Hello all.

The non-stick coating on my frying pan (bought from Sainsbury) has never
been satisfactory. It works, but not very well. I believe that these pans
need an initial "special" preparation before use; but I can't remember if I
carried it out; and if I did it, wasn't successfull.
How does one prepare these pans, and do you have a _favourite_ way of doing
it. BTW, I only use plastic utensils; and wash the pan in hot water only (no
washing up liquid).

P.S. Can you recommend a good frying pan?

Thanks in advance.

Sylvain.

Sylvain VAN DER WALDE expressed precisely :
P.S. Can you recommend a good frying pan?

An old fashioned cast iron one.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Prior to use for the first time give the inside a smear of cooking oil
and rub in, after washing do the same, for me it seems to preserve the
coating.
Peter.
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE expressed precisely :
P.S. Can you recommend a good frying pan?

An old fashioned cast iron one.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Peter C"
saying something like:

Prior to use for the first time give the inside a smear of cooking oil
and rub in, after washing do the same, for me it seems to preserve the
coating.

I do that, and I never wash it with detergent. Just run it under the hot
water and wipe it dry/clean with paper towel.

The same for cast iron pans works well and builds up a non-stick
surface.
--

Dave

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Peter C"
saying something like:

Prior to use for the first time give the inside a smear of cooking oil
and rub in, after washing do the same, for me it seems to preserve the
coating.

I do that, and I never wash it with detergent. Just run it under the hot
water and wipe it dry/clean with paper towel.

You should have taken it back as soon as. It's a little late by now I
imagine.

The same for cast iron pans works well and builds up a non-stick surface.

You don't clean a cast iron pan like that. There is nothing to stop you
doing so of course but the pan is seasoned with a coating of resin
obtained by heating oil in it. Greases and oils form this resin during
use.

Animal fats and vegetable oils oxidise into a layer of resin and this
patina should be left intact on frying pans. I wouldn't use a cast iron
saucepan of course, so can't speak for them.

To clean such a pan, you use it and then wipe it out when hot, with a
tissue or wad of newspaper.

Overheating a nonstick pan will ruin it, as will cooking sugary stuff
in it. Sugars have the ability to scratch, they are OK when dissolved
or melted but mixing sugar in them will damage them.

As with using metal or abrasives on them, poor handling techniques will
damage them but the most probable cause of failure is overheating.

Weatherlawyer wrote:


As with using metal or abrasives on them, poor handling techniques will
damage them but the most probable cause of failure is overheating.

Or putting ali based pans in the dishwaster...

As far as non stick goes, these are the best pans I ever bought:

http://www.hartsofstur.com/acatalog/Anolon.html

(Meyer Anolon). I have never cooked anything that couldn't be got off with a
short soak in hot water and fairy, then a wipe with a sponge.

As to plain cast iron, I like it in frying pans, but it's completely useless
for saucepans, especially for acid foods. I clean mine with fairy and a
nylon brush - leaves enough coating on IME. But I believe the previously
quoted techniques of wiping out hot is the "professional" way of dealing
with omelette pans amongst others (source: my mum who was qualified in that
sort of thing).

Merry Christmas!

Turkeys in the oven, wines in me, kiddies waiting for pressies so have to
go

Cheers

Tim

Weatherlawyer wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Peter C"
saying something like:

Prior to use for the first time give the inside a smear of cooking oil
and rub in, after washing do the same, for me it seems to preserve the
coating.
I do that, and I never wash it with detergent. Just run it under the hot
water and wipe it dry/clean with paper towel.

You should have taken it back as soon as. It's a little late by now I
imagine.

The same for cast iron pans works well and builds up a non-stick surface.

You don't clean a cast iron pan like that. There is nothing to stop you
doing so of course but the pan is seasoned with a coating of resin
obtained by heating oil in it. Greases and oils form this resin during
use.

Animal fats and vegetable oils oxidise into a layer of resin and this
patina should be left intact on frying pans. I wouldn't use a cast iron
saucepan of course, so can't speak for them.

To clean such a pan, you use it and then wipe it out when hot, with a
tissue or wad of newspaper.

