Are Nalgene Lexan bottles safe?

Quoted message said:

Was all settled on some wide mouthed Nalgene Lexan
bottles when I came across this link

http://tinyurl.com/3pedr

who knows if it is really real? as the test showed the lab worked used harsh
soap.
you notice there are no scientists listed that recommend not using it.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

Steve Knight said:

Quoted message said:

Was all settled on some wide mouthed Nalgene Lexan bottles when I came
across this link

http://tinyurl.com/3pedr

who knows if it is really real? as the test showed the lab worked used
harsh soap.
you notice there are no scientists listed that recommend not using it.

I would take all this with a serious grain of salt. All the stories I
could find were based on one article. Most of the stories were in either
college newspapers or alternative-health mags, both of which tend to
sensationalize the health effects of contaminants.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass.
_`\(,_ | What are you on?" --Lance Armstrong
(_)/ (_) |

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Was poking around on web tonight looking for some god
bottles to carry my green tea to work in.

Was all settled on some wide mouthed Nalgene Lexan
bottles when I came across this link

http://tinyurl.com/3pedr

So what's the scoop? Avoid Lexan and use HDPE instead?

You motivated me to look at some information someone recently sent
on this topic. My take from reading this
http://eces.org/articles/000776.php
is avoid lexan and PET/PETE, and use HDPE or LDPE instead.

Of my water containers, only one is lexan. Not a big deal for me to
retire it.

I've got two types of water reserviors/bags: Platypus (light, apparently
somewhat fragile, no taste, polyethelyne), and Camelback (strong taste,
polyurethane).

A brief web search didn't reveal anything about the safety of the latter.
Anyone know anything (or have superior search skills)? Presumeably
the polyethelyne bladders are either HDPE or LDPE, and are supposed to
be safe.

I agree that this is most likely BS. There is no reason to throw or
discontinue use of your lexan bottles because of this one finding. It was
done on mice and using strong detergents. I'm sure that there had to be some
huge array of tests a company must do to prove storing drinking water is
safe in a certain material. I'd continue using it until someone definately
proves it is unsafe, which won't happen.

david

Quoted message said:

I agree that this is most likely BS. There is no reason to throw or
discontinue use of your lexan bottles because of this one finding. It was
done on mice and using strong detergents. I'm sure that there had to be some
huge array of tests a company must do to prove storing drinking water is
safe in a certain material. I'd continue using it until someone definately
proves it is unsafe, which won't happen.

david

Well I just thought maybe I better ask.

Ive been wanting to buy a few of those new Nalgene
N-Generation bottles

"david" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I agree that this is most likely BS. There is no reason to throw or
discontinue use of your lexan bottles because of this one finding.

I think there's more to it than this one finding. From the articles I looked at apparently
ithe FDA has banned it for use in baby bottles.

David L. Johnson said:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:46:40 +0000, Steve Knight wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Was all settled on some wide mouthed Nalgene Lexan bottles when I came
across this link

http://tinyurl.com/3pedr

who knows if it is really real? as the test showed the lab worked used
harsh soap.
you notice there are no scientists listed that recommend not using it.

Quoted message said:

I would take all this with a serious grain of salt. All the stories I
could find were based on one article. Most of the stories were in either
college newspapers or alternative-health mags, both of which tend to
sensationalize the health effects of contaminants.

Actually, the connection between leachate from modern plastics and
phytoestrogens has been proved many times beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quite frankly, if you purchase any plastic developed before 1965, you
are taking your life in your hands, in a statistical sense. The early
pioneers in this field (DuPont, Dow, Monsanto, etc.) have caused a lot
of horrific deaths and disabilities (think : silicone breast implants)
by releasing products into "field tests on human subjects"
(e.g. selling untested products that kill humans, and resisting moves
to shut down productions, causing them to lose bucket loads of money)
before the carcinogenic or health effects were known.

Most plastics are made from crude or refined oil, which is a known
carcinogen. In my opinion, plastics should have to pass a regulatory
test like a new FDA-approved drug before being allowed on the market.

Dupont was the inventor of Chloro Flouro Carbons, the grand ozone earth-[censored].

Monsanto was the 1930'S inventor of PCBs (Dioxins), and right now you have
carcinogenic Dioxins in your tissues courtesy of the Monsanto Corporation.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this article about Lexan. The
players involved have a long history of making handsome profits
by selling untested carcinogenic compounds. The plastic was invented
in an era (1950's) when we thought nuclear radiation was harmless.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

David said:

"david" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I agree that this is most likely BS. There is no reason to throw or
discontinue use of your lexan bottles because of this one finding.

I think there's more to it than this one finding. From the articles I
looked at apparently ithe FDA has banned it for use in baby bottles.

The only thing I saw was the statement that Lexan had "quietly
disappeared" from baby bottles. I don't think that meant an FDA ban. It
could simply be because Lexan's lack of flexibility prevents the bottle
from squeezing down at all, giving the baby more bubbles.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but
_`\(,_ | what canst thou say? -- George Fox.
(_)/ (_) |

Donald Gillies said:

Most plastics are made from crude or refined oil, which is a known
carcinogen. In my opinion, plastics should have to pass a regulatory test
like a new FDA-approved drug before being allowed on the market.

Hmm. Lots of drugs are also made from petroleum. That in and of itself
does not suggest that a particular plastic is harmful.

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this article about Lexan. The players
involved have a long history of making handsome profits by selling
untested carcinogenic compounds. The plastic was invented in an era
(1950's) when we thought nuclear radiation was harmless.

If the compounds are untested, how can you be sure they are carcinogenic?
No one in the 1950s thought that nuclear radiation was harmless. We had
already proved the opposite in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But we are now in an era where we tend to think that everything is
harmful. How often has wine gone from being the bane of all existence to
a miracle cure for heart disease? Regularly, studies come out about the
harmful effects of coffee, but they are never backed up by follow-up
studies. Many of the claims for health problems from various chemicals
assume the form of urban legends. You worry about the chemicals in your
Nalgene bottle, but probably have wall-to-wall carpet, which puts
formaldehyde into the air.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. --
_`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:06:34 -0700, David wrote:
The only thing I saw was the statement that Lexan had "quietly
disappeared" from baby bottles. I don't think that meant an FDA ban.

I thought I read that when skimming various articles. From looking more
carefully, I think that if saw it it was from leaving out some words as I skimmed...

"Donald Gillies" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:46:40 +0000, Steve Knight wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Was all settled on some wide mouthed Nalgene Lexan bottles

when I came

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>across this link
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3pedr

who knows if it is really real? as the test showed the lab

worked used

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

harsh soap.
you notice there are no scientists listed that recommend

not using it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would take all this with a serious grain of salt. All the

stories I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

could find were based on one article. Most of the stories

were in either

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

college newspapers or alternative-health mags, both of which

tend to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sensationalize the health effects of contaminants.

Actually, the connection between leachate from modern plastics

and

Quoted message said:

phytoestrogens has been proved many times beyond a reasonable

doubt.

Quoted message said:

Quite frankly, if you purchase any plastic developed before

1965, you

Quoted message said:

are taking your life in your hands, in a statistical sense.

The early

Quoted message said:

pioneers in this field (DuPont, Dow, Monsanto, etc.) have

caused a lot

Quoted message said:

of horrific deaths and disabilities (think : silicone breast

implants)

Quoted message said:

by releasing products into "field tests on human subjects"
(e.g. selling untested products that kill humans, and resisting

moves

Quoted message said:

to shut down productions, causing them to lose bucket loads of

money)

Quoted message said:

before the carcinogenic or health effects were known.

Most plastics are made from crude or refined oil, which is a

known

Quoted message said:

carcinogen. In my opinion, plastics should have to pass a

regulatory

Quoted message said:

test like a new FDA-approved drug before being allowed on the

market.

Quoted message said:

Dupont was the inventor of Chloro Flouro Carbons, the grand

ozone earth-[censored].

Quoted message said:

Monsanto was the 1930'S inventor of PCBs (Dioxins), and right

now you have

Quoted message said:

carcinogenic Dioxins in your tissues courtesy of the Monsanto

Corporation.

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this article about Lexan.

The

Quoted message said:

players involved have a long history of making handsome profits
by selling untested carcinogenic compounds. The plastic was

invented

Quoted message said:

in an era (1950's) when we thought nuclear radiation was

harmless.

Oh, come on, knock off the grand consipracy stuff. We knew that
nuclear radiation was harmful in the late '20s, and arguably
before that. The CURRENT limit for occupational exposure was
established almost forty years ago, in 1956. Hey, remember
Nagasaki and Hiroshima? I think we were well aware of the
effects of nuclear radiation before the 50s.

As for plastics, the FDA does approve plastics used for food
containers under its authority to regulate indirect food
additives. So, if you see nalgene used in the market for
packaging food, it has passed FDA approval. -- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:37:39 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[sinister snipping conspiracy--someone worried about
plastics wrote:]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in an era (1950's) when we thought nuclear radiation was

harmless.

[Jay disagreed:]

Quoted message said:

Oh, come on, knock off the grand consipracy stuff. We knew that
nuclear radiation was harmful in the late '20s, and arguably
before that. The CURRENT limit for occupational exposure was
established almost forty years ago, in 1956. Hey, remember
Nagasaki and Hiroshima? I think we were well aware of the
effects of nuclear radiation before the 50s.

As for plastics, the FDA does approve plastics used for food
containers under its authority to regulate indirect food
additives. So, if you see nalgene used in the market for
packaging food, it has passed FDA approval. -- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

While it was known that radiation was harmful in the 1920's
and earlier, shoe stores were nevertheless using x-ray
machines to measure feet in the 1950's:

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/tech.php?taid=&id=2345810&lid=1

Dentists did not start providing patients with lead aprons
during dental x-rays until well into the 1980's.

Even today, chiropractors often perform well-nigh useless
large-scale body x-rays (see Consumer Reports).

As for government approval, my vet informed me today that
the 6-month injectable anti-heartworm medicine given to my
dogs several months ago has been recalled after killing a
number of dogs.

And Christopher Marlowe was out on bail awaiting trial on a
capital charge of atheism when he was stabbed to death by--

Oops, sorry, wrong conspiracy:

http://www.canterbury.co.uk/cgi-bin/buildpage.pl?mysql=480

Thomas Kyd

carlfogel said:

While it was known that radiation was harmful in the 1920's and earlier,
shoe stores were nevertheless using x-ray machines to measure feet in the
1950's:

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/tech.php?taid=&id=2345810&lid=1

You know, I actually went to a lot of shoe stores in the 1950s, seeing as
how my feet were growing then. Never saw one. There is a real reality
check here. Shoe clerks are basically minimum-wage jobs, and shoe stores
run on a small profit margin. How many do you think had the time or money
to buy such a thing, much less train someone to use it? Even if some had
a machine they called an x-ray machine, bets are it was fake or
minimum-power and useless.

Besides, when you say "radiation", one tends to think of nuclear waste
and/or fallout. If you want to include x-rays (which are, after all,
light), you should be just as alarmed now since we all have
radiation-producing machines in our kitchen. My God, cell phones emit
radiation! That screen you are looking at is a veritable fount of
radiation.

Quoted message said:

Dentists did not start providing patients with lead aprons during dental
x-rays until well into the 1980's.

Also not true. It's a shame when there are people around who can
contradict your "facts", but I had lead aprons for dental work in the late
'60s.

Quoted message said:

Even today, chiropractors often perform well-nigh useless large-scale
body x-rays (see Consumer Reports).

Well, people love to talk about chiropractors and all the useless stuff
they do. I've been to one. No x-rays. But they did hook me up to this
electrical gadget that seemed to be a bit of quackery. Darned if it
didn't feel better afterward.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front
_`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of
(_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The
internet has proven this not to be the case.

David L. Johnson said:

carlfogel said:

While it was known that radiation was harmful in the 1920's and earlier,
shoe stores were nevertheless using x-ray machines to measure feet in the
1950's:

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/tech.php?taid=&id=2345810&lid=1

You know, I actually went to a lot of shoe stores in the 1950s, seeing as
how my feet were growing then. Never saw one. There is a real reality
check here. Shoe clerks are basically minimum-wage jobs, and shoe stores
run on a small profit margin. How many do you think had the time or money
to buy such a thing, much less train someone to use it? Even if some had
a machine they called an x-ray machine, bets are it was fake or
minimum-power and useless.

I have no idea how common they were, but I remember our local shoe store
having one. I doubt there was much training involved, the device stood
in one corner of the store and customers could go over to it, stick
their feet with shoes into it and look through the viewer to see how
much clearance their toes had from the front of the shoe. I remember it
mainly because as a kid it was something to keep me occupied while my
parents were busy with the salemen. Also don't see how it could
be "faked" - you put your feet in and could see a dim outline of the
shoe and inside you could see your toes and bones wiggling around as
you moved them. They were probably higher power than modern x-ray
machines given the low sensitivity of the detectors (cheaper to
increase the power than to improve the detectors).

Quoted message said:

Besides, when you say "radiation", one tends to think of nuclear waste
and/or fallout. If you want to include x-rays (which are, after all,
light)

Gamma rays are also "just light" but that doesn't make them harmless.
The distinction is generally made depending on whether the energy of
the photons is sufficient to ionize atoms with which they interact.
X-rays fall into the ionizing category which is why there are now severe
limits put on exposure to them and precautions are taken such as the
lead shielding for surrounding tissues.

, you should be just as alarmed now since we all have

Quoted message said:

radiation-producing machines in our kitchen. My God, cell phones emit
radiation! That screen you are looking at is a veritable fount of
radiation.

David L. Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

While it was known that radiation was harmful in the 1920's and
earlier, shoe stores were nevertheless using x-ray machines to
measure feet in the 1950's:

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/tech.php?taid=&id=2345810&lid=1

Quoted message said:

You know, I actually went to a lot of shoe stores in the 1950s,
seeing as how my feet were growing then. Never saw one. There is a
real reality check here. Shoe clerks are basically minimum-wage
jobs, and shoe stores run on a small profit margin. How many do you
think had the time or money to buy such a thing, much less train
someone to use it? Even if some had a machine they called an x-ray
machine, bets are it was fake or minimum-power and useless.

Maybe in your area, but in Palo Alto there were such X-ray machines
and they were taken out of service soon after they were widely used in
this area because they presented a radiation hazard.

Quoted message said:

Besides, when you say "radiation", one tends to think of nuclear
waste and/or fallout. If you want to include x-rays (which are,
after all, light), you should be just as alarmed now since we all
have radiation-producing machines in our kitchen. My God, cell
phones emit radiation! That screen you are looking at is a
veritable fount of radiation.

You may "think of nuclear waste and/or fallout" but this is dangerous
radiation just the same. You'll notice the precautions taken today by
X-ray technicians when making photographs of bones and teeth. These
are not idle exercises.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dentists did not start providing patients with lead aprons during
dental x-rays until well into the 1980's.

Quoted message said:

Also not true. It's a shame when there are people around who can
contradict your "facts", but I had lead aprons for dental work in
the late '60s.

Let's not quibble. I recall dental X-rays when no such precautions
were taken. Whether that was 1960 or 1980 is immaterial. We do it
now and for good reason.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even today, chiropractors often perform well-nigh useless large-scale
body x-rays (see Consumer Reports).

Quoted message said:

Well, people love to talk about chiropractors and all the useless stuff
they do. I've been to one. No x-rays. But they did hook me up to this
electrical gadget that seemed to be a bit of quackery. Darned if it
didn't feel better afterward.

Don't disappoint me with such testimonials. Often, psychosomatic
therapy is all it takes for a cure.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

carlfogel said:

While it was known that radiation was harmful in the 1920's

and earlier,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shoe stores were nevertheless using x-ray machines to measure

feet in the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1950's:

Quoted message said:

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/tech.php?taid=&id

=2345810&lid=1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know, I actually went to a lot of shoe stores in the

1950s, seeing as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

how my feet were growing then. Never saw one. There is a

real reality

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

check here. Shoe clerks are basically minimum-wage jobs, and

shoe stores

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

run on a small profit margin. How many do you think had the

time or money

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to buy such a thing, much less train someone to use it? Even

if some had

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a machine they called an x-ray machine, bets are it was fake

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

minimum-power and useless.

I have no idea how common they were, but I remember our local

shoe store

Quoted message said:

having one. I doubt there was much training involved, the

device stood

Quoted message said:

in one corner of the store and customers could go over to it,

stick

Quoted message said:

their feet with shoes into it and look through the viewer to

see how

Quoted message said:

much clearance their toes had from the front of the shoe. I

remember it

Quoted message said:

mainly because as a kid it was something to keep me occupied

while my

Quoted message said:

parents were busy with the salemen. Also don't see how it

could

Quoted message said:

be "faked" - you put your feet in and could see a dim outline

of the

Quoted message said:

shoe and inside you could see your toes and bones wiggling

around as

Quoted message said:

you moved them. They were probably higher power than modern

x-ray

Quoted message said:

machines given the low sensitivity of the detectors (cheaper to
increase the power than to improve the detectors).

Quoted message said:

Besides, when you say "radiation", one tends to think of

nuclear waste

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and/or fallout. If you want to include x-rays (which are,

after all,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

light)

Gamma rays are also "just light" but that doesn't make them

harmless.

Quoted message said:

The distinction is generally made depending on whether the

energy of

Quoted message said:

the photons is sufficient to ionize atoms with which they

interact.

Quoted message said:

X-rays fall into the ionizing category which is why there are

now severe

Quoted message said:

limits put on exposure to them and precautions are taken such

as the

Quoted message said:

lead shielding for surrounding tissues.

There is is a difference between knowledge and regulation. It
was well known that radiation caused illness in the 1950s, and
the dose limits were established in the 50s. There just were not
a lot of regulators running around telling shoe shop owners not
to use these cheap and leaky fluoroscopes. See
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm

Risk perception has changed over the last fifty years, and many
things perceived in the '50s as harmless are now seen as
dangerous. This does not indicate a grand conspiracy, and in
fact, much of our modern risk perception is colored by
misinformation, bogus lawsuits and the persistent
scare-of-the-week T.V. shows dumped on us by ratings-starved
networks. If you beleived everything you saw on T.V., you would
never leave home -- except that if you stayed inside, you would
die of radon poisoning. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

"Peter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:05:48 -0600, carlfogel wrote:

>While it was known that radiation was harmful in the 1920's

and earlier,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know, I actually went to a lot of shoe stores in the

1950s, seeing as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

how my feet were growing then. Never saw one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have no idea how common they were, but I remember our local

shoe store

Quoted message said:

having one. I doubt there was much training involved, the

device stood

Quoted message said:

in one corner of the store and customers could go over to it,

stick

Quoted message said:

their feet with shoes into it and look through the viewer to

see how

Quoted message said:

much clearance their toes had from the front of the shoe. I

remember it

Quoted message said:

mainly because as a kid it was something to keep me occupied

while my

Quoted message said:

parents were busy with the salemen. Also don't see how it

could

Quoted message said:

be "faked" - you put your feet in and could see a dim outline

of the

Quoted message said:

shoe and inside you could see your toes and bones wiggling

around as

Quoted message said:

you moved them. They were probably higher power than modern

x-ray

Quoted message said:

machines given the low sensitivity of the detectors (cheaper to
increase the power than to improve the detectors).

Quoted message said:

Besides, when you say "radiation", one tends to think of

nuclear waste

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and/or fallout. If you want to include x-rays (which are,

after all,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

light)

Gamma rays are also "just light" but that doesn't make them

harmless.

Quoted message said:

The distinction is generally made depending on whether the

energy of

Quoted message said:

the photons is sufficient to ionize atoms with which they

interact.

Quoted message said:

X-rays fall into the ionizing category which is why there are

now severe

Quoted message said:

limits put on exposure to them and precautions are taken such

as the

Quoted message said:

lead shielding for surrounding tissues.

There is is a difference between knowledge and regulation. It
was well known that radiation caused illness in the 1950s,

Carl had already made it clear above that the danger was already
recognized decades earlier. Nevertheless, the foot x-ray
machines were used in the '50s.
and

Quoted message said:

the dose limits were established in the 50s. There just were not
a lot of regulators running around telling shoe shop owners not
to use these cheap and leaky fluoroscopes. See
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm

Since the devices were legal in most states through the mid-50's
there isn't much that regulators would have been able to do
anyway. And in the rest of the world they continued to be legal
even later.

Quoted message said:

Risk perception has changed over the last fifty years, and many
things perceived in the '50s as harmless are now seen as
dangerous.

Partly that's the result of many of the dangers back then
having been reduced or eliminated. It's natural to focus on
the most dangerous things first and in the '50s that included
many diseases that are no longer a threat.

This does not indicate a grand conspiracy, and in

Quoted message said:

fact, much of our modern risk perception is colored by
misinformation, bogus lawsuits and the persistent
scare-of-the-week T.V. shows dumped on us by ratings-starved
networks. If you beleived everything you saw on T.V., you would
never leave home -- except that if you stayed inside, you would
die of radon poisoning. -- Jay Beattie.

Not sure what this is in response to. I didn't see any claims
of any "grand conspiracy" and my note was just a response to
David who doubted the existence of the foot x-ray devices and
seemed to minimize any risks associated with unshielded and
poorly controlled x-ray machines. Not a subject I've seen
covered recently on any TV show.

Peter said:

Not sure what this is in response to. I didn't see any claims of any
"grand conspiracy" and my note was just a response to David who doubted
the existence of the foot x-ray devices and seemed to minimize any risks
associated with unshielded and poorly controlled x-ray machines. Not a
subject I've seen covered recently on any TV show.

Well, I do stand corrected about the existence of such machines in shoe
stores, since others do recall using them. Perhaps I just didn't visit a
fancy enough shoe store.

I did not mean to suggest that x-rays were without risks. The common
folklore, however, about the risks associated with "radiation" does get
overblown, just as other risk factors do. As an example, the microwave
radiation risk from cell-phone use, or from microwave ovens, is made to
seem to be a dire problem, when it just isn't.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front
_`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of
(_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The
internet has proven this not to be the case.

I believe Polycarbonate Nalgene bottles to be safe, having just done a
comprehensive series blood tests on my Nalgene using daughter who is a bike
racer, everything was normal. If it were that bad for you, neither she nor
her fellow racers would be able to compete at the level they do.

However, if the idea of Lexan makes you nervous, use HDPE. If you start
worrying, the placebo effect is strong enough to make you ill.

Brian

I certainly would not drink that out of
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Was poking around on web tonight looking for some god
bottles to carry my green tea to work in.

Was all settled on some wide mouthed Nalgene Lexan
bottles when I came across this link

http://tinyurl.com/3pedr

So what's the scoop? Avoid Lexan and use HDPE instead?