I had a kitchen ceiling skim plastered a few weeks ago - it was
previously covered in chip-pan grease which I thought I'd successfully
cleaned away with sugar soap. Yuk. However, the newly skimmed ceiling
is now covered in ever-increasing numbers of dark spots which must be
grease leaching through. Although the plaster seems to be stuck OK, I
have no doubt that if I emulsion the ceiling now, I'll just end up with
the spots coming through the paint.

I think I'm going to have to bite the bullet and paint the whole ceiling
with something oil-based before I emulsion it - sound about right? Is
there any value in using expensive half-litre cans of 'stain-block'
paint, or will cheap oil-based undercoat do the job equally well? Or
any easier way of achieving a clean white ceiling :-( ?

Thanks
David

If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Fine thanks: I said "a kitchen ceiling", not "my kitchen ceiling"!

David

In message , Lobster
writes
I had a kitchen ceiling skim plastered a few weeks ago - it was
previously covered in chip-pan grease which I thought I'd successfully
cleaned away with sugar soap. Yuk. However, the newly skimmed ceiling
is now covered in ever-increasing numbers of dark spots which must be
grease leaching through. Although the plaster seems to be stuck OK, I
have no doubt that if I emulsion the ceiling now, I'll just end up
with the spots coming through the paint.

I think I'm going to have to bite the bullet and paint the whole
ceiling with something oil-based before I emulsion it - sound about
right? Is there any value in using expensive half-litre cans of
'stain-block' paint, or will cheap oil-based undercoat do the job
equally well? Or any easier way of achieving a clean white ceiling :-( ?

Dunno.

I do know that the stainblock paint isn't just the same as undercoat,
for one thing the stuff I used was much smellier.
--
Chris French

avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link between a high fat
diet and blocked arteries leading to heart disease.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On 18 May, 09:17, Lobster wrote:

I had a kitchen ceiling skim plastered a few weeks ago - it was
previously covered in chip-pan grease which I thought I'd successfully
cleaned away with sugar soap. Yuk. However, the newly skimmed ceiling
is now covered in ever-increasing numbers of dark spots which must be
grease leaching through. Although the plaster seems to be stuck OK, I
have no doubt that if I emulsion the ceiling now, I'll just end up with
the spots coming through the paint.

I think I'm going to have to bite the bullet and paint the whole ceiling
with something oil-based before I emulsion it - sound about right? Is
there any value in using expensive half-litre cans of 'stain-block'
paint, or will cheap oil-based undercoat do the job equally well? Or
any easier way of achieving a clean white ceiling :-( ?

Thanks
David

I dont know the direct answer, but I do know stainblock blocks more
things than oil based undercoat, so if its business and you want to
ensure a long lasting result for a happy customer it would be safer to
use the stainblock. I would expect the undercoat to work, but I guess
you'd be taking a chance using it.


NT

The Medway Handyman wrote:

avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link between a high fat
diet and blocked arteries leading to heart disease.

Yes there is, it just involves people with genetic predisposition that
shows itself when they eat a high fat diet. It also of course depends on
the sort of fat as to how bad it is for you.

The point is that genetic testing is expensive and we're not sure we
have identified all the relevant alleles, so it is easier to assume you
are at risk and act accordingly.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On 2007-05-19 10:03:55 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link between a high fat
diet and blocked arteries leading to heart disease.

Yes there is, it just involves people with genetic predisposition that
shows itself when they eat a high fat diet. It also of course depends on
the sort of fat as to how bad it is for you.

The point is that genetic testing is expensive and we're not sure we
have identified all the relevant alleles, so it is easier to assume you
are at risk and act accordingly.

Peter

Unfortunately, the food industries then go overboard on that and
neglect the point that so called low fat products simply substitute fat
for sugars and other unsuitable carbohydrates. Meanwhile, the medical
establishment goes overboard on recommending high carbohydrate diet
with little attention paid to glycaemic index and load.

Since excess carbohydrate is processed into various types of fat, it is
misleading to suggest that fat intake of itself is a/the major factor
in arterial blocking.

Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs
conglomerates, projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the
benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix your
lipid profile with a statin.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-19 10:03:55 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link between a high
fat
diet and blocked arteries leading to heart disease.

Yes there is, it just involves people with genetic predisposition that
shows itself when they eat a high fat diet. It also of course depends on
the sort of fat as to how bad it is for you.

The point is that genetic testing is expensive and we're not sure we
have identified all the relevant alleles, so it is easier to assume you
are at risk and act accordingly.

