezer bag chefs!

[CoyoteWhips]

Cooking/boiling in plastic is bad news.

Watch out, freezer bag chefs!

I am experimenting with a lightweight thermos, four ounces, for strawbox cooking. It's polypro, #5, on the safe list. It seems to be more than capable of cooking pasta and maybe even long cook grains, but I'm thinking the 10 ounce capacity is a bit small for me.

[Dances with Mice]

Cooking/boiling in plastic is bad news.

Watch out, freezer bag chefs!Why? Are you concerned they might scald their fingers? Zip closure bags are polyethyelene, No. 4 recycling code.

Ever drink coffee from a foam cup? That's polystyrene, No. 6.

Do you carry a Lexan spoon? Polycarbonate, No. 7.

[sarbar]

As I posted in the other thread going, read this article I wrote (http://www.freezerbagcooking.com/myblog.htm?blogentryid=1310588).
It has a number of studies and links for one to read. Do I buy into the whole Lexan scare? No. I'd rather drink out of a Lexan bottle for 5 years or more than use 1,000 disposable bottles!

As for freezer bags, they are food grade and are designed to be used in microwaves. They have been tested for this purpose. Microwaves temps in those bags can exceed boiling water.

Read, read and read people! Don't believe everything you see on the internet and in emails! Always read Snopes!!

[Johnny Thunder]

Why? Are you concerned they might scald their fingers? Zip closure bags are polyethyelene, No. 4 recycling code.

Ever drink coffee from a foam cup? That's polystyrene, No. 6.

Do you carry a Lexan spoon? Polycarbonate, No. 7.

Foam cup . . . Nope

Lexan Spoon . . . Nope

I'm only 25 and even I can remember a time when cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Wait 20 years and then think back to this conversation.

[Smile]

I'm only 25 and even I can remember a time when cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Wait 20 years and then think back to this conversation.

Ahhh, refreshing. I'll go with this one. :)

[Dances with Mice]

I'm only 25 and even I can remember a time when cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Wait 20 years and then think back to this conversation.Son, in twenty years I hope to remember my own name.

[Montego]

Ah, name :confused:

[sarbar]

Btw, for even MORE information on polycarbonates....
http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/technical/bpaInfo.html

[mudhead]

Foam cup . . . Nope

Lexan Spoon . . . Nope

I'm only 25 and even I can remember a time when cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Wait 20 years and then think back to this conversation.

You mean some lawyer denied the fact.

[saimyoji]

I'm only 25 and even I can remember a time when cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Wait 20 years and then think back to this conversation.


How do you know cigarettes cause cancer? Can you explain the biochemical basis by which smoking a cigarette positively causes cancer? Or could this be a vast conspiracy by the insurance companies against the tobacco companies? Remember when Dow Chem. was put out of business for breast implants causing cancer, then later we found it there was no connection....then...nothing (well, more breast implants which is good, I guess).

Bottom line: who's word will you ultimately believe?

[Skidsteer]

Cooking/boiling in plastic is bad news.

Watch out, freezer bag chefs!


Son, in twenty years I hope to remember my own name.

I eat ziplocs to stop diarrhea caused by Giardia.

[Johnny Thunder]

How do you know cigarettes cause cancer? Can you explain the biochemical basis by which smoking a cigarette positively causes cancer? Or could this be a vast conspiracy by the insurance companies against the tobacco companies? Remember when Dow Chem. was put out of business for breast implants causing cancer, then later we found it there was no connection....then...nothing (well, more breast implants which is good, I guess).

Bottom line: who's word will you ultimately believe?


Saim,

Thanks for proving my point.

Johnny

[weary]

How do you know cigarettes cause cancer? Can you explain the biochemical basis by which smoking a cigarette positively causes cancer? Or could this be a vast conspiracy by the insurance companies against the tobacco companies? Remember when Dow Chem. was put out of business for breast implants causing cancer, then later we found it there was no connection....then...nothing (well, more breast implants which is good, I guess).
Bottom line: who's word will you ultimately believe?
Well, it's a bit more complex than that. Wise people don't seek proof, because there is no absolute proof when dealing with such things. Rather think probability. The probability that cigarets cause cancer runs around 99.99999+ percent.

