wrote:

> Here's one, recent too: Death is by teflon outgassing or PTFE. Do you
> agree now? Formalin is formaldehyde that you mentioned as an absurd
> possibility. Now it is not so absurd. Did I misunderstand the abstract?

I misunderstood the formalin. They are referring to fixing the lungs of
the dead chickens in formalin, not that formalin formed in the lungs?
In any case, PTFE cause pulmonary edema and the death of the chickens.
So that's proof enough that PTFE can kill birds and it's not a fairy
tale.

> Avian Dis. 2000 Apr-Jun;44(2):449-53.
> Polytetrafluoroethylene gas intoxication in broiler chickens.
> Boucher M, Ehmler TJ, Bermudez AJ.
> Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine,
> University of Missouri-Columbia, 65211, USA.
>
> A poultry research facility that housed 2400 Peterson x Hubbard
> cross broilers (48 pens of 50 chicks each) experienced 4% mortality
> within 24 hr of chick placement. Mortality started within 4 hr of
> placement, and within 72 hr, cumulative mortality had reached 52%. Mild
> dyspnea was the only clinical sign noted in some chicks prior to death.
> The primary gross lesion noted in the chicks submitted was moderate to
> severe pulmonary congestion. The lungs of four of these chicks sank in
> formalin, and blood-tinged fluid was noted in the mouth and nares of
> two chicks. The microscopic lesions noted in the affected chicks were
> moderate to severe pulmonary edema and congestion. The diagnosis
> indicated to the submitter was that pulmonary edema caused by exposure
> to an unidentified noxious gas caused the death of the chicks. The
> poultry house environment was tested for sulfur dioxide, oxides of
> nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and volatile organic
> compounds (as produced by combustion engines); all tests were negative
> for significant levels of these compounds. A second broiler flock was
> placed in the same facility and the mortality at 6 wk was 11%, which
> was greater than the 2.5%-4.7% mortality seen in the previous four
> flocks on the farm. Further investigation revealed that the only change
> in management practice in this facility prior to the onset of the
> severe mortality problem was the replacement of 48 heat lamp bulbs (one
> for each pen). The new heat lamp bulbs were polytetrafluoroethylene
> (PTFE) coated. PTFE gas intoxication has been reported in several
> exotic avian species, but this intoxication has not been previously
> reported in a poultry flock.

In article .com>,
" > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Here's one, recent too: Death is by teflon outgassing or PTFE. Do you
> > agree now? Formalin is formaldehyde that you mentioned as an absurd
> > possibility. Now it is not so absurd. Did I misunderstand the abstract?
>
> I misunderstood the formalin. They are referring to fixing the lungs of
> the dead chickens in formalin, not that formalin formed in the lungs?
> In any case, PTFE cause pulmonary edema and the death of the chickens.
> So that's proof enough that PTFE can kill birds and it's not a fairy
> tale.

Yes. It's the free fluorine that does it. But so what? NO proper use of
teflon-coated pans will cause the release of any fluorine, and birds
were used in mines for what reason? Because they were vastly more
sensitive to poisonous gases than humans.

Any teflon that flakes off the pan will pass through you totally
unaltered. Teflon is close to the most non-reactive stuff in existence.

Isaac

Isaac Wingfield wrote:
> In article .com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Here's one, recent too: Death is by teflon outgassing or PTFE. Do you
> > > agree now? Formalin is formaldehyde that you mentioned as an absurd
> > > possibility. Now it is not so absurd. Did I misunderstand the abstract?
> >
> > I misunderstood the formalin. They are referring to fixing the lungs of
> > the dead chickens in formalin, not that formalin formed in the lungs?
> > In any case, PTFE cause pulmonary edema and the death of the chickens.
> > So that's proof enough that PTFE can kill birds and it's not a fairy
> > tale.
>
> Yes. It's the free fluorine that does it. But so what? NO proper use of
> teflon-coated pans will cause the release of any fluorine, and birds
> were used in mines for what reason? Because they were vastly more
> sensitive to poisonous gases than humans.
>
> Any teflon that flakes off the pan will pass through you totally
> unaltered. Teflon is close to the most non-reactive stuff in existence.
>
> Isaac

It's not the flaking, it's the outgassing which can occur extremely
quickly at relatively moderate temperatures. That's why this is a
concern.