Peter

Unfortunately, the food industries then go overboard on that and
neglect the point that so called low fat products simply substitute fat
for sugars and other unsuitable carbohydrates. Meanwhile, the medical
establishment goes overboard on recommending high carbohydrate diet with
little attention paid to glycaemic index and load.

Since excess carbohydrate is processed into various types of fat, it is
misleading to suggest that fat intake of itself is a/the major factor in
arterial blocking.

Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs
conglomerates, projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the
benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix your
lipid profile with a statin.


Eat and drink what you fancy and you can't go far wrong. Pregnant women
get cravings and aversions for particular foods, and a similar mechanism
operates in all of us, albeit less pronounced. Everyone's metabolism is
different, and eating stuff you don't like because it's "good for you"
makes for a miserable existence and is probably itself a major cause of
health problems.

Andy Hall wrote:

Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs
conglomerates, projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the
benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix
your lipid profile with a statin.

Nail. Hit. Head.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-05-19 10:03:55 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link between a high fat
diet and blocked arteries leading to heart disease.

Yes there is, it just involves people with genetic predisposition that
shows itself when they eat a high fat diet. It also of course depends on
the sort of fat as to how bad it is for you.

The point is that genetic testing is expensive and we're not sure we
have identified all the relevant alleles, so it is easier to assume you
are at risk and act accordingly.

Peter

Unfortunately, the food industries then go overboard on that and
neglect the point that so called low fat products simply substitute fat
for sugars and other unsuitable carbohydrates. Meanwhile, the medical
establishment goes overboard on recommending high carbohydrate diet
with little attention paid to glycaemic index and load.

Not any more.

Since excess carbohydrate is processed into various types of fat, it is
misleading to suggest that fat intake of itself is a/the major factor
in arterial blocking.

Again, you are out of date.

Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs
conglomerates,

Wrong. You are confusing drug development with medical research. The
vast majority of medical research in the UK is funded by the research
councils or the charities.

projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the
benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix your
lipid profile with a statin.

My wife doesn't need statins, the diet is working just fine.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On 2007-05-19 12:17:36 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-05-19 10:03:55 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link between a high fat
diet and blocked arteries leading to heart disease.

Yes there is, it just involves people with genetic predisposition that
shows itself when they eat a high fat diet. It also of course depends on
the sort of fat as to how bad it is for you.

The point is that genetic testing is expensive and we're not sure we
have identified all the relevant alleles, so it is easier to assume you
are at risk and act accordingly.

Peter

Unfortunately, the food industries then go overboard on that and
neglect the point that so called low fat products simply substitute fat
for sugars and other unsuitable carbohydrates. Meanwhile, the medical
establishment goes overboard on recommending high carbohydrate diet
with little attention paid to glycaemic index and load.

Not any more.

Go take a look at the NICE recommendations on the subject.



Since excess carbohydrate is processed into various types of fat, it is
misleading to suggest that fat intake of itself is a/the major factor
in arterial blocking.

Again, you are out of date.

On the contrary.



Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs
conglomerates,

Wrong. You are confusing drug development with medical research. The
vast majority of medical research in the UK is funded by the research
councils or the charities.

I'm not talking about the UK - far too narrow a view. If you look on
a global basis, you will find that a high proportion of medical
research projects have funding from commercial interests. There is
nothing inherently wrong with commercial support of research provided
that the interests are declared and outcomes scrutinised.





projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the
benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix your
lipid profile with a statin.

My wife doesn't need statins, the diet is working just fine.

Peter

I have the opposite situation. My lipid profile is highly influenced
by carbohydrate intake and timing thereof and hardly at all by fat
intake.

It illustrates your earlier point that there is a genetic
predisposition and a variation around the population. A one size fits
all low fat diet is no more universally suitable that a one size fits
all low carbohydrate diet.

Andy Hall wrote:


Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs
conglomerates, projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the
benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix
your lipid profile with a statin.

My paramedic (actually EMT grade 3) daughter gets called to loads of cardiac
jobs. 99% are on statins - if they were that effective she would be dealing
with the non statin takers.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs
conglomerates, projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the
benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix
your lipid profile with a statin.

My paramedic (actually EMT grade 3) daughter gets called to loads of cardiac
jobs. 99% are on statins - if they were that effective she would be dealing
with the non statin takers.

But that would only be true if the whole population were taking statins,
which Big Pharma would no doubt like to see. As it is, they are
normally only given to those who are already at risk... so it could be
argued that if nobody at all was taking statins then your daughter would
be seeing, say, double the number of cardiac cases than she currently
is, which would mean that statins were incredibly effective.

David

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-19 12:17:36 +0100, (Peter Ashby)
said:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-19 10:03:55 +0100, (Peter
Ashby) said:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link
between a high fat diet and blocked arteries leading to heart
disease.

[snip]

My wife doesn't need statins, the diet is working just fine.

I have the opposite situation. My lipid profile is highly
influenced by carbohydrate intake and timing thereof and hardly at
all by fat intake.

Yebbut what about the lipid profile of this kitchen ceiling then? :-)

David

Lobster wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs
conglomerates, projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the
benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix
your lipid profile with a statin.

My paramedic (actually EMT grade 3) daughter gets called to loads of cardiac
jobs. 99% are on statins - if they were that effective she would be dealing
with the non statin takers.

But that would only be true if the whole population were taking statins,
which Big Pharma would no doubt like to see. As it is, they are
normally only given to those who are already at risk... so it could be
argued that if nobody at all was taking statins then your daughter would
be seeing, say, double the number of cardiac cases than she currently
is, which would mean that statins were incredibly effective.

It also assumes that the many large controlled studies on statins that
have been done are wrong. Many have been done outwith big pharma by
publically funded scientists too. In addition the idea that most at risk
people should take statins is based on the hard nosed, realistic
realisation that most of those people are not going to make the required
dietary and lifestyle changes. Even if they do the statins appear to do
little if any harm. This is so strikingly true that some have even
suggested that statins are substituting for some absent component of our
diets.

Peter

--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On 2007-05-19 17:02:41 +0100, Lobster said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-19 12:17:36 +0100, (Peter Ashby)
said:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-19 10:03:55 +0100, (Peter
Ashby) said:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
avocado wrote:
If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link
between a high fat diet and blocked arteries leading to heart
disease.

[snip]

My wife doesn't need statins, the diet is working just fine.

I have the opposite situation. My lipid profile is highly
influenced by carbohydrate intake and timing thereof and hardly at
all by fat intake.

Yebbut what about the lipid profile of this kitchen ceiling then? :-)

David

Doesn't bear thinking about..

Peter Ashby wrote:

It also assumes that the many large controlled studies on statins that
have been done are wrong. Many have been done outwith big pharma by
publically funded scientists too. In addition the idea that most at
risk people should take statins is based on the hard nosed, realistic
realisation that most of those people are not going to make the
required dietary and lifestyle changes.

But thats the point Peter. Anyone even vaguely suspected of being 'at risk'
is almost force fed statins. Whilst they may be effective at reducing blood
cholresterol there is no link between high cholresterol and heart problems.

You underestimate the huge infuence the drug companies have on the medical
profession. GP's are constantly bombarded by 'research' and 'information'
from drug manufacturers. And GP's are now heavily 'targeted' by Govmint.

Even if they do the statins
appear to do little if any harm. This is so strikingly true that some
have even suggested that statins are substituting for some absent
component of our diets.

They don't harm the patient true, but what harm does the huge sum of money
spent prescribing them do?


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On 2007-05-19 22:56:46 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Peter Ashby wrote:

It also assumes that the many large controlled studies on statins that
have been done are wrong. Many have been done outwith big pharma by
publically funded scientists too. In addition the idea that most at
risk people should take statins is based on the hard nosed, realistic
realisation that most of those people are not going to make the
required dietary and lifestyle changes.

But thats the point Peter. Anyone even vaguely suspected of being 'at risk'
is almost force fed statins. Whilst they may be effective at reducing blood
cholresterol there is no link between high cholresterol and heart problems.

You underestimate the huge infuence the drug companies have on the medical
profession. GP's are constantly bombarded by 'research' and 'information'
from drug manufacturers. And GP's are now heavily 'targeted' by Govmint.

That's certainly true. One only has to look at the GP contracts and
the various means by which practices can make extra bunce by running
the various set piece care programmes. Whether or not they are
effective in terms of outcome is neither here nor there.



Even if they do the statins
appear to do little if any harm. This is so strikingly true that some
have even suggested that statins are substituting for some absent
component of our diets.

They don't harm the patient true, but what harm does the huge sum of money
spent prescribing them do?

There's about to be a row about that whole area as attempts are made to
switch patients from the (generally more effective) products that are
still on patent to some of the less effective and cheaper generics.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:

It also assumes that the many large controlled studies on statins that
have been done are wrong. Many have been done outwith big pharma by
publically funded scientists too. In addition the idea that most at
risk people should take statins is based on the hard nosed, realistic
realisation that most of those people are not going to make the
required dietary and lifestyle changes.

But thats the point Peter. Anyone even vaguely suspected of being 'at risk'
is almost force fed statins. Whilst they may be effective at reducing blood
cholresterol there is no link between high cholresterol and heart problems.

But again in my experience that is not true. I suppose it could be one
of those differences between England and Scotland.

You underestimate the huge infuence the drug companies have on the medical
profession. GP's are constantly bombarded by 'research' and 'information'
from drug manufacturers. And GP's are now heavily 'targeted' by Govmint.

I am not underestimating it. You seem to be assuming that all prescribed
drugs are so prescribed because of pressure from big Pharma. That is an
extremely biased position that does not reflect reality. It also ignores
the increasing role of NICE to do the intellectual legwork in assessing
drugs.

Even if they do the statins
appear to do little if any harm. This is so strikingly true that some
have even suggested that statins are substituting for some absent
component of our diets.

They don't harm the patient true, but what harm does the huge sum of money
spent prescribing them do?

That's right, change the subject. Lets not spend money on a substance
that does no harm and has been shown to do a lot of good.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On 2007-05-20 12:19:02 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:

It also assumes that the many large controlled studies on statins that
have been done are wrong. Many have been done outwith big pharma by
publically funded scientists too. In addition the idea that most at
risk people should take statins is based on the hard nosed, realistic
realisation that most of those people are not going to make the
required dietary and lifestyle changes.

But thats the point Peter. Anyone even vaguely suspected of being 'at risk'
is almost force fed statins. Whilst they may be effective at reducing blood
cholresterol there is no link between high cholresterol and heart problems.

But again in my experience that is not true. I suppose it could be one
of those differences between England and Scotland.

You underestimate the huge infuence the drug companies have on the medical
profession. GP's are constantly bombarded by 'research' and 'information'
from drug manufacturers. And GP's are now heavily 'targeted' by Govmint.

I am not underestimating it. You seem to be assuming that all prescribed
drugs are so prescribed because of pressure from big Pharma. That is an
extremely biased position that does not reflect reality. It also ignores
the increasing role of NICE to do the intellectual legwork in assessing
drugs.

NICE does produce some reasonable work. Unfortunately, the PCTs then
proceed to ignore it if they can find a cheaper solution than that
recommended.

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-05-20 12:19:02 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:

It also assumes that the many large controlled studies on statins that
have been done are wrong. Many have been done outwith big pharma by
publically funded scientists too. In addition the idea that most at
risk people should take statins is based on the hard nosed, realistic
realisation that most of those people are not going to make the
required dietary and lifestyle changes.

But thats the point Peter. Anyone even vaguely suspected of being 'at
risk' is almost force fed statins. Whilst they may be effective at
reducing blood cholresterol there is no link between high cholresterol
and heart problems.

But again in my experience that is not true. I suppose it could be one
of those differences between England and Scotland.

You underestimate the huge infuence the drug companies have on the medical
profession. GP's are constantly bombarded by 'research' and 'information'
from drug manufacturers. And GP's are now heavily 'targeted' by Govmint.

I am not underestimating it. You seem to be assuming that all prescribed
drugs are so prescribed because of pressure from big Pharma. That is an
extremely biased position that does not reflect reality. It also ignores
the increasing role of NICE to do the intellectual legwork in assessing
drugs.

NICE does produce some reasonable work. Unfortunately, the PCTs then
proceed to ignore it if they can find a cheaper solution than that
recommended.

Nothing wrong with generics. Why people pay well over the odds for
neurofen when plain pack versions are much cheaper and exactly the same.

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On 2007-05-20 21:24:55 +0100, (Peter Ashby) said:


I am not underestimating it. You seem to be assuming that all prescribed
drugs are so prescribed because of pressure from big Pharma. That is an
extremely biased position that does not reflect reality. It also ignores
the increasing role of NICE to do the intellectual legwork in assessing
drugs.

NICE does produce some reasonable work. Unfortunately, the PCTs then
proceed to ignore it if they can find a cheaper solution than that
recommended.

Nothing wrong with generics. Why people pay well over the odds for
neurofen when plain pack versions are much cheaper and exactly the same.


There are generics and generics I was specifically talking about
substitutions among classes of drug as opposed to direct equivalents.

I agree with you that it makes good sense to use generics where the
original drug is off patent.

However, it is rather diffferent when substitutions are made for less
effective generics that are off patent. For example, Pfizer has a
patent on atorvastatin (brand name Lipitor) until 2011 in most
countries. It is known to be more effective than off patent statins,
but of course is more expensive.