What is the actual danger, if any, in plastic water bottles?

BenBurch · 10th October 2011, 04:35 PM

OK, what is the actual danger, if any, in plastic water bottles, and which sort of plastic or plastics would it apply to?

I tried google, but am overwhelmed by the number of hits most of which seem to be dire warnings.

What is the Actual Truth^TM?

Dikken · 10th October 2011, 05:41 PM

Depends on what kind of plastic bottles you are thinking of. One use bottles are mostly dangerous because no-one recycles them and thy end up in landfills and the ocean. Multi-use bottles are only dangerous if you keep liquids in them for a long time so that chemicals can leach out. Of course leaving the bottles in your car during the summer can hasten the leaching process.

Floyt · 10th October 2011, 07:48 PM

Re the health hazard, it presumably depends on the exact material, and I doubt there's a catch-all answer. Re the (non)decomposition/landfill problem, almost all types will last for literally centuries if not exposed to much UV, and even then fragment and (if waterborne) remain suspended and clog up pelagic foodwebs. My judgment would be that the damage done by re-use can't be nearly as great as that done by junking a hundred million per year, though.

(and apparently they are subject to forum rules. Is that really the only use that the word "suspended" gets put to around here?

)

casebro · 10th October 2011, 07:55 PM

BPA is the chemical used to soften the plastic. Other wise it would be hard plastic rather than stretch wrap. BPA is suppposed to cause cancer, probably in rats, in cages, at 10,000 times the dose per kilo ever possible in humans. I doubt than anybody ever caught cancer from a plastic bottle.

BPA is also the major ingredient, at about 75%, in epoxy resins, glues,paints....

I don't worry about it. I drink tap water, usually as 'kitchen counter tea' rather than sun tea. I refill single use bottles with it.

Hmmm, maybe somebody can find real statistics, like "you are likely to suffer from soap poisoning than BPA sickness? " Or: If we did away with BPA completely we would all go one furlong farther in our life times".

Soapy Sam · 10th October 2011, 08:01 PM

Price.

ApolloGnomon · 10th October 2011, 08:14 PM

Environmental Estrogens

My wife studied molecular biology in college and has been freaking out about this (off and on) for about 15 years. She attributes the "obesity epidemic" to this, in part, along with the internet and the ubiquity of cheap corn sugar.

FattyCatty · 10th October 2011, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

Environmental Estrogens

My wife studied molecular biology in college and has been freaking out about this (off and on) for about 15 years. She attributes the "obesity epidemic" to this, in part, along with the internet and the ubiquity of cheap corn sugar.

Apparently your wife is not alone. See this author manuscript: Reprod Toxicol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 November 1. Published in final edited form as: Reprod Toxicol. 2007 Aug–Sep; 24(2): 131–138. Published online 2007 July 27. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.07.005: Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: Integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure.

Quote:

5. Conclusions

The published scientific literature on human and animal exposure to low doses of BPA in relation to in vitro mechanistic studies reveals that human exposure to BPA is within the range that is predicted to be biologically active in over 95% of people sampled. The wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans. Recent trends in human diseases relate to adverse effects observed in experimental animals exposed to low doses of BPA. Specific examples include: the increase in prostate and breast cancer, uro-genital abnormalities in male babies, a decline in semen quality in men, early onset of puberty in girls, metabolic disorders including insulin resistant (type 2) diabetes and obesity, and neurobehavioral problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
<snip>

ectoplasm · 10th October 2011, 09:08 PM

Here is an article from Forbes explaining the results of an EPA funded study that concluded that environmental BPAs are not a problem.

FattyCatty · 10th October 2011, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by ectoplasm

Here is an article from Forbes explaining the results of an EPA funded study that concluded that environmental BPAs are not a problem.

That article is interesting; it claims that most exposure to BPAs is through food; it concentrates on blood levels; it seems to find no harm. From your article:

Quote:

The study – which combined the expertise of Battelle researchers working at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, one of the nation’s top research institutions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – was the first to track the chemical BPA in human blood and urine in volunteers who ate a diet rich in bisphenol-A (BPA) – from lots of canned food – over a 24-hour period. It was e-published in the leading toxicology journal, Toxicological Sciences on June 24 ahead of print publication.

As the lead author, Justin Teeguarden, explained, the time period was important because our exposure to BPA is mostly through food, which means blood and urine concentrations rise and fall throughout the day as we eat. By continuously sampling blood and urine from the volunteers, Teeguarden and his co-authors were able to build the most comprehensive picture yet of human exposure to BPA over a day– and whether biologically active BPA manages to reach our internal tissues
<snip>
“In a nutshell, says Teeguarden, “we can now say for the adult human population exposed to even very high dietary levels, blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA.”