As I posted before, I ran my own test. I put an over thermometer in a
frying pan, teflon coated. I put on the heat. Something I would do
normally to get the pan nice and hot. Sure one could put oil in before
but I don't sometimes. In any case, that thermometer went off its range
in less than 60 seconds. It was well over 500, probably 600 degrees in
30 seconds or so. That really surprised me.

Now how easy is it for anyone to get a pan over 600 degrees Fahrenheit
in less than a minutes. EXTREMELY EASY. Capitals added for emphasis.

People need to be aware. When you say things like proper, okay, fine,
but how many people in this country are aware the teflon outgasses PTFE
in less than 60 seconds? Probably closer to 30 seconds by my
experiment. But don't take my word for this. Try it yourself. Get a
metal thermometer, put it in a teflon pan, and turn on the heat for 30
seconds. And see that baby go off the scale.

wrote:

> Isaac Wingfield wrote:
>
>>In article .com>,
>> " > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here's one, recent too: Death is by teflon outgassing or PTFE. Do you
>>>>agree now? Formalin is formaldehyde that you mentioned as an absurd
>>>>possibility. Now it is not so absurd. Did I misunderstand the abstract?
>>>
>>>I misunderstood the formalin. They are referring to fixing the lungs of
>>>the dead chickens in formalin, not that formalin formed in the lungs?
>>>In any case, PTFE cause pulmonary edema and the death of the chickens.
>>>So that's proof enough that PTFE can kill birds and it's not a fairy
>>>tale.
>>
>>Yes. It's the free fluorine that does it. But so what? NO proper use of
>>teflon-coated pans will cause the release of any fluorine, and birds
>>were used in mines for what reason? Because they were vastly more
>>sensitive to poisonous gases than humans.
>>
>>Any teflon that flakes off the pan will pass through you totally
>>unaltered. Teflon is close to the most non-reactive stuff in existence.
>>
>>Isaac
>
>
> It's not the flaking, it's the outgassing which can occur extremely
> quickly at relatively moderate temperatures. That's why this is a
> concern.
>

Yes but the flaking is visually unappealing and a real tick off. Some
of these non-stick pans are expensive and when the coating starts
flaking, you have to replace it. I gave up on non-stick cookie sheets
for that very reason. I can get the non-stick qualities using parchment
paper or a silicone baking sheet without worrying about the coating
flaking. I don't know about anyone else but I don't want to serve food
to my family with flakes of non-stick coating on them whether or not the
coating stays in the body. If they can put a man on the moon why can't
they make the non-stick coating safe and durable?

> As I posted before, I ran my own test. I put an over thermometer in a
> frying pan, teflon coated. I put on the heat. Something I would do
> normally to get the pan nice and hot. Sure one could put oil in before
> but I don't sometimes. In any case, that thermometer went off its range
> in less than 60 seconds. It was well over 500, probably 600 degrees in
> 30 seconds or so. That really surprised me.
>
> Now how easy is it for anyone to get a pan over 600 degrees Fahrenheit
> in less than a minutes. EXTREMELY EASY. Capitals added for emphasis.
>
> People need to be aware. When you say things like proper, okay, fine,
> but how many people in this country are aware the teflon outgasses PTFE
> in less than 60 seconds? Probably closer to 30 seconds by my
> experiment. But don't take my word for this. Try it yourself. Get a
> metal thermometer, put it in a teflon pan, and turn on the heat for 30
> seconds. And see that baby go off the scale.

I believe you as does the makers of the product hence the warning on
their website. Personally, I was concerned over the potential health
problems of teflon, enough that I went to all stainless steel and cast
iron. However, I do still use one non-stick frypan on the very rare
occasion we want fried eggs. OTOH, the grill grates for our new stove,
the old tabletop grill, the rice maker, and sandwich maker all have
non-stick surfaces. I'm not sure what the coating is. Is all non-stick
teflon? I know my fry pan is a new non-stick called cephalon so maybe
they have solved some of the problems with the old teflon?