Overheating a nonstick pan will ruin it, as will cooking sugary stuff
in it. Sugars have the ability to scratch, they are OK when dissolved
or melted but mixing sugar in them will damage them.

As with using metal or abrasives on them, poor handling techniques will
damage them but the most probable cause of failure is overheating.

IME everything damages them. Even the recommended rubber/plastic spatulas.

Better to use cast iron, stainless steel or aluminium, each one of which
is a hardier non-stick for certain kinds of things.

"Sylvain VAN DER WALDE" wrote in message
...
Hello all.

The non-stick coating on my frying pan (bought from Sainsbury) has never
been satisfactory. It works, but not very well. I believe that these pans
need an initial "special" preparation before use; but I can't remember if
I carried it out; and if I did it, wasn't successfull.
How does one prepare these pans, and do you have a _favourite_ way of
doing it. BTW, I only use plastic utensils; and wash the pan in hot water
only (no washing up liquid).

P.S. Can you recommend a good frying pan?

Circulon.

Mary

Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

The non-stick coating on my frying pan (bought from Sainsbury) has never
been satisfactory.

I thought everybody was warned years ago against using non-stick
frypans:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1321804.shtml

Teflon Chemical A Likely Carcinogen

A group of scientific advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency
voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a recommendation that a chemical
used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and
stain-resistant products should be considered a likely carcinogen.

In message . com, Matty
F writes
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

The non-stick coating on my frying pan (bought from Sainsbury) has never
been satisfactory.

I thought everybody was warned years ago against using non-stick
frypans:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1321804.shtml

Teflon Chemical A Likely Carcinogen

A group of scientific advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency
voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a recommendation that a chemical
used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and
stain-resistant products should be considered a likely carcinogen.

There's a big difference between "a chemical used in the manufacture of
...." and the end product, isn't there ?

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

--
geoff

Matty F wrote:

I thought everybody was warned years ago against using non-stick
frypans:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1321804.shtml

Teflon Chemical A Likely Carcinogen

A group of scientific advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency
voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a recommendation that a chemical
used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and
stain-resistant products should be considered a likely carcinogen.

You should see an MSDS for cinnamon,


NT

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:31:10 GMT, raden wrote:

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

But the break down products if you get PTFE too hot aren't so nice...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Huge wrote:
On 2006-12-26, wrote:
Matty F wrote:

I thought everybody was warned years ago against using non-stick
frypans:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1321804.shtml

Teflon Chemical A Likely Carcinogen

A group of scientific advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency
voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a recommendation that a chemical
used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and
stain-resistant products should be considered a likely carcinogen.
You should see an MSDS for cinnamon,

I suggest anyone interested in this kind of thing should seek out
Bruce Ames' paper "Dietary Carcinogens and Anti-carcinogens". You'll
never eat black pepper, celery, toast, barbequeued *anything* or
any kind of burned protein ever again.

Or alternatively, if you've any common, you'll shake your head and
eat more leafy green veg.


Or alternatively wonder at how mankind has survived a meat and fruit
diet for some many millions of years..

Perhaps cancer is part of living..

raden wrote:
In message . com, Matty
F writes
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

The non-stick coating on my frying pan (bought from Sainsbury) has never
been satisfactory.

I thought everybody was warned years ago against using non-stick
frypans:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1321804.shtml

Teflon Chemical A Likely Carcinogen

A group of scientific advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency
voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a recommendation that a chemical
used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and
stain-resistant products should be considered a likely carcinogen.

There's a big difference between "a chemical used in the manufacture of
..." and the end product, isn't there ?

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

People should be warned about potentially dangerous materials so they
can make an informed choice whether they will use them. If you or they
know more than the EPA then go right ahead, use the stuff.

In message . com, Matty
F writes
raden wrote:
In message . com, Matty
F writes
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

The non-stick coating on my frying pan (bought from Sainsbury) has never
been satisfactory.

I thought everybody was warned years ago against using non-stick
frypans:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1321804.shtml

Teflon Chemical A Likely Carcinogen

A group of scientific advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency
voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a recommendation that a chemical
used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and
stain-resistant products should be considered a likely carcinogen.

There's a big difference between "a chemical used in the manufacture of
..." and the end product, isn't there ?

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

People should be warned about potentially dangerous materials so they
can make an informed choice whether they will use them. If you or they
know more than the EPA then go right ahead, use the stuff.

I don't follow your argument about potentially dangerous

As I read it, a chemical used in it's manufacture was potentially
carcinogenic, not the ptfe itself


--
geoff

raden wrote:
In message . com, Matty
F writes
raden wrote:
In message . com, Matty
F writes
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

The non-stick coating on my frying pan (bought from Sainsbury) has never
been satisfactory.

I thought everybody was warned years ago against using non-stick
frypans:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1321804.shtml

Teflon Chemical A Likely Carcinogen

A group of scientific advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency
voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a recommendation that a chemical
used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and
stain-resistant products should be considered a likely carcinogen.

There's a big difference between "a chemical used in the manufacture of
..." and the end product, isn't there ?

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

People should be warned about potentially dangerous materials so they
can make an informed choice whether they will use them. If you or they
know more than the EPA then go right ahead, use the stuff.

I don't follow your argument about potentially dangerous

As I read it, a chemical used in it's manufacture was potentially
carcinogenic, not the ptfe itself

Teflon can break down and emit harmful products if the frypan is
overheated, or perhaps merely by cooking bacon etc. Also, flakes of
Teflon will be dislodged with wear and you will eat them.

I have a cast iron frypan which is excellent. I've never used Teflon,
partly because people around here regularly burn every pot and frypan,
and would use metal utensils on the pan and scratch the coating.

Maybe it's no big deal, but I don't clad my house with asbestos
products either, because there are alternatives that have been tested
for thousands of years, e.g. wood and brick.

In message . com, Matty
F writes
There's a big difference between "a chemical used in the manufacture of
..." and the end product, isn't there ?

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

People should be warned about potentially dangerous materials so they
can make an informed choice whether they will use them. If you or they
know more than the EPA then go right ahead, use the stuff.

I don't follow your argument about potentially dangerous

As I read it, a chemical used in it's manufacture was potentially
carcinogenic, not the ptfe itself

Teflon can break down and emit harmful products if the frypan is
overheated,

Significantly overheated - over 450 centigrade

or perhaps merely by cooking bacon etc.

Really - no

Are you stupid or something?

Do you really think that the H&S would allow such things to be sold

Also, flakes of
Teflon will be dislodged with wear and you will eat them.

So what. It's an inert plastic - like ingesting a bit of a polythene bag

I think you need to get real


--
geoff

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:41:04 GMT, raden wrote:

Do you really think that the H&S would allow such things to be sold

Dodgy ground, H&S are very selective. They allow cars to be sold, cars
kill around 10 people/day in the UK alone and seriously injure several
hundred...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:41:04 GMT, raden wrote:

Do you really think that the H&S would allow such things to be sold

Dodgy ground, H&S are very selective. They allow cars to be sold, cars
kill around 10 people/day in the UK alone and seriously injure several
hundred...

and bar fires, famous for causing electrical house fires. Etc etc.


NT

raden wrote:

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

PTFE is _horribly_ toxic, if overheated.

Personally I love it for "pans" in general, but I just don't want it on
a frying pan. With the way I cook, there's too much risk of that
getting into the dubious heat range. My frying pans are a wok (plain
seasoned steel), a big cast iron thing for searing half-cows (so I
don't use that much!) and a little aluminium non-stick one that's kept
for omelettes and nothing else. I think that having more than one
frying pan is the key here -- you don't really need perfectly non-stick
for most things, when you do need it (omelettes), then you don't need
some huge macho thing that's also given a hard life and is likely to be
a bit clarty.

On 27 Dec 2006 03:31:02 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

raden wrote:

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

PTFE is _horribly_ toxic, if overheated.

Personally I love it for "pans" in general, but I just don't want it on
a frying pan. With the way I cook, there's too much risk of that
getting into the dubious heat range. My frying pans are a wok (plain
seasoned steel), a big cast iron thing for searing half-cows (so I
don't use that much!) and a little aluminium non-stick one that's kept
for omelettes and nothing else. I think that having more than one
frying pan is the key here -- you don't really need perfectly non-stick
for most things, when you do need it (omelettes), then you don't need
some huge macho thing that's also given a hard life and is likely to be
a bit clarty.

I'll second that except I prefer steel to aluminium as it has less tendency
to burn which is why aluminium woks are useless.
BTW groundnut oil should be used in woks as it has a higher smoking
temperature.
AND I never use detergents on any pans.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk

In message . com, "Andy
Dingley " writes

raden wrote:

The whole point about PTFE is that it is very unreactive

PTFE is _horribly_ toxic, if overheated.

If you heat it dry ...

450 C is pretty hot



--
geoff

Owain wrote:

Mercury's highly toxic, but dental amalgam is still considered safe (or
within acceptable risk) by the majority of dental surgeons and patients.

Ah yes, dentists. The people who used to hold X-ray films in place with
their fingers, day after day. They certainly know an occupational
health risk when they see it.

Also mercury amalgam is far from an acceptable risk to the dental
nurses involved in _preparing_ it from mercury (maybe dentists too, but
they're paid enough to not worry about them).

wrote in message
oups.com...

Owain wrote:

Mercury's highly toxic, but dental amalgam is still considered safe (or
within acceptable risk) by the majority of dental surgeons and patients.

Ah yes, dentists. The people who used to hold X-ray films in place with
their fingers, day after day. They certainly know an occupational
health risk when they see it.

Also mercury amalgam is far from an acceptable risk to the dental
nurses involved in _preparing_ it from mercury (maybe dentists too, but
they're paid enough to not worry about them).

Heard the latest? That Torricellan barometers may be banned?

Apparently our European masters didn't think about them when they banned
mercury oral thermometers - until some **** asked if barometers would be
included!

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:

Heard the latest? That Torricellan barometers may be banned?

6 months ago, and regularly ever since 8-(

However it's also news to the EU, who show no real sign of ever having
had such a widespread plan in mind. _Real_ cites on this are welcome,
and I don't mean Tory MEPs claiming credit for defeating something that
never existed in the first place.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:

Heard the latest? That Torricellan barometers may be banned?

6 months ago, and regularly ever since 8-(

Source?

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Heard the latest? That Torricellan barometers may be banned?

Apparently our European masters didn't think about them when they banned
mercury oral thermometers - until some **** asked if barometers would be
included!

Does that mean that mercury arc rectifiers will be banned also?
They are glass bottles a few feet high containing a gallon of mercury,
involve a high voltage and current, and emit UV radiation.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:41:04 GMT, raden wrote:

Do you really think that the H&S would allow such things to be sold

Dodgy ground, H&S are very selective. They allow cars to be sold, cars
kill around 10 people/day in the UK alone and seriously injure several
hundred...

Cars are like guns. Only the people using them make them dangerous.

Sylvain.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Mary Fisher wrote:

Heard the latest? That Torricellan barometers may be banned?

6 months ago, and regularly ever since 8-(

Source?

I don't have a source, that's rather the point.

For the last 6 months I've been hearing the Daily Wail diatribe that
Europe are going to straighten our bananas / ban our barometers.
However I've still found no real evidence for this. There is also at
least one Tory MEP where Sir Royston Buffton-Tuffton is cheerfully
claiming personal credit for having stopped this, despite no evidence
it was ever even planned.

Now banning lead in pipe organs and stained glass lighting, that was a
real piece of legislation and would have been a problem if it hadn't
been redrafted.

Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

Cars are like guns. Only the people using them make them dangerous.

Very good. I wish someone had told them earlier. Perhaps now you have
given them the benefit of your insight you can **** off?

On 27 Dec 2006 02:51:00 -0800, wrote:

Dodgy ground, H&S are very selective.

and bar fires, famous for causing electrical house fires. Etc etc.

Not sure you can get a conventional old style electric bar fire anymore.
They all appear to fan, convector or oil filled. The closest appear to be
the ceramic type.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message , Sylvain VAN DER
WALDE writes

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ill.com...
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:41:04 GMT, raden wrote:

Do you really think that the H&S would allow such things to be sold

Dodgy ground, H&S are very selective. They allow cars to be sold, cars
kill around 10 people/day in the UK alone and seriously injure several
hundred...

Cars are like guns. Only the people using them make them dangerous.

You also need to pass a test to drive one

--
geoff

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:46:56 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Sylvain VAN DER
WALDE writes

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
hill.com...
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:41:04 GMT, raden wrote:

Do you really think that the H&S would allow such things to be sold

Dodgy ground, H&S are very selective. They allow cars to be sold, cars
kill around 10 people/day in the UK alone and seriously injure several
hundred...

Cars are like guns. Only the people using them make them dangerous.

You also need to pass a test to drive one

Do you really mean you cannot drive a car without passing a test? I
think you will find there are numerous persons driving cars without
passing a test. If they are old enough, even legally.

Cars are not weapons. The sole purpose of a gun is to either injure
or kill, that isn't the purpose of a motor vehicle, so there is a very
distinct difference. Anyone who carries a gun can only have one
intention in mind (consciously or subconsciously) to injure or kill
something.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:49:45 +0000, Owain
wrote:

You can still get bar fires

I'd hope so. If people don't know what a one-bar fire is, how can the
mass media explain the power consumption of other 'leccy gadgets?

;-)

--
Frank Erskine

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:16:11 +0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

I'd hope so. If people don't know what a one-bar fire is, how can the
mass media explain the power consumption of other 'leccy gadgets?

The mejia don't appear to use that anymore they use the much vaguer "n
thousand households". A useless measure IMHO as only a few house holds
will be "average" and the consumer will only have experience of their
particular useage. Useage varies considerably from poorly insulated all
electric households to heavyly insulated one that only use electric for
light and TV etc in the evening.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 07:20:19 +0000, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Do you really mean you cannot drive a car without passing a test? I
think you will find there are numerous persons driving cars without
passing a test. If they are old enough, even legally.

I think the Driving Test came in in 1937, anyone old enough to not have
had to taken a test will require an annual Doctors certificate that they
are physically capable of driving. No Dr's certificate and your licence
doesn't get renewed. Mind you I bet that doesn't stop some old duffers
still driving, just like younger people are happy to drive without
insurance, MOT etc etc.

Also when you buy a gun you have to show your gun licence and name
address etc are recorded and passed on. Any one looking vaugely old
enough can buy a car with very little offical checking about them or
their abilties, legal or otherwise.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article om,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 07:20:19 +0000, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Do you really mean you cannot drive a car without passing a test? I
think you will find there are numerous persons driving cars without
passing a test. If they are old enough, even legally.

I think the Driving Test came in in 1937, anyone old enough to not have

Driving test wasn't available (certainly in some cases) during WWII,
and maybe sometime afterwards. My Uncle applied for his provisional
(not quite sure when, probably shortly after WWII), and he, like many
others, was simply given a full license at that time. There have also
been a number of ways to get a full license through the army, without
ever taking a test (don't know if that still exists, probably not).

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 07:20:19 +0000, Edward W. Thompson wrote:

... Mind you I bet that doesn't stop some old duffers
still driving,

It would be interesting to know if you'll still be driving when others
consider that you're an old duffer.

Old duffers are far more experienced than younger drivers and have fewer
accidents. We even have lower insurance premiums because of that!

Mary

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:11:34 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Old duffers are far more experienced than younger drivers and have fewer
accidents. We even have lower insurance premiums because of that!

Some are, some aren't. I've seen some extremely dangerous older drivers,
who lack any kind of reasonable reaction times etc. They may not be
involved in so many accidents, but I've seen them *cause* plenty....then
go on their way, oblivious of the carnage.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:11:34 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Old duffers are far more experienced than younger drivers and have fewer
accidents. We even have lower insurance premiums because of that!

Some are, some aren't.

Of course, that applies to all age groups. But most older drivers have been
driving longer than younger ones. They have also driven more types of
vehicles than younger ones and are more conscious about preserving their
lives.

I've seen some extremely dangerous older drivers,
who lack any kind of reasonable reaction times etc. They may not be
involved in so many accidents, but I've seen them *cause* plenty....then
go on their way, oblivious of the carnage.

I knew someone would say that. It always makes me yawn.