Print 69 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Aug 19 at 2:17 PM

A variety of polycarbonate bottles, including the popular Nalgene shatter-free bottles contain the chemical bisphenol A. In sufficient quanitities the chemical is believed to disrupt hormones, but the FDA concludes in an early report that the levels in plastics are low enough not to be harmful.
Could a common chemical found in plastics be toxic? -- the FDA says no

There are plenty of health concerns to consider these days.  With some doctors worried about the possible effects of cell phones on the human body, components of our everyday lives that seem immovable have been called into question.

Another major health concern is possible toxins from plastics.  Some plastics contain chemicals that are carcinogenic and some have speculated that the minute traces of the chemical that leaches into the drinking water steadily with time could cause cancer.  Other chemicals are thought to be not primarily carcinogenic, but to disrupt hormones and wreak havoc upon the human body in other ways.

Among the plastics that fall into the latter category are those made by Nalgene.  Nalgene leaches a compound bisphenol A, which in animal tests has been shown to lead changes in behavior and the brain and possibly reduce the survival and birth rate of fetuses.  It is thought to have similar effects on the human body.  Bisphenol A is used in the plastic and in other applications as a hardening agent.

The debate is particularly fierce due to some of household products that contain the chemical -- Nalgene shatter-proof drinking bottles, Nalgene baby bottles, and canned food (bisphenol A is used to seal cans).  As these items are all ingested there is much concern that human health may be adversely affected.  It is also found in many other household products such as plastic sunglasses and CDs.

Not so, the Food and Drug Administration concluded last Friday.  While many are concerned, they say they have reviewed the research and believe the levels of the chemical found in household items to be tolerable by the human body and are not a threat to infants.  The conclusions were presented in a draft report on the topic.

The decision was lauded by the American Chemistry Council, a Political Action Committee (PAC) and public relations organization who seeks to improve the chemical industry's image.  Steve Henges, an executive director with the council, states, "FDA is the government agency we rely upon to assess food-contact products. They've assessed this issue in great detail and their conclusion is very reassuring."

Critics blasted the report, though; as they say it relied heavily on studies funded by the plastics industry and ignores studies by leading medical experts.  Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences complains, "It's ironic FDA would choose to ignore dozens of studies funded by [the National Institutes of Health] -- this country's best scientists -- and instead rely on flawed studies from industry."

The FDA decided to revisit the topic on the chemical, which has been used for decades, due to the federal National Toxicology Program decision that there was "some concern" that the chemical could be harmful to infants.

Sufficient levels of bisphenol A can cause negative physiological effects in humans, the FDA did conclude.  It also reported that 93 percent of American had traces of bisphenol in their urine, according to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.  However the FDA concluded that the amount of the chemical leaching from household products falls thousands of times short of harmful levels.

The FDA will continue its analysis of the chemical in September with outside advisers debating the compounds safety at a September meeting.  The final report is being anticipated by lawmakers as it may influence their legislation.  Canada is currently considering banning the compound in baby bottles and California, New Jersey and at least 10 other states are considering banning its use in children's products.

The outcome will have a significant effect on the chemical industry as 6 million pounds of bisphenol are produced yearly.  Dow Chemical, BASF, and Bayer AG are among the largest producers.  They and their representative, the American Chemistry Council, hope that the FDA will conclude in its final report that the chemical is not harmful.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I read a report on this a while back...
By SilthDraeth on 8/18/2008 10:16:40 AM , Rating: 1
The chemical is dangerous as far as I am concerned. The FDA has a history of approving controversial chemicals. Look at:

As with all information, everyone chooses which side to believe. I personally believe them to be harmful. I haven't yet been able to go completely natural for food, etc, but I am definitely try to limit exposure to all of this stuff for myself and my family. Even if the affect is purely placebo, I have more peace of mind.

By MrBlastman on 8/18/2008 10:31:58 AM , Rating: 3
Thankfully all plastic products contain a number code which will tell you where the product falls according to safe consumption guidelines.

Now, weather we believe these guidelines completely or not - that is up to you. If I were the FDA, I would put more merit into studies done by 3rd party independent scientists/physicians than inside the industry studies.

For more info on the guidelines:

100% US Government free source :) There are plenty others out there, just search a little. My wife recently made me aware of these. Before she did, I was totally oblivious to the differences in all of them.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By nafhan on 8/18/2008 10:36:21 AM , Rating: 5
In sufficient quantities, just about anything is dangerous, and/or can cause CANCER!

The best thing is to stay informed about products you use and make your own decisions on things like this. Personally, I feel like we have better things to worry about than Nalgene bottles...

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By masher2 on 8/18/2008 11:56:38 AM , Rating: 5
> "In sufficient quantities, just about anything is dangerous, and/or can cause CANCER!"

That's the key point. There are over 1200 chemicals found naturaly in a cup of coffee. Roughly half of them are carcinogenic in a large enough dose. The same is true for many other foods, natural or otherwise.

By Oregonian2 on 8/18/2008 2:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, John Stossel has an interesting story about carcinogens. The guy who came up with the test for carcinogens (who the test is named after) thinks his test goes overboard (and that he got something banned that perhaps shouldn't have been). He showed a bowl of mushrooms that would be off the chart with his carcinogen test, but he had no problem eating them (the guy who came up with the test).

Just read Stossel's book recently:

He's off-base about 10% of the time I think, not fully understanding the broader aspects of some issues at hand, but the other 90% are very interesting.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By stryfe on 8/18/2008 12:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
In sufficient quantities, just about anything is dangerous, and/or can cause CANCER!
Including reading DailyTech comments!

By DASQ on 8/19/2008 12:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Should I be suing you for adding one extra comment to my daily safe saturation limit?

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By MrBlastman on 8/18/2008 10:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
On a further note - I try to be 100% MSG free as well.

I will tell you it is not the easiest thing to do. The isles are stocked full of products at the grocery store with MSG in it. Literally almost everything there has it in some form or another. It is sick.

Soup - check
Snacks - check
Sausage and processed meats - check
Frozen food - check
Seasonings/Mixes/Helpers - check

I could go on. A lot of chain restaurants use it as well. Typically, if it is a chicken dish that is not fried, it probably has MSG in it. Pretty sick.

The day I stopped consuming products with MSG in it was the day I began feeling clearer in thought and conscious effort.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By blaster5k on 8/18/2008 11:05:46 AM , Rating: 5
Ever hear of the placebo effect?

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By MrBlastman on 8/18/2008 11:13:58 AM , Rating: 3
Sure I've heard of it - and I'd believe it if I didn't have some relatives with a high sensitivity to MSG as well.

A couple of them get severe headaches when they eat food containing MSG. I get dizzy and spacey feeling.

MSG effects everyone differently. From my personal experiences it is not a substance I want in my body.

Looking back, prior to being aware of MSG and what it does to me, I can explain a whole slew of situations where I had eaten something that made me dizzy/spacey/off in the past that I shrugged off at the time as being not a big deal. Now I know the food I had eaten contained MSG.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By masher2 on 8/18/2008 11:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
> "A couple of them get severe headaches when they eat food containing MSG. I get dizzy and spacey feeling."

I know people that can die if they eat a single shrimp. Or a peanut or two. Those foods obviously need to be banned as well!

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By MrBlastman on 8/18/2008 12:10:20 PM , Rating: 4
I love how you extrapolate BAN BAN BAN from my post when I never even mentioned it.

I simply mentioned I did not like to eat it.

Your mastery mind reading needs further practice.

By Icelight on 8/18/2008 1:56:19 PM , Rating: 4
Certain DailyTech authors thrive in sensationalism so much they have begun to migrate to new habitats in order to spread it further.

By Solandri on 8/18/2008 8:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
I get severe headaches from MSG, bad enough to keep me home from work. I never really cared about MSG, in fact I used to use Accent as a topping when I was a kid. But shortly after grad school I started to occasionally get really bad headaches. After tracking all sorts of possible causes and deliberately subjecting myself to them, I finally narrowed it down to a Chinese restaurant that used MSG in some of their dishes (the ones without MSG didn't give me any problems).

So yes, some of us are very adversely affected by it. I don't want a ban - if you want to eat it, by all means feel free. But I would really appreciate it if it's labeled so I can avoid it and stay functional the rest of the day.