The probability that lexan bottles will harm you is considerably less than 5 percent. But I still don't like seeing my 3-year-old grandson sucking on a lexan bottle.

Weary

[Johnny Thunder]

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. Wise people don't seek proof, because there is no absolute proof when dealing with such things. Rather think probability. The probability that cigarets cause cancer runs around 99.99999+ percent.

The probability that lexan bottles will harm you is considerably less than 5 percent. But I still don't like seeing my 3-year-old grandson sucking on a lexan bottle.

Weary


Weary,

How have you made this decision? What's the basis for your 5% harm theorem?

I mean, it's taken thousands upon thousands of tobaco smoking years to reasonably assertain that it might cause cancer...yet, people will readily use an oil derived, unstable (non-inert) material in which we will cook and store that which runs our bodies. Smart move?

Message - A group of oncologists were at a graduation party for a young oncologist. The oldest, most venerable oncologist turns to the young man and says, "Plastics."

[CoyoteWhips]

I mean, it's taken thousands upon thousands of tobaco smoking years to reasonably assertain that it might cause cancer...yet, people will readily use an oil derived, unstable (non-inert) material in which we will cook and store that which runs our bodies. Smart move?

Even ignoring cancer research, don't autopsies clearly show physical lung damage from cigarette smoking?

In scale, though, how toxic is your drinking bottle when compared to a pop tart?

[Johnny Thunder]

Even ignoring cancer research, don't autopsies clearly show physical lung damage from cigarette smoking?

In scale, though, how toxic is your drinking bottle when compared to a pop tart?

To all who have posted since my post #38:

Thank you for continuing to prove my point. You have all added strength to my arguement. I sincerely appreciate it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CW, I'll address your questions on a point-by-point basis.

...autopsies clearly show physical etc etc?

Sure they do. Cigs are bad news, dude. I'm not defending them one iota.

...toxic drinking bottle pop tart?

Sure. I mean, I don't know. Couldn't tell you. I'm not a scientist. I do know that this discussion is about "boiling water in a Nalgene" and not just "drinking water from a Nalgene."

By scale, I'd say that just drinking from an petrolium-based container is one thing but heating one up to cooking temperature is a whole other matter. But again, that's just another leap of faith that I'm willing to make in limiting my risk on this planet.

[Johnny Thunder]

Even ignoring cancer research, don't autopsies clearly show physical lung damage from cigarette smoking?

In scale, though, how toxic is your drinking bottle when compared to a pop tart?


Sorry, didn't really touch on that first question...

What I meant to say was that it took us thousands of years to decide that smoking tobaco might cause Cancer. Yet, despite a spike in Cancer rates that directly coincides with the introduction of Plastics into our environment there are those who will use this relatively untested and, essentially brand-new (in the scope of human existence), material to cook and hold boiling hot water. I'm not implying Causation here...just stating a possible correlation. An intelligent individual can make their own decision.

[sarbar]

People died of cancer 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago. They just didn't know what it was mostly. They died painful deaths.
People also lived much shorter lives overall.

It is like asking "do we have more kids with Autism now?" or is it just that we ID them now?

[Johnny Thunder]

People died of cancer 100, 200, 500, 1000 years ago. They just didn't know what it was mostly. They died painful deaths.
People also lived much shorter lives overall.

It is like asking "do we have more kids with Autism now?" or is it just that we ID them now?


Again, that's why I implied causation but did not try to actually link things. People should see that and make their own decisions. Personally, I'm willing to make the leap of faith required to decide, "hey, I'm not going to use a relatively untested material which may release dangerous substances into my food and drink. I realize that there's a lot of scientific evidence about how this stuff is supposed to be safe; however, this same science took thousands of years to bridge the smacks-open-palm-to-forehead-link smoking to cancer and still can't make definitive sense of global warming. In this instance, for the sake of my health, I'm going to err on the side of caution and let others be the early adopters. Because, in reality all I'd be doing is leveraging my future health and happiness for a little bit of modern convenience"


"Because our Science is better than theirs."

[weary]

Weary, How have you made this decision? What's the basis for your 5% harm theorem?

