Can flood waters/mud make glass more fragile/dangerous?

Factual Questions
1

Recently, I had to help some friends of mine clean after a flash flood put five feet of muddy water through their homebrew and brew-on-premises shop.

Now, the insurance adjusters told them to “throw everything, and we mean everything, out,” and for the most part there’s no argument–soaked grains, books, ingredients, electronics, etc. (I blew my stack at them having to throw out sealed packages of sanitizing chemicals, but I digress.)

But then they started tossing cases of bottles, glassware, jugs, and large, five-gallon carboys (to the uninitiated, those water cooler jugs now largely replaced by plastic bottles). I was hollering “Now, hold on a minute! You can run those through a dishwasher and clean them!”

“Nope,” said the one shop owner. “The insurance company says that once they’ve been flooded by muddy water, they shatter. Too dangerous to reuse.” I gaped at them with slack jaw. They simply shrugged and kept loading the dumpster.

Incredulous at what I considered a clear misunderstanding of the laws of physics, I sneaked one of the glass goblets and one jug (a beer growler) out of the dumpster and spirited them to my car. In the past two weeks, I have abused these items somewhat, even maliciously trying to break the goblet–pouring hot water in it when chilled, and ice water in it when nice and hot. Nothing. (Now, admittedly it’s not a fine crystal goblet, but more on the order of restaurant “hard-knocks” grade.) I couldn’t sneak out with a carboy, but those things are notorious for being relatively fragile and dangerous to begin with.

Was the insurance company feeding these shop owners a line of balderdash? Is there any substance to the idea that floodwater and/or mud exposure renders glassware–or for that matter china, crystal, ceramics, etc.–dangerously breakable? We speak, mind you, of somewhat ordinary consumer home goods, not specialized laboratory gear, art ceramics, centuries-old pieces, etc.

I will mention that a couple other items I grabbed–plastic crates, metal, etc.–did prove particularly difficult to clean completely, with fine spots showing up when dry even after through cleaning and hosing.

2

I’m not aware of any mechanism by which glass can take progressive damage without some kind of impact, but one could imagine flood water carrying objects with it that might impact the glass and cause tiny chips. That could weaken the glass or even cause it to shatter spectacularly (in the case of tempered glass). Still, it seems unlikely, especially in comparison to ordinary environmental hazards.

So I’m guessing it’s just insurance company cautiousness. I’d certainly fish any useful-looking glassware out of the trash.

3

My guess is that the insurance company is trying to cover themselves from future liability. Most people don’t understand physics, chemistry, or biology. If they’re told that flood waters ruined the inventory of a brewery, they’ll understand that to mean everything, and if at a later date, they’re injured by broken glass and somehow find out that the owner kept some glassware after the flood, they’ll sue. If it went to a jury, heavens only knows if the jury will understand that exposure to dirty water does not harm glassware.

4

This ^

5

Flood water contains all kinds of nasty stuff - remember that it also floods the sewers. Glassware is fairly cheap and you can’t really be sure that any that was in floodwater was properly sterilised after. Much simpler to bin it all and start again with new.

6

As above. To use these glass products to produce a product to be consumed by humans after exposure to flood water? Insane, incompetent, probably illegal. I wouldn’t bat an eye about using a beer mug myself after a thorough cleaning and disinfecting, but to make that decision for other people over many iterations is foolish and and incompetent. Glass is cheap, another person’s health isn’t.

I work for an insurance restoration company, we deal with floods and fire at work all the time, including sewer backup. Watered damaged goods are documented and discarded in obvious cases; saved, cleaned and sanitized in less obvious cases. Much of the saved goods still end up going in the dumptser. In the case of sewer backup or overland flood water you have to assume bacterial contamination, and it just isn’t worth autoclaving a bunch of plates. Much more straightforward for insurance to payout than to count on 100% effective sterilization.

7

Let’s reiterate three things:

  1. the glassware, in many cases, was still in the original cardboard cases, waterlogged. They were not battered about the place violently. So “hard knocks” is out. (I went and talked to the owners again. The one piece they did see break was a carboy–and as I mentioned, those things, typically made in Mexico, are dangerous enough in normal everyday use that I mistrust them.)

  2. Homebrewers are, as a general rule, fastidious about sanitation, from the fermentation vessels to the bottles or kegs; otherwise stray organisms can get in along with the yeast and distort the flavor of the beer or wine, turning a terrific beer/wine into unpalatable cidery brew or vinegary wine, even in ordinary production minus stuff from a flood. (Disregard, for the moment, Belgian beers or the current fad of “sour beers.” Experienced beer/homebrew drinkers can recognize the “off” flavors of “someone’s first homebrew” or improperly sanitized brewing hardware.)

  3. Boiling water and/or bleach will kill any of those pathogens. A bottle of bleach, diluted, or even iodine sanitizers, is cheap compared to some of the stuff trashed wholesale.

That aside, once again–why do they have to lie (I have to presume by now) about the glass becoming more brittle/fragile when flood waters touch it? Just say “you’ll never get it clean enough to satisfy a deludedly-squeamish public/insurance company”.

8

‘you’ meaning the person doing the sterilising?, or the person instructing that it be done (i.e. a putative insurer instructing cleaning rather than disposal)?

Because you definitely can be sure that you’ve cleaned and sterilised most glass vessels - it’s one of the easiest common materials to clean and sterilise, in fact.

9

glass can be contaminated where washing or liquid sanitizer may not be sufficient to decontaminate it.

10

Cite?

I mean, sure, if it’s exposed to radioactivity, or strong acids that etch the surface, or if it’s a piece with a porous or intricately-formed structure, it might be impractical to clean, but I’m not sure you meant any of those things (I certainly didn’t).

11
  1. The insurance company has said they will include new glassware in the claim
  2. This is equipment to be sold to customers or used by customers in their own brewing?

If I was purchasing new homebrew equipment, and found out it had gone through a flood, I’d pass on buying from this shop. Sure, I can wash it. But I’d rather not add even that small possibility of contamination.

As a store owner, if the insurance company is going to pay for the replacements, why would I take the risk of selling something that might cause illness to my customers.

If it was my own equipment for my own use, then I might decide to clean it up. But in that case, the risk is all mine and I would be saving money. On the other hand, glassware for brewing is not that expensive. I might just chuck it, to be sure.

12

It was just loose talk.

The cleanup people were not tasked with the job of sorting and cleaning fetid (eg sewerage , mold,etc) items,
tis all they mean

Insurance companies also have shares in the public companies…including the manufacturers and the department stores, the venture capitalists and new companies.

13

inorganic chemicals can adhere to glass. a flood contains lots of stuff.

a very strong chemical treatment might be needed to clean the glass.

14

Such as? Please can you cite something on this - such as a source where this is discussed in detail?

15

If they are beer people, they’ll probably know that re-usable beer bottles can be cleaned and steralised a half dozen times, and that’s about it. Use gives you surface wear, and the cleaning is corrosive. But that is glass that is intended to be used and sterilized.

If they had glass that was intended to be circulated to the public, then sterilised, I count the flood as one use. (I don’t see that having a sewerage backup is any more dangerous than letting the public piss in your bottles). On the other hand, I don’t expect insurance companies to distinguish between glass that is intended for sterilisation and re-use, and glass that isn’t.

And if they don’t distinguish, then they don’t give you a lower rate. And if you are paying for the insurance anyway, just dump everything and get new glassware: even if it is designed for re-use and sterilisation, you’re going from a piece of glass that is probably half worn out already, to new glass.

16

  1. You assume. It turns out there’s a serious shortfall between their coverage and their losses–between loss of business and ruined merchandise, an estimated $50,000, and this is literally a “mom and pop” operation, not some Mal-Wart. Local homebrewers and brewpubs are holding fundraisers for them–probably the only one of the many businesses damaged in that particular localized flooding getting that effort.
    Among the things that were supposedly tossed was souvenir glassware and t-shirts destined for a local charity fundraiser event, for example, and stored there by a local club. Not covered.

  2. Both. They had a “brew it here” section for people with inadequate kitchen space, and sold gear to homebrewers. All the stainless steel homebrew kegs were being power-washed externally and internally (not that flood waters got into them), and sanitized as per usual procedure.

I’ve heard rumors that a couple of the homebrewers went “dumpster diving”, grabbed stuff they knew could be sterilized, and swapped it out for their own equipment, which they will then offer up for sale as “used” gear at a “flea market” at one of the fundraising beer parties. Had I had a bit more gumption, and more gear of my own of that sort, I would have done that repeatedly myself.

17

I wonder if any of them worked for the insurance company.

18

I still say that, from the point of view of an insurance company, it’s cheaper and easier to replace the glassware. Salvage and sterilisation is not free and the cost (to an insurance Co) may well be greater than the cost of replacements. They may also be concerned about any potential liability issues.

The issue is much the same with car insurance, where a car may be ‘written off’ for relatively minor cosmetic damage. The insurance Co takes the view that paying some agreed value for the damaged car is more cost-effective than paying for a repair. Of course the owner, or some future owner, may well pay for the repair themselves, just as the owner of the microbrewery can salvage and sterilize his own bottles, or allow others to do so.

19

chromosulfuric acid might be a step in chemical cleaning of glass.

20

Please can you cite something on this - such as a source where this is discussed in detail?

(now the third time of asking)