On 2006-01-13, ~patches~ > wrote:

> Yes but the flaking is visually unappealing and a real tick off. Some
> of these non-stick pans are expensive and when the coating starts
> flaking, you have to replace it.

If you're spending big bucks for flaking teflon, you're paying money
in the wrong direction.

> If they can put a man on the moon why can't
> they make the non-stick coating safe and durable?

They can and they have, for at least 10-12 years that I know of. I
bought a Farberware Millennium fry pan that long ago and the Excalibur
Teflon coating has never flaked. This using ...and abusing... this
pan almost daily. I have a Wearever commercial frypan with
Silverstone II coating which is still going strong after 6 years (not
used as often). These are both excellent quality Teflon coatings and
will hang in there if the user does their part. IOW, no metal kitchen
implements, etc. The Excalibur is near bullitproof. I've run it up
to smoking temps (no oil), way past the kill house birds, small
children, geezers point more that a few times and the Teflon coating
is still excellent. I highly recommend this coating.

http://www.whitfordww.com/excalibur.html

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2006-01-13, ~patches~ > wrote:
>
>
>>Yes but the flaking is visually unappealing and a real tick off. Some
>>of these non-stick pans are expensive and when the coating starts
>>flaking, you have to replace it.
>
>
> If you're spending big bucks for flaking teflon, you're paying money
> in the wrong direction.

The main pans I'm referring to are Wearever and Baker's Secret bakeware.
I thought both were supposed to be a good brand <shrug> I've had
problems with both. I can't recall the brands of the fry pans as they
are long gone. My current one is a Lagostina with the celphalon finish.
I treat it with kid gloves and so far no flaking.
>
>
>>If they can put a man on the moon why can't
>>they make the non-stick coating safe and durable?
>
>
> They can and they have, for at least 10-12 years that I know of. I
> bought a Farberware Millennium fry pan that long ago and the Excalibur
> Teflon coating has never flaked. This using ...and abusing... this
> pan almost daily. I have a Wearever commercial frypan with
> Silverstone II coating which is still going strong after 6 years (not
> used as often). These are both excellent quality Teflon coatings and
> will hang in there if the user does their part. IOW, no metal kitchen
> implements, etc. The Excalibur is near bullitproof. I've run it up
> to smoking temps (no oil), way past the kill house birds, small
> children, geezers point more that a few times and the Teflon coating
> is still excellent. I highly recommend this coating.
>
> http://www.whitfordww.com/excalibur.html

I'll check it out. Thanks
>
> nb

FWIW - as to durability of Teflon surfaces:

I had trouble even with the commercial ceramic-Teflon coatings denting when
I used my metal spatulas.
I switched to wood and plastic-coated metal spatulas, and I have had no
problems since

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
> notbob wrote:
>
> > On 2006-01-13, ~patches~ > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes but the flaking is visually unappealing and a real tick off. Some
> >>of these non-stick pans are expensive and when the coating starts
> >>flaking, you have to replace it.
> >
> >
> > If you're spending big bucks for flaking teflon, you're paying money
> > in the wrong direction.
>
> The main pans I'm referring to are Wearever and Baker's Secret bakeware.
> I thought both were supposed to be a good brand <shrug> I've had
> problems with both. I can't recall the brands of the fry pans as they
> are long gone. My current one is a Lagostina with the celphalon finish.
> I treat it with kid gloves and so far no flaking.
> >
> >
> >>If they can put a man on the moon why can't
> >>they make the non-stick coating safe and durable?
> >
> >
> > They can and they have, for at least 10-12 years that I know of. I
> > bought a Farberware Millennium fry pan that long ago and the Excalibur
> > Teflon coating has never flaked. This using ...and abusing... this
> > pan almost daily. I have a Wearever commercial frypan with
> > Silverstone II coating which is still going strong after 6 years (not
> > used as often). These are both excellent quality Teflon coatings and
> > will hang in there if the user does their part. IOW, no metal kitchen
> > implements, etc. The Excalibur is near bullitproof. I've run it up
> > to smoking temps (no oil), way past the kill house birds, small
> > children, geezers point more that a few times and the Teflon coating
> > is still excellent. I highly recommend this coating.
> >
> > http://www.whitfordww.com/excalibur.html
>
> I'll check it out. Thanks
> >
> > nb

