Water bottle/canteen recommendations please

Codger_64 said:
Me, I prefer a favorite brand of natural spring water to my highly chlorinated tap water. Again, to each his own.
Click to expand...
Would be cheaper in the long run to put a reverse osmosis element under the sink.

Chlorine treated water will have free chlorine as that means the chorine treat was effective.
 
I shoot guns for a living. And I eat fast food every now and then. To each their own but I figure diesel fumes and GPR is a bigger health issue for me. I use a Nalgene, it's the newer BPA-free ones. Sometimes I use an issued canteen made out of some dogs!!t plastic, I just don't care much I guess.
 
I'm curious as to what you guys think of the 16oz. aluminum beer bottles. Are they coated on the inside? They seem pretty robust, again, just curious...
 
Pretty sure they have a coating inside. While it would preclude an aluminum taste from aluminum oxide, you wouldn't want to boil water in them. And figure out a leakproof lid?

[video=youtube;VYCOn-MvGrQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYCOn-MvGrQ[/video]
 
Brommeland said:
The old Nalgene Lexan bottles were loaded with BPA - which has been proven to cause a variety of health problems, including multiple forms of cancer. These are what I used myself until the last couple of years when I found out about all of the potential health risks. 'Been using cheapie Dajo stainless bottles since while looking for a solid replacement.

The new Nalgene polycarbonent bottles are made from their proprietary mystery plastic, and from what I've been able to find, nobody knows what's in it or what it can do to you.... This is why I specified either stainless or Titanium - I'm not going to put all of this chemical crap into my drinking water.
Click to expand...

Proven? I never really knew the case was proven to be harmful to adults. I did read something about a possibility in extreme cases with development issues for infants. Well whatever, I use a SS sold by Nalgene. Also have a few of those double walled SS USGI canteens which are really nice.
 
Yes those Al containers has a plastic liner .The process of making those Al containers is back extrusion just like cartridge cases are made. You form a plastic liner when you "cure " a cast iron pan !! Mystery plastic is Eastman's 'Tritan'.
 
Used my SS USGI canteen today. Insulated canteens also work great during warmer weather. Took this photo for yea.

 
Lately I have been using a couple Hydro Flask stainless bottles, they are nice quality and the insulation works very well. Mine came from REI but they are available on Amazon. I also have a few of the Costco stainless bottles that were mentioned, they work well but I prefer the hydro.
 
You might take a look at HYDRO FLASK. There not inexpensive but they will keep ice and your beverage of choice cold even inside of a locked vehicle, summertime in the mid southern part of the good ol' USA. My 64oz growler will hold ice for 10 hours in my truck no problem.
 
BPA is bad shit. Among other things, it is a mutagen that leads to horrible birth defects.

As with tobacco, industry-financed studies said BPA was safe, like candy. All other studies consistently found it to be a severe health risk.

Many first world and even third-world governments have banned its appearance in the food chain, but the U.S. still allows it in linings of food cans (colored white) on the ground that low-level exposure is acceptable.

No research has established a "safe" exposure to BPA in any population.
 
I have a 64oz klean canteen that I use everyday. food grade stainless and even the cap is stainless steel lined.
 
Take most of what you read about BPA with a big grain of salt. There is a lot of scare stuff out there from folks who don't understand the science. Also there were no industry related studies about it. nobody ever said it was safe, because no one bothered to look. So it turns out its not so great, not the same a big conspiracy. In the grand scheme there is a lot of stuff that's worse. We should probably get rid of it, but that's the way things go. I've got more concern about whats already in the water than what the bottle might be doing to it.

I've been having decent luck with the Platy soft-bottles. They do have a lifespan and are by no means bulletproof, But that being said, they are light, and pack away just fine.
 
Thomas Linton said:
BPA is bad shit. Among other things, it is a mutagen that leads to horrible birth defects.

As with tobacco, industry-financed studies said BPA was safe, like candy. All other studies consistently found it to be a severe health risk.

Many first world and even third-world governments have banned its appearance in the food chain, but the U.S. still allows it in linings of food cans (colored white) on the ground that low-level exposure is acceptable.

No research has established a "safe" exposure to BPA in any population.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense.

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2014/feb/bpa-low-doses
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...es-suggest-bpa-exposure-from-food-isn-t-risky

If "all other studies" found it so terrible, perhaps you can show us 2 or 3 scientific, peer reviewed studies to prove your point.
 
Here's an industry website that says BPA is all warm and fuzzy: http://www.bisphenol-a.org/

Here is another industry site saying tobacco is completely safe. Woops, I mean BPA.

The American Journal of Public Health noted "an apparent funding effect in the BPA research. Between 1997 and 2005, there were 115 studies on the effects of BPA at or below the safety standard, conducted by dozens of laboratories in the United States, Japan, and Europe. The reported effects of BPA included changes in fetal prostate and mammary gland development, disruption of chromosomal alignment in developing eggs in females, altered immune function, metabolic abnormalities, and changes in the brain and behavior. Of these 115 studies, 90% of those that were government funded reported some effects from exposures at or below the reference dose, whereas none of the 11 studies funded by industry reported any effects[/quote] So follow the money. Does that seem overly cynical?

This article suggests that (SURPRISE!) politics are playing a role in regulation of BPA in the U.S. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774166/ Not that such a thing happened with tobacco. No. never. Those companies turning out 4,000,000,000 tons of BPA a year would never do that. No Never.

But not in Canada, where it was declared "toxic" years ago.

And in Spring, 2014: "The Risk Assessment Committee of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has agreed that the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) should receive an official EU classification as toxic to reproduction Category 1B [presumed toxic]"

Despite the politics, the U.S.E.P.A. defines BPS as "an exogenous chemical substance or mixture that alters the structure or function(s) of the endocrine system and causes adverse effects” in individuals, their offspring or populations." The battle is over "safe" dosage.

American Scientist reports as follows: "The reproductive effects found in laboratory rodents mirror some disturbing human health trends in industrialized nations. For example, an analysis of more than 100 research studies concluded that sperm counts in the United States and Europe appear to have declined by roughly half over the past 50 years. Researchers in Denmark now estimate that more than 10 percent of men in that country have sperm counts in the infertile range and up to 30 percent in the subfertile range. Rates of testicular cancer appear to be increasing. There are indications that female fecundity is declining, even among young women, although the rate and degree have been difficult to quantify. Median ages at menarche, first breast development and sexual precocity are dropping, especially among minority populations in the U.S. Similar trends have been noted in Europe and among children adopted from developing countries by parents in industrialized settings. The cause is likely complex and multifaceted, but the rapidity of the changes suggests an environmental component. Whether BPA might be involved hinges on whether effects observed in rodents reasonably predict what could be happening in humans." (Remember how the tobacco giants argued that rodent studies were meaningless? Now we know they knew better at the time, but big $$$ was at stake.)

There are dozens of scientific studies now, performed by medical professionals - scientists - not on the industry payroll. Google this for one such study if you are inclined: "The results show a correlation between environmental exposure to BPA and the genesis of fetal malformations." ("Fetal malformations" being, of course, birth defects.)

But, hey, industry, as noted above, still says there is no problem. Take another deep drag.

Are there nut cases on the ban-BPA bandwagon? You betcha! But Karl Marx was against malaria. Does that mean we should be for it?

You are mostly adults. Do your own risk-benefit analysis.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top