View Full Version : Pots and Mugs for carrying water.
I would like to get away from plastics altogether, and so I'm using these aluminum flasks which I can carry water in and even drink tea out of, but I would really like something I can eat oatmeal out of and still get my hand in to clean out, but I want it to have some sort of waterproof lid. Any light weight stainless steel or titanium or aluminum containers that can be used as a pot and for carrying water?
whitefoot_hp
04-18-2008, 19:00
whats wrong with plastics?
saimyoji
04-18-2008, 19:13
Just buy a Ti or Al mug or pot the size you want, then cut a slab of cork (you can buy cork board at most home supply stores- Canadian Tires??-) to fit the lid, use a length of twine to secure the cork lid.
Whatever you decide to use in a few years they are going to decide its use is bad for you. And then they will decide that plastic wasn’t so bad in the first place.
88BlueGT
04-19-2008, 03:05
lightweight + stainless steel don't mix......... (most of the time)
I like the cork idea, if I can make it work, though I wonder about cleaning cork. I've thought of using a floating cork lid for pots to save heat. It would be easier to clean with boiling water as it would fit. For a water sealed lid while hiking I might go with plastic if I can find one to fit. Not tight enough to sleep with, but tight enough to hike with as long as there was a retainer of some sort. Perhaps three cozies. One that fits from the bottom 1/3 way up the side, one for just the middle 1/3 of the side, and one for the top and 1/3 down the side. That might also serve a lid maybe, if it had a cork plug also.
So ???
Maybe two of these for carrying water / dring tea / eating oatmeal...
1. Fosters Beer Can 750ml
2. Plastic/Cork or Cork/Cork Lid/Cozy for top.
3. Cork cozy for side and bottom.
Plus my Kelly Kettle, or a Hobbo stove to heat up the above with cork cozy removed.
So would that eliminate the need for addition water carriers, assuming water abundance.
The main reason for ditching the plastic bottles was because I'm thinking they might be redundant if I can make reheatable pot/mugs light enough that can carry water and food. If I have one for eating and one for drinking I will have redundancy should one fail.
I would carrying my honey, skim milk powder, and oatmeal in the plastic jar and plastic bags that I buy them in. I have no real serious issue with that, yet.
Cherokee Bill
04-19-2008, 07:53
:-? Is it the new plastic scare you're referring to? Then look for "PETE" plastic, you'll be OK :D
Aluminum and TEA, don't mix either ;)
I have no real serious issue with PET bottles except that I can't drink hot tea in them, or use them as hot water bottles, or reheat them if frozen, or eat oatmeal out of them.
So if I can find a way to carry water in my pot, I will carry two of them. I will probably go with titanium once I find one that suits me. I would be fine with stainless steel also even if it was a bit heavy as long as it was not more than 2oz and had a wide mouthed sealable lid and that I could reheat and eat oatmeal out of and clean up afterwards.
Getting rid of the PET bottles though. Just doesn't work with a Kelly Kettle. Shrinkage.
Are there any wide mouthed titanium water bottles that can be used as pots ???
budforester
04-19-2008, 08:12
Yes, Billyboy, PETE concerns me too. I'm not sure of specific harm, but those pthalates are everywhere (in environmental sampling).
JAK, those screw- capped metal cans are rare nowadays, but you might find a friction- fit can... intended for paint, lab samples, tobacco, gift- cannisters for holiday goodies.
Thanks bud. I've been looking at various light steel cans for hobbo stove possibilities, but not sure of water carrying possibilities because of the seam, and also potential plastic coatings. Aluminum cans are often coated also. The paint can is an interesting though, as they don't have a seam and I don't think they are coated. Something in stainless steel but resealable like a paint can would be interesting.
These are way too heavy and the lids not wide enough. Getting there though.
When they make them shorter and wider and thinner then maybe.
Reinforced on outside with some safe plastic or cork foam maybe.
http://www.kleankanteen.com/2products/klean-kanteen-18oz.html
http://www.kleankanteen.com/2products/klean-kanteen-40oz.html
What's with cork anyways? I thought there was a shortage of cork.