~patches~ wrote:

> I believe you as does the makers of the product hence the warning on
> their website. Personally, I was concerned over the potential health
> problems of teflon, enough that I went to all stainless steel and cast
> iron. However, I do still use one non-stick frypan on the very rare
> occasion we want fried eggs. OTOH, the grill grates for our new stove,
> the old tabletop grill, the rice maker, and sandwich maker all have
> non-stick surfaces. I'm not sure what the coating is. Is all non-stick
> teflon? I know my fry pan is a new non-stick called cephalon so maybe
> they have solved some of the problems with the old teflon?

Nope, it's still there and it outgasses at 536 degrees Fahrenheit.
That is its original and its current chemical nature or properties.
They may have solved the flaking with expensive new types but
no one can solve the outgassing since that is its chemical properties.
At least not as of now. You are correct to notice the coatings on
many other things. It's almost ubiquitous in the home, that is,
on many things not associated with teflon, like the heat lamps
I mentioned from the scientific article on death among chicken stock.

If you do not notice anything untoward, then either you do not have
birds or the surfaces do not reach the 536 F outgassing threshold.

This is probably not something to get very worried about unless
you care about or have birds in your dwelling.

As for myself, personally, I do not need teflon pots and pans for
anything.
Glass and stainless steel work well enough for my moderate needs.

I did not see the point for teflon since it can and does kill birds.
That's a marker that it's not just the 100% safe product that others
are shouting about. And 536 F is quite an easy temperature for
any product involving heat to achieve, quite easily. I am concerned
about the outgassing, not the flakes, but the gas. BIG DIFFERENCE.

If teflon as a gas can kill birds immediately, not all birds, but quite
a few,
what can it do to the human in the long run? Over years. Doubt
that it improves the health. Maybe neutral. Likely not a good thing.

I don't know but why bother to find out the hard way?

The lungs have enough work to do without adding PTFE gas to the list.

I doubt that I want my lungs stick free. Why? Because when teflon
was added to motor oil, it harmed engines. Now this is true but whether
it refers back to the human engine, I don't know. But if it's not good
for
my car, then it's not good for my lungs. That is also a bit of a joke -
or is it? Any case, it's not a proper argument to use red herrings in
an argument. Are my herrings red? I like herring as a food so back
now to the regular food in the food newsgroup.

wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>
>>I believe you as does the makers of the product hence the warning on
>>their website. Personally, I was concerned over the potential health
>>problems of teflon, enough that I went to all stainless steel and cast
>>iron. However, I do still use one non-stick frypan on the very rare
>>occasion we want fried eggs. OTOH, the grill grates for our new stove,
>>the old tabletop grill, the rice maker, and sandwich maker all have
>>non-stick surfaces. I'm not sure what the coating is. Is all non-stick
>>teflon? I know my fry pan is a new non-stick called cephalon so maybe
>>they have solved some of the problems with the old teflon?
>
>
> Nope, it's still there and it outgasses at 536 degrees Fahrenheit.
> That is its original and its current chemical nature or properties.
> They may have solved the flaking with expensive new types but
> no one can solve the outgassing since that is its chemical properties.
> At least not as of now. You are correct to notice the coatings on
> many other things. It's almost ubiquitous in the home, that is,
> on many things not associated with teflon, like the heat lamps
> I mentioned from the scientific article on death among chicken stock.
>
> If you do not notice anything untoward, then either you do not have
> birds or the surfaces do not reach the 536 F outgassing threshold.

Ok, that is good to know! I doubt most of the surfaces reach that temp
but it might be something worth investigating.