I mean, it's taken thousands upon thousands of tobaco smoking years to reasonably assertain that it might cause cancer...yet, people will readily use an oil derived, unstable (non-inert) material in which we will cook and store that which runs our bodies. Smart move? ......
Not a smart move. I think a young male who uses nalgene is either ignorant of the facts or foolish. Afterall, the chemical that creates the stuff was first investigated for use as an artificial female hormone. I haven't noticed many normal males who want to become more female in body shape.

My 5 percent estimate was simply dumb. I don't have a clue as to the probability of harm. It just seems to me to be considerably less than the harm from smoking tobacco, which is a virtual certainty.

Also the impacts are different. Cigarets kill you in a particularly painful way. Nalgene just seems to change who you are.

BTW. I know of no particular harm from eating an occasional pop tart as part of a normal diet -- or a trail diet for that matter. Do you?

Weary

[Johnny Thunder]

Not a smart move. I think a young male who uses nalgene is either ignorant of the facts or foolish. Afterall, the chemical that creates the stuff was first investigated for use as an artificial female hormone. I haven't noticed many normal males who want to become more female in body shape.

My 5 percent estimate was simply dumb. I don't have a clue as to the probability of harm. It just seems to me to be considerably less than the harm from smoking tobacco, which is a virtual certainty.

Also the impacts are different. Cigarets kill you in a particularly painful way. Nalgene just seems to change who you are.

Weary

Virtual Certainty? Who said that and when? Since when has tobacco use become a health conern of "virtual certainty"? How long did it take for this to be discovered and what lead up to this blockbuster? Were other things found first? I don't know, stuff about tooth and gum damage. Maybe something about skin elasticity. What else was proven about cigs before it was a virtual certainty that you were going to be negatively effected?

In my estimation casual Nalgene use leads to sticker collection. Sticker collection leads to vanity. Vanity leads idoletry which is NOT next to godliness. Idoletry leads to faded white hats maybe credits and transfers.

It may also one day lead to cancer on Weary's "virtual certainty" scale in which case you can't take back all those years where you "knew" it was safe because "science, damn it" you were told so. This damage is for keepsies, folks.

[CoyoteWhips]

Nalgene just seems to change who you are.

As I age and my testosterone level drops, that becomes moot. If it wasn't for my male pattern baldness, I'd have no visible primary masculine characteristics at all -- at least not while I'm wearing pants. However, I'm not a big fan of prostate cancer, so I will try to use plastic that's not under suspicion. I will also eat plenty of green leafy vegetables.

[oops56]

As of now well be 65 in few weeks i don't care its to late for me. I seen all that needs to be seen and done all i set to do just like to live to 73 or so then leave. Cost of living to hi.

[Bob S]

Again, that's why I implied causation but did not try to actually link things. People should see that and make their own decisions. Personally, I'm willing to make the leap of faith required to decide, "hey, I'm not going to use a relatively untested material which may release dangerous substances into my food and drink. I realize that there's a lot of scientific evidence about how this stuff is supposed to be safe; however, this same science took thousands of years to bridge the smacks-open-palm-to-forehead-link smoking to cancer and still can't make definitive sense of global warming. In this instance, for the sake of my health, I'm going to err on the side of caution and let others be the early adopters. Because, in reality all I'd be doing is leveraging my future health and happiness for a little bit of modern convenience"


"Because our Science is better than theirs."



Implied causation is not a good scientific way to arrive at an actual cause of something. Using implied causation you could make the argument that water will kill you, after all everyone that drank water in 1892 is dead, so the water caused it. Of course water did not cause these deaths. Implied causation is a flawed link to anything to a problem.

[Johnny Thunder]

Implied causation is not a good scientific way to arrive at an actual cause of something. Using implied causation you could make the argument that water will kill you, after all everyone that drank water in 1892 is dead, so the water caused it. Of course water did not cause these deaths. Implied causation is a flawed link to anything to a problem.



Right, and everyone who cooked/drank from plastic isn't dead YET so plastic MUST be safe. And my buddy who drinks and drives hasn't gotten in an accident YET so he MUST be the exception to the rule. And a study of one chemical bi-product of cooking in a material manufactured from petrolium has shown that this one chemical bi-product seems to be safe in the short term so then ALL chemical bi-products from the material MUST be safe in the long-term.

Bob, if I was a parlimentarian I would appreciate your approach but I'm not so I don't.

[weary]

Implied causation is not a good scientific way to arrive at an actual cause of something. Using implied causation you could make the argument that water will kill you, after all everyone that drank water in 1892 is dead, so the water caused it. Of course water did not cause these deaths. Implied causation is a flawed link to anything to a problem.


Often implied causation is the only scientific way to make a judgment about something that may be harmful.

[Johnny Thunder]

Often implied causation is the only scientific way to make a judgment about something that may be harmful.


Word!

I'll go back to my OG statement and say that I am 25 and even I remember a time when smoking didn't cause Cancer.

So, when I'm 50 will I be able to honestly say that I remember a time when cooking in plastic didn't cause Cancer?

I sure hope not. But, I'm not going to be the one leveraging my health for the sake of convenience.

Side note - To the Freezer Baggers and Nalgene Boilers...what can you cook in your bags and bottles that I couldn't, without a bit of resourcefulness, cook in my pot and cup?

Think quickly...this one's timed.

[saimyoji]

http://fluoridealert.org/

This one has had me thinking for a while.

[Johnny Thunder]

http://fluoridealert.org/

This one has had me thinking for a while.

I forgot that I hated it when people just posted lyrics.

[Bob S]

Often implied causation is the only scientific way to make a judgment about something that may be harmful.


How can it be scientific if it’s implied? It can’t. You need proof, not implied proof to get the answer. You can use implied causation as a tool to point you in a direction to do testing and study to prove something. But by itself it’s nothing more then an idea without backing.


I’m not saying there is no problem with the plastic, I’m saying to do the testing before we make a definitive decision. It seems people want to always rush to or are unwilling to wait for results. The breast implants example above is a good example.


PS from a personal viewpoint, I’m glad woman are again implants again…
:D

[Bob S]

PS from a personal viewpoint, I’m glad woman are again implants again…

Correction

PS from a personal viewpoint, I’m glad woman are getting implants again…

[Johnny Thunder]

I’m not saying there is no problem with the plastic, I’m saying to do the testing before we make a definitive decision. It seems people want to always rush to or are unwilling to wait for results. The breast implants example above is a good example.


PS from a personal viewpoint, I’m glad woman are again implants again…
:D

Thanks again for again adding to my arguement, again.

[Bob S]

Thanks again for again adding to my arguement, again.


I don’t think I did if you are saying implied cause is enough to condemn something.

The drinking and driving argument as it relates to your friend is flawed on your part. You are taking a single person and making an argument with him. To get good useful results you would have to take and look at all or most that drink & drive, not one person.



As far as the cancer thing relating to smoking, yes we all know it causes cancer. But 100-years ago we didn’t, have the answer to this because we did do research and testing. Not because we only thought it did.

You are trying to apply years of research on smoking and cancer and applying it to this plastic issue. That is a major flaw, how does cigarette research tell you what happens to a plastic when you put hot water in it. You want this to be true and you seem to want to short-circuit the testing process to say you have the answers. To do so is Junk Science with no real backing.

[Dances with Mice]

I'll go back to my OG statement and say that I am 25 and even I remember a time when smoking didn't cause Cancer. You've posted that twice now. So you were born in what, 1982? I will accept that there was a time you could not remember. But cigarette smoking hazards were quite well known (http://www.tobaccowall.ucsf.edu/pdf/warninglabel.pdf) before you were born.



The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965

(Public Law 89-92) required that the warning “Caution:
Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health” be
placed in small print on one of the side panels of each
cigarette package. The act prohibited additional labeling
requirements at the federal, state, or local levels.2



• In June 1967 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its
first report to Congress recommending that the warning label
be changed to “Warning: Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to
Health and May Cause Death from Cancer and Other
Diseases.”



• In 1969 Congress passed the Public Health Cigarette
Smoking Act (Public Law 91-222), which prohibited cigarette
advertising on television and radio and required that
each cigarette package contain the label “Warning: The
Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is
Dangerous to Your Health.”

[Johnny Thunder]

See Below.

[Johnny Thunder]

You guys are right, I'm wrong.

It's totally safe for man woman and baby.

[weary]

I don’t think I did if you are saying implied cause is enough to condemn something.

The drinking and driving argument as it relates to your friend is flawed on your part. You are taking a single person and making an argument with him. To get good useful results you would have to take and look at all or most that drink & drive, not one person.



As far as the cancer thing relating to smoking, yes we all know it causes cancer. But 100-years ago we didn’t, have the answer to this because we did do research and testing. Not because we only thought it did.

You are trying to apply years of research on smoking and cancer and applying it to this plastic issue. That is a major flaw, how does cigarette research tell you what happens to a plastic when you put hot water in it. You want this to be true and you seem to want to short-circuit the testing process to say you have the answers. To do so is Junk Science with no real backing.

Are you arguing that all those who stopped smoking before it became scientifically positive that tobacco was deadly should have waited for more proof?

Wise people make decisions that may impact their health on the basis of the information available. Since Nalgene bottles at best are but a relatively heavy minor convenience, I think wise people will avoid there use until more information develops.

Weary

[weary]

PS from a personal viewpoint, I’m glad woman are again implants again…

Correction

PS from a personal viewpoint, I’m glad woman are getting implants again…


I prefer natural breasts to plastic breasts myself.

[Johnny Thunder]

I prefer natural breasts to plastic breasts myself.


Weary, thanks for getting this one back on track.

[Bob S]

Guess I'm wrong. Cooking in plastic is super duper healthy and everyone should do it and let their children and grandchildren because the study of one potentialy hazardous bi-product came back clean. Whoopee!


The arrogance in your post seems like you are taking this as a personal attack on you. Not so.

All I’m saying is that testing is how one should make decisions as to how dangerous this is. You seem to like the idea that the plastic bottles are dangerous, so much so that you are willing to condemn them on the spot with no testing, and to the point that you somehow think cigarette smoking has something to do with boiling water and the plastic.


All I’m saying is to have an open mind and let testing prove or disprove this before you start telling people how it is with nothing to back it up.


By the way it’s easy to test, you boil water, poor it into the bottle and then test the water to see what chemical is in it.

Of course then you have to decide (Again through testing!!!!!) what chemical level is safe. But that’s another whole can of worms to open that will further spark the debate. This is good, it’s how we find things out

[Bob S]

I prefer natural breasts to plastic breasts myself.


I'm open on this, they all look good....

[CoyoteWhips]

Of course then you have to decide (Again through testing!!!!!) what chemical level is safe. But that’s another whole can of worms to open that will further spark the debate. This is good, it’s how we find things out

This has been part of the controversy, as I understand it. The traditional method of testing for toxicity is to administer high doses to animals and see how they fare. However, there is some indication that Bisphenol A (BPL) is safe in high doses when the body treats it as a foreign substance, but hazardous in trace amounts when the body mistakes it for a hormone. Most of the old studies on the additive are misleading and the hazards are subtle enough that they're difficult to quantize.

In my opinion, if your camel is experiencing back trouble, ease up on the straw.

[Johnny Thunder]

The arrogance in your post seems like you are taking this as a personal attack on you.



All I’m saying is that testing is how one should make decisions as to how dangerous this is. You seem to like the idea that the plastic bottles are dangerous, so much so that you are willing to condemn them on the spot with no testing, and to the point that you somehow think cigarette smoking has something to do with boiling water and the plastic.





Bob,

First, the arrogance was after I deleted a page-long diatribe on how I'm not going to be the one throwing caution to the wind and how I chose to err on the side of caution. Which is what I've been saying since like, 15 posts ago, and you still insist on saying here, again, as if to disagree with my earlier points.

What I have been saying...and I'll take this opportunity to reitterate...is that in the face of a historically significant and relevant series of scientific discoveries wherein our evolving scientific knowledge increased to the point where something that had been part of our environment for thousands of years was proved to be unhealthy I am willing to make a similar leap; that we have not tested nor discovered enough about a new wonder-material that is not only made of similar materials as that hazardous substance and is at the same time significantly pervasive while its use is almost entirely avoidable. I refuse to leverage my potential for future health for immediate convenience.

Is that clear enough?

I posted, and edited (which was that arrogant post) something to the effect of "arguing the small stuff with someone who essentially agrees with you is akin to rooting for the Iggles."

Fake boobs are no fun to hold.

[Critterman]

Word!

I'll go back to my OG statement and say that I am 25 and even I remember a time when smoking didn't cause Cancer.

Cigs have been carring the surgeon's general warning since before you where born.

[Johnny Thunder]

Cigs have been carring the surgeon's general warning since before you where born.


And all that time said "may lead to cancer" and people who smoked since those warnings are still eligable for class-action law suits because no one proved without reasonable doubt that cigarettes cause cancer.

Regardless, I'm still mostly just pissed that no one liked my "Plastics" gag. Seriously, that's the only reason I've still got a dog in this fight...You guys can make up your own minds.

[Bob S]

Sorry Johnny on one thing I very much disagree with you.

Fake boobs are no fun to hold.
__________________
Johnny.

;)
They all are fun, you will never convince me otherwise…

[Johnny Thunder]

Sorry Johnny on one thing I very much disagree with you.

Fake boobs are no fun to hold.
__________________
Johnny.

;)
They all are fun, you will never convince me otherwise…


Seriously? My buddy Tall almost got his nose broken by a stripper with cement-hard fake cans. In her defense, he did have a large nose.

[weary]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]....]I’m not saying there is no problem with the plastic, I’m saying to do the testing before we make a definitive decision. It seems people want to always rush to or are unwilling to wait for results.
:D
Actually there has been quite a bit of testing. Here are some results of animal testing:

Dose (µg/kg/day) Effects (measured in studies of laboratory animals) Study Year[22]
0.025 Permanent changes to genital tract 2005
0.025 Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens 2005
2 30% increase in prostate weight 1997
2.4 Signs of early puberty 2002
2.4 Decline in testicular testosterone 2004
2.5 Breast cells predisposed to cancer 2006
10 Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer 2006
10 Insulin resistance 2006
10 Decreased maternal behavior 2002
20 Damage to eggs and chromosomes 2003
25 Health Canada provisional human exposure limit 1999
30 Hyperactivity 2004
30 Reversal of normal sex difference in brain structure 2001
50 U.S. human exposure limit

Residues of the chemical in water has been found in dozens of tests by both governments and the nalgene manufacturers. Five parts of the synthetic estragen per billion are commonly found in the liquids kept in baby bottles maufactured with polycarbonates. (Nalgene)

Yet EPA has declared that 50 parts per billion is safe.

Weary

[Critterman]

And all that time said "may lead to cancer" and people who smoked since those warnings are still eligable for class-action law suits because no one proved without reasonable doubt that cigarettes cause cancer.

Regardless, I'm still mostly just pissed that no one liked my "Plastics" gag. Seriously, that's the only reason I've still got a dog in this fight...You guys can make up your own minds.


Not everyone who smokes dies from it, only about 1 in 3. Not everyone gets lung cancer who smokes, hence the "may get cancer". The other part is just false about not proving that smoking causes cancer.

[Johnny Thunder]

Not everyone who smokes dies from it, only about 1 in 3. Not everyone gets lung cancer who smokes, hence the "may get cancer". The other part is just false about not proving that smoking causes cancer.


Critterman...hello..."plastics" gag...not even a chuckle?

[CoyoteWhips]

Critterman...hello..."plastics" gag...not even a chuckle?

It was ok, but you kind of screwed up the punchline.

"Just one word ... plastics."

[Johnny Thunder]

It was ok, but you kind of screwed up the punchline.

"Just one word ... plastics."


It was one word. But you're right. I'm no fun.

[JAK]

Actually there has been quite a bit of testing. Here are some results of animal testing:

Dose (µg/kg/day) Effects (measured in studies of laboratory animals) Study Year[22]
0.025 Permanent changes to genital tract 2005
0.025 Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens 2005
2 30% increase in prostate weight 1997
2.4 Signs of early puberty 2002
2.4 Decline in testicular testosterone 2004
2.5 Breast cells predisposed to cancer 2006
10 Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer 2006
10 Insulin resistance 2006
10 Decreased maternal behavior 2002
20 Damage to eggs and chromosomes 2003
25 Health Canada provisional human exposure limit 1999
30 Hyperactivity 2004
30 Reversal of normal sex difference in brain structure 2001
50 U.S. human exposure limit

Residues of the chemical in water has been found in dozens of tests by both governments and the nalgene manufacturers. Five parts of the synthetic estragen per billion are commonly found in the liquids kept in baby bottles maufactured with polycarbonates. (Nalgene)

Yet EPA has declared that 50 parts per billion is safe.

WearyDoes anyone have any data on what sort of does you would get if you pour one litre of boiling water into a Nalgene bottle every day to make tea, and drank it over the course of, say, one hour?

[JAK]

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7713/7713.html

Introduction
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a known environmental estrogen that is used as the monomer to manufacture polycarbonate plastic, the resin that is used as linings for most food and beverage cans, as dental sealants, and as an additive in other widely used consumer products. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals produced worldwide; global BPA capacity in 2003 was 2,214,000 metric tons (> 6.4 billion lb), with 6-10% growth in demand expected per year (Burridge 2003). Heat and contact with either acidic or basic compounds accelerate hydrolysis of the ester bond linking BPA molecules in polycarbonate and resins. Specifically, heating of cans to sterilize food, the presence of acidic or basic food or beverages in cans or polycarbonate plastic, and repeated washing of polycarbonate products have all been shown to result in an increase in the rate of leaching of BPA (Brotons et al. 1995; Consumers Union 1999; Howdeshell et al. 2003; Kang and Kondo 2002; Kang et al. 2003; Olea et al. 1996; Raloff 1999). In addition, another potential source of human exposure is water used for drinking or bathing. Studies conducted in Japan (Kawagoshi et al. 2003) and in the United States (Coors et al. 2003) have shown that BPA accounts for most estrogenic activity that leaches from landfills into the surrounding ecosystem.

Convincing evidence that there is widespread exposure to BPA is shown by the finding of Calafat et al. (2005) that 95% of urine samples from people in the United States examined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have measurable BPA levels [range, 0.4 ppb (10th percentile) to 8 ppb (95th percentile); median = 1.3 ppb]. As described by Calafat et al. (2005), these levels are consistent with findings from other countries. For example, levels of unconjugated (parent) BPA in human blood and tissues are also in the same 0.1-10 ppb range (Ikezuki et al. 2002; Schonfelder et al. 2002) detected by Calafat et al. (2005) in urine. Because there is evidence that BPA is rapidly metabolized (Volkel et al. 2002), these finding suggest that human exposure to significant amounts of BPA must be continuous and via multiple sources. A relationship between blood levels of BPA and body fat in women has been reported (Takeuchi et al. 2004).

[hammer]

Robert Chesebrough was a chemist who patented the process of making petroleum jelly in 1872. To promote the health benefits of it he ate a spoonful every day of his life from that point. He died in 1933 at the age of 96.

All I could find out is that petroleum jelly is made of saturated hydrocarbons and is non-polar.

I know it is not scientific, but if he lived to be 96 after eating that stuff for 60 years, I am not going to worry about my Nalgene.

[Bob S]

Robert Chesebrough was a chemist who patented the process of making petroleum jelly in 1872. To promote the health benefits of it he ate a spoonful every day of his life from that point. He died in 1933 at the age of 96.

All I could find out is that petroleum jelly is made of saturated hydrocarbons and is non-polar.

I know it is not scientific, but if he lived to be 96 after eating that stuff for 60 years, I am not going to worry about my Nalgene.


Good point.

[CoyoteWhips]

I know it is not scientific, but if he lived to be 96 after eating that stuff for 60 years, I am not going to worry about my Nalgene.

Would you eat a spoonful of petroleum jelly?

[Critterman]

Would you eat a spoonful of petroleum jelly?

It is the major ingredient in hairball medicine for cats.

[mudhead]

Curious on the fun to hold thing.

I will never get the chance, cause I aint getting anything implanted.



Nevermind.