WARNING: Plastic buckets are not safe

[chanson16]

Is a homer bucket safe for storing star San and soaking parts? I also mill grain into a homer bucket.

 

[lowtones84]

I understand not appreciating when people give information like this and don't back it up/cite the article. But what is wrong with being concerned about something like this in an educated fashion? Things slip past government regulation all the time. How long did it take for companies like Nalgene and Camelbak to convert to BPA free plastics for their water bottles? And even if it's not a guaranteed health issue yet, why take the risk if there is an alternative?

Yeah credible sources should be cited, but what exactly is the point of mocking a potentially legitimate health concern? I have a batch in a glass carboy right now as well as a batch in a brewing bucket. I will still be drinking the one in the bucket for sure, but I personally would like to see more qualified research on the subject.

 

[Denny]

AFAIK, buckets are HDPE and HDPE doesn't contain BPA.

 

[savannahbrew]

Here's one article I've found searching google:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/



I believe this says that 69% of HDPE products tested with Ethanol extracted EA in detectable amounts (given certain Root Mean Squared Errors). How the amount extracted affects the human body over time I'm not sure.

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230412/



If someone could interpret the results of those studies and put it in plain English that'd be great! TIA!

Basically these guys doing the study think plastics are really bad for you. They used UV light as a stressor to make the plastic release chemicals. The aim was to highlight that plastics are prone to releasing chemicals under many conditions. These chemicals are harmful to your body such as estrogenic mimicking compounds. These are organic compounds that can interact with chemicals in your body and possibly do you harm. People will argue back and forth about this but sometimes just its just better to be safe than sorry. Be ahead of the curve and use glass plus its prettier.

 

[Puddlethumper]

but what exactly is the point of mocking a potentially legitimate health concern? .

Thank God this is still America. We are all free to decide what we want to do about each of these issues based on our own free will.

I think the key to understanding the dividing line in this issue, though, is in a couple of words you chose to use. I refer to the phrase "potentially legitimate".

Over the past 40 years I have watched as the US government moved from a disinterested 3rd party to the various manufacturing processes to its current position. Today it takes years and costs a manufacturer millions and millions of dollars to bring a new product to market just to satisfy all the testing and double testing required to satisfy government mandated product safety requirements. After production the manufacturer must remain aware of the continual and real threat of litigation should the government or manufacturer's scientists have missed something. All of these concerns are multiplied tremendously should a manufacturer want to market something as "Food Grade".

And yes, I have used Nalgene bottles and i have ridden many hundreds of miles on my bike sucking on a Camelback to keep me hydrated. Was my health compromised as a result? Quite frankly, I seriously doubt it. I think the process worked just as it should. When a potential health issue was identified it was addressed at the early stages, before anyone was hurt, and a better product emerged as a result.

There are a lot of things we can all do to improve our general health. The Heart Association and the Cancer Society's websites give us each a punch-list of real and specific things we can do to improve our chances of avoiding heart disease and cancer, the two leading killers in America today. As for me? I am going to be concerned with things that I know for a fact are things that I can control; i.e. - I quit smoking cigarettes, I use my seatbelts, I walk when I play golf instead of riding a cart, and I try to eat 5 servings of vegetables a day, etc. Things like potentially legitimate health concerns I will leave to others to worry about if they choose to.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Is a homer bucket safe for storing star San and soaking parts? I also mill grain into a homer bucket.

Since it isn't a food grade bucket I would not use it for anything related to food. I use Homer buckets to store cement, sand, mortar and sometimes as a trash can. For anything related to my brewing I use either food grade plastic or glass. There may not be any problem at all with using it for your StarSan, but I doubt there's any data out there, so why take a chance? I just bought a food grade 5 gal. bucket and lid at Lowes for less than 5 bucks.

Just my opinion. Others will probably think differently.

 

[BobbiLynn]

i'm gonna state it again;

hops are a natural source of estrogen mimicking compounds.

/end thread

wtf?

So the growth of my boobs WAS thanks to the homebrew?

 

[pabloj13]

Have a beer with me.

If you want to have a good laugh watch those stupid morning show spewing DUMB advice.

I work in the salmon industry and watched Jillian from biggest loser on good morning america promoting her book about healthy food.

When she comes to the salmon NEVER EAT FARM RAISED cause of the chemicals, only eat wild

Some one should tell the retard that the plate in front of her was full of FARMED SALMON

But all the people who don't know fish will listen to her and buy wild.

I don't understand this post at all. How do you know her fish was farmed? Are you suggesting it is better to buy farm-raised fish than wild caught?

 

[Chadwick]

This has been an interesting thread. It brings up some interesting talking points. It isn't going to change a single thing in my life though. Unless you show me the study where home brewers have X amount of condition Y and it is a direct result of fermenting in Ale-Pails, I'll just go on with business as usual.

There are a lot of studies that show this and that. I did a simple study in high school a little over half a life ago. In my study, and it was backed by undisputable facts and evidence, living was found to be 100% fatal. There are possible treatments to prolong the life of someone with a living condition. However, these treatments can be unpleasant and uncomfortable at times. A treatment isn't a cure, and eventually everyone with a living condition will succumb to it and die.

 

[lowtones84]

AFAIK, buckets are HDPE and HDPE doesn't contain BPA.

Yeah I realize they don't contain BPA, I was just using it as an example. After thinking about it I looked it up and Nalgene didn't switch to BPA free plastics until 2008. It's only an example to show that sometimes things that have the potential to be harmful can slip under regulators' noses for some years. But thank you for pointing it out so other people didn't think I was saying that our brewing buckets contain BPAs.

 

[processhead]

I believe many people that are told they are "at risk" don't have the knowledge or information to evaluate the actual level of the risk.

Unfortunately, much research fails to make clear the exposure levels and the exposure duration that would actually present the hazard in a human subject, and the uninformed just buy into whatever they are told.

To make matters worse for consumers, any detectable level of a perceived hazard is often deemed unacceptable by government regulators.

There seems to be a mindset that is becoming more prevalent that ALL risk is unacceptable.

Cost vs. actual benefit analysis seems to have almost become a thing of the past when doing risk analysis.

For those that think they actually have a free choice in the matter, some government regulator is more often than not making your choices for you before you even get the chance.

 

[bottlebomber]

wtf?

So the growth of my boobs WAS thanks to the homebrew?

We're not sure, and it takes a trained eye to diagnose. You'd better put up some pics for the specialists to consider.

 

[srpratt]

Of course, I would conjecture to say that the ethanol in the beer poses more of a primary & adverse health risk to your waistline, liver, immune system, and psychological well being than a few ppb's of hormone mimicking compounds.

 

[GrogNerd]

I believe many people that are told they are "at risk" don't have the knowledge or information to evaluate the actual level of the threat.

Unfortunately, much research fails to make clear the exposure levels and the exposure times that would actually present the hazard in a human subject, and the uninformed just buy into whatever they are told.

To make matters worse for consumers, any detectable level of a perceived hazard is often deemed unacceptable by government regulators.

There seems to be a mindset that is becoming more prevalent that ALL risk is unacceptable.

Cost vs. actual benefit analysis seems to have almost become a thing of the past when doing risk analysis.

For those that think they actually have a free choice in the matter, some government regulator is more often than not making your choices for you before you even get the chance.

Nebraska, it seems, teaches common sense. thank you for this

Of course, I would conjecture to say that the ethanol in the beer poses more of a primary & adverse health risk to your waistline, liver, immune system, and psychological well being than a few ppb's of hormone mimicking compounds.

absolutely. we have people flipping out over a POTENTIAL poison leeching into the KNOWN poison they're making

 

[processhead]

Of course, I would conjecture to say that the ethanol in the beer poses more of a primary & adverse health risk to your waistline, liver, immune system, and psychological well being than a few ppb's of hormone mimicking compounds.

Ezzactly.

And it's a risk I'm willing to take.

 

[chickypad]

Of course, I would conjecture to say that the ethanol in the beer poses more of a primary & adverse health risk to your waistline, liver, immune system, and psychological well being than a few ppb's of hormone mimicking compounds.