I couldn't see the whole study and couldn't find the part where they show author affiliations. Although I note that the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. issued a press release about it:

Quote:

CDC, EPA Clinical Exposure Study Finds BPA Exposure Unlikely to Cause Health Effects
North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. Lauds Study Findings; BPA Not Detectable in Blood Even at Highest Concentrations

Not surprisingly, they were very happy with these findings. And because I'm a nasty, suspicious person, I wonder how much this new "no problem" study is related to this kind of thing (from 2009):

Quote:

For decades, the chemical industry has been able to control the debate on whether BPA is harmful to human health. Now the Food and Drug Administration, which had relied on industry-financed studies to declare the chemical safe, is reconsidering its determination. The decision is expected by Nov. 30.

"We are under attack from all fronts," Carteaux told the audience at the group's annual meeting in June.

And with increasing urgency, the industry is pushing back - hard.

The industry has launched an unprecedented public relations blitz that uses many of the same tactics - and people - the tobacco industry used in its decades-long fight against regulation. This time, the industry's arsenal includes state-of-the-art technology. Their modern-day Trojan horses: blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and YouTube.

A four-month investigation by the Journal Sentinel reveals a highly calibrated campaign by plastics makers to fight federal regulation of BPA, downplay its risks and discredit anyone who characterizes the chemical as a health threat. The newspaper examined thousands of pages of Internal Revenue Service reports, disclosure forms and e-mails between government scientists and lobbyists as well as the industry's own public relations materials.

Here are some other opinions on BPAs:

From the "Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: Integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure":

Quote:

Concern has been elevated by published studies reporting a relationship between treatment with “low doses” of BPA and many of theses negative health outcomes in experimental studies in laboratory animals as well as in vitro studies identifying plausible molecular mechanisms that could mediate such effects. Importantly, much evidence suggests that these adverse effects are occurring in animals within the range of exposure to BPA of the typical human living in a developed country, where virtually everyone has measurable blood, tissue and urine levels of BPA that exceed the levels produced by doses used in the “low dose” animal experiments.
From Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Volume 241, Issue 3, 15 December 2009, Pages 322-328: "Toxic effects of low doses of Bisphenol-A on human placental cell":

Quote:

Abstract

Humans are exposed daily to a great number of xenobiotics and their metabolites present as pollutants. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is extensively used in a broad range of products including baby bottles, food-storage containers, medical equipment, and consumer electronics. Thus, BPA is the most common monomer for polycarbonates intended for food contact. Levels of this industrial product are found in maternal blood, amniotic fluid, follicular fluid, placental tissue, umbilical cord blood, and maternal urine. In this study, we investigated toxic effects of BPA concentrations close to levels found in serum of pregnant women on human cytotrophoblasts (CTB). These cells were isolated from fresh placentas and exposed to BPA for 24 h. Our results showed that very low doses of BPA induce apoptosis (2 to 3 times) as assessed using M30 antibody immunofluorescent detection, and necrosis (1.3 to 1.7 times) as assessed through the cytosolic Adenylate Kinase (AK) activity after cell membrane damage. We also showed that BPA increased significantly the tumor-necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) gene expression and protein excretion as measured by real-time RT-PCR and ELISA luminescent test, respectively. Moreover, we observed that induction of AK activation and TNF-α gene expression require lower levels of BPA than apoptosis or TNF-α protein excretion. Our findings suggest that exposure of placental cells to low doses of BPA may cause detrimental effects, leading in vivo to adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, prematurity and pregnancy loss.
From JAMA, an original contribution, "Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults":

Quote:

<snip>
Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the world's highest production–volume chemicals, with more than 2 million metric tons produced worldwide in 2003 and annual increase in demand of 6% to 10% annually.¹ Bisphenol A is used extensively in epoxy resins lining food and beverage containers and as a monomer in polycarbonate plastics in many consumer products. Widespread and continuous exposure to BPA, primarily through food but also through drinking water, dental sealants, dermal exposure, and inhalation of household dusts, is evident from the presence of detectable levels of BPA in more than 90% of the US population.^2,3,4
From Reprod Toxicol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. Published in final edited form as: Reprod Toxicol. 2010 July; 29(4): 401–406. Published online 2010 April 24. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.04.004"Bisphenol A Exposure Leads to Specific MicroRNA Alterations in Placental Cells
"

Quote:

The commercial use of BPA is increasing in frequency and research has shown that exposure to BPA, for example through plastic beverage containers, can significantly increase urinary BPA concentrations [29, 30]. The increase in maternal exposure during critical windows of fetal development is of particular concern as even low-dose exposure to BPA can lead to adverse effects in laboratory animals including delayed developmental outcomes in offspring of exposed mothers [31–33]. Importantly, a recent study demonstrated that low dose exposure to BPA also leads to apoptosis and necrosis in primary human placental cytotrophoblast cells [24]. Though the mechanism of BPA toxicity is still unclear, previous studies with BPA have demonstrated its ability to alter DNA methylation patterns [13–15], suggesting an epigenetic component to its toxicity. This work has explored an alternative epigenetic mechanism by determining the effects of the toxicant on miRNA expression following exposure of three different placental cell lines to BPA.

