Mt. Whitney Webcam 1

Webcam 1 Legend
Mt. Whitney Webcam 2

Webcam 2 Legend
Mt. Whitney Timelapse
Owens Valley North

Owens Valley North Legend
Owens Valley South

Owens Valley South Legend
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#46503 04/16/08 12:52 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 96
Member
Member

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 96

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 247
Member
Member

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 247
Hmmm. Not comforting to think about, regardless of the conclusion drawn from the study. Makes you think twice of the "taste" you get from the Camelback or even tasteless nalgene bladders...or bottled water after being in the sun a while.

I'm a bit rusty on my organic chemistry but it is something to be aware of what may react with what in what conditions.

Decisions, Decisions in the backcountry...Polycarbonate ingestion, Cryptosporidium, Giardiasis, iodine contamination and tissue buildup...

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 96
Member
Member

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 96
Looks like Camelback will be coming out with BPA-free water bottles:

Plastic perils
Chemical in food cans, baby bottles cited as health risk
By Ruth Mantell, MarketWatch
Last update: 4:06 p.m. EDT April 15, 2008
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - A chemical used in consumer products ranging from baby bottles to food-can linings to compact discs is widely found in humans and may affect childhood development and reproduction, according to a new draft report from the government.
The report on bisphenol A, which is used primarily in plastics and epoxy resins, follows outcry from consumer advocates to phase out its use in kids' products. In studies with rodents, exposure to high levels of BPA during pregnancy and lactation was found to reduce survival, birth weight and growth of offspring, and delay the onset of puberty.

Animals experience effects from BPA at exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, according to the report, and so the possibility that the chemical could alter human development can't be dismissed.
Human exposure to BPA is widespread, according to the report, which cited findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of detectable levels in 93% of urine samples of people six and older. BPA can get in food and drinks when it leaches from containers, and the highest intakes are by infants and children. The National Toxicology Program requested comments on the draft report for a scheduled peer review in June.
A separate report earlier this year found that popular plastic baby bottles leach BPA when heated. For U.S. testing, 10 bottles in total were used, purchased in nine states from stores such as Target (TGT ) and Babies 'R' Us.
Some retailers have already responded to concerns. Whole Foods (WFMI:) has ceased sales of baby bottles and child drinking cups made from polycarbonate plastic, which contains BPA, and a handful of states are considering legislation to phase out or ban BPA.
Last week, CamelBak said it will have a BPA-free line of reusable water bottles by the end of this month.
"The science surrounding BPA can be confusing and contradictory," the company said. "While we believe in the safety of all our products, enough consumers requested a BPA-free alternative that we re-engineered our bottles with an innovative new material to provide consumers with worry-free hydration."
Government attention
There have been calls for the U.S. government to restrict the use of BPA, particularly in children's products.
Given the new report, the Food and Drug Administration should reconsider the safety of BPA in products for infants and children, said members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Tuesday.
"These assessments fly in the face of the FDA's determination that BPA is safe," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., committee chairman. "I hope the FDA is willing to reconsider their position on BPA for the safety of our infants and children."
The committee has also been probing the FDA's approval of the use of BPA in products for infants and children. The committee found that the FDA has relied on two studies paid for by the American Plastics Council.
"There is a wealth of scientific information available about the safety and health effects of bisphenol A, yet FDA seems to have relied exclusively on two industry-funded studies, one of which has not even been made available to the public for review," Dingell said. "This raises serious concerns about whether the science FDA relied on to approve the use of bisphenol A was bought and paid for by industry."
As early as Wednesday, Canada is expected to classify BPA as a dangerous substance, according to the Globe and Mail newspaper. Canada would be the first country to make such as a move, which could lead to restrictions, according to the media report.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,391
Member
Member

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,391
Ugh. I thought I felt funny... crazy


Flickr Pics

Think outside the Zone.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 904
Member
Member

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 904
Originally Posted By MooseTracks
Ugh. I thought I felt funny... crazy

Ummm, I'm thinkin' it's the Balvenie not the Nalgenie bottle! grin


"The mountains are measured for their height but the achievements of one who climbs the mountains are immeasurable." m.c.
http://www.facebook.com/keepclimbing
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,309
Member
Member

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,309
NOTE: The article is only referring to Type 7 plastics. Here is a link to a list of Plastic Identification Codes.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 138
Member
Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 138
Originally Posted By dayhiker.
and delay the onset of puberty.




i knew there was a reason i am 34 yrs old and have no....well, you know

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 548
Member
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 548
For a more reasoned report, check out this report from the European Food Safety Agency, the EU equivalent to the FDA.

From what I've read, BPA leaching into water from polycarbonate (recycling '7' or Nalgene) bottles is on the order of 5 parts per billion (ppb) per day. A 1-liter bottle holds 1,000 grams of water, so the BPA "dosage" would be 5 micrograms per liter. (In the units referred to below, that's .005 mg/liter) Taking the information from the report above, and summarizing:

1. The EFSA established a TDI (tolerable daily intake) of .05 mg/kg of body weight/day. For someone with a body weight of 70 kg (about 150 pounds), the TDI would be 3.5 mg/day. (And that is based on a factor of safety of 100 under their no-observed-adverse-effect level.)

2. At 5 micrograms/liter, in order to reach 3.5 mg/day, your 70-kg backpacker would have to consume 700 liters of water per day, all of which had already been sitting in his Nalgene for 24 hours. (That's a bit over 180 GALLONS of water.)

So, am I going to pitch all of my Nalgene bottles and go back to my 1960-era aluminum canteen? Don't think so...

We have the technology to detect just about anything in single-digit parts-per-billion trace amounts. Our ability to detect stuff has far outstripped our ability to apply logic to determinations of whether detectable amounts are significant.

If you start researching a lot of things, including many necessary nutrients, you will find that excessive amounts of them are toxic and even deadly. (Selenium, vitamin D, vitamin A, among others. Plus we all know that there are necessary and optimal levels of salt needed...either too much or too little is a bad thing.)

Your risks of illness or death from drinking water out of your Nalgene are hugely outweighed by the risk of getting in your car and driving to the trailhead. Face it...we take (unconsciously, perhaps) significant risks in our daily lives. Worrying about the effects of drinking water out of your Nalgene probably has worse health effects than the chemicals themselves...

(No, I'm not a biochemist...but I'm an engineer and I always have to run the math to see if the scares are really as scary as they are purported to be...and generally, they aren't...)


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 214
Member
Member

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 214
Alan got it right. My background is in chemistry, and whenever I see things like this I ask the hard questions. In almost all cases, the latest scare fad is actually not based on real facts or science. I will still use my nalgene bottles and camelbak bladders. Just don't let them sit in the sun for a week before drinking from them.

From a relative risk standpoint, backpacking and climbing are much much more dangerous, but I don't think anyone here is going to stop.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 585
Member
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 585
BPA is used in other ways, not just in water bottles, such as the linings of "tin cans". I think that's the larger story. Many point out that the amount of BPA ingested via water bottles is too low to have any impact. However, the overall amount of BPA in our food supply could be much higher.

Rather than argue/debate the issue, just get rid of it.

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 69
Member
Member

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 69
Originally Posted By KevinR
Rather than argue/debate the issue, just get rid of it.


Based on potentially irrational fears? I think everyone would be better served by an objective debate instead of such a knee jerk reaction.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 585
Member
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 585
My point is that arguing about the health risks posed by BPA in Nalgene bottles is myoptic as the total potential exposure is difficult to determine as it's used in the linings of some "tin cans".

If I were in the canned food industry, I'd sure be looking at whether my company used a lining containing BPA. The last thing I'd want to find out is that I was using it but my competitors weren't. As a consumer, I would not knowingly purchase an item whose liner contained BFA, and I don't think I'm unique in that regard.

Discontinuing its use is not irrational. It's clear that at some level there are health risks, and since it's difficult to quantify the total amounts consumed, simply use an alternative compound.

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 69
Member
Member

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 69
Thanks for the additional explanation. I think discontinuing its use is irrational if the decision is just based on the potential (and debatable) dangers of BPA. If discontinuing its use is based on a business decision (taking into account the costs of switching to an alternate, responding to consumer demands (which may be based on fear), etc.) then it is rational. Sounds like a good opportunity to sell two lines of products - the current line of goods and the "New Safer BPA Free" line!

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,190
Member
Member

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,190
The Nalgene company has a pretty good Web page on BPA. Of course the manufacturer is hardly going to hype up the dangers. I would assume that most concerned people would want to look more deeply. Nevertheless, their viewpoint seems relevant to the discussion.
Quote:
BPA and NALGENE
As a responsible manufacturer of polycarbonate consumer products, Nalge Nunc International has monitored scientific research concerning the safety of our products including Bisphenol-A for many years.

Based on the findings of the Food and Drug Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, The American Plastics Council and other reliable sources from around the world, we continue to firmly believe in the safety of our products.

Nalge Nunc International also believes in providing its customers with the most factual information currently available on this subject. You can view the most up to date information here

* Statement from the FDA, from a written communication dated January 29, 2008:
* http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_bpa.html
* http://www.stats.org/stories/2008/should_baby_bottles_feb9_08.html

The following reference sources are provided for customers wishing to perform additional research.

Frequently Asked Questions:

* View our FAQ for answers to many popular questions.

Downloadable PDF's:

* BPA and NALGENE (PDF 423 KB)
* Polycarbonate Safety Studies (PDF 555 KB)

Additional Websites:

* http://www.bisphenol-a.org/
* http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.92/news_detail.asp
* http://www.plasticsinfo.org/babybottles/index.html
* http://www.epa.gov/endocrine/about.html
* SNEWS article regarding BPA


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Nalgene is committed to the well being of everyone that uses our products. Therefore, we’ve compiled the following information to better inform our consumers on all of our products. We hope you find it useful and reassuring.

Q. Are polycarbonate bottles safe?
A: Yes. Agencies and researchers worldwide have studied the safety of BPA and polycarbonate for approximately 50 years; including The Environmental Protection Agency and The Food and Drug Administration in the USA, The European Commission Scientific Committee on Food, The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and the Japan Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Findings of studies from these agencies indicate that food and beverage containers manufactured from polycarbonate do not pose a health risk to humans. As a result, polycarbonate is used in a wide variety of consumer products including baby bottles, water bottles, dental sealants and the lining of most food & beverage containers.

Furthermore, several scientific panels including the European Union's Scientific Committee on Food, the National Toxicology Program and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis have concluded that the weight of scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis that low doses of BPA adversely affects human health. None of the large studies conducted have substantiated the claims made by those performing some of the smaller studies frequently cited.

Q: Where can I find reliable information on polycarbonate and BPA?
A: Consumers can visit the following web sites for more information:

* European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) study - www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_bpa.html
* American Chemistry Council - www.bisphenol-a.org
* Environmental Protection Agency - www.epa.gov/endocrine/about.html
* American Council on Science and Health - www.acsh.org/search/home_result.asp
* Nalgene - www.nalgene-outdoor.com/technical/bpainfo.html

Q: Which government and regulatory agencies have reviewed polycarbonate?
A: Many government and regulatory agencies, including those listed below, have conducted comprehensive testing and review of polycarbonate and determined that it poses no health risk to humans.

* The Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
* The Food and Drug Administration (USA)
* The European Commission Scientific Committee on Food
* The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment
* Japan Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare

Q: What is the latest government-sponsored research conducted on BPA and polycarbonate?
A: In early 2007, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced its findings regarding BPA. The study reviewed all available data from the last five years and concluded that people’s dietary exposure to BPA is well below the Daily Tolerable Intake Level. In fact, the study recommended raising the Daily Tolerable Intake Level. Read more on this study at www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_bpa.html

Q: Does Nalgene offer products in other materials?
A: Yes. Nalgene has, and always will, offer a wide range of materials. Some of these materials include HDPE, LDPE, PP and PET. In an effort to consistently deliver the most comprehensive product offering, Nalgene will continue to develop both new products and new materials.