It's certainly a much more commonly encountered and proven teratogen than endocrine disruptors are, at least since DES has been off the market. I see the OP hasn't been back, but I just have to say that as an obstetrician I find the birth attendant remark beyond ridiculous. The "huge increase" in birth defects is just blatantly false, and I find it hard to believe that a credible physician would make such a blanket statement about cause and effect that they couldn't possibly know. Most birth defects continue to be due to either unknown or "multifactorial" causes. Not saying it isn't a legitimate issue, but the research isn't there yet.
So I guess we're just back to keeping the pregnant ladies away from the homebrew

 

[GrogNerd]

The "huge increase" in birth defects is just blatantly false

huge increase caused by something that's always been there, just not detected until recently

 

[Basevol]

Was th OP talking about this report ?

Chemicals in the everyday products we use in our homes may be negatively affecting our hormones, says a newly-released study by WHO, the World Health Organization. The study, titled "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals," says pesticides, plasticizers and product additives contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). They act like synthetic hormones, throwing off the body's natural hormonal system. A hormone is a chemical messenger produced in the glands in our endocrine system and released in our blood and affects everything from mood to metabolism.

One of the chemicals investigated in the study is BPA, or bisphenol A, which mimics estrogen if it's introduced into your body. It can get there by leaching out of hard plastic bottles, especially if they are heated (in microwave ovens or dishwashers) or exposed to acidic solutions (tomato sauce). BPA is also found in plastic reusable food containers, canned soup, soda cans, and cash register and ATM receipts.

Frederick vom Saal, a biology professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia and one of the leading BPA researchers in the country, says that in studies of laboratory animals BPA changes play behavior, weakens gender differences, decreases sperm count, stimulates prostate cancer and causes ADHD symptoms.

BPA Is Also Making Us Fat

A study of nearly 3,000 children and teens in the September 2012 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found a significant association between levels of BPA in kids' urine and obesity. The report said that kids with the highest levels of BPA in their urine were over 2.5 times more likely to be obese compared to those with low levels of the chemical.

BPA might also be responsible for another disturbing effect. "I saw lots of 10- and 11-year-old boys with breasts," said Michelle Perro, M.D., during an interview, referring to what she observed while on a recent beach vacation. "I also am seeing a number of them in my office, and I'm convinced it's partially due to BPA in plastic that's acting as an endocrine disruptor," said Dr. Perro, a Marin County, Calif. pediatrician who's been practicing medicine for 30 years.

______________________________________________________============================

Was the OP talking about this report ?

 

[cooldood]

I don't understand this post at all. How do you know her fish was farmed? Are you suggesting it is better to buy farm-raised fish than wild caught?

I work for the world's largest salmon company. It is very simple to tell if you know what to look for. Just like if you know beer you can easily tell a stout from pilsner.

There have been numerous studies that show the health beinifts are about the same between farmed and wild. There is on average more omega 3 in farmed then salmon which is what most people want.

Also we know what our fish eat. Lord only knows what a wild fish eats.

I am sure there is more variability in wild then farmed.

 

[SpeedYellow]

Edit: i see Puddlethumper already addressed BPA.

Personally,I'd never expect government to protect us, considering their pathetic track record with anything related to food health (margarine, eggs, butter, ...). Nobody really has a clue, and these plastics issues seem still pretty new.

 

[IffyG]

the uninformed just buy into whatever they are told.

That's the real problem. Scientific illiteracy runs rampant in our country and a direct consequence is that people believe just about anything reported in the news.

 

[BobbiLynn]

Nobody really has a clue, and these plastics issues seem still pretty new.

It's only been in the last few years, 10 years at the most, that people have started freaking out about plastic containers. Yeah, whatever, plastic is bad and all that. Get over it. No, you are not going to die from that, but, trust me, eventually you will die. Blame whatever you feel like blaming, your choice.

 

[SpeedYellow]

It's only been in the last few years, 10 years at the most, that people have started freaking out about plastic containers. Yeah, whatever, plastic is bad and all that. Get over it. No, you are not going to die from that, but, trust me, eventually you will die. Blame whatever you feel like blaming, your choice.