By tmouse on 8/18/2008 1:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well glutamate is a non essential amino acid. Some people do have sensitivity to it and like many with defective metabolic disorders will have a very difficult life trying to avoid it. Stay away from vegetarian life styles since soy products contain high amounts. Same for any product that has "hydrolyzed" protein as an ingredient. For everyone else is safe although the sodium component is probably far worse.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By TETRONG on 8/18/2008 7:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
Recently I tried panda express for the first time because I was with a friend who was concerned about spending too much money on food.
When I was 3/4 of the way through the meal my head had a strange dull ache combined with a spaced out feeling. My friend described the exact same sensation. I tried to drive to our destination, but we both decided it was safer to pull over and try to walk it off. The drug-like sensation subsided after about an hour.

Not sure if it's due to MSG or not, but I won't be eating there again.

By bety on 8/19/2008 1:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
Oh brother. Well it is amazing that: have avoided msg till now because you have such an unusually severe reactio to it to the point where you cannot drive

2.your friend, coincidently, has the same reaction

By DASQ on 8/19/2008 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad MSG doesn't really affect me. It's pretty tasty, even though I'll avoid eating/using too much purely because it starts to taste really 'fake' after a bit :p

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By Oxonium on 8/18/2008 11:18:42 AM , Rating: 3
I call BS. MSG is a naturally occurring substance. Therefore a lot of foods will have it. It is produced by fermenting carbohydrates. It's impossible to be MSG-free. Yes, some people are sensitive to it just like gluten and phenylalanine. Foods containing those two compounds aren't banned, nor should they be. So why should MSG?

By MrBlastman on 8/18/2008 11:20:51 AM , Rating: 3
I never said MSG should be banned. I just said I avoid it because of how it makes me feel.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By Ratinator on 8/18/2008 11:40:28 AM , Rating: 1
Marijuana is a naturally occurring substance too and that isn't exactly healthy for you. Just because it's "Natural" doesn't mean it is good for you.

By freshmint on 8/18/2008 12:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well I can tell you first hand that marijuana is certainly good for me.. so I don't think that is a very good example.

By johnnyMon on 8/18/2008 12:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Who said marijuana is not healthy for you? Studies funded by governments and those who stand to benefit from marijuana being illegal, perhaps? ;)

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By MrPickins on 8/18/2008 12:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
Be sure to stay away from Grape Juice, Peas, Corn, Tomatoes, Parmesan cheese, ect...

Free gtlutamate ions are found in high concentrations in all of these foods naturally.

By MrPickins on 8/18/2008 12:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot to link:

And misspelled "Glutamate" :-p

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By MrBlastman on 8/18/2008 12:24:30 PM , Rating: 3
You are correct, they are.

There is, however, a difference between the glutamate ions that are naturally occuring and those of "processed" foods which are man-made consisting of processed glutamate or MSG.

I just know that those foods you mentioned above - Grape juice, peas, corn, tomatoes, parmesan etc. do not have the same effect on me as food that contains MSG.

I'll choose to avoid it where possible. I'm glad we have more choices than ever before in the supermarkets - places like Trader Joes, Whole Paycheck and local Co-op supermarkets.

Long live America and our freedoms to choose.

By Oregonian2 on 8/18/2008 2:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
The biggie is staying away food with soy bean or soy bean products in them due to the high level of MSG "naturally".

Don't mind folk who think your problem with MSG is mental. Back when MSG-is-bad became popular, they did blind testing with folk who though it was bad for them and as it turns out the vast vast majority only had problems with MSG when they knew they were eating it. So for that reason it gets pooh-pooh'd quite a bit now, but even with those tests not ALL had no problems. Some indeed had problems with it even in the blind test (even if a small number even among those who professed problems). So you certainly could be one of those who indeed has a problem or sensitivity.

P.S. - "No MSG added" is one of those trick statements. Kindof like those organic versions of usually-cured meats that say "no nitrates/nitrites" added" but mysteriously have celery juice added (has it naturally).

By MrPickins on 8/18/2008 6:31:02 PM , Rating: 2

There is, however, a difference between the glutamate ions that are naturally occuring and those of "processed" foods which are man-made consisting of processed glutamate or MSG.

No, there isn't. Free Glutamate is free glutamate. Glutamate bound in protein is different however. Hence my strict use of the term "free glutamate"...

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By mmntech on 8/18/2008 11:15:28 AM , Rating: 5
Funny you should mention aspartame. It's supposed danger is a well known hoax. It was being linked to all sorts of crazy diseases yet all reputable studies independent of the FDA have confirmed that this wasn't true.

I have to be skeptical whenever someone tells me something I use everyday will kill me. Same goes with these municipal pesticide bans. Health Canada did numerous independent studies showing they were safe but the cities banned them anyway. Now the noxious weed populations have skyrocketed. Some such as hogweed have chemicals in them that can cause serious burns. Of course, there's also the allergy issue. I guess our society just needs something to be afraid off all the time.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By Oxonium on 8/18/2008 11:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
Same thing with saccharin. That has been pretty much vindicated as well. In fact just a bout every toothpaste uses it.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By SilthDraeth on 8/18/2008 2:54:00 PM , Rating: 1
I am not sure why I got voted down. I said everyone needs to choose which side of which study to believe. I have my own beliefs.

RE: I read a report on this a while back...
By bety on 8/19/2008 1:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
Probably because we don't all choose your methodolgy of simply "choosing" what to belief based apparently on whimsy. Some of us like to look at the available facts/studies and combine that with common sense. Further, when you simply "choose" to believe that certain substances are dangerous and then simply state outright that they are dangerous, you can expect that some people won't think too highly of your declarations.

By SilthDraeth on 8/19/2008 9:56:48 AM , Rating: 1
If you actually read what I wrote, you would notice I didn't claim any of them to be dangerous. I said the FDA has a history of approving CONTROVERSIAL additives/ chemicals, etc.

I also look at available studies. Just because I choose to believe one side over the other does not mean I simply "choose" with no logic behind my choices.

All Others Bring Data
By clovell on 8/18/2008 11:18:17 AM , Rating: 4
I have some experience working with the FDA, and I have to say they're generally a pretty tough crowd. Studies based on grants are generally not large-scale, well-designed studies. They certainly have their merits and there certainly are some good ones, but large, randomized, parallel studies cost a lot of money - often much more than a grant can provide. The FDA considers not only the design of a trial, but also the data and the statistical methodologies employed.

I really think it's time that people get over stigma that's given to large industries. Without these corporations there would be little innovation brought to the masses. It's time to accept the reality that science is not conducted in some ivory tower, and, as much as many scientist try to keep their work free of bias, sketchy data, and just plain bad luck, it hardly, if ever, happens.

It's entirely plausible that they are wrong on this, but it seems rather unlikely. Still, it's good to see that debate continues - at least this way, people who want to can decide for themselves.

RE: All Others Bring Data
By johnnyMon on 8/18/2008 12:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you are right, but I don't trust any federal agency under the Bush administration to do anything that benefits the citizenry when big business would pay a price.

RE: All Others Bring Data
By tmouse on 8/18/2008 1:28:37 PM , Rating: 3
So you do not trust the government and you do not trust corporations. You have a lot of work to do by your self. Seriously though I like the way people assume that corporate studies are never peer reviewed. Keep in mind all NIH studies are government funded. It seems to me the vast majority of this Bisphenol A stuff is total mouse milking. There are numerous studies showing that the amounts of transfer are 3-4 orders of magnitude less than the maximal recommended doses which have a reasonable safety margin already built in. Studies that have shown higher levels use extreme conditions generally above 50 degrees C and in the presence of 50% ethanol or pure oils. There are studies showing dust contains as much as some samples. The biological effects use 2-4 orders of magnitude higher doses to see the neurological or genotoxic effects and most use direct injection of the compounds. While I will not say this stuff is harmless I would not lose any sleep over it.

RE: All Others Bring Data
By BladeVenom on 8/18/2008 2:18:26 PM , Rating: 5
Even with these modern chemical concoctions. I'm switching back to good old fashioned lead. ;)

RE: All Others Bring Data
By Screwballl on 8/18/2008 1:35:51 PM , Rating: 4
I don't trust any federal agency under the Bush administration to do anything that benefits the citizenry when big business would pay a price.

really? Considering most of the department heads and officials have all had their positions at least since the Clinton days and many since Regan, Bush #1, Carter and so on. So lets blame the presidents of the past 3 decades for the allowance of dangerous chemicals in drinking bottles...

RE: All Others Bring Data
By shiner on 8/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: All Others Bring Data
By YoshoMasaki on 8/18/2008 12:44:13 PM , Rating: 1
Ignorance v. Knowledge, 10M B.C. Version

Ogg: Ooh! ooh! Me smell danger! Danger in rock! Ogg no drink from rock!

Ug: Ug mama also think danger, rock! Rock kill small Ug, no good!

Tarzan: Stop spreading FUD you morons, the wizards say its safe. And anecdotal evidence has proven worthless on everything from aspartame to silicone breast implants - when will you stop believing in the inflated importance of your samples of "1"?

Ogg + Ug: Haha Tarzan dumb Tarzan die by rock, Ogg and Ug smart!

Abide by the FDA if you want to live
By SiliconJon on 8/18/2008 11:34:07 AM , Rating: 3
Like the FDA would ever collaborate for their own personal gain over the public health, or allow corporate profit to reign over possible public health problems. I mean sheesh, do you know how many thousands of people would have to be in on such's ludicrous! /sarcasm

I have my children on statins because the FDA tells me it's a good preventative measure for them. You can't possibly get me to believe corruption exists in a drug market.

I have my children on ADHD medication because my government controlled school diagnosed my children as being unruly, questioning that which they are told, and coming up with ideas that weren't presented before them.

I allow my doctor, with his walls decorated by every drug company in the book and his pens and clipboards paid by pharmaceuticals and his judgment enticed by free drugs and his stock portfolio rather than intense medical studies providing empirical data of proof, to tell me what drugs my kids and I need to take in order to cure our diseases because the FDA has been kind enough to inform me that drugs are required to cure diseases, period.

I mean, come on, this is the government we're talking about, not some group of incompetent and/or corrupt buffoons.

/more sarcasm

RE: Abide by the FDA if you want to live
By masher2 on 8/18/2008 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "Like the FDA would ever collaborate for their own personal gain over the public health"

I'm a bit unclear on how scientists at the FDA profit from the sale of Nalgene. Or are you hypothesizing massive bribes paid to thousands of separate people, and somehow not showing up on the balance sheets of the corporations involved?

Anyway, it's not just the government saying Nalgene is safe. It's every reputable scientist worth his salt.

Finally, if you're considering putting your food and water into metal or even wood containers instead of plastic, you'll be shocked to know of how many dangerous chemicals, metal ions, and other contaminants arise from that process. Or how many endocrinal disruptors and carcinogens are found naturally within the foods themselves.

> "I allow my doctor, with his walls decorated by every drug company in the book and his pens and clipboards paid by pharmaceuticals "

Yes, we all know doctors are willing to risk their careers and reputations for the sake of a free ballpoint pen and a couple of nifty internal organ posters.

RE: Abide by the FDA if you want to live
By john12 on 8/18/2008 2:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
The way that government reports and employees are subverted is by offering them jobs after their employment is over. Reports maybe censored by the boss. Not thousands of bribes, just a few along with some campaign contributions.
Doctors get more than pens from drug companies. They get vacations, even cash payments.
Or haven't you been paying attention.

By masher2 on 8/18/2008 2:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a defense contractor we're talking about here, but rather plastic bottle makers. A job offer there would be a threat to most FDA researchers, rather than a bribe.

But by all means, if you have evidence to the contrary, post it here. Until then, its a conspiracy theory, and about as credible as the most recent sighting of Elvis.

By clovell on 8/18/2008 5:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sales & marketing tactics are strictly regulated within the drug industry, and there are severe consequences for giving extravagant gifts, not the least of which are a lack of public trust and investor confidence, which are real threats since the Vioxx debacle.

Any literature distributed to doctors must be presented at a major conference or in a peer-reviewed journal or be part of the FDA-approved drug label.

Seriously though - you're supposing quite a number of job offerings, and if you've paid attention to the drug industry lately, and it's stock prices, there aren't many openings to be filled.

I know...
By Oralen on 8/18/2008 10:11:19 AM , Rating: 1
So. It's supposed to be safe, but you will never be sure, and anyway you will never know how to avoid the plastics that contain it...

I know...

To get over the anguish that reading this article caused you...

Get yourself a baby bottle...

Cut it in two...

And now you have two perfectly safe ashtrays !

Lite 'em up...

Cancer? Yes, but MY way !

Smokers of the word unite ! :-)

RE: I know...
By monkeyman1140 on 8/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: I know...
By FITCamaro on 8/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: I know...
By uhgotnegum on 8/18/2008 11:54:29 AM , Rating: 3
I don't trust non-trusters...

And I prefer new-style glass bottles (HA!).

But seriously...I think that you trust private industry to reduce costs and maximize profits. So, you trust them to the point where it's in their best interest to keep their customers safe (that doesn't mean they make everything as safe as possible, just safe enough that the amount they'd have to pay out for law suits is less than they'd spend on safety).

You trust the government to do their best, but you have to recognize that the people who work for them aren't the smartest (b/c the smartest go into the private sector where they earn real money), but they might just be the most altruistic. BUT, the problem with government is that these agencies are part of the political machine, which has a hierarchy and a lot of inefficiencies.

I guess my long-winded point is that you don't have to throw your hat into one corner and fight the other...just take the information from both and apply the proper filter to draw your own conclusions (relevant DT example?: Jason Mick or Michael Asher articles on energy).

RE: I know...
By masher2 on 8/18/2008 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 1
> "I dont't trust private industry..."

Pete Myers, the man leading the criticisms of the FDA here, works for (and founded) a private environmental company making millions of dollars from scares such as this. You trust him?

He also runs a crackpot website called "Our Stolen Future", which has literally hundreds of stories about how modern products are silently killing us.

RE: I know...
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2008 2:15:59 PM , Rating: 1
No its the Chinese that are silently killing us.

RE: I know...
By DigitalFreak on 8/18/2008 4:00:19 PM , Rating: 1
So environmental crackpots are bad. Corrupt corporations are good? Nice logic there.

RE: I know...
By masher2 on 8/18/2008 4:46:04 PM , Rating: 3
> "So environmental crackpots are bad. "


> "Corrupt corporations are good?"

I don't see any "corrupt" corporation here. When not corrupt, corporations are good. In fact, the corporation is one of man's great inventions of the past 200 years, responsible for much of the wealth and standard of living we in the West enjoy.

I realize there are those -- you apparently among them -- who automatically believe all corporations are inherently corrupt, but the reality is substantially different from your impression.

I use Sigg waterbottles now
By TMoney468 on 8/18/2008 3:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of whether or not this will have any long-lasting impact on the health of people, I decided to switch from my Nalgene bottles to the aluminum-material Sigg water bottles. They're a little bit more expensive, but now you don't have to worry about what may/may not be leaching into your drinks.

RE: I use Sigg waterbottles now
By clovell on 8/18/2008 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
=/ Some studies have linked Alzheimer's to aluminum deposits in the brain. Not to be a jerk - just pointing out that there's always something with just about everything.

RE: I use Sigg waterbottles now
By TMoney468 on 8/18/2008 9:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I better not use deodorant either then...

RE: I use Sigg waterbottles now
By clovell on 8/19/2008 2:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
Deordorants don't use aluminum; anti-perspirants do. If you're worried about that sort of thing...

RE: I use Sigg waterbottles now
By Solandri on 8/18/2008 7:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
First, as mentioned, there may be a risk associated with aluminum exposure. The exposure is much higher with liquids (aluminum water bottles) than in air (like with aluminum foil). When aluminum reacts (corrodes) with air, it forms a protective aluminum oxide layer (aka corundum aka rubies and sapphires) which is very hard, tough, and does a great job sealing any food from direct contact with the aluminum. But when aluminum reacts (corrodes) with water, it sloughs off continuously as aluminum oxide particles, producing no protective layer.

Second, nearly all aluminum (and tin) cans and containers are covered on the inside with a layer of plastic specifically because of the above mentioned corrosion effect. Even if there are no detrimental health effects to aluminum, prolonged contact with water and beverages will cause it to corrode through. In ship and boat hulls, we use sacrificial anodes to avoid this. But for drink bottles and cans they just line the interior with plastic.

Googling for Sigg, it looks like they use a BPA-free epoxy to line the inside of their canisters. So the fact that they're aluminum is irrelevant except from a mechanical standpoint. For health purposes it's basically an epoxy bottle with aluminum structural strengthening.

The FDA?
By yacoub on 8/18/2008 1:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
The FDA are about the last people I'd trust to tell me what's safe and what isn't, given how many, many times they've been wrong and how much of a debacle it has become for them to even keep our fresh foods free of disease. They just import all kinds of stuff from Mexico that gets people sick and products from China that kill people. What a terribly ineffective government agency.

RE: The FDA?
By Oregonian2 on 8/18/2008 2:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I hope the grocery stores switch their produce purchasing away from the FDA as their food wholesalers/importers and go to somebody who does it for fun as a hobby (NOT as a business, because that'll make them one of those nasty corporations which are as bad as the FDA as a source of safe food!).

RE: The FDA?
By clovell on 8/18/2008 5:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
Funny - isn't that exactly what you've been doing since you were born?

Polycarbonate in perspective
By chrisld on 8/18/2008 5:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
As a polymer scientist I'd like to put the use of polycarbonate in perspective. Without it we would have no safety glasses, no plastic lensed sunglasses, no CDs , no DVDs , no BluRay, no motorcycle helmets and no bullet proof glass.

Plastics help us a lot. They save more oil than is used to make them by insulating our homes and making cars lighter. So, we need to be very sure of the safety one way or the other before banning materials that help us so much.

Before someone flames me, I will point out that I have no vested interested in polycarbonate and don't sell it or work with it.

By SilthDraeth on 8/19/2008 11:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
I love polycarbonate. I believe most people that have an issue with it do so from a strictly beverage point of view.

Water is very caustic and leeches chemicals from nearly anything. With PC hot water leeches even more quickly.

Other than the beverage portion PC is an amazing material and in no way shape or form do I believe it should be banned.

Oh yeah, I'm reassured
By AntiM on 8/18/2008 10:34:21 AM , Rating: 1
"FDA is the government agency we rely upon to assess food-contact products. They've assessed this issue in great detail and their conclusion is very reassuring."

There you have it. A government agency says it's safe, so we can all quit worrying about it. RIGHT! The Government would never put the interests of a large corporation ahead of the safety of the people. We can all go back to sleep now.

RE: Oh yeah, I'm reassured
By uhgotnegum on 8/18/2008 11:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
Wait...before I got back to sleep I need some water (glub glub from my nalgene).

-Uncle Henry ;)

FDA says lots of things are safe
By srelf on 8/18/2008 3:46:06 PM , Rating: 1
Like Byetta. Killed too many people. Oops! Guess we'll have to revise our "science" on that one too!

The fox guards the chicken coop all too often over there. For example: A USA TODAY analysis of financial conflicts at 159 FDA advisory committee meetings from Jan. 1, 1998, through June 30, 2000 found:

"...At 92% of the meetings, at least one member had a financial conflict of interest.

At 55% of meetings, half or more of the FDA advisers had conflicts of interest.

Conflicts were most frequent at the 57 meetings when broader issues were discussed: 92% of members had conflicts.

At the 102 meetings dealing with the fate of a specific drug, 33% of the experts had a financial conflict..."

And I'm sure since Bush took the reigns industry influence only skyrocketed.

By clovell on 8/18/2008 5:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, presidential administrations have practically nothing to do with who serves on an FDA advisory committee.

Eastman Tritan Polymer FTW
By wakeup360 on 8/18/2008 12:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
By Screwballl on 8/18/2008 1:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
Life is dangerous... before you know it there will be vaccines for every known illness or virus which means our own defenses will start shutting down... everything will be padded to make sure we don't cut our finger or bruise our arm on something...
c'mon people, life is full of dangers, stop worrying about some dumb barely noticeable chemical that has been proven again and again that there is no harm in the current quantities...

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki