use of transh can for mixing cont?

[theROYSKIE]

wondering if a regular rubbermaid roughneck transhcan, said to be made of global products, would in anyway possibly leach any weird chemicals into the water that i am mixing / storing for up to 7 days inside. the lfs told me it could happen depending on the batch the can came from caused from different recycled materials used for the plastic. any thoughts? anyone using the same brand can? or any trash can for that matter?

cheers

[HighlandReef]

I use the brute cans from lowes, no issues
Had them for years now

[HighlandReefer]

There are a tremendous number of hobbyists that have used the rubbermaid roughneck trash cans without problems. I don't believe they are a problem.

[theROYSKIE]

highlandreef and highlandreefer, thank you for the responses, much appreciated.

cheers,
roy

[Myka]

Note the bolded part. I'm thinking this could include the different colored Rubbermaid (and other brands?) tubs as well since they do bead water.

Originally Posted by Eric Borneman

During our annual spawning work in Puerto Rico, we had one night where we collected about 600,000 gametes. On putting them under the scope, we found that sperm motility was bad to none. Hence, fertilization was very very low. This was very unusual. Over the next few days of development, many of the fertilized eggs had arrested development, abnormal development, died, or underwent embryonic fusion.

Since a major focus of the work was to cryopreserve sperm for genetic banking, we quickly wondered what could have gone wrong. I had purchased the standard grey Brute trashcan that almost everyone I know uses (you can put rollers on the bottom). When rinsing it, the water beaded on the surface but it was rinsed well and wiped with DI water. Nonetheless, the egg bundles were kept for experiments in 0.22 micron filtered water taken from that trash can that itself was filled with 0.5 micron filtered NSW.

Upon adding tiny amounts of this water to sperm acquired from another source and not exposed to the water in the trash can, the sperm became immotile within minutes.

Basically, the plasticizers in the trash can are highly highly toxic to sperm. Another group had a similar experience using new plastic containers (not the Brute trash can) on another night but did not test or have available healthy sperm to check for plasticizers being a cause.

The point here is that for all of you (including me) who use plastic containers, and definitely the almost industry standard" grey Brute trashcans to store water or kalkwasser, have highly toxic plasticizers. We do not know if these would leach out if soaked, exposed to UV, acid-base washed, if it is a coating, or impregnated. But, at the very least using water from these containers, definitely when new, will cause reproductive failure and who knows what other chronic effects it may have.

Some of you may be saying - as I have - that you have used them for years with no problems. Well, no problems you can directly find or can observe. It's like our test with Instant Ocean salt mix - I used it for years with no apparent issues, but in a controlled experiment, it perfomed terribly, caused chronic cyanobacterial films, and species died. Perhaps the resilience of healthy diverse tanks mitigates the issues, but when used alone, the effects are obvious. Perhaps the plasticizer is a new one, or perhaps it leaches out in time. We don't know.

I have posted a photo of the offending trashcan. Beware all plastic products that are flexible and that bead water when wetted.

[HighlandReefer]

This is Randy's response to Eric Borneman's claims regarding the trash cans:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...ighlight=brute

"Yes, that is uninformed scaremongering on Eric's part. He does not understand plastics at all, and I'd look elsewhere for plastics advice. Many parts of that thread are just total crap.

Brute can's work perfectly fine for many people. Who knows why Eric had a problem. Might have nothing to do with the can itself, but it is chic to blame pasticizers for stuff, even when using a plastic that does not contain plasticizers (e.g., Brute cans).

I presently use 11 of them for my systems, and see no reason to choose anything different in the future. It could be there are issues with them or with anything else we might choose to use, but there is no evidence to warrant concern amidst the many, many users that are seemingly happy with them

If you are concerned, you might wash them first. Home Depot stores them near pesticides, birds in the store crap in them, they may have mold release agents on the surface, etc. Eric did not mention whether he even cleaned it first."

[HighlandReefer]

Originally Posted by theROYSKIE

highlandreef and highlandreefer, thank you for the responses, much appreciated.

cheers,
roy

Your welcome.

[Myka]

I would like to hear what Eric Borneman has to say in response. In the end, I always use food safe containers for water storage. I have 6 of those, and no way would I put my water in anything else. I don't see the reason for risk when the cost is pretty much the same.

[HighlandReefer]

Well, if you can get Eric to come onto this Chemistry Forum and discuss this matter with Randy, I would love to see the thread. Good luck

Keep in mind that Randy has his PHD in Chemistry whereas Eric has his bachelors degree in some biology field. Make sure you read the complete thread I posted and the other threads that Randy noted also before you pass judgment on Randy.

Also note that Randy states there are no plasticizers used to make these trash cans which is quite contradictory to what Eric states:

"Basically, the plasticizes in the trash can are highly highly toxic to sperm." Apparently Eric feels there are.


BACKGROUND ON PVC TOYS
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/...ackground.html

From this article:

"Polyethylene: Polyethylene (PE) is the most widely used plastic in the world today. The polyethylenes are extremely versatile and can be made from hard to soft as soap by modifying hydrocarbon chain length or cross-linking. No additives are needed to soften polyethylene."

Meaning no plasticers are added to brute trash cans.

FWIW, this article was written by GreenPeace, the almighty protectors of the environment & they are stating this plastic is fine to use.

The major concerns with plasticers are with PVC products which plasticers are added to make them soft.

[Myka]

I think it is two respected people in the hobby, and who knows which person is correct. I only read Randy's post, not the whole thread. Randy comes across rather harsh, cutting Eric down, and I wonder where that harshness comes from. I'm no plastic expert and I'm no gamete expert, but I do look at plastics with a skeptical eye. I'm sure manufacturer protocols are not as tight on garbage bins than food safe bins. If a bin is not good enough for food, why is it good enough for my reef? Why risk it?

[HighlandReefer]

I certainly respect your decision.

Unfortunately, I am not a chemist myself and can't further explain all the intricacies about plastics. Perhaps I will choose to do further data mining at some point, but at this point I don't see any reason to do so.

[HighlandReefer]

"Randy comes across rather harsh, cutting Eric down, and I wonder where that harshness comes from."

I can't speak for Randy, but I have noticed that Randy is extremely tolerant when he is confronted by hobbyists who have their facts wrong. Seldom does Randy loose his composure.

However, when well respected persons in the hobby make blatantly incorrect statements over and over again, I think Randy looses his patience since their word is taken as a statement of absolute truth by many hobbyists.

FWIW, Eric has made other off the wall statements with his facts incorrect in the past. IMHO, Eric oversteps his field of expertise a bit, which peers are close to watch out for. I know, because Boomer and Randy have come down on me several times in the past, but in a nice way.

[HighlandReefer]

Another note I would like to add is the statement made by sowellj in the link I provided, who is also a PhD Chemist:

"I agree w/Randy on the above. That article is garbage (gotta love the puns). Classic case of correlation not causation. For whatever reason, brute trash cans have turned into the scapegoat for things gone awry. To put things into perspective, look at the amount and different types of plastic present in systems ... skimmers, powerheads, reactors, plumbing, etc. Any polyethylene/propylene plastic should be fine ... and likely lots of others too."

[klepto]

Originally Posted by HighlandReefer

IMHO, Eric oversteps his field of expertise a bit, which peers are close to watch out for. I know, because Boomer and Randy have come down on me several times in the past, but in a nice way.

So much misinformation is spread in this hobby via that same blunder. Good on you for using yourself as an example. If people were realistic about that, the hobby wouldn't be saturated with shysters.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy comes across rather harsh, cutting Eric down, and I wonder where that harshness comes from.

I stand by what I wrote, but I suppose I could have said it in a much nicer way. My wife tells me that all the time. Maybe I was in a poor mood, but in general, I'm very tolerant of ordinary folks who have chemistry misunderstandings, but perhaps less so of thought leaders (such as Eric or Ron Shimek) that reefers follow extensively and who may stray far from their fields of expertise and end up expounding on things in areas in which they are not expertly knowledgeable.

[Myka]

Hi Randy. Thanks for clarifying.

I have been in this hobby long enough to see that sometimes opinions get in the way of facts, and sometimes hobbyists are quick to follow the advice of leading aquarists without researching that person's area of expertise. I agree that there are times when these leading aquarists do overstep their area of expertise, but sometimes readers take anecdotal evidence as gospel.

From my understanding, there is a chemical difference between pliable plastics and hard plastics. Without really looking hard, I believe most plastics in a typical reef are rigid (like skimmers, powerheads, acrylics, etc). The pliable plastic of these Rubbermaid and Brute bins worries me. I have no evidence, just paranoia!

Hmm...I just glanced at my display tank and realized I am using a non-food safe Rubbermaid bin for top up water. *slaps forehead*

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, it's the "hard" PVC that is plasticized, not the polyethylene. PE is naturally flexible, often too much so for structural or pressure holding applications.

[Rybren]

FWIW, the Rubbermaid Brute containers are NSF Standard 2 Certified...

From the NSF.org website...

"NSF/ANSI Standard 2: Food Service Equipment
Equipment commonly known as 'fabricated food equipment': kitchen, bakery, pantry and cafeteria units, and other food handling and processing equipment including tables and components, counters, shelves, sinks, hoods, etc."

[Roblox84]

Honestly everyone can have their opinions about what to use and what not to use in this hobby. But for the most part I think a lot of these people overanalyze just a little way to much in reefkeeping. We can spend years analyzing the chemical comp. of things we use but we would never actually know the outcome if the idea wasn't actually tried and tested. Many people including myself use trashcans for storage with no negative side effects. I would much rather value an opinion of someone that has used a particular method for years with sucess over someone thattries to figure out what atoms and molecules are doing in our fish tanks.

[Myka]

Originally Posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

FWIW, it's the "hard" PVC that is plasticized, not the polyethylene. PE is naturally flexible, often too much so for structural or pressure holding applications.

Interesting since PVC is food safe.

Originally Posted by Rybren

FWIW, the Rubbermaid Brute containers are NSF Standard 2 Certified...

From the NSF.org website...

"NSF/ANSI Standard 2: Food Service Equipment
Equipment commonly known as 'fabricated food equipment': kitchen, bakery, pantry and cafeteria units, and other food handling and processing equipment including tables and components, counters, shelves, sinks, hoods, etc."

Also interesting, thanks for posting!

[tozzi]

Bottom line here..... The rubbermaid cans are fine! I use em

[Blown 346]

Thast why you buy a water vat. No issues or even thoughts of anything leaching.

[HighlandReefer]

It seems no matter what we use in our lives, something comes up that may deem it unsafe. Now the food grade plastics are under attack. It is surprising the number of carcinogens & toxic components that are found naturally in the vegetables we commonly eat. Perhaps EPA will ban vegetables.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...bottle_co.html

From it:

EPA rethinks plastic bottle component's safety aspects
Published: Friday, January 15, 2010, 10:09 PM Updated: Friday, January 15, 2010, 10:24 PM
The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- In a shift of position, the Food and Drug Administration is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008.

The agency said Friday that it had "some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children" and would join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans.

The action is another example of the drug agency under the Obama administration becoming far more aggressive in taking hard looks at what it sees as threats to public health. In recent months, the agency has stepped up its oversight of food safety and has promised to tighten approval standards for medical devices.

Concerns about BPA are based on studies that have found harmful effects in animals, and on the recognition that the chemical seeps into food and baby formula, and that nearly everyone is exposed to it, starting in the womb.

But health officials said there was no proof that BPA was dangerous to humans.

"If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action," Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the principal deputy commissioner of the drug agency, said at a news briefing.

Nonetheless, health officials suggested a number of things people could do to limit their exposure to BPA, like throwing away scratched or worn bottles or cups made with BPA (it can leak from the scratches), not putting very hot liquids into cups or bottles with BPA and checking the labels on containers to make sure they are microwave safe. The drug agency also recommended that mothers breastfeed their infants for at least 12 months; liquid formula contains traces of BPA.

BPA has been used since the 1960s to make hard plastic bottles, sippy cups for toddlers and the linings of food and beverage cans, including the cans used to hold infant formula and soda. Until recently it was used in baby bottles, but major manufacturers are now making bottles without it. Plastic items containing BPA are generally marked with the number 7 on the bottom for recycling purposes.

The chemical can leach into food, and a study of more than 2,000 people found that more than 90 percent of them had BPA in their urine. Traces have also been found in breast milk, the blood of pregnant women and umbilical cord blood.

Reports of potential health effects have made BPA notorious, especially among parents, and led to widespread shunning of products thought to contain the chemical. Canada, Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y., have banned BPA from children's products.

The government will spend $30 million on BPA research in humans and animals, to take place over 18 to 24 months, health officials said at a news briefing Friday.

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the research would involve potential effects on behavior, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, cancer, asthma, heart disease and effects that could be carried from generation to the next.

Activists on both sides of the bitterly debated issue said they were disappointed in the government's action. The American Chemical Council, which represents companies that make and use BPA, issued a statement saying BPA was safe, praising the health agencies for confirming that there was no proof of harm to people by it, but also saying, "we are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well founded."

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said the FDA had not gone far enough, because its recommendations put the responsibility on families and not on companies making products containing BPA. In addition, she said, the focus on safety should not be limited to children, because studies have linked the chemicals to heart and liver disease and other problems in adults.

Government evaluations of BPA have had a contentious history. The drug agency wrote a draft report calling it safe in 2008. But shortly after that, the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, said BPA was cause for "some concern," citing the same issues that the drug agency is now agreeing to: potential effects on the brain, behavior and prostate in fetuses, infants and children.

Then the drug agency asked an independent panel of scientific advisers to review its draft report, and the panel gave it a scathing review. It accused the FDA of ignoring important evidence and giving consumers a false sense of security about the chemical. The drug agency promised to reconsider BPA, and the announcement on Friday fulfilled that pledge.

"We are for the first time saying we believe there is some concern about the substance's safety, and we've closed the gap between NIH and FDA," said Sharfstein of the FDA in an interview.

Sharfstein said the drug agency had become more receptive to new techniques of studying the safety of chemicals. Old methods involved giving test animals large doses and looking for clear evidence of effects like illness, tumors or organ damage. Newer methods involve studying small doses -- similar to human exposures -- and looking for more subtle effects, like changes in behavior or biochemistry. Results can be harder to interpret, and may demand more study.

Sharfstein said the drug agency was also re-evaluating the way it regulates BPA. The substance is now classified as a food additive, a category that requires a cumbersome and time-consuming process to make regulatory changes. Sharfstein said he hoped its status could be changed to "food contact substance," which would give the FDA more regulatory power and let it act more quickly if it needed to do so.

[HighlandReefer]

The problems we now face like:

1) Water is not safe to drink
2) Food is not safe to eat
3) Toys are not safe to let our children use
4) Containers used to store food and water in are not safe
5) Air we inhale is not safe
7) The ground we walk upon is not safe
8) The streams, rivers & oceans are not safe to swim in
9) The pesticides we use are not safe
10) The drugs we take are not safe
11) Etc...................................................................................

It's all the Chemists' fault since they constantly improve methods to detect chemical components and at increasingly lower levels. The biologists simply take this new data and use it as ammunition. After all, we biologists have to make a living too. Perhaps ignorance is bliss.

[chuckdallas]

I've seen all of the plastic turkey basters in the LF Stores. They are all made out of plastic. I have a turkey baster at home that has a large metal shaft and it has an attachment on the end that looks like a large needle that is good for sticking into the turkey to insert marinades. The plastic turkey baster has a rather large opening and the metal one with the needle tip has a smaller opening.

Are there any drawbacks to using a METAL turkey baster to spot feed?