Reusing plastic drinking water bottles.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reusing plastic drinking water bottles.
Got sent this today, anybody care to comment?
Welcome to JCA Safety Bulletin No.2
Plastic Drink Bottles and YOUR Health and Safety
Drinks in plastic bottles are a way of life for many of us and the
following is a good warning to ensure we do not re-use the containers.
"Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some
of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral
water bottles (eg: Evian, Aqua,Ice Mountain, Vita, etc. etc), keeping them
in your car or at work.
NOT A GOOD IDEA.
In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used
in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic (cancer causing
element - something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA).
The bottles are safe for one time use only; if you must keep them longer,
it should be for no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away
from heat as well. Here's why...
Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break-down and the
carcinogens (cancer causing chemical agents) can leach into the water YOU
are
DRINKING.
Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses.
This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family
- to please advise, especially our children.
Safely Sincerely
LLoyd Johns
Safety, Health & Environment Manager
ExxonMobil/Johnson Controls FM
32 Cleeland Road
South Oakleigh, Victoria 3167 AUSTRALIA
[email protected]
Welcome to JCA Safety Bulletin No.2
Plastic Drink Bottles and YOUR Health and Safety
Drinks in plastic bottles are a way of life for many of us and the
following is a good warning to ensure we do not re-use the containers.
"Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some
of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral
water bottles (eg: Evian, Aqua,Ice Mountain, Vita, etc. etc), keeping them
in your car or at work.
NOT A GOOD IDEA.
In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used
in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic (cancer causing
element - something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA).
The bottles are safe for one time use only; if you must keep them longer,
it should be for no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away
from heat as well. Here's why...
Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break-down and the
carcinogens (cancer causing chemical agents) can leach into the water YOU
are
DRINKING.
Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses.
This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family
- to please advise, especially our children.
Safely Sincerely
LLoyd Johns
Safety, Health & Environment Manager
ExxonMobil/Johnson Controls FM
32 Cleeland Road
South Oakleigh, Victoria 3167 AUSTRALIA
[email protected]
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: FAR EAST
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read about this in local newspaper not too long ago. Caused quite a fair bit of stir here locally and not to mention the temporary out of stock of brand new reusable plastic bottles due to public mad rush in replacing all their used mineral bottles...
The report published made great sense to me at least.. Better be safe than sorry..
The report published made great sense to me at least.. Better be safe than sorry..
As I said recently on another thread, I have done a lot of work on the leaching out of organics from various plastics. If there is a health hazard from re-used bottles, I can assure you that the same hazard exists from new bottles so the message must be - never drink from plastic bottles.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd instinctively side with pulse1 on this (not a chemist, but did do A level chemistry around 24 yrs ago!) - if the plastics used in the bottles are deemed safe for conveying the water to you in the first place (within a specified shelf storage life), then I fail to see how they can suddenly become dangerous when refilled.
Load of tosh IMHO. [Un-qualified medical opinion follows] However, I am one who aspires to the view that a lot of the allergies and illnesses suffered these days are as a result of the general under-exposure to routine day-to-day bacteria, particularly in formative years. If your body is only ever used to dealing with a totally sterile bacteria-free environment, then you fail to build adequate immune defences against the real world. I am not phased about the idea of eating something from a tin that is a year or 2 past its 'Best Before End' date - I generally take it that the warning means that it might not taste at its best after that date, not that it suddenlt becomes horrendously poisonous. I tend to treat other products that are past their date based 'on condition'!
Load of tosh IMHO. [Un-qualified medical opinion follows] However, I am one who aspires to the view that a lot of the allergies and illnesses suffered these days are as a result of the general under-exposure to routine day-to-day bacteria, particularly in formative years. If your body is only ever used to dealing with a totally sterile bacteria-free environment, then you fail to build adequate immune defences against the real world. I am not phased about the idea of eating something from a tin that is a year or 2 past its 'Best Before End' date - I generally take it that the warning means that it might not taste at its best after that date, not that it suddenlt becomes horrendously poisonous. I tend to treat other products that are past their date based 'on condition'!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
This looks like an urban myth.
See this link for an extended discussion.
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/bottles.asp
This looks like an urban myth.
See this link for an extended discussion.
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/bottles.asp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: FAR EAST
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RodgerF,
Thanks for the further insight into this topic. Though I believe this "masterpiece" had already gone deep reaching into some communities. Too bad an alternative view wasn't available then.
Thanks for the further insight into this topic. Though I believe this "masterpiece" had already gone deep reaching into some communities. Too bad an alternative view wasn't available then.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a worry when such urban myths are propagated over the forums. Especially when it comes from;
LLoyd Johns
Safety, Health & Environment Manager
ExxonMobil/Johnson Controls FM
32 Cleeland Road
South Oakleigh, Victoria 3167 AUSTRALIA
What do these people do all day? Whatever happened to their High School science, the concept of scientific method? i.e. don't believe in anything until you have the relevant proofs.
Thank you RogerF for the link, and there are many similar out there that makes it look as though the glass industry is hurting and needs some respite, truthful or otherwise.
Look for two sources and one other of contention. The honest journalists method.
LLoyd Johns
Safety, Health & Environment Manager
ExxonMobil/Johnson Controls FM
32 Cleeland Road
South Oakleigh, Victoria 3167 AUSTRALIA
What do these people do all day? Whatever happened to their High School science, the concept of scientific method? i.e. don't believe in anything until you have the relevant proofs.
Thank you RogerF for the link, and there are many similar out there that makes it look as though the glass industry is hurting and needs some respite, truthful or otherwise.
Look for two sources and one other of contention. The honest journalists method.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastic Bottles thread led to the www.snopes link and I then found this ....
Not for the squeamish ....
<http://www.snopes.com/photos/maggots.asp>
I have flown with someone who could have had this but hid it under his hat!
What a world we live in!
happy viewing!
Aviate1138
Not for the squeamish ....
<http://www.snopes.com/photos/maggots.asp>
I have flown with someone who could have had this but hid it under his hat!
What a world we live in!
happy viewing!
Aviate1138
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few comments:
"Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles." There has been no conclusive proof offered that the Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, and Vita brands of water bottles have a poisoning effect , and in an age of corporate litigation pundits should be very careful about making or forwarding on such claims.
..."contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA)P " My question is how does one qualify "potentially carcinogenic"; the fact is either a substance is carcinogenic or it isn't.
Diethylhydroxylamine and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) are not listed as Hazardous substances (ref NOHSC:10005)
Diethylhydroxylamine and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) are not listed as Atmospheric Contaminants (ref NOHSC:1003)
Referring to the most recent (2003) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), on Diethylhydroxylamine, and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) ; under Health Hazard Categories, the substances are not;
a. known carcinogens;
b. suspected carcinogens; Mutagens, or Tertogens;
c. or highly toxic;
but are rated as irritants (interestingly so is salt!).
Additionally laboratory tests on rodents using a technical grade of 85% Diethylhydroxylamine were inconclusive, concluding that "subchronic and chronic effects of overexposure were unknown". Additionally the test results for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) were much the same.
I have in front of me two products that are commercially available disposable water bottles, a Mount Franklin brand, the other a Mizone brand.
Both do not contain any warnings about exposure to Diethylhydroxylamine, or Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET); a legislative obligation if such an exposure exceeds acceptable levels, additionally both are refundable at collection depots in South Australia.
It should also be noted that the US FDA approved the use of both Diethylhydroxylamine and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) as components for manufactured food containers in 1998.
The allegations forwarded on are not supported by research evidence, and have only served to unnecessarily alarm readers.
In then end, I suppose individuals will make their own decision, but they should do it based on evidence.
Cheers,
ausdoc
"Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles." There has been no conclusive proof offered that the Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, and Vita brands of water bottles have a poisoning effect , and in an age of corporate litigation pundits should be very careful about making or forwarding on such claims.
..."contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA)P " My question is how does one qualify "potentially carcinogenic"; the fact is either a substance is carcinogenic or it isn't.
Diethylhydroxylamine and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) are not listed as Hazardous substances (ref NOHSC:10005)
Diethylhydroxylamine and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) are not listed as Atmospheric Contaminants (ref NOHSC:1003)
Referring to the most recent (2003) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), on Diethylhydroxylamine, and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) ; under Health Hazard Categories, the substances are not;
a. known carcinogens;
b. suspected carcinogens; Mutagens, or Tertogens;
c. or highly toxic;
but are rated as irritants (interestingly so is salt!).
Additionally laboratory tests on rodents using a technical grade of 85% Diethylhydroxylamine were inconclusive, concluding that "subchronic and chronic effects of overexposure were unknown". Additionally the test results for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) were much the same.
I have in front of me two products that are commercially available disposable water bottles, a Mount Franklin brand, the other a Mizone brand.
Both do not contain any warnings about exposure to Diethylhydroxylamine, or Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET); a legislative obligation if such an exposure exceeds acceptable levels, additionally both are refundable at collection depots in South Australia.
It should also be noted that the US FDA approved the use of both Diethylhydroxylamine and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) as components for manufactured food containers in 1998.
The allegations forwarded on are not supported by research evidence, and have only served to unnecessarily alarm readers.
In then end, I suppose individuals will make their own decision, but they should do it based on evidence.
Cheers,
ausdoc
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD,
Right on.
You said it before I could. I'm getting a bit fed up with all the health scares etc that are around. Stop living folks...because life is invariably fatal!!! 
Right on.
You said it before I could. I'm getting a bit fed up with all the health scares etc that are around. Stop living folks...because life is invariably fatal!!!