Q: Why does Nalgene use polycarbonate?
A: Many consumers prefer polycarbonate because of its unmatched ability to offer extraordinary durability, glass like clarity and resistance to stains and odors.

Q: Where are Nalgene bottles manufactured?
A: Unlike our major competitors, all Nalgene products are “Made in the USA”. As a US manufacturer, the business meets all applicable manufacturing standards, including ISO 13485, to ensure the quality and safety of its products.

All materials on this site are copyright 2005 Nalge Nunc International. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 612
Member
Member

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 612
And Tobacco companies still insist cigarettes are safe.
My back ground is chemistry also.As long as there is credible evidence that raises a possibility that there may be some toxic effect from using BPA products then people have the right to be concerned. It is not irrational to error on the side of safety and caution.
I live in a community that had a school close down because the kids were getting sick and developing cancer at unusually high rates because there was a PVC factory across the street. Instead of closing the PVC factory they closed and moved the school.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 961
Member
Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 961
Just came out in today's Yahoo! News:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/ts_n...XVlD77EKL134T0D

From near the end of this article:

Quote:
Rochester, New York-based bottle maker Nalgene said on Friday it will phase out production of bottles made with BPA. Nalgene is owned by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

CaT

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 288
Member
Member

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 288
I guess I am in feisty mood - between bear boxes and nalgene bottles, I would rather keep the boxes and ban the bottles.

I remember years ago reading about the effects of a "paint" used on boats to prevent whatever from growing/building up on their immersed hulls. A tiny parts/billion, I believe were affecting oysters. So it does not take much of the wrong kind of chemical to affect living organisms. The question is whether we apply the "innocent until proven guilty" standard to chemicals or maybe the other way around - the Napoleonic system "guilty until innocent"


Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 389
Member
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 389
When you pick a chemical to be an anti-fouling biocide it's not a matter of 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'guilty until proven innocent', it's a matter of 'I don't want them using a virulent poison selected to kill mollusces upstream from my oyster bed'. This might not be a fair analogy to the Nalgene situation.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 750
Member
Member

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 750
We are exposed to toxins every day. The question is how any toxicity from the BPA in Nalgene bottles compares to what we already get 24/7 from toxins of various kinds from other sources. I think it's negligible in comparison to all the other toxins but I'm not sure. Anyone know differently?

BTW if you have composite dental fillings in your mouth you have BPA in your mouth too, 24/7. Ever notice a smell from your computer or other electronics? And new car smell, what's that? And what would cities be without that wonderful air that we breathe in and out, in and out, in and out, ...

I'll continue to use my Nalgene bottles, but if I needed another bottle would I buy Nalgene? I don't know. Why? Because all this talk about toxins gives me a slight case of the willies. I guess you could call that mental toxin.

Last edited by Bob K.; 04/19/08 05:20 PM.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 137
Member
Member

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 137

apparently negligible.

apparently leaches when the container's liquid is heated.

apparently leaches when cleaned with bleach - among other things.

i'll use mine for the temporary storage of water, and will clean it with soap and water and allow to dry.

i'll not clean it with bleach nor will i store hot anything in it.

and maybe buy a new bottle when available.

and BTW they are not recyclable.


bsmith

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Bob R, Doug Sr 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Mt. Whitney Weather Links


White Mountain/
Barcroft Station

Elev 12,410’

Upper Tyndall Creek
Elev 11,441’

Crabtree Meadows
Elev 10,700’

Cottonwood Lakes
Elev 10,196’

Lone Pine
Elev. 3,727’

Hunter Mountain
Elev. 6,880’

Death Valley/
Furnace Creek

Elev. -193’

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0
(Release build 20240826)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.065s Queries: 57 (0.032s) Memory: 0.8136 MB (Peak: 0.9678 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2025-04-17 13:54:40 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS