Water bottles - safety concerns.

[nq111]

I thought saw a recent study on here saying BPA was actually far more harmful than was initially thought?

Quite likely.

This piece ripped from Wikipedia pretty much sums up the current debate:

Overall, empirical evidence supporting the negative health effects of BPA varies significantly across studies. Opinions vary greatly about the health effects of BPA. Some studies conclude that BPA poses no health risks while others state that BPA causes a number of adverse health effects. In general, the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food, the EU's European Chemicals Bureau, the European Food Safety Authority, and the US Food and Drug Administration have concluded that current levels of BPA present no risk to the general population. However, experts in the field of endocrine disruptors have stated that the entire population may suffer adverse health effects from current BPA levels.[93] In 2009, The Endocrine Society released a statement citing the adverse effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and the controversy surrounding BPA.[94] In 2012 the FDA did ban the use of BPA in baby bottles, however the Environmental Working Group called the ban "purely cosmetic". In a statement they said,"If the agency truly wants to prevent people from being exposed to this toxic chemical associated with a variety of serious and chronic conditions it should ban its use in cans of infant formula, food and beverages." The Natural Resources Defense Council called the move inadequate, saying the FDA needs to ban BPA from all food packaging.[95] In a statement an FDA spokesman said the agency's action was not based on safety concerns and that "the agency continues to support the safety of BPA for use in products that hold food."[96]
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also holds the position that BPA is not a health concern. In 2011, Andrew Wadge, the chief scientist of the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency, commented on a 2011 US study on dietary exposure of adult humans to BPA,[97] saying, "This corroborates other independent studies and adds to the evidence that BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans – therefore is not a health concern."[98] In the 2011 US study 20 subjects were tested for BPA every hour for twenty-four hours while consuming three meals consisting of canned food.[97] This study has been criticized, however, as lacking data and having flawed assumptions.[99]

If I had to make a call, based on that all the health agencies of the major western countries are of the opinion it is not a risk, I would guess if it is harmful it is at such a low level that it is not worth bothering about (and incredibly hard to detect or prove)

[Mountain Rocket]

... who likes cheap ultralight water vessels?

Where is the problem?

Ha - the problem is the off-topic discussion regarding BPA. I was just trying to get the thread back on topic.

[Strider]

I thought saw a recent study on here saying BPA was actually far more harmful than was initially thought?

[GPSGuided]

If I had to make a call, based on that all the health agencies of the major western countries are of the opinion it is not a risk, I would guess if it is harmful it is at such a low level that it is not worth bothering about (and incredibly hard to detect or prove)

I don't worry too much about BPA for general household containers. At home, these containers/vessels are only used irregularly when most vessels are ceramic, glass or metal. But when it comes to a choice of water bottle/bladder for sports eg. Cycling and bushwalking, where a good volume of fluid is ingested on a daily or very regular basis, these low concentration toxins should be more carefully considered. As such, I think it's still wise to avoid them when there's a choice.

[Mark F]

The BPA issue in reused containers seems to be a bit of a furphy to me. Surely the original fill of the bottle which has been in contact with the plastic for several weeks, if not months, will contain the majority of the leachate rather than the water that is put in it for half a day or so. Also as more water passes through the bottle so there will be less BPA in the plastic to potentially leach into the water.

A good reason, if you fear BPA, not to buy bottled drinks.

[GPSGuided]

The BPA issue in reused containers seems to be a bit of a furphy to me. Surely the original fill of the bottle which has been in contact with the plastic for several weeks, if not months, will contain the majority of the leachate rather than the water that is put in it for half a day or so. Also as more water passes through the bottle so there will be less BPA in the plastic to potentially leach into the water.

A good reason, if you fear BPA, not to buy bottled drinks.

But "evils" of plastic don't start nor stop with BPA. Many plastic will degrade over time, releasing other chemical contaminants. It's never wise to continue to use old "cheap" plastic if one has alternatives.

[Orion]

But "evils" of plastic don't start nor stop with BPA. Many plastic will degrade over time, releasing other chemical contaminants. It's never wise to continue to use old "cheap" plastic if one has alternatives.

Glass? Metal? Stone? Animal skin?

I use the lightest PET bottle I can find that I am confident will hold up for the length of the trip, which as it turns out is pretty much all of them. PET bottles don't even contain BPA so should I worry about some other unnamed evil instead? I choose not to worry.

I have recently switched from soda bottles to drinking water bottles with sport tops both because they are a little bit lighter and because, lacking the need to twist off a cap, I can drink with one hand as I walk. It's just as fast and convenient as a bladder with a hose but simpler.

[GPSGuided]

I understand the alternative could be as simple as a new plastic container to one made of more stable and inert material. It's all but a consideration.