beachvaper said:
That's too bad you feel the need to attack me for being concerned about my health. It's pretty obvious to anyone (but his vape groupies, wtf?) it's a super size ego runamok. Guess the "be nice" rule doesn't apply to this guy? Don't worry, I'm out of here for good. Insult away egomaniac and groupies!
Occupational Asthma due to Heated Polypropylene
http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/reprint/7/2/415.pdf
Bishenol A detected in BPA free bottles
http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/Bisphenol-A-detected-in-BPA-free-baby-bottles
Researchers Discover Chemicals Leaching from Polypropylene
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11479/bpa-bisphenol-polypropylene-bottles-plastic.html
beach, I'm sorry you feel slighted. I'd like to point out a few things from your sources:
"Polypropylene, the chemical formula of which is (CH3)2-CH-[CH2-CH (CH3)]n-CH=CH-CH3 is heated to
250C in the process. According to information obtained from a chemist,
heating poly-propylene to this temperature [250 C] results in the release of several degradation products including: aliphatic hydrocarbons (ethylene, butene); aldehydes (principally formaldehyde); and ketones"
Emphasis mine. Of course, this statement doesn't mean that heating it to lower temperatures releases nothing, but it's unlikely that the polypropylene in the stems is being heated to 250C (about 480F). If that were true, the stems would be melting and the buds would be burnt.
For the second one, here's the abstract to the paper:
Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) has recently received special attention. It has been shown that exposure to BPA may occur through the consumption of beverages or foods that have been in contact with polycarbonate (PC) plastic containers or epoxy resins in food packaging. A BPA migration study was conducted using a variety of plastic containers, including polycarbonate baby bottles, non-PC baby bottles, baby bottle liners, and reusable PC drinking bottles. Water was used to simulate migration into aqueous and acidic foods; 10% ethanol solution to simulate migration to low- and high-alcoholic foods; and 50% ethanol solution to simulate migration to fatty foods. By combining solid-phase extraction, BPA derivatization and analysis by GC-EI/MS/MS, a very low detection limit at the ng l-1 level was obtained. Migration of BPA at 40C ranged from 0.11 g l-1 in water incubated for 8 h to 2.39 g l-1 in 50% ethanol incubated for 240 h. Residual BPA leaching from PC bottles increased with temperature and incubation time. In comparison with the migration observed from PC bottles, non-PC baby bottles and baby bottle liners showed only trace levels of BPA. Tests for leachable lead and cadmium were also conducted on glass baby bottles since these represent a potential alternative to plastic bottles. No detectable lead or cadmium was found to leach from the glass. This study indicated that non-PC plastic baby bottles, baby bottle liners and glass baby bottles might be good alternatives for polycarbonate bottles.
Here's a link that summarizes the data:
http://chemicalsubstanceschimiques....phenol-a/study_babybottles-etude_bebe-eng.php
Note that the study itself concludes that non-polycarbonate plastic bottles might still be good alternatives for polycarbonate bottles. The amount of BPA found in the non-PC bottles ranged from none at all in some brands and from 0.0014 micrograms per liter in a bottle of water heated to 85 C and held at 60 C for two hours to 0.9059 micrograms per liter in a bottle of water heated to 85 C and held at 60 C for 238 hours (ten days).
As much as I would love to say that I would personally never use or consume anything contaminated by harmful chemical compounds, 0.9059 micrograms of BPA is about 7.52 x 10^-10 liters or 3.97 nanomoles. I have a hard time explaining a useful comparison since there are so few in daily life, but for example,
wild salmon contain 13.7 ng/g or 1.37 micrograms of PCBs per 100 g serving (about 4 oz). Admittedly PCBs and BPA probably don't interact the same way with human physiology but both are bad for you. So if you're gonna avoid polypropylene, I'd suggest not eating fish either.
As for the third one, here's the figure from the paper published in Science:
Fig. 1. (A) Effects on hMAO-B of water (N = 3) or 10% DMSO (N = 7) (40% of tube volume, 1 hour, 20C) from Fisherbrand (Fisher Scientific, Ottawa, Canada) (clear bars) or Sarstedt (Sarstedt AG, Nmbrecht, Germany) (hatched bars) plastic tubes or glass vials (C). x axis labels indicate tube volumes (ml). C indicates control; SZ, siliconized 0.5-ml tube; W and M, water and methanol rinses analyzed by tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). Data are mean SEM. ***P < 0.001 compared with control (one-way analysis of variance with Dunnett's post hoc test). (B) MS/MS data for the major peak obtained from a water rinse of a Fisherbrand 0.5-ml tube reveal the presence of DiHEMDA. (C) Inhibition of human MAO-A (triangles) or MAO-B (circles) by oleamide (open symbols) or DiHEMDA (solid symbols) (structures inset). (D) (Left) Effects on binding of [3H]Ro15-4513 to rat brain GABAA channels of DMSO (0.2% in assay) rinsed (at 100%) through a glass (Gl) tube or through one (1x) or three consecutive (3x) Eppendorf brand 1.5-ml tubes, compared with a DMSO-free control (Con). (Right) Competition binding curve to diazepam, prepared in DMSO in microfuge tubes, reveals a lowered plateau relative to a DMSO (in glass) control.
I won't disagree that they found bioactive compounds in supposedly-sterile tubes. I will note that they found a much greater test response when they put DMSO into the plastic tubes, which is an extremely versatile solvent (read: it dissolves a wide range of compounds). I'm honestly not sure what to make of the study because they didn't report any quantities, just a response relative to a control (glass) tube.
I think the bamboo stems are a great idea, but there's no telling whether or not sucking hot vapor through bamboo is bad for you, and even then, there's no telling how bad for you inhaling hot vapor is either.
Riding in cars, planes, having a computer, eating fish, drinking tap water from anywhere on
this map, using sunscreen, chapstick, or lotion (that isn't made from beeswax or plant oils), swimming in outdoor waters that are not far out in the backcountry, painting, using shampoo, conditioner, or personal lubricants, etc are all examples of situations where you might be exposed to endocrine disrupting compounds.
In school we were trained to follow the precautionary principle, that is, don't do/touch/eat it if it you're not sure it'll kill you (because it might), so personally I read up on things and try to avoid, for example, shampoos that contain compounds that are controversial, eating farmed salmon and fish that are near-apex or apex predators, and swimming in polluted waters. But the reality is that avoiding any exposure to all endocrine disrupting compounds is pretty much impossible, so from there it becomes a series of calculated risk decisions that isn't as easy as lumping some things into 'bad' box and other things into the 'good' box, and the best way to make these decisions is through self-education and experience, not simply lumping things into boxes.
Spam and Eggs. Salute !
Making claims that Polypropylene is linked to Bisphenol.
) 