gabeygoat · 11th October 2011, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dikken

Depends on what kind of plastic bottles you are thinking of. One use bottles are mostly dangerous because no-one recycles them and thy end up in landfills and the ocean. Multi-use bottles are only dangerous if you keep liquids in them for a long time so that chemicals can leach out. Of course leaving the bottles in your car during the summer can hasten the leaching process.

plant me here.

MoeFaux · 11th October 2011, 12:39 AM

Eh, no evidence, but good advice: Don't drink out of a plastic water bottle that's been left in a hot car. Something about leeching chemicals and all. Also, tastes bad.

Plastic is so passe. Besides, those metal water bottles kick ***. Really. They can be used as a weapon. And they make you look cool.

EHocking · 11th October 2011, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

OK, what is the actual danger, if any, in plastic water bottles, and which sort of plastic or plastics would it apply to?

There is little to no danger of chemicals leeching out of plastic currently used for single or multi-use water bottles- even if you freeze or microwave heat them or leave them in the sun.

It is mostly elore and myth - here's an article on Bisphenol A
(the more commonly talked about "cancer causer")

This thread discusses BPA etc in plastic bottles (my posts from post 53 on)

The biggest danger to health when reusing plastic water bottles is bacteria that could grow between use.

Quote:

I tried google, but am overwhelmed by the number of hits most of which seem to be dire warnings.

What is the Actual Truth^TM?

Wiki has an article, and this article on the myth has useful links as well.

"Years ago" (a decade or more?) there was a particular soft-plastic, resusable bottle sold for sporting types, that did have the potential to leach chemicals. It was not widely sold and pulled very quickly.

ETA : I believe I was thinking of the Nalgene bottles - so 1997/98

It is probably from this that the Urban Legend grew.

casebro · 11th October 2011, 05:46 AM

If all these modern chemicals are so bad fro us, why do all the studies, year after year, say we are living longer?

And dirt doesn't cause disease, and the germs in the dirt or water bottles don't cause disease, it's the lack of exposure that causes disease. That is why we vaccinate. So just think of the day to day exposure to small amounts of bacteria as a 'vaccination'. It keeps you immunity current. Ok, a little hyperbolic there. But geeze, people think that every bit of dirt has bubonic plague or Ebola virus. It just ain't that virulent.

EHocking · 11th October 2011, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

If all these modern chemicals are so bad fro us, why do all the studies, year after year, say we are living longer?

And dirt doesn't cause disease, and the germs in the dirt or water bottles don't cause disease, it's the lack of exposure that causes disease. That is why we vaccinate. So just think of the day to day exposure to small amounts of bacteria as a 'vaccination'. It keeps you immunity current. Ok, a little hyperbolic there. But geeze, people think that every bit of dirt has bubonic plague or Ebola virus. It just ain't that virulent.

So.

I take it that you never wash any of your cutlery, crockery or cookware between use?

I agree that the risk of bacterial/fungal growth is small and probably not virulent - but it is a higher risk than any "chemical leaching" stories about reusing plastic water bottles.

quarky · 11th October 2011, 08:15 AM

We use to get our drinking water in used plastic milk jugs. They were hard to clean, especially as the handle was hollow. After a year or so, they got pretty funky. We switched to glass gallon wine jugs. It was hell emptying them that first time.

casebro · 11th October 2011, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

So.

I take it that you never wash any of your cutlery, crockery or cookware between use?

I agree that the risk of bacterial/fungal growth is small and probably not virulent - but it is a higher risk than any "chemical leaching" stories about reusing plastic water bottles.

My hands, my kitchen utensils, and my wounds are all as clean as cold water can get them.

Oh, while you are here, let me introduce you to my dog, Cold Water.

Ya know, my dog (not really named Cold Water) eats anything she finds appetizing to her. Food left laying around the neighborhood, the occasional bit of critter poo, whatever. She hasn't needed a vet visit in her three years.

It's easy for you to say "dogs have a stronger immune system". But why would their immune system be inherently stronger than ours, if it wasn't for the constant exposure?

So I'm keeping my immunity up. I re-use water bottles, wash my hands a couple times a day, eat food that falls on the floor. Even after last week, when a visitor pointed out the maggots on the kitchen floor. So I had to roll out the fridge, and use a putty knife to scrape up the gunk. I was expecting a dead vermin. But no big game trophy for me. No Ebola, botulism, creeping crud, or saggin armpits either. I guess the dog's tongue wouldn't reach that far.

