Cans

ErkLR · Post by **ErkLR** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:27 pm

Tapsucker wrote: Slight correction. Beer is acidic as is the carbonic acid formed by dissolved CO2.

icemachine wrote:Beer is definitely acidic, pH from about 4.3 down to 3.5 for certain Sour styles

OK, fair enough. Yeah, I can imagine sours are quite acidic. I don't know why I've never brought home some pH paper to test.

JerCraigs · Post by **JerCraigs** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:53 pm

ErkLR wrote: I still keep and reheat my leftovers in plastic and will not give up my Lexan water bottle for sports/camping. Besides the most BPA leeching occurred in hot and/or acidic liquids; beer is cold and probably alkaline (bitter).

How about when they pasteurize the beer?

ErkLR · Post by **ErkLR** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:19 pm

JerCraigs wrote: How about when they pasteurize the beer?

Well that would depend on how it's pasteurized. Some is done before canning, some kinds are done after. And it would depend on storage and shipping too. Something shipped across the continent/ocean in a hot container would have more leeching than something shipped cold from nearby.

Really though, my main point is that unless you're doing something ridiculous, I'm not concerned. I'll see if I can find more recent review articles/satements from scientific bodies.

ErkLR · Post by **ErkLR** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:16 am

Well there ya go, there is very likely BPA in cans (at very low levels): http://publications.gc.ca/collections/c ... 10-eng.pdf

However, Health Canada doesn't think it's really a problem (while still being extra cautious about infants): http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/pa ... ex-eng.php

The FDA also apparently announced that they don't think it's harmful. However, The Endocrine Society disagreed with that: http://www.endo-society.org/media/press ... to-BPA.cfm

The FDA can be influenced by lobbyists, the Endocrine Society jumped on the "watch out, BPA" wagon early and is invested in the idea that it's bad. I can't find any other independent scientific bodies releasing statements. Soo... it's one of those things, the jury is still out. It may be eventually banned in all food containers just to be safe, but it's certainly around for now.

cratez · Post by **cratez** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:16 pm

ErkLR wrote:Well there ya go, there is very likely BPA in cans (at very low levels): http://publications.gc.ca/collections/c ... 10-eng.pdf

However, Health Canada doesn't think it's really a problem (while still being extra cautious about infants): http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/pa ... ex-eng.php

The FDA also apparently announced that they don't think it's harmful. However, The Endocrine Society disagreed with that: http://www.endo-society.org/media/press ... to-BPA.cfm

The FDA can be influenced by lobbyists, the Endocrine Society jumped on the "watch out, BPA" wagon early and is invested in the idea that it's bad. I can't find any other independent scientific bodies releasing statements. Soo... it's one of those things, the jury is still out. It may be eventually banned in all food containers just to be safe, but it's certainly around for now.

Thanks for the info. Given the mixed findings I'll probably avoid daily consumption, but it sounds like the occasional session is nothing to worry about. I really hope someone invents a BPA-free liner since there's so many benefits to cans.

SteelbackGuy · Post by **SteelbackGuy** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:37 pm

I've heard the BPA lowers sperm count. I sure hope so. I drink cans almost for that reason alone. No need to add another human to the planets surplus population.

JeffPorter · Post by **JeffPorter** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:41 pm

SteelbackGuy wrote:I've heard the BPA lowers sperm count. I sure hope so. I drink cans almost for that reason alone. No need to add another human to the planets surplus population.

We're actually quite underpopulated for a country...

LEN - CANADA NEEDS YOUR BABIES!!!

But I have 3, so yeah, I'll be drinking from cans too...

ErkLR · Post by **ErkLR** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:40 pm

cratez wrote: Thanks for the info. Given the mixed findings I'll probably avoid daily consumption, but it sounds like the occasional session is nothing to worry about. I really hope someone invents a BPA-free liner since there's so many benefits to cans.

You're welcome, it's as good as I could find with a bit of internet searching.

Thinking of little Len's running around the country... *shudder*

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:39 am

JeffPorter wrote:We're actually quite underpopulated for a country...

Yes, some non-counries are likely more populated.

You guys all must realize Earth's human population is not just growing but also accelarating. There are about 7 billion of us now, compared to about 3.5 billion the year I was born - um, excuse me the number of humans alive has doubled in that brief blip of history?

To put in perspective that sharp rise over 4 decades humans as we now exist have been around for about 200,000 years - usually not living very long and with a high mortality rate. In all that time we were struggling to survive, and not adding massive numbers of people to compete for limited resources.

Kish84 · Post by **Kish84** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:38 am

I can't speak much on the subject, but did read this today.

Bisphenol A (BPA) exposure may be a risk factor for a common type of brain tumor called meningioma, reports a study. This is the first study to suggest a link between brain cancer and the chemical, which is widely used in consumer products.

Ceecee · Post by **Ceecee** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:03 pm

I wonder how much the BPA levels rise over time. Say if I get an imperial stout in a can and lay it down for a year, how much more BPA will be present in the beer as compared to a fresh one? I realize there may be a bit of overreaction to this issue but I don't want to ingest harmful chemicals if I can avoid it.

icemachine · Post by **icemachine** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:47 am

So after butterfingering a bottle last night, it did lead me to reflect during a few hours at the local ER that a dropped can will not explode and result in 3 stitches to the thumb. So they got that going for them.

Tapsucker · Post by **Tapsucker** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:11 pm

icemachine wrote:So after butterfingering a bottle last night, it did lead me to reflect during a few hours at the local ER that a dropped can will not explode and result in 3 stitches to the thumb. So they got that going for them.

Ouch! I hope it wasn't a special bottle, at least you have another thumb.

icemachine · Post by **icemachine** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:59 pm

Tapsucker wrote:
icemachine wrote:So after butterfingering a bottle last night, it did lead me to reflect during a few hours at the local ER that a dropped can will not explode and result in 3 stitches to the thumb. So they got that going for them.
Ouch! I hope it wasn't a special bottle, at least you have another thumb.

Paddock Wood 606 - maybe it was karma for going to TBS