This, like some other responses, seem strangely aggressive to a possibly very legitimate concern about chemicals leaching into our foods. I don't see anybody (except perhaps the OP) screaming doom & gloom, but rather reasoned questions and perhaps precautions like using glass. Why all the hate?

 

[processhead]

The only plastic bucket warning that most of us ever really needed....

No hate here...

 

[BobbiLynn]

This, like some other responses, seem strangely aggressive to a possibly very legitimate concern about chemicals leaching into our foods. I don't see anybody (except perhaps the OP) screaming doom & gloom, but rather reasoned questions and perhaps precautions like using glass. Why all the hate?

Oh, sorry, I was not meaning to be hateful. Of all the things in this world that really can hurt you, seems like something really silly to worry about. But, that's just me, I will stay out of it.

Eat real butter, not margarine and everything will be alright. :cross:

 

[Puddlethumper]

This, like some other responses, seem strangely aggressive to a possibly very legitimate concern about chemicals leaching into our foods. I don't see anybody (except perhaps the OP) screaming doom & gloom, but rather reasoned questions and perhaps precautions like using glass. Why all the hate?

Hey, if you want to use glass and it makes you feel better, by all means, go for it. It's America, it's your money and your choice. Please, though, don't confuse spirited disagreement with hate. No one here has said one word about you as a human being - but many have said they disagree with the level of angst raised about this issue by the OP (please re-read the title of the thread).

I read bobbilyn's post and saw absolutely nothing in it that could be construed as hateful. Perhaps you are a little jumpy? The whole purpose of forums such as this is to give people the opportunity to say what they think and they believe. Now what I think (or what anyone else here thinks) may be completely different from your views. That freedom is guaranteed all of us by virtue of the fact that we were fortunate enough to be born Americans. I have no right to require you to agree with me, but then neither do you have the right to demand that anyone here agree with you. But even if we disagree I don't think anyone here hates anybody. But we do have the right to disagree.

Edit: i see Puddlethumper already addressed BPA.

Personally,I'd never expect government to protect us, considering their pathetic track record with anything related to food health (margarine, eggs, butter, ...). Nobody really has a clue, and these plastics issues seem still pretty new.

Please don't get me wrong on this point... I don't expect government to protect me from anything. But I do have a pretty good grasp of the mechanisms within the governement regulatory systems and the mind-set of the people who are running those systems. I also fully comprehend the educational qualifications of the people who are watch-dogging every one of these issues as soon as they are raised. Does government jump as soon as a "potential concern" is raised? Thank goodness, the answer is "no". Do they do the due dilligence the American taxpayer is paying for? In the vast majority of cases the answer is "yes"

But there will always be those who jump at every shadow that crosses their path. As I have said before, I choose to be concerned about those things that I know for a fact are things I should be concerned about. "Potentially legitimate" concerns are just that, "potentially legitimate", which means they may be nothing to be concerned about at all. But then, hey, this is still America, and we can all do as we feel is best for us.

 

[Puddlethumper]

That's the real problem. Scientific illiteracy runs rampant in our country and a direct consequence is that people believe just about anything reported in the news.

Well said.

 

[Puddlethumper]

Was th OP talking about this report ?

Chemicals in the everyday products we use in our homes may be negatively affecting our hormones, says a newly-released study by WHO, the World Health Organization.

Was the OP talking about this report ?

We could start a whole new thread looking into the motivations and politics of the WHO.

 

[lowtones84]

There are a lot of aggressively negative responses. I feel like people would really not like to hear that something is wrong with fermenting in HDPE buckets, and have a surprisingly cynical view involving anything that could be wrong with our beloved buckets.

As for now nothing seems to be wrong with them, but some of these posts certainly don't do anything to encourage fair discussion about it, and may even discourage someone from posting a viewpoint other than the popular one.

Perhaps a new, more civil thread that stays on topic would be better? The original title and post is alarmist and I could see why it drew criticism, but there have been some other points that get completely overrun by aggressive denial that has no more scientific basis than any of the other arguments.

 

[IffyG]

Perhaps a new, more civil thread that stays on topic would be better? The original title and post is alarmist and I could see why it drew criticism, but there have been some other points that get completely overrun by aggressive denial that has no more scientific basis than any of the other arguments.

Switching the discussion isn't going to change the following:

1) most of the authors on the paper that stated the discussion have a major conflict of interest
2) the authors admit that they have no real sense of the biological implications of their findings other than they detected compounds that might impact physiology. They provided no evidence that anything they observed would have an effect in vivo
3) the methdology of their study was in the best case flawed and in the worst case, downright devious

The bottom line is that this is something worth keeping an eye one. However, I will be waiting for additional studies (that come out of labs without a conflict of interest) before abandoning my buckets/better bottles.

 

[Puddlethumper]

There have been quite a few well written posts on this thread and some that brought a chuckle. Thanks to those with a sense of humor! There's not much more to be said on this topic and those who will wait to react until they know there is a problem will remain pursuaded to follow that path. Those who choose to change their way of doing things as soon as some study reports a potential problem will also continue to follow their path.

To all I wish you well and happy brewing!

Goodnight.

 

[MalFet]

There's not much more to be said on this topic and those who will wait to react until they know there is a problem will remain pursuaded to follow that path. Those who choose to change their way of doing things as soon as some study reports a potential problem will also continue to follow their path.

...and those who think these are the only two options will continue to make grand proclamations?

 

[Epimetheus]

But if you let an actively fermenting alcoholic beverage sit in ANY plastic bucket for a week, it is quite likely you will be drinking estrogen-mimicking plastics.

Ah-HA I knew it! My man-boobs are because of those estrogen-mimicking plastics, not because I am overweight!

 

[lowtones84]

No, it's not going to change any of those things, which I agree with you on. But it could cut down on some of the many argumentative posts and narrow the discussion into something more constructive than inflammatory. I completely agree that a more legitimate study would be great.

I'm not getting rid of my plastics either, because I have a batch of house Belgian pale in a bucket right now that I'm very excited about!

 

[40oz2freedom]

Biologically speaking: if you're a grown A$$ man, Meiosis and progeny suplementation is a non-factor. Let, er-RIP.

 

[BobbiLynn]

Ah-HA I knew it! My man-boobs are because of those estrogen-mimicking plastics, not because I am overweight!

That's what I meant earlier, people can blame whatever they want for their man-boobs. I do see the other side of the coin too though. well, actually, no I don't. I guess if I really stretch I can, someone must worry about what's safe and what's not safe. I just like to go by facts, like percentage of people who have died from it, or percentage of people who have suffered because of it, stuff like that. Proven facts. I said I'd stay out, but couldn't resist. Fun topic. No hate here, just saying....

 

[mooshimanx]

Meh, whatever. Everything in the entire world is not safe, including continuing to live since it just brings you closer and closer to death.

 

[GrogNerd]

everything is bad for you

Grog's rules for food #9 – no matter what you eat or don't eat, you will still die

and its corollary - no matter what you do or don't do, you will still die

Meh, whatever. Everything in the entire world is not safe, including continuing to live since it just brings you closer and closer to death.

agreed

 

[Denny]

Meh, whatever. Everything in the entire world is not safe, including continuing to live since it just brings you closer and closer to death.

But the key is how soon do you want to die? After 2 heart attacks and 2 grandchildren, I want to keep it as far away as possible. It's easy to be cavalier about death when you're young and healthy. I certainly was. These days, my attitude is a bit different.

 

[processhead]

Again, the issue here is not whether risk may be present. The issue is relative risk.

Is the risk to my well-being and longevity greater from some trace compounds that might be leached from a plastic pail, or from driving to work in the morning, or my penchant for BBQ ribs, or -enter your own risky behavior here_?

Is a barely detectable suspected level of risk worth the research dollars and public worry associated with the questionable or unknown benefit of it's elimination when you consider the far greater risks that we are all exposed to on a routine daily basis?

I feel like the priorities are misplaced on many levels here.