Fortunately my visitor is a lab animal care specialist. She didn't spass out over the maggots. In fact, she gave me a breakdown by species of the flies stuck on the fly strip.

Compare this to my neighbors. The family took the two kids on a supposed four day camping trip. They came home after one day. "It's so dirty out there"...

quarky · 11th October 2011, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

My hands, my kitchen utensils, and my wounds are all as clean as cold water can get them.

Oh, while you are here, let me introduce you to my dog, Cold Water.

Ya know, my dog (not really named Cold Water) eats anything she finds appetizing to her. Food left laying around the neighborhood, the occasional bit of critter poo, whatever. She hasn't needed a vet visit in her three years.

It's easy for you to say "dogs have a stronger immune system". But why would their immune system be inherently stronger than ours, if it wasn't for the constant exposure?

So I'm keeping my immunity up. I re-use water bottles, wash my hands a couple times a day, eat food that falls on the floor. Even after last week, when a visitor pointed out the maggots on the kitchen floor. So I had to roll out the fridge, and use a putty knife to scrape up the gunk. I was expecting a dead vermin. But no big game trophy for me. No Ebola, botulism, creeping crud, or saggin armpits either. I guess the dog's tongue wouldn't reach that far.

Fortunately my visitor is a lab animal care specialist. She didn't spass out over the maggots. In fact, she gave me a breakdown by species of the flies stuck on the fly strip.

Compare this to my neighbors. The family took the two kids on a supposed four day camping trip. They came home after one day. "It's so dirty out there"...

Cool concept.

I'd take it another step:
An immune system out of a job may start to work for the enemy.

So let's not forget to get funky occasionally.

Kiss a dog; eat floor-pie; drink questionable water.
that's my motto.

ApolloGnomon · 11th October 2011, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

We use to get our drinking water in used plastic milk jugs. They were hard to clean, especially as the handle was hollow. After a year or so, they got pretty funky. We switched to glass gallon wine jugs. It was hell emptying them that first time.

Dude, that's NOT the single-serving size!

quarky · 11th October 2011, 07:56 PM

I had some help.

EHocking · 12th October 2011, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

My hands, my kitchen utensils, and my wounds are all as clean as cold water can get them.

Why?

If, as you claim germs don't cause disease, why wash at all?
Surely, if lack of exposure causes disease, you are endangering yourself by all this washing of hands and eating utensils?

Quote:

Oh, while you are here, let me introduce you to my dog, Cold Water.

Ya know, my dog (not really named Cold Water) eats anything she finds appetizing to her. Food left laying around the neighborhood, the occasional bit of critter poo, whatever. She hasn't needed a vet visit in her three years.

And one of my signature dishes is spaghetti carbonara - warmed up raw egg, and I've never had anyone suffer from salmonella poisoning. Ah, it must be the exposure to salmonella in my dishes...

The point of my post was that the greatest danger from reusing plastic drink bottles is the risk of bacterial or fungal growth that can cause illness. The risk is VERY small, but much, much greater than the elore about the danger of chemicals leaching out of the plastic.

EHocking · 12th October 2011, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by quarky

Cool concept.

I'd take it another step:
An immune system out of a job may start to work for the enemy.

So let's not forget to get funky occasionally.

Kiss a dog; eat floor-pie; drink questionable water.
that's my motto.

I suggest that you do not apply that last part of your motto to 3rd world countries' water supplies.

Roboramma · 12th October 2011, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by EHocking

I suggest that you do not apply that last part of your motto to 3rd world countries' water supplies.

Yeah, I'm actually a bit of a follower of quarky's motto, but I learned this one the hard way. After living in the toilet (I mean that literally) with everything I put in my body coming out both ends for two weeks, you'd think I'd have learned, but... well it still took a while (and a couple of more serious illnesses) before I finally decided to actually be careful about food and water in india.

It's never fun when you can't even keep water down. Luckily sprite settled a little better and I could sip at the stuff throughout the day.

10th October 2011, 04:35 PM	#1
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,115	What is the actual danger, if any, in plastic water bottles? OK, what is the actual danger, if any, in plastic water bottles, and which sort of plastic or plastics would it apply to? I tried google, but am overwhelmed by the number of hits most of which seem to be dire warnings. What is the Actual Truth^TM?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th October 2011, 05:41 PM	#2
Dikken Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 39	Depends on what kind of plastic bottles you are thinking of. One use bottles are mostly dangerous because no-one recycles them and thy end up in landfills and the ocean. Multi-use bottles are only dangerous if you keep liquids in them for a long time so that chemicals can leach out. Of course leaving the bottles in your car during the summer can hasten the leaching process.
Dikken Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 39

