So, still no link to the study. I smell a troll.
At the least it's dredging up an oft debated topic.
Let's talk about the dangers of glass...
What you are saying is absolutely true. However we cannot equate government's inaction prior to the 1980's with the overwhelming government involvement of today. Nor should we ignore the difference brought on by increased litigation related to product safety since the 1970's. Manufacturers today simply do not operate in a vacuum.
I agree that it is possible that something might slip by all of the watchdogs. But as I have watched these flareups make the news I've learned that they are more often based on the fact that something harmful was found "in detectable amounts" where they didn't think it was before. However the root cause here is improvements in the ability to detect substances. With the huge leaps in science we can find parts per billion now when we could only find parts per million a few years ago.
The question I have to ask is, "Sure, now they can detect the presence of something in my food/utensils/air/whatever, but was it found in an amount that might be harmful?"
Dosage determines if something is going to be harmful. To illustrate the point, oxalic acid is one of the deadliest poisons known. We've known about how harmful it is for 250 years. But with improved ability to detect these substances it suddenly started showing up in some foods. Especially dark green leafy vegetables. It was a big concern until they figured out that it has been there all along. Spinach, for example, produces oxalic acid and stores it in its leaves as a natural insecticide. Is it there in amounts that are likely to be harmful to humans? Absolutely not. Should we all panic and stop eating spinach? I like spinach and will continue to enjoy it, but it is your choice.
millsware said:This is true, however in my house, like most others in Pittsburgh, that first coat of paint was put on about 80 years ago. I have several spots that are flaking right now and have already done one major remediation.
To tie back to the original point, government inaction is not the same thing as assurance of safety. Pediatricians had been reporting on the dangers of lead paint in houses and on toys since the early 1900's. Lead paint was not made illegal until the 70's, and could still be found in gas until the early 90's.
While not mentioned, I wonder if they zero'd out their test material? Was the EA in it from before?
What isn't well talked about is that much of our water has this in it already and has for 40+ years. So unless they generated distilled salt water, it calls that part into question. I'm not sure about the alcohol.
This BS starts needless paranoia. Most likely the level of contaminate is insignificant.
Most likely, yes, but sometimes it's not. That's why it's good to ask the question, even if it's debunked.
It seems many of you are annoyed by threads like this, but I find it extremely helpful to thoroughly and thoughtfully think through what we're using. I mean, we analyze every other aspect of brewing, certainly materials should not be excluded.
Trust me, I'm glad the OP's claims have been seemingly refuted, I love my plastic buckets, but I find more comfort in some well-thought knowledge than blind ignorance.
If you or a loved one has developed symptoms of endocrine disrupters (ED), such as man-boobs or extra limbs, attributed to drinking beer fermented in plastic buckets, you may be entitled to share in a large monetary settlement.
Call the Sokolov Law Firm now to ensure your share of this settlement. Call 1 800 BAD-BUCKET now.
Announcement by paid typist, not an actual attorney.
Dosage determines if something is going to be harmful. To illustrate the point, oxalic acid is one of the deadliest poisons known. We've known about how harmful it is for 250 years. But with improved ability to detect these substances it suddenly started showing up in some foods. Especially dark green leafy vegetables. It was a big concern until they figured out that it has been there all along. Spinach, for example, produces oxalic acid and stores it in its leaves as a natural insecticide. Is it there in amounts that are likely to be harmful to humans? Absolutely not. Should we all panic and stop eating spinach? I like spinach and will continue to enjoy it, but it is your choice.
It seems many of you are annoyed by threads like this, but I find it extremely helpful to thoroughly and thoughtfully think through what we're using. I mean, we analyze every other aspect of brewing, certainly materials should not be excluded.
This is true, however the issue with endocrine disrupting compounds are that:
A) They are biologically active at very low amounts. 35 micrograms (0.000035 grams) of ethinyl estradiol prevents pregnancy in otherwise healthy women. This is the dose found in birth control pills.
This is true, however the issue with endocrine disrupting compounds are that:
A) They are biologically active at very low amounts. 35 micrograms (0.000035 grams) of ethinyl estradiol prevents pregnancy in otherwise healthy women. This is the dose found in birth control pills.
KurtB said:Damn. I though if my wife kept drinking the beer I was making in plastic buckets in my basement it would lead to an increased chance of me getting her pregnant, not the other way around...
Guess I better switch her back to drinking margaritas.
This is true, however the issue with endocrine disrupting compounds are that:
A) They are biologically active at very low amounts. 35 micrograms (0.000035 grams) of ethinyl estradiol prevents pregnancy in otherwise healthy women. This is the dose found in birth control pills.
B) Endocrine disrupting compounds usually have nonmonotonic dose-response curves.
Has there been a NOEL (no observable effect level) established for any of these compounds? More specifically, has there been a NOEL established for the compound we are concerned with in this thread?
Yikes
My Daddy used to call 'em "worry worts". Just not happy if they don't have something to fuss about.
The public's perception of health risk is a crazy thing.
Are the folks who worry about trace levels of whatever in their beer, coffee, drinking water the same people who chat or text on their device while tooling down the road doing 75 MPH?
Statistically, which one do YOU think is more likely to kill you first?
This is true, however the issue with endocrine disrupting compounds are that:
A) They are biologically active at very low amounts. 35 micrograms (0.000035 grams) of ethinyl estradiol prevents pregnancy in otherwise healthy women. This is the dose found in birth control pills.
B) Endocrine disrupting compounds usually have nonmonotonic dose-response curves. This means that the dose response does not follow a single trend, ie twice as much dose does not give twice as much of a response. In other words, if you went and ate all of your wife's birth control pills probably nothing would happen. However, if you ate one a day, you might start to notice some subtle changes over time.
previously linked article
Ok, I read the above article. I'm not sure it would have made it past my desk if I were a reviewer.
you'd better have some direct proof, it is X, not just that it gave a response similar to X, so it must be X.
this thread is 15 pages of people claiming that "everybody" worries excessively about exposure to certain chemicals. the continued rambling about this "everybody" boogeyman when there is pretty much only one viewpoint in this thread is somewhat hilarious.
The day that policy makers listen to and understand the academic literature and science before making a decision will be the day that [insert expression here]When people in authority are motivated by the same kind of junk science based on half-truths and fear that we viewed on this thread it can become a real problem for our society and our economy. That affects us all.
I think the part that pulled my string on this was the reality that there are people like the ones who started this thread that actually have some power. With that power, they make rules that are based on junk science and fear. And those rules tie the hands of people who are trying to accomplish something useful, sometimes vital, to society.
Example:
The city and county of San Francisco have a pesticides policy that is a complete travisty. The people who are trying to protect public health and safety in that county have their hands utterly tied by these regulations to the point that, in some cases, they simply cannot do their jobs.
Who, dare we ask, is responsible for the public policy and associated "approved products list"? The two guys who were hired to set up this "green" program are a couple of Berkely grads with PhD's. The degrees might seem impressive, except when you google the names you find that neither of these guys have ever done an honest days work in real science in their careers. They are, in fact, career political activists. One actually is the founder and paid president of an anti-pesticide "public policy action organization". When you read what these guys are writing you see exactly the same kind of half-truths designed to impress the uneducated and uninformed as we have witnessed in the opening pages of this thread.
That is the reality of doing business in America today .. and to some of us, people like these are a significant concern.
I was half impressed so IDK if that makes me uneducated or uniformed.
..... I will be back after a refill
Enter your email address to join: