WARNING: Plastic buckets are not safe

[progmac]

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.

 

[robing123456]

beer gives us bitch tits anyway!

 

[pjj2ba]

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. My biggest complaint is that all of the samples were treated with UV light for 30 min. to make sure they were sterile. No non-UV-treated samples were looked at for comparison. So is the study looking at the affects of UV light on the release of estrogenic compounds? I see no way to rule out the effects of UV light on the plastic. Who knows what chemical changes were happening in the plastic. Was the sterilization really needed? Perhaps another method (ethylene oxide?) could have been used rather than one known to affect plastics

I find it kind of annoying that there was no attempt to actually quantify the levels of estrogenic compounds extracted. How many micrograms? What was measured was the response (cell proliferation) compared to a standard estrogenic compound. It is a bit of a leap. If the standard gave us this response and the extract gave us the same, then it must be the same stuff. In my field, if you want to say you found X, then 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.

As to how relative the findings are, the extracts were made at 1 gm of plastic per 1.5 ml of liquid (saline or ethanol -100%? - it is not clearly stated, so I'm assuming) and then incubated (after the UV light) at 37 C for 72 hrs. I'd be very curious to know what the results would have been if it had been under conditions more similar to what happens in the real world. The is a big difference between can you extract the estrogenic compounds, and will you get extraction in real life situations

 

[Puddlethumper]

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.

Hmm ... sounds like you take issue with my thinking that since my kitten jumps 2 feet and a frog jumps 2 feet, therefore my kitten must be a frog! And you dare to take issue with that logic? I'm crushed!

 

[Puddlethumper]

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.

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.

 

[progmac]

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.

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]

 

[Walking_Target]

I'm gonna state it again;

Hops are a natural source of estrogen mimicking compounds.

/end thread

 

[user 144271]

I was half impressed so IDK if that makes me uneducated or uniformed.

I think my brain hurts..... I will be back after a refill

 

[Puddlethumper]

I was half impressed so IDK if that makes me uneducated or uniformed.

No one can, in a lifetime, become well eductated and well informed about any more than a handful of subjects. We are all ignorant about things we haven't had to deal with and learn about. I am persuaded that the beginning of learning is the admission of ignorance.

..... I will be back after a refill

Mind if I join you?

 

[user 144271]

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.

 

[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 ****s 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 ****s 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 ?

 

[user 144271]

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.