Threre's more than BPA. They have a spectrometric analys of water pre and post boiling?.
I had the same worries before I bought my Aeropress but looks like it's safe "Polypropylene is a nonpolar, chemically inert material"
Threre's more than BPA. They have a spectrometric analys of water pre and post boiling?.
I had the same worries before I bought my Aeropress but looks like it's safe "Polypropylene is a nonpolar, chemically inert material"
I am more concerned about paper filters removing good stuff from the coffee, but my primitive DIY cold brew setup is all glass and steel unless I grind in my plastic blender jar.Except... BPA is a relatively wimpy endocrine mimic. The binding affinity to the estrogen receptor is rather low. Materials which have been used as a substitute are often worse endocrine disruptors than BPA, but don't have that recognizable three letter acronym. In the case of polypropylene, it's the antioxidants and process aids used which can be strong xenoestrogens. So changing out plastic types will generally not change the exposure, it will merely change the specific estrogen mimic. Sorry to break the bad news.
Here's a chart of estrogenic activity in some plastic beverage products, baby bottles and water bottles (polycarbonate being the principal plastic that uses BPA).
View attachment 93485
The good news is that unless you're a baby or small child or a pregnant woman, there's no good evidence that the effects of estrogen mimics are particularly significant.
Back to coffee.
I am more concerned about paper filters removing good stuff from the coffee, but my primitive DIY cold brew setup is all glass and steel unless I grind in my plastic blender jar.
All paper filters remove some of the oils, which is personal preference for taste. The aeropress filters being very small, and the water forced through it when you push probably remove the least. You can get permanent metal disks, if you want to try that out.I didn't know this. I'll have to look into it.
The general term for long coffee is brewed coffee, same usage of the word as with tea.Looks like there are two distinct schools, the expressos and the long coffees (is there a better name?), quite surprised. I am in the former but quite interested the Aeropress..
All paper filters remove some of the oils, which is personal preference for taste. The aeropress filters being very small, and the water forced through it when you push probably remove the least. You can get permanent metal disks, if you want to try that out.
It's very similar, lots of sighted subjective opinions, some blind testing, a million gadgets, not enough real science on preference, a surprising amount to learn. On the plus side lots of coffee gadgets are cheap, and do make a difference, plus coffee and music are a good combination.this is even worse than an audio hobby.
It's very similar, lots of sighted subjective opinions, some blind testing, a million gadgets, not enough real science on preference, a surprising amount to learn. On the plus side lots of coffee gadgets are cheap, and do make a difference, plus coffee and music are a good combination.
Great thread.
I am what you would call an avid consumer of coffee.
I use a cheap generic Krupps coffee maker and fresh-ground beans of various types and brands. They don’t seem to make the exact model of coffee maker I use anymore but it’s the same design as the current Krupps coffee makers, just as stripped down in terms of features as you could possibly imagine. So I think it cost $25 or $30.
I drink 6 to 12 cups of fresh brewed coffee a day, black. I would be interested to know if anyone else drinks that much.
I used to pop into coffee shops for a kicker but coronavirus changed all that.
It's very similar, lots of sighted subjective opinions, some blind testing, a million gadgets, not enough real science on preference, a surprising amount to learn. On the plus side lots of coffee gadgets are cheap, and do make a difference, plus coffee and music are a good combination.
Not so. The chemical compound that underpins Teflon is man-made and does not occur in nature. Now due to the release of it through industrial processes it is so ubiquitous that they find it in the blood of Polar Bears and in umbilical chord blood. The notion of stability ignores so many other routes of release. Research it, is scary. I once found a wonderful article about the workers exposures at a factory where Teflon was being made, it was very eye opening.Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene) in its finished form is extremely stable (and non-toxic) at temperatures below about 250 °C, so it's perfectly safe in normal cooking. The manufacturing process may involve the use of perfluorooctanoic acid, which can be harmful to health, though its use has been phased out. If you already have teflon cookware, I wouldn't worry about continuing to use it.
Lots of babies, pregnant women and amphibians to be concerned about, but yes, back to coffee.Except... BPA is a relatively wimpy endocrine mimic. The binding affinity to the estrogen receptor is rather low. Materials which have been used as a substitute are often worse endocrine disruptors than BPA, but don't have that recognizable three letter acronym. In the case of polypropylene, it's the antioxidants and process aids used which can be strong xenoestrogens. So changing out plastic types will generally not change the exposure, it will merely change the specific estrogen mimic. Sorry to break the bad news.
Here's a chart of estrogenic activity in some plastic beverage products, baby bottles and water bottles (polycarbonate being the principal plastic that uses BPA).
View attachment 93485
The good news is that unless you're a baby or small child or a pregnant woman, there's no good evidence that the effects of estrogen mimics are particularly significant.
Back to coffee.
Also, I guess this is common to all human activities lacking a mindset for scientific methodology. For instance, I take my kid to Suzuki classes of violin. I do that for a host of reasons, but not for the methodology. Suzuki method sounds all logic, all structured, all natural; I'm sure is pure garbage, there is nothing serious backing it.
Playing the violin while riding a motorbike doesn't seem very safe.Also, I guess this is common to all human activities lacking a mindset for scientific methodology. For instance, I take my kid to Suzuki classes of violin. I do that for a host of reasons, but not for the methodology. Suzuki method sounds all logic, all structured, all natural; I'm sure is pure garbage, there is nothing serious backing it.
That would be the perfluorooctanoic acid.Not so. The chemical compound that underpins Teflon is man-made and does not occur in nature. Now due to the release of it through industrial processes it is so ubiquitous that they find it in the blood of Polar Bears and in umbilical chord blood. The notion of stability ignores so many other routes of release. Research it, is scary. I once found a wonderful article about the workers exposures at a factory where Teflon was being made, it was very eye opening.
Not so. The chemical compound that underpins Teflon is man-made and does not occur in nature. Now due to the release of it through industrial processes it is so ubiquitous that they find it in the blood of Polar Bears and in umbilical chord blood. The notion of stability ignores so many other routes of release. Research it, is scary. I once found a wonderful article about the workers exposures at a factory where Teflon was being made, it was very eye opening.
I know that they have recently come up with supposed safer alternatives, but safer according to who? Don't forget, much of the world uses hazard ratings in other words setting "safe" limits for toxin exposure which means limits written by industry deciding how much should be ok in our blood and organs. The EU has tended towards the precautionary principle where the onus is on companies to demonstrate that something is safe whereas in good old North America where only money matters, we don't ask companies to prove it is safe, our regulators work to set safe exposure limits which is so complex.
The real issues are bioaccumulation and interaction effects, those are not part of risk of hazard levels, they simply look at acute dosages and ignore chronic bioaccumulation. There was a wonderful graph that I found where a researcher used the time line starting with the chemical revolution in the 1950s and overlaid the change in cancer rates, the trend lines were almost a perfect match. Of course there would be confounding factors, but it was too close to be explained away so simply. Anyway, no, those crazy industrial anti-stick coatings are not benign and they do get into our bodies and the environment.