Uncoated aluminum might be the way to go.
http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99
"As evidence for other causes continues to grow, a possible link with aluminium seems increasingly unlikely."
- Alzheimer’s Society
:-? Is it the new plastic scare you're referring to? Then look for "PETE" plastic, you'll be OK :D
Aluminum and TEA, don't mix either ;)Many tea's already have aluminum in them.
Here is some quantified data on aluminum in our diets:
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/alzheimers.htm
- Aluminum is one of the most abundant elements found in the environment.
- Less than 1% of that taken into the body orally is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract.
- The average human intake is estimated to be between 30 and 50 mg per day.
- This intake comes primarily from foods, drinking water, and pharmaceuticals.
- Less than 1/4 of the total intake comes from water.
- Processed cheese and cornbread are two major contributors to high aluminum exposures in the American diet.
- Antacids and buffered aspirin contain aluminum to increase the daily intake significantly.
- Aluminum beverage cans are usually coated with a polymer to minimize such leaching.
- Leaching from aluminum cookware becomes potentially significant only when cooking highly basic or acidic foods.
- In one study, tomato sauce cooked in aluminum pans was found to accumulate 3-6 mg aluminum per 100 g serving.
So based on that, I am not so worried about my Aluminum Kelly Kettle or uncoated Aluminum Pots. I am somewhat concerned about using an epoxy coated aluminum beverage can as a pot. Brings up the other issue.
Do people know if the beer can pots they are using are coated with a polymer?
Is it removable by heating it to a very high temperature while empty?
Or would that only make it worse, or burn the aluminum?
Here is an article on Bisphenol-A in epoxy coatings of beverage cans and food cans.
I get the impression that the coatings are considerably thicker with the food cans.
Still, it has me wondering if the article is wrong, that the coatings are a bad idea.
Especially if we want to re-use them as pots.
http://www.bisphenol-a.org/human/epoxycan.html#migration
"Using appropriate analytical methods, no BPA was detected from beverage/beer cans with a limit of detection of 5 parts per billion. Bisphenol A migration levels from food cans averages 37 parts per billion."
I am going to go ahead and start using a 750ml Foster beer can.
Wondering if I should scorch it on the inside first or if that might make it worse.
Thoughts?
The reason I doubt the article above is that the same source says that Polycarbonates are safe.
http://www.bisphenol-a.org/human/polyplastics.html
"Human exposure to BPA from food-contact use of polycarbonate plastic is very low and poses no known risk to human health. "
Still, this source might be useful for comparative purposes.
Polycarbonate Containers - Highest at 5 parts per billion (under conditions typical for uses of polycarbonate products)
Epoxy Coated Food Containers - Medium at 37 parts per billion. (under exagerated conditions)
Epoxy Coated Beverage Containers - Lowest at < 5 parts per billion. (under exagerated conditions)
The polycarbonate containers were only tested with cool liquids.
The epoxy coated containers were tests with exagerated methods as follows:
For “hot- filled” products such as fruit juice, cans were filled with hot solvent (10% ethyl alcohol), held at 212° F for 30 minutes and stored for 10 days at 120° F. For “retorted” products (all other samples), cans were filled with the appropriate solvent (10% or 95% ethyl alcohol), heated under pressure at 250° F for two hours and then stored for 10 days at 120° F.
Based on that I'm guessing the epoxy coated beer cans are safer to use as cooking pots than Lexan bottles are for serving hot drinks. Apples and oranges, but the bottom line seems to be that we should be reducing the total amount of Bisphenol A being used in manufacturing, and the Polycarbonate bottles have a lot more Bisphenol A than coated beer cans. My choice would still be untreated beer cans.
budforester
04-19-2008, 09:23
Thanks bud. I've been looking at various light steel cans for hobbo stove possibilities, but not sure of water carrying possibilities because of the seam, and also potential plastic coatings. Aluminum cans are often coated also. The paint can is an interesting though, as they don't have a seam and I don't think they are coated. .
Note that side sideseams are mostly welded nowadays, not soldered; and the two- piece cans are formed without a sideseam. The enamel might be removed by burn- and- scrub. You might find stainless or aluminum sample- containers at a scientific supplier... maybe Fisher Scientific or VWR... I'll try to check when I can.
Thought I should post this...
http://www.bisphenol-a.org/index.html
"This web site is sponsored by the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, which is organized regionally at the American Chemistry Council, PlasticsEurope, and the Japan Chemical Industry Association."
They have been publishing articles such as this for a long time, still they seem to have been proven wrong, which makes me wonder if they will be held accountable for dragging the process out as long as they have. Still they continue...
Are the Myths About Polycarbonate Bottles True? New Information Supports the Safe Use of Polycarbonate Bottles - February 5, 2008
Polycarbonate Bottles Are Still Safe For Use – In Spite of the Latest Scare Story - January 31, 2008
New Data from CDC Confirms Human Exposure to Bisphenol A in the United States is Far Below Safe Limits - November 1, 2007
August 8, 2007 - Sound Science Prevails in Review of Bisphenol A
August 2, 2007 - Public Health Best Served by Open, Transparent Scientific Evaluations
May 29, 2007 - City of San Francisco Repeals Ban on Bisphenol A in Children’s Products
February 1, 2007 - European Food Safety Authority Increases Tolerable Daily Intake for Bisphenol A – Strong Support for Conclusion that Bisphenol A is Not a Risk to Human Health
December 19, 2006 - Scientific Assessment of Bisphenol A in Canada Coming Up in 2007
June 19, 2006 - Low Risk to Human Reproductive and Developmental Health from Low Doses of Bisphenol A Confirmed by New Weight-of-Evidence Evaluation
June 19, 2006 - Does San Francisco Know Something the Rest of the World Doesn’t? In a Word — No
May 12, 2006 - Greenpeace Ignores Their Own Advice to Look at the Evidence: Setting the Record Straight on Bisphenol A
May 5, 2006 - Are Polycarbonate Bottles Safe for Use? New Information on an Old Scare Story
April 12, 2006 - Legislation to Ban Children's Products Defeated in
California, Maryland and Minnesota
March 20, 2006 - Comprehensive Japanese Risk Assessment on Bisphenol A Confirms No Risk to Human Health or Environment
September 26, 2005 - German Biomonitoring Data Confirms Very Low Human Exposure to Bisphenol A Around the World
May 4, 2005 - Biomonitoring Studies Confirm Human Exposure to Bisphenol A is Very Low - Low Exposure Supports Low Risk to Human Health
October 4, 2004 - "Bisphenol A: A Scientific Evaluation" Concludes That Risk of Bisphenol A to Humans is Very Low
September 3, 2004 - Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Expert Panel Finds No Consistent Affirmative Evidence of Low-Dose BPA Effects
April 1, 2003 - Relevance of Reported Chromosomal Effects to Humans Has Not Been Established
November 7, 2002 - “A Weight of Evidence Approach to the Aquatic Hazard Assessment of Bisphenol A” concludes: Bisphenol A Unlikely to Cause Adverse Effects in the Aquatic Environment
October 11, 2002 - Low-Dose Hypothesis Again Not Replicated
Reproducibility is Key Factor in Assessment of Potential Endocrine Disruptors
August 21, 2002 - Weight-of-Evidence Assessment Concludes Bisphenol A is Not a Carcinogenic Risk
June 25, 2002 - European Commission’s CSTEE Confirms No Low-Dose Effects from BPA
July 15, 2002 - European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food Confirms That Products Made with Bisphenol A Are Safe
July 2, 2002 - Definitive Peer-Reviewed Study Reports No Low-Dose Effects
June 25, 2002 - European Commission's CSTEE Confirms No Low - Dose Effects from BPA
May 8, 2002 European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food Confirms That Products Made with Bisphenol A Are Safe
May 2, 2002 - US and Japanese Regulatory Agencies View the Low-Dose Hypothesis as Unproven
Here is the last paragraph of their most recent article:
Are the Myths About Polycarbonate Bottles True? New Information Supports the Safe Use of Polycarbonate Bottles - February 5, 2008
http://www.bisphenol-a.org/whatsNew/20080205.html
"A complete review of the scientific data, as has been conducted by government and scientific bodies worldwide, reveals that polycarbonate bottles are safe for use and that migration levels of bisphenol A from polycarbonate plastic under real-life conditions are well within science-based safety limits."
- web site sponsored by the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, which is organized regionally at the American Chemistry Council, PlasticsEurope, and the Japan Chemical Industry Association
And yet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A
On April 18, 2008 Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement announced that Canada intends to ban the import and sale of polycarbonate baby bottles due to health concerns over bisphenol A. Just prior to the announcement (but just after the release of the NTP report), Wal-Mart announced that it was immediately ceasing sales in all its Canadian stores of food containers, water and baby bottles, sippy cups, and pacifiers that contain bisphenol A , and that it would phase out baby bottles made with it in U.S. stores by early 2009. On the same day, Nalgene also announced it would stop using the chemical in its products.
In response to the Canadian ban, an American Chemistry Council/BPA Global Group spokesman said, “The weight of scientific evidence, as assessed by Health Canada and other agencies around the world, provides reassurance that consumers can continue to safely use products made from bisphenol A."
Dose vs Effect from various "scare stories" disputed by the plastics industry
0.025 ppb = Permanent changes to genital tract 2005
0.025 ppb = Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens 2005
2 ppb = increased prostate weight 30% 1997
2 ppb = lower bodyweight, increase of anogenital distance in both genders, signs of early puberty and longer estrus. 2002
2.4 ppb = Decline in testicular testosterone 2004
2.5 ppb = Breast cells predisposed to cancer 2007
10 ppb = Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer 2006
10 ppb = insulin resistance develops in 2 days, chronic hyperinsulinemia at day 4 2006
10 ppb = Decreased maternal behaviors 2002
20 ppb = Damage to eggs and chromosomes 2003
25 ppb = Health Canada provisional human exposure limit 1999
30 ppb = Reversed the normal sex differences in brain structure and behavior 2003
50 ppb = U.S. human exposure limit 1998
50 ppb = European Food Safety Authority tolerable daily intake level 2007
Environmental Impact:
As an environmental contaminant this compound interferes with nitrogen fixation at the roots of leguminous plants associated with the bacterial symbiont Sinorhizobium meliloti. Despite a half-life in the soil of only 1–10 days, its ubiquity makes it an important pollutant.
So how much exposure would you get from a Nalgene bottle ???
1 litre of Cold Water ~ ???
1 litre of Hot Tea ~ ??????
http://www.physorg.com/news120894078.html
NICKTHEGREEK
04-19-2008, 11:23
I'm not going to jump on either side, I only think of the old advertisement "More Doctors smoke Camels than any other brand" and all the pseudo science dredged up about how smoking can't possibly harm you. The minute the government starts talking about how many jobs/taxes will be lost, you know something is wrong.
Strategic
04-19-2008, 11:26
MSR used to make a Titan Titanium fuel bottle in the same sizes as their regular bottles (i.e., 11, 22 and 33oz), but I never looked into them, not being interested in their stoves. No idea of weight or the size of the mouth, etc. I look on the MSR site and they don't seem to be making them anymore. My guess is that they didn't work out as fuel bottles; maybe an eBay find as people ditch surplus ones (unused, of course) because they're not being sold by MSR and stores will clear out stock to surplus dealers.
Just a thought if you don't mind carrying water in one liter bottles.
http://http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300V/20061010/Beer-Kegs-109663.jpg
oldfivetango
04-20-2008, 08:11
Gee,guess I will just stay with me cast iron pots.
The iron leaching just makes the blood stronger!:D
Oldfivetango
budforester
04-20-2008, 08:20
JAK
Here's a link (http://www.freundcontainer.com/product.asp?pn=AC15&bhcd2=1208693584) to some screw- capped aluminum cans. They are not water- tight, however. A slip- on lid would probably be a better choice.
i was gonna post a picture of an beer keg but i got rolled by this coding :(