>
> This is probably not something to get very worried about unless
> you care about or have birds in your dwelling.

I have no pets on the premises but I have severe respiratory problems
myself so this is a concern.
>
> As for myself, personally, I do not need teflon pots and pans for
> anything.
> Glass and stainless steel work well enough for my moderate needs.

I'd add a well seasoned cast iron pan as well as metal non-stick cookie
sheets. The silicone bakeware is quite nice too. It seems to me now
that the silicone bakeware has come down in price you can have the
convenience of non-stick without the worries of flaking or offgasing.

>
> I did not see the point for teflon since it can and does kill birds.
> That's a marker that it's not just the 100% safe product that others
> are shouting about. And 536 F is quite an easy temperature for
> any product involving heat to achieve, quite easily. I am concerned
> about the outgassing, not the flakes, but the gas. BIG DIFFERENCE.
>
> If teflon as a gas can kill birds immediately, not all birds, but quite
> a few,
> what can it do to the human in the long run? Over years. Doubt
> that it improves the health. Maybe neutral. Likely not a good thing.
>
> I don't know but why bother to find out the hard way?
>
> The lungs have enough work to do without adding PTFE gas to the list.
>
> I doubt that I want my lungs stick free. Why? Because when teflon
> was added to motor oil, it harmed engines. Now this is true but whether
> it refers back to the human engine, I don't know. But if it's not good
> for
> my car, then it's not good for my lungs. That is also a bit of a joke -
> or is it? Any case, it's not a proper argument to use red herrings in
> an argument. Are my herrings red? I like herring as a food so back
> now to the regular food in the food newsgroup.

IIRC when I initially did my research on the teflon, the teflon itself
did not say in the body but a derivative <racking brain here> C4? or
something like that did. It was this molecule that can build up in the
body and cause problems including the teflon flu. Let me see if I can
find the original research. It might take a few days as I have to go
back to the PC and do some digging. We are going away for a few days so
won't have time until we get back. I *know* I have the research though!
>

Isaac Wingfield wrote:
> In article .com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Here's one, recent too: Death is by teflon outgassing or PTFE. Do you
> > > agree now? Formalin is formaldehyde that you mentioned as an absurd
> > > possibility. Now it is not so absurd. Did I misunderstand the abstract?
> >
> > I misunderstood the formalin. They are referring to fixing the lungs of
> > the dead chickens in formalin, not that formalin formed in the lungs?
> > In any case, PTFE cause pulmonary edema and the death of the chickens.
> > So that's proof enough that PTFE can kill birds and it's not a fairy
> > tale.
>
> Yes. It's the free fluorine that does it. But so what? NO proper use of
> teflon-coated pans will cause the release of any fluorine, and birds
> were used in mines for what reason? Because they were vastly more
> sensitive to poisonous gases than humans.
>
> Any teflon that flakes off the pan will pass through you totally
> unaltered. Teflon is close to the most non-reactive stuff in existence.
>
> Isaac

Okay, now let me try and understand what you are saying. Improper use
of teflon coatings, and I will, even proper use of teflon coatings,
will release PTFE as a gas. By proper use, I mean even the heat lamps
used properly will release PTFE since it is released in the 500 range
of Farhrenheit. Around 536 degrees Fahrenheit which is not much.

Teflon is used in a WIDE range of household products. Irons to heat
lamps to heaters to many things which achieve 536 F as a normal and
proper usage.

Teflon cannot be as inert as you state, at least not as a gas, if it
can kill birds. That is a sign that it does react. It certainly reacts
with the lungs of birds and kills them. We are not talking 2000 F but
the low range of 536 F. A range many, many household objects achieve in
the normal operation. Even pots and pans achieve this. But many
household products have teflon coatings that most people are not aware
of. Many products that have heat or heat producing qualities. And they
go way beyond 536 F in their normal operation. Even for a pan, 536 F is
not all that extreme.

Now would you be kind enough to explain the flourine that you mention.
Is this what kills the birds? The fluorine becomes free?

Am I correct that one of the most deadly poisons comes from a compound
acid made from an inert gas, supposedly inert gas. This is a little bit
of a cheap shot but do you remember that acid, deadly, one drop, and it
goes into the body and whammo. Very dangerous for those in chemistry.
Did that acid have fluorine as a part of it? Scary stuff. One drop and
it goes deep into the body. You must remember that name. Even an
immediate shower is too late for those chemists who were not careful
and it's a lousy way to die. Not that death is wonderful but some ways
are more painful than others, like getting burned at the stake. Or for
this newsgroup, the steak.

Help me out here. I have to go to work and can't look up the details.

wrote:

> Am I correct that one of the most deadly poisons comes from a compound
> acid made from an inert gas, supposedly inert gas. This is a little bit
> of a cheap shot but do you remember that acid, deadly, one drop, and it
> goes into the body and whammo. Very dangerous for those in chemistry.
> Did that acid have fluorine as a part of it? Scary stuff. One drop and
> it goes deep into the body. You must remember that name. Even an
> immediate shower is too late for those chemists who were not careful
> and it's a lousy way to die. Not that death is wonderful but some ways
> are more painful than others, like getting burned at the stake. Or for
> this newsgroup, the steak.
>
> Help me out here. I have to go to work and can't look up the details.
>

Wow. This is like science and stuff...

Pastorio

In article .com>,
" > wrote:

> Isaac Wingfield wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here's one, recent too: Death is by teflon outgassing or PTFE. Do you
> > > > agree now? Formalin is formaldehyde that you mentioned as an absurd
> > > > possibility. Now it is not so absurd. Did I misunderstand the abstract?
> > >
> > > I misunderstood the formalin. They are referring to fixing the lungs of
> > > the dead chickens in formalin, not that formalin formed in the lungs?
> > > In any case, PTFE cause pulmonary edema and the death of the chickens.
> > > So that's proof enough that PTFE can kill birds and it's not a fairy
> > > tale.
> >
> > Yes. It's the free fluorine that does it. But so what? NO proper use of
> > teflon-coated pans will cause the release of any fluorine, and birds
> > were used in mines for what reason? Because they were vastly more
> > sensitive to poisonous gases than humans.
> >
> > Any teflon that flakes off the pan will pass through you totally
> > unaltered. Teflon is close to the most non-reactive stuff in existence.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Okay, now let me try and understand what you are saying. Improper use
> of teflon coatings, and I will, even proper use of teflon coatings,
> will release PTFE as a gas.

No. Polytetrafluorethylene does not issue as a gas. It disintegrates at
a certain temperature into carbon and fluorine. Fluorine is extremeny
reactive and so won't last vert long free in the air. But it is toxic.

>By proper use, I mean even the heat lamps
> used properly will release PTFE since it is released in the 500 range
> of Farhrenheit. Around 536 degrees Fahrenheit which is not much.

You might find that it would be rather difficult to get the temperature
of teflon-coated aluminum up to the temperature where PTFE disintegrates.

> Teflon is used in a WIDE range of household products. Irons to heat
> lamps to heaters to many things which achieve 536 F as a normal and
> proper usage.

And at that temperature, there will be no (or nearly no) release of
fluorine.

> Teflon cannot be as inert as you state, at least not as a gas, if it
> can kill birds.

Again: "teflon" does not exist as a gas -- certainly not in a kitchen.

>That is a sign that it does react. It certainly reacts
> with the lungs of birds and kills them.

As I said: fluorine is toxic. Birsd are far more sensitive to that kind
ofthing than humans. I've been cooking with teflon-coated pans for
years, and I haven't killed anybody yet.

>We are not talking 2000 F but
> the low range of 536 F. A range many, many household objects achieve in
> the normal operation. Even pots and pans achieve this.

You've typed "536" and "365". Teflon-coated pans are not for every
possible kitchen use; "proper" use means that you understand how to use
them to keep the teflon from disintegrating.

>But many
> household products have teflon coatings that most people are not aware
> of. Many products that have heat or heat producing qualities. And they
> go way beyond 536 F in their normal operation. Even for a pan, 536 F is
> not all that extreme.
>
> Now would you be kind enough to explain the flourine that you mention.
> Is this what kills the birds? The fluorine becomes free?

Yup. It issues from the teflon as it disintegrates. IF you heat the
panSO HOT for SO LONG that a considerable amount of the stuff is
released quicklt THEN -- maybe -- some harm could come to a bird from
it. Realize, though, that if you heated a well-cured cast iron skillet
in the same way, noxious fumes could issue from it, too. If you heat a
pan with a bakelite handle that hot, formaldehyde will come out -- and
it's a known carcinogen.

> Am I correct that one of the most deadly poisons comes from a compound
> acid made from an inert gas, supposedly inert gas.

No, you are not correct. Fluorine is just about the LEAST inert of all
gases; it'l react with almost anything.

>This is a little bit
> of a cheap shot but do you remember that acid, deadly, one drop, and it
> goes into the body and whammo. Very dangerous for those in chemistry.
> Did that acid have fluorine as a part of it? Scary stuff. One drop and
> it goes deep into the body. You must remember that name. Even an
> immediate shower is too late for those chemists who were not careful
> and it's a lousy way to die. Not that death is wonderful but some ways
> are more painful than others, like getting burned at the stake. Or for
> this newsgroup, the steak.
>
> Help me out here. I have to go to work and can't look up the details.

What you need to do, is learn some chemistry.

Isaac

On 2006-01-14, Isaac Wingfield > wrote:

> You've typed "536" and "365". Teflon-coated pans are not for every
> possible kitchen use; "proper" use means that you understand how to use
> them to keep the teflon from disintegrating.

You're way too naive. Marketers don't market to consumers who
"understand", they market to consumers with money. The dumber the
better. They'd teflon tin foil if the market was sustainable.

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2006-01-14, Isaac Wingfield > wrote:
>
>
>>You've typed "536" and "365". Teflon-coated pans are not for every
>>possible kitchen use; "proper" use means that you understand how to use
>>them to keep the teflon from disintegrating.
>
>
> You're way too naive. Marketers don't market to consumers who
> "understand", they market to consumers with money. The dumber the
> better. They'd teflon tin foil if the market was sustainable.
>
> nb

This is so true. They even added teflon to toilet bowl cleaner to
prevent sticking. You'd think adding more fibre to your diet would have
the same effect

On Sat 14 Jan 2006 07:11:12a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it ~patches~?

> notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2006-01-14, Isaac Wingfield > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You've typed "536" and "365". Teflon-coated pans are not for every
>>>possible kitchen use; "proper" use means that you understand how to use
>>>them to keep the teflon from disintegrating.
>>
>>
>> You're way too naive. Marketers don't market to consumers who
>> "understand", they market to consumers with money. The dumber the
>> better. They'd teflon tin foil if the market was sustainable.
>>
>> nb
>
> This is so true. They even added teflon to toilet bowl cleaner to
> prevent sticking. You'd think adding more fibre to your diet would have
> the same effect
>

ROTF

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
__________________________________________________ ________________
And if we enter a room full of manure, may we believe in the pony.


Remove all "xxx's" from address to e-mail directly.

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...

> This is so true. They even added teflon to toilet bowl cleaner to
> prevent sticking. You'd think adding more fibre to your diet would have
> the same effect

Or take this to the logical extreme, and simply add more
teflon to your diet....:-)

(Somewhere, I'm pretty sure I still have a copy of an old, old,
"ad" for "Cellophanolax - The Laxative That Contains Cellophane,"
which was supposed to eliminate the need for toilet paper....)

Bob M.

Isaac Wingfield wrote:
> No. Polytetrafluorethylene does not issue as a gas. It disintegrates at
> a certain temperature into carbon and fluorine. Fluorine is extremeny
> reactive and so won't last vert long free in the air. But it is toxic.

Something is coming off, it's "outgassing." When teflon gets much
hotter than 536, than the big bad stuff happens, maybe your flourine
situation.

Or are you suggesting that flourine comes off at 536 F?

> >By proper use, I mean even the heat lamps
> > used properly will release PTFE since it is released in the 500 range
> > of Farhrenheit. Around 536 degrees Fahrenheit which is not much.
>
> You might find that it would be rather difficult to get the temperature
> of teflon-coated aluminum up to the temperature where PTFE disintegrates.

Nope, you're wrong. I did this myself. 30 seconds and the pots was up
to 700F. 536 F is all that is necessary for outgassing. What you are
saying is so easy to prove that it's wrong. Take a pot, heat it for 30
seconds, and it will be over 700 F. I am not talking about
disintegration, I am talking about outgassing, okay? That's 536 F that
kills the winged critters.

> > Teflon is used in a WIDE range of household products. Irons to heat
> > lamps to heaters to many things which achieve 536 F as a normal and
> > proper usage.
>
> And at that temperature, there will be no (or nearly no) release of
> fluorine.

Something kills at 536 F, okay?

> > Teflon cannot be as inert as you state, at least not as a gas, if it
> > can kill birds.
>
> Again: "teflon" does not exist as a gas -- certainly not in a kitchen.

At 536 teflon or PTFE gives off something, whether it's a gas or
particles or fumes or chocolate candy. You are just wrong, plain wrong,
if I can be so discrete

It's outgassing. Maybe it's not a gas but it acts like a gas, and kills
like a gas.

> >That is a sign that it does react. It certainly reacts
> > with the lungs of birds and kills them.
>
> As I said: fluorine is toxic. Birsd are far more sensitive to that kind
> ofthing than humans. I've been cooking with teflon-coated pans for
> years, and I haven't killed anybody yet.

We are talking 536 F. Does not matter if it's flourine or baking soda,
something occurs at 536 F with teflon. Whether it's coincidental or the
phases of the moon, does not matter. Any teflon at 536 is outgassing
something that kills birds.

> >We are not talking 2000 F but
> > the low range of 536 F. A range many, many household objects achieve in
> > the normal operation. Even pots and pans achieve this.
>
> You've typed "536" and "365". Teflon-coated pans are not for every
> possible kitchen use; "proper" use means that you understand how to use
> them to keep the teflon from disintegrating.

Not me. I cannot find the transposing of the numbers in my posts. If
you can, please point it out because I cannot. Maybe you are confusing
me with someone else. Maybe my brain is damaged beyond dyslexia, but I
cannot find 365 in my posts. That's a number that refers to products by
Whole Foods


> What you need to do, is learn some chemistry.
>
> Isaac

I'll learn chemistry if you can if you learn that 536 F is when teflon
outgasses. Whatever that is, it kills birds. Do you do any science? You
seem dogmatic in ignoring the main problem with teflon for ordinary
usage, its outgassing at 536 F. This is not what I say. This is what
even the big, bad Dupont people say. Come on now.

But you're quibbling over words. Whether it's a gas as defined by a
chemist does not matter. It is killing like a gas even if the particles
are acting like what, whatever you call particles that travel through
the air if you don't want to use the word, gas. Okay, outgassing is the
tech term I read in papers about this.

I said teflon outgasses at 536 F. I say it. Dupont says it. And I say
that teflon is giving off something toxic to birds at 536. Maybe it's
technically not a gas, but it acts like a gas. The birds will die even
if in another room. Gas works that way. Even if it's smoke. Okay, call
it smoke. Teflon smokes at 536 F, invisible or visible smoke, flourine
or not, it can kill birdies. The particles that teflon gives off works
that way. If you heat teflon enough to get serious decomposition, you
will kill more than birds, dogs for example, have been killed this way.
But the dogs were exposed to PFTE or teflon at temperatures much higher
than 536 F. This may or may not be true. Supposedly it was one of the
early experiments to determine teflon's toxicity. Guess who did it.

536 536 536 536 536 536 536 536
FAHRENHEIT
outgassing, outgas, something not good, maybe technically not a gas,
but not champagne and oysters either

i would say caviar, but, but, oh in respect the lady out of africa