10th October 2011, 07:48 PM	#3
Floyt Chordate Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cape Town! Not mugged yet. Looking for chameleons. Posts: 1,425	Re the health hazard, it presumably depends on the exact material, and I doubt there's a catch-all answer. Re the (non)decomposition/landfill problem, almost all types will last for literally centuries if not exposed to much UV, and even then fragment and (if waterborne) remain suspended and clog up pelagic foodwebs. My judgment would be that the damage done by re-use can't be nearly as great as that done by junking a hundred million per year, though. (and apparently they are subject to forum rules. Is that really the only use that the word "suspended" gets put to around here? )
	__________________ They had no god; they had no gods; they had no faith. What they appear to have had is a working metaphor. - Ursula K. Le Guin, "Always Coming Home" Last edited by Floyt; 10th October 2011 at 07:50 PM.

10th October 2011, 07:55 PM	#4
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	BPA is the chemical used to soften the plastic. Other wise it would be hard plastic rather than stretch wrap. BPA is suppposed to cause cancer, probably in rats, in cages, at 10,000 times the dose per kilo ever possible in humans. I doubt than anybody ever caught cancer from a plastic bottle. BPA is also the major ingredient, at about 75%, in epoxy resins, glues,paints.... I don't worry about it. I drink tap water, usually as 'kitchen counter tea' rather than sun tea. I refill single use bottles with it. Hmmm, maybe somebody can find real statistics, like "you are likely to suffer from soap poisoning than BPA sickness? " Or: If we did away with BPA completely we would all go one furlong farther in our life times".
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

10th October 2011, 08:01 PM	#5
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Price.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

10th October 2011, 08:14 PM	#6
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,904	Environmental Estrogens My wife studied molecular biology in college and has been freaking out about this (off and on) for about 15 years. She attributes the "obesity epidemic" to this, in part, along with the internet and the ubiquity of cheap corn sugar.
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah

10th October 2011, 09:08 PM	#7
FattyCatty Picky V. Nitty Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,441	Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon Environmental Estrogens My wife studied molecular biology in college and has been freaking out about this (off and on) for about 15 years. She attributes the "obesity epidemic" to this, in part, along with the internet and the ubiquity of cheap corn sugar. Apparently your wife is not alone. See this author manuscript: Reprod Toxicol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 November 1. Published in final edited form as: Reprod Toxicol. 2007 Aug–Sep; 24(2): 131–138. Published online 2007 July 27. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.07.005: Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: Integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure. Quote: 5. Conclusions The published scientific literature on human and animal exposure to low doses of BPA in relation to in vitro mechanistic studies reveals that human exposure to BPA is within the range that is predicted to be biologically active in over 95% of people sampled. The wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans. Recent trends in human diseases relate to adverse effects observed in experimental animals exposed to low doses of BPA. Specific examples include: the increase in prostate and breast cancer, uro-genital abnormalities in male babies, a decline in semen quality in men, early onset of puberty in girls, metabolic disorders including insulin resistant (type 2) diabetes and obesity, and neurobehavioral problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). <snip>
	__________________ You can't teach an old dogma new tricks -- Dorothy Parker The sceptics continued to look sceptical and the believers believing -- Catherine Aird _{[/grammar nazi][/Dept of Grammar Security] ftfy -- Wudang Proud member of SCOFF (SoCal Opposing Feline Filleting)}

10th October 2011, 09:08 PM	#8
ectoplasm Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 213	Here is an article from Forbes explaining the results of an EPA funded study that concluded that environmental BPAs are not a problem.
ectoplasm Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 213

10th October 2011, 10:52 PM	#9
FattyCatty Picky V. Nitty Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,441	Originally Posted by ectoplasm Here is an article from Forbes explaining the results of an EPA funded study that concluded that environmental BPAs are not a problem. That article is interesting; it claims that most exposure to BPAs is through food; it concentrates on blood levels; it seems to find no harm. From your article: Quote: The study – which combined the expertise of Battelle researchers working at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, one of the nation’s top research institutions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – was the first to track the chemical BPA in human blood and urine in volunteers who ate a diet rich in bisphenol-A (BPA) – from lots of canned food – over a 24-hour period. It was e-published in the leading toxicology journal, Toxicological Sciences on June 24 ahead of print publication. As the lead author, Justin Teeguarden, explained, the time period was important because our exposure to BPA is mostly through food, which means blood and urine concentrations rise and fall throughout the day as we eat. By continuously sampling blood and urine from the volunteers, Teeguarden and his co-authors were able to build the most comprehensive picture yet of human exposure to BPA over a day– and whether biologically active BPA manages to reach our internal tissues <snip> “In a nutshell, says Teeguarden, “we can now say for the adult human population exposed to even very high dietary levels, blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA.” I couldn't see the whole study and couldn't find the part where they show author affiliations. Although I note that the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. issued a press release about it: Quote: CDC, EPA Clinical Exposure Study Finds BPA Exposure Unlikely to Cause Health Effects North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. Lauds Study Findings; BPA Not Detectable in Blood Even at Highest Concentrations Not surprisingly, they were very happy with these findings. And because I'm a nasty, suspicious person, I wonder how much this new "no problem" study is related to this kind of thing (from 2009): Quote: For decades, the chemical industry has been able to control the debate on whether BPA is harmful to human health. Now the Food and Drug Administration, which had relied on industry-financed studies to declare the chemical safe, is reconsidering its determination. The decision is expected by Nov. 30. "We are under attack from all fronts," Carteaux told the audience at the group's annual meeting in June. And with increasing urgency, the industry is pushing back - hard. The industry has launched an unprecedented public relations blitz that uses many of the same tactics - and people - the tobacco industry used in its decades-long fight against regulation. This time, the industry's arsenal includes state-of-the-art technology. Their modern-day Trojan horses: blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and YouTube. A four-month investigation by the Journal Sentinel reveals a highly calibrated campaign by plastics makers to fight federal regulation of BPA, downplay its risks and discredit anyone who characterizes the chemical as a health threat. The newspaper examined thousands of pages of Internal Revenue Service reports, disclosure forms and e-mails between government scientists and lobbyists as well as the industry's own public relations materials. Here are some other opinions on BPAs: From the "Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: Integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure": Quote: Concern has been elevated by published studies reporting a relationship between treatment with “low doses” of BPA and many of theses negative health outcomes in experimental studies in laboratory animals as well as in vitro studies identifying plausible molecular mechanisms that could mediate such effects. Importantly, much evidence suggests that these adverse effects are occurring in animals within the range of exposure to BPA of the typical human living in a developed country, where virtually everyone has measurable blood, tissue and urine levels of BPA that exceed the levels produced by doses used in the “low dose” animal experiments. From Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Volume 241, Issue 3, 15 December 2009, Pages 322-328: "Toxic effects of low doses of Bisphenol-A on human placental cell": Quote: Abstract Humans are exposed daily to a great number of xenobiotics and their metabolites present as pollutants. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is extensively used in a broad range of products including baby bottles, food-storage containers, medical equipment, and consumer electronics. Thus, BPA is the most common monomer for polycarbonates intended for food contact. Levels of this industrial product are found in maternal blood, amniotic fluid, follicular fluid, placental tissue, umbilical cord blood, and maternal urine. In this study, we investigated toxic effects of BPA concentrations close to levels found in serum of pregnant women on human cytotrophoblasts (CTB). These cells were isolated from fresh placentas and exposed to BPA for 24 h. Our results showed that very low doses of BPA induce apoptosis (2 to 3 times) as assessed using M30 antibody immunofluorescent detection, and necrosis (1.3 to 1.7 times) as assessed through the cytosolic Adenylate Kinase (AK) activity after cell membrane damage. We also showed that BPA increased significantly the tumor-necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) gene expression and protein excretion as measured by real-time RT-PCR and ELISA luminescent test, respectively. Moreover, we observed that induction of AK activation and TNF-α gene expression require lower levels of BPA than apoptosis or TNF-α protein excretion. Our findings suggest that exposure of placental cells to low doses of BPA may cause detrimental effects, leading in vivo to adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, prematurity and pregnancy loss. From JAMA, an original contribution, "Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults": Quote: <snip> Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the world's highest production–volume chemicals, with more than 2 million metric tons produced worldwide in 2003 and annual increase in demand of 6% to 10% annually.¹ Bisphenol A is used extensively in epoxy resins lining food and beverage containers and as a monomer in polycarbonate plastics in many consumer products. Widespread and continuous exposure to BPA, primarily through food but also through drinking water, dental sealants, dermal exposure, and inhalation of household dusts, is evident from the presence of detectable levels of BPA in more than 90% of the US population.^2,3,4 From Reprod Toxicol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 1. Published in final edited form as: Reprod Toxicol. 2010 July; 29(4): 401–406. Published online 2010 April 24. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.04.004"Bisphenol A Exposure Leads to Specific MicroRNA Alterations in Placental Cells " Quote: The commercial use of BPA is increasing in frequency and research has shown that exposure to BPA, for example through plastic beverage containers, can significantly increase urinary BPA concentrations [29, 30]. The increase in maternal exposure during critical windows of fetal development is of particular concern as even low-dose exposure to BPA can lead to adverse effects in laboratory animals including delayed developmental outcomes in offspring of exposed mothers [31–33]. Importantly, a recent study demonstrated that low dose exposure to BPA also leads to apoptosis and necrosis in primary human placental cytotrophoblast cells [24]. Though the mechanism of BPA toxicity is still unclear, previous studies with BPA have demonstrated its ability to alter DNA methylation patterns [13–15], suggesting an epigenetic component to its toxicity. This work has explored an alternative epigenetic mechanism by determining the effects of the toxicant on miRNA expression following exposure of three different placental cell lines to BPA.
	__________________ You can't teach an old dogma new tricks -- Dorothy Parker The sceptics continued to look sceptical and the believers believing -- Catherine Aird _{[/grammar nazi][/Dept of Grammar Security] ftfy -- Wudang Proud member of SCOFF (SoCal Opposing Feline Filleting)}

11th October 2011, 12:04 AM	#10
gabeygoat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hard Corvallis, Oregon Posts: 667	Originally Posted by Dikken Depends on what kind of plastic bottles you are thinking of. One use bottles are mostly dangerous because no-one recycles them and thy end up in landfills and the ocean. Multi-use bottles are only dangerous if you keep liquids in them for a long time so that chemicals can leach out. Of course leaving the bottles in your car during the summer can hasten the leaching process. plant me here.

11th October 2011, 12:39 AM	#11
MoeFaux Suspicious Mind Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 3,919	Eh, no evidence, but good advice: Don't drink out of a plastic water bottle that's been left in a hot car. Something about leeching chemicals and all. Also, tastes bad. Plastic is so passe. Besides, those metal water bottles kick ***. Really. They can be used as a weapon. And they make you look cool.
MoeFaux Suspicious Mind Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 3,919	__________________ This post brought to you by the artist fauxmerly known as Moe.

11th October 2011, 05:23 AM	#12
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by BenBurch OK, what is the actual danger, if any, in plastic water bottles, and which sort of plastic or plastics would it apply to? There is little to no danger of chemicals leeching out of plastic currently used for single or multi-use water bottles- even if you freeze or microwave heat them or leave them in the sun. It is mostly elore and myth - here's an article on Bisphenol A (the more commonly talked about "cancer causer") This thread discusses BPA etc in plastic bottles (my posts from post 53 on) The biggest danger to health when reusing plastic water bottles is bacteria that could grow between use. Quote: I tried google, but am overwhelmed by the number of hits most of which seem to be dire warnings. What is the Actual Truth^TM? Wiki has an article, and this article on the myth has useful links as well. "Years ago" (a decade or more?) there was a particular soft-plastic, resusable bottle sold for sporting types, that did have the potential to leach chemicals. It was not widely sold and pulled very quickly. ETA : I believe I was thinking of the Nalgene bottles - so 1997/98 It is probably from this that the Urban Legend grew.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage Last edited by EHocking; 11th October 2011 at 05:49 AM.

11th October 2011, 05:46 AM	#13
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	If all these modern chemicals are so bad fro us, why do all the studies, year after year, say we are living longer? And dirt doesn't cause disease, and the germs in the dirt or water bottles don't cause disease, it's the lack of exposure that causes disease. That is why we vaccinate. So just think of the day to day exposure to small amounts of bacteria as a 'vaccination'. It keeps you immunity current. Ok, a little hyperbolic there. But geeze, people think that every bit of dirt has bubonic plague or Ebola virus. It just ain't that virulent.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

11th October 2011, 05:54 AM	#14
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by casebro If all these modern chemicals are so bad fro us, why do all the studies, year after year, say we are living longer? And dirt doesn't cause disease, and the germs in the dirt or water bottles don't cause disease, it's the lack of exposure that causes disease. That is why we vaccinate. So just think of the day to day exposure to small amounts of bacteria as a 'vaccination'. It keeps you immunity current. Ok, a little hyperbolic there. But geeze, people think that every bit of dirt has bubonic plague or Ebola virus. It just ain't that virulent. So. I take it that you never wash any of your cutlery, crockery or cookware between use? I agree that the risk of bacterial/fungal growth is small and probably not virulent - but it is a higher risk than any "chemical leaching" stories about reusing plastic water bottles.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage Last edited by EHocking; 11th October 2011 at 05:59 AM.

11th October 2011, 08:15 AM	#15
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	We use to get our drinking water in used plastic milk jugs. They were hard to clean, especially as the handle was hollow. After a year or so, they got pretty funky. We switched to glass gallon wine jugs. It was hell emptying them that first time.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

11th October 2011, 06:52 PM	#16
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	Originally Posted by EHocking So. I take it that you never wash any of your cutlery, crockery or cookware between use? I agree that the risk of bacterial/fungal growth is small and probably not virulent - but it is a higher risk than any "chemical leaching" stories about reusing plastic water bottles. My hands, my kitchen utensils, and my wounds are all as clean as cold water can get them. Oh, while you are here, let me introduce you to my dog, Cold Water. Ya know, my dog (not really named Cold Water) eats anything she finds appetizing to her. Food left laying around the neighborhood, the occasional bit of critter poo, whatever. She hasn't needed a vet visit in her three years. It's easy for you to say "dogs have a stronger immune system". But why would their immune system be inherently stronger than ours, if it wasn't for the constant exposure? So I'm keeping my immunity up. I re-use water bottles, wash my hands a couple times a day, eat food that falls on the floor. Even after last week, when a visitor pointed out the maggots on the kitchen floor. So I had to roll out the fridge, and use a putty knife to scrape up the gunk. I was expecting a dead vermin. But no big game trophy for me. No Ebola, botulism, creeping crud, or saggin armpits either. I guess the dog's tongue wouldn't reach that far. Fortunately my visitor is a lab animal care specialist. She didn't spass out over the maggots. In fact, she gave me a breakdown by species of the flies stuck on the fly strip. Compare this to my neighbors. The family took the two kids on a supposed four day camping trip. They came home after one day. "It's so dirty out there"...
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts. Last edited by casebro; 11th October 2011 at 06:53 PM.

11th October 2011, 07:36 PM	#17
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Originally Posted by casebro My hands, my kitchen utensils, and my wounds are all as clean as cold water can get them. Oh, while you are here, let me introduce you to my dog, Cold Water. Ya know, my dog (not really named Cold Water) eats anything she finds appetizing to her. Food left laying around the neighborhood, the occasional bit of critter poo, whatever. She hasn't needed a vet visit in her three years. It's easy for you to say "dogs have a stronger immune system". But why would their immune system be inherently stronger than ours, if it wasn't for the constant exposure? So I'm keeping my immunity up. I re-use water bottles, wash my hands a couple times a day, eat food that falls on the floor. Even after last week, when a visitor pointed out the maggots on the kitchen floor. So I had to roll out the fridge, and use a putty knife to scrape up the gunk. I was expecting a dead vermin. But no big game trophy for me. No Ebola, botulism, creeping crud, or saggin armpits either. I guess the dog's tongue wouldn't reach that far. Fortunately my visitor is a lab animal care specialist. She didn't spass out over the maggots. In fact, she gave me a breakdown by species of the flies stuck on the fly strip. Compare this to my neighbors. The family took the two kids on a supposed four day camping trip. They came home after one day. "It's so dirty out there"... Cool concept. I'd take it another step: An immune system out of a job may start to work for the enemy. So let's not forget to get funky occasionally. Kiss a dog; eat floor-pie; drink questionable water. that's my motto.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

11th October 2011, 07:39 PM	#18
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,904	Originally Posted by quarky We use to get our drinking water in used plastic milk jugs. They were hard to clean, especially as the handle was hollow. After a year or so, they got pretty funky. We switched to glass gallon wine jugs. It was hell emptying them that first time. Dude, that's NOT the single-serving size!
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah

11th October 2011, 07:56 PM	#19
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	I had some help.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

12th October 2011, 04:43 AM	#20
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by casebro My hands, my kitchen utensils, and my wounds are all as clean as cold water can get them. Why? If, as you claim germs don't cause disease, why wash at all? Surely, if lack of exposure causes disease, you are endangering yourself by all this washing of hands and eating utensils? Quote: Oh, while you are here, let me introduce you to my dog, Cold Water. Ya know, my dog (not really named Cold Water) eats anything she finds appetizing to her. Food left laying around the neighborhood, the occasional bit of critter poo, whatever. She hasn't needed a vet visit in her three years. And one of my signature dishes is spaghetti carbonara - warmed up raw egg, and I've never had anyone suffer from salmonella poisoning. Ah, it must be the exposure to salmonella in my dishes... The point of my post was that the greatest danger from reusing plastic drink bottles is the risk of bacterial or fungal growth that can cause illness. The risk is VERY small, but much, much greater than the elore about the danger of chemicals leaching out of the plastic.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

12th October 2011, 04:46 AM	#21
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	Originally Posted by quarky Cool concept. I'd take it another step: An immune system out of a job may start to work for the enemy. So let's not forget to get funky occasionally. Kiss a dog; eat floor-pie; drink questionable water. that's my motto. I suggest that you do not apply that last part of your motto to 3rd world countries' water supplies.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,409	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

12th October 2011, 07:05 AM	#22
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,095	Originally Posted by EHocking I suggest that you do not apply that last part of your motto to 3rd world countries' water supplies. Yeah, I'm actually a bit of a follower of quarky's motto, but I learned this one the hard way. After living in the toilet (I mean that literally) with everything I put in my body coming out both ends for two weeks, you'd think I'd have learned, but... well it still took a while (and a couple of more serious illnesses) before I finally decided to actually be careful about food and water in india. It's never fun when you can't even keep water down. Luckily sprite settled a little better and I could sip at the stuff throughout the day.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov