Covering worktop with Fablon

[Rachel]

Hi there,

We are renovating our house as we go along, we have put new doors on
the existing carcass of our kitchen, and they look great.

One problem we have is the worktops, really out of date and naf
looking. We can't afford to replace all the worktops yet, as the
cooker fits into the corner of one of them and they we can't get the
depth without ordering it, and it is going to cost quite a lot....

My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering the
existing worktops using FABLON ?

If so, how was it? Does it still look ok, and is it a good idea.

Obviously we realise that we would have to be careful with the surface
with sharp objects etc .. but nothing can be as bad as it looks at
the moment.

There are some quite nice patterns available these days too :-)

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Regards

Rachel

[Lee]

Rachel wrote:

snip

> My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering the
> existing worktops using FABLON ?

The owner of the next door flat did this prior to letting it and yes,
it does look as bad as it sounds.
Fits in well with the state of the rest of his flat though. :)

It may look ok for a little while though, if you are careful about
applying it and what you put on it...

Lee

--
To reply use lee.blaver and ntlworld.com

[dmc]

In article <137f2917.04022...@posting.google.com>,

Rachel <rwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering the
>existing worktops using FABLON ?

As in the sticky back plastic stuff? Can't see that lasting long
at all if I'm thinking of the right stuff.

A friend when presented with a similar problem fitted a thin hardwood
strip along the front of the worktop to square it off and tiled onto
the worktop with cheap white tiles (the type that are 3 quid per acre
in Wickes etc). Looked surprisingly good and lasted several years. I seem
to remember him using some special grout that didn't get so dirty though -
I'm sure others on here could advise.

Tiled worktops can be a bit of a nightmare but if the one you have is
really that bad it maybe worth a try. Certainly I would have thought
it would be better than sticky back plastic (if fablon isn't sticky
back plastic then ignore me :-))!

Darren

[Owain]

"Rachel" wrote

| My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering
| the existing worktops using FABLON ?

s/FABLON/sticky-back-plastic because I might not have been using the
authentic trademarked stuff.

Yes. And cupboard fronts.

| If so, how was it?

Vile.

| Does it still look ok,

No.

| and is it a good idea.

No.

| Obviously we realise that we would have to be careful with the surface
| with sharp objects etc .. but nothing can be as bad as it looks at
| the moment.

Sticky-back-plastic works okay for things that have *very light* use. I've
had very good results converting a bedside chest of drawers from white to
"pine" and changing the knobs to brass.

However, it seems to shrink after a while leaving sticky edges, it is
difficult to get edges to stick down, and any 3-dimesnional curves go
wrinkly. joints are an absolute no-no.

If your worktops are square edged you might be able to just stick new
laminate on the top and front edge.

Owain

[Jeremy]

rwa...@blueyonder.co.uk (Rachel) wrote in message news:<137f2917.04022...@posting.google.com>...

Is tiling them an option?

[Lobster]

D.M.C...@ukc.ac.uk (dmc) wrote in message news:<53...@heron.ukc.ac.uk>...

> In article <137f2917.04022...@posting.google.com>,
> Rachel <rwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering the
> >existing worktops using FABLON ?
>
> As in the sticky back plastic stuff? Can't see that lasting long
> at all if I'm thinking of the right stuff.

Agree!

How about Formica (if you can still buy it)? I remember doing the
same job a few years ago using this, bought from B&Q I think? It's
quite thick and durable, needs to be cut very carefully with a fine
saw, and is glued down with Evostik or similar.

David

[PoP]

On 25 Feb 2004 05:59:25 -0800, davidlobs...@hotmail.com
(Lobster) wrote:

>How about Formica (if you can still buy it)? I remember doing the
>same job a few years ago using this, bought from B&Q I think? It's
>quite thick and durable, needs to be cut very carefully with a fine
>saw, and is glued down with Evostik or similar.

I haven't seen formica in many years, but I remember my father doing a
whole kitchen with it.

I thought that you scored and snapped it? I might be wrong though!

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:26:13 +0000, PoP <p...@anyoldtripe.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25 Feb 2004 05:59:25 -0800, davidlobs...@hotmail.com
>(Lobster) wrote:
>
>>How about Formica (if you can still buy it)? I remember doing the
>>same job a few years ago using this, bought from B&Q I think? It's
>>quite thick and durable, needs to be cut very carefully with a fine
>>saw, and is glued down with Evostik or similar.
>
>I haven't seen formica in many years, but I remember my father doing a
>whole kitchen with it.
>
>I thought that you scored and snapped it? I might be wrong though!
>

It's obtainable and useful in certain applications.

A good trimming method is a router with trimming cutter - i.e. ball
race on the bottom.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[PoP]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:50:20 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
wrote:

>A good trimming method is a router with trimming cutter - i.e. ball
>race on the bottom.

Back in the 60's when the design objectives for B&Q hadn't yet taken
shape in the scrotum of its originator routers weren't exactly the
routine tool a DIYer acquired. A simple electric drill and sander was
about it. I just have this vision of Dad doing the formica by scribing
and snapping - but I'm still not sure if this is right!

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:16:54 +0000, PoP <p...@anyoldtripe.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:50:20 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>>A good trimming method is a router with trimming cutter - i.e. ball
>>race on the bottom.
>
>Back in the 60's when the design objectives for B&Q hadn't yet taken
>shape in the scrotum of its originator routers weren't exactly the
>routine tool a DIYer acquired.

That seminal moment had not taken place.

>A simple electric drill and sander was
>about it. I just have this vision of Dad doing the formica by scribing
>and snapping - but I'm still not sure if this is right!

That was how it was done and it's still effective. The other tool
was something like a Surform to clean up the edges.

>
>PoP

[Simon Avery]

rwa...@blueyonder.co.uk (Rachel) wrote:

Hello Rachel

> R| My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering
> R| the existing worktops using FABLON ?

Yes. Done this in several shops where they get very heavy use.

> R| If so, how was it? Does it still look ok, and is it a good
> R| idea.

It lasts very well as long as you're reasonably careful.

Looks? All down to taste. Easy enough to change if you don't like it
or you do damage it provided you don't use too aggressive an adhesive.

--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK
uk.d-i-y FAQ: http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/

[Rick Dipper]

Sir

For cheep and cheefull I would use Plywood, Fablon sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Rick

[pollywolly]

replying to Rachel, pollywolly wrote:

We did ours 3 years ago and its still like new, we chose a nice green. The
cupboards are white so it looked good and still does so for 28 pounds
itsvwas a bargain.

--

[Murmansk]

I've seen some Fablon-like stuff being applied to car bodies - I think there was a vehicle on George Clarke's Amazing Spaces on which they used it and it cost a fortune but made it look very good.

I think it was a Land Rover being used as an outdoor cocktail bar.

[meow...@care2.com]

On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 7:18:03 PM UTC, Murmansk wrote:
> I've seen some Fablon-like stuff being applied to car bodies - I think there was a vehicle on George Clarke's Amazing Spaces on which they used it and it cost a fortune but made it look very good.
>
> I think it was a Land Rover being used as an outdoor cocktail bar.

But on wood it peels & splits with time. The adhesive picks up lots of dirt.... gross.


NT

[Tim Watts]

We used to do that in the 80's - it generally works really quite well.
Shelves and also tarted up a small freezer that looked a bit sad. If you
clean the surface with a good degreaser (sugar soap if it is greasy
would work best) it should last for many years.

[meow...@care2.com]

Worktops last much longer though, and have a harder life.


NT

[harryagain]

"pollywolly" <caedfaa9ed1216d60e...@example.com> wrote in
message news:ed6e3$54b95bf1$cf3aab60$18...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...

> replying to Rachel, pollywolly wrote:
>> rwallis wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>> We are renovating our house as we go along, we have put new doors on
>> the existing carcass of our kitchen, and they look great.
>> One problem we have is the worktops, really out of date and naf
>> looking. We can't afford to replace all the worktops yet, as the
>> cooker fits into the corner of one of them and they we can't get the
>> depth without ordering it, and it is going to cost quite a lot....
>> My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering the
>> existing worktops using FABLON ?
>> If so, how was it? Does it still look ok, and is it a good idea.
>> Obviously we realise that we would have to be careful with the surface
>> with sharp objects etc .. but nothing can be as bad as it looks at
>> the moment.
>> There are some quite nice patterns available these days too :-)
>> Many thanks in advance for your help.
>> Regards
>> Rachel

Didn't know you could still get Fablon.
I used it years ago, As you applied it, it stretched. Over time it then
recovered leaving gaps.
Seemed to stick OK on smooth surfaces

[harryagain]

<meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:9fe147ad-8e17-4940...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, it's very thin.
Definitely not suitable for a wearing surface.

[Dennis@home]

What do you think they wrap cars in when they do a custom wrap?
Its the same stuff, you heat set it which fixes it so it doesn't shrink.
You can watch them going around with a heat gun and IR thermometer if
you know where they do it.

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Tuesday, 24 February 2004 19:51:30 UTC, Rachel wrote:
> My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering the
> existing worktops using FABLON ?

Fablon type sticky-back-plastic won't be anywhere near hard-wearing enough.

Alternatives might be:

linoleum
http://www.svane.com/svane---uk/forside/worktops/linoleum.aspx
http://www.forbo.com/flooring/en-uk/products/marmoleum/furniture-linoleum/bt4vgq
http://www.tsbooker.co.uk/Worktops/Linoleum_worktops.html

tile over it with worktop tiles and waterproof grout

surface over it with stainless steel

If it's just the cooker area that is going to need expensive special worktop, you could cost up getting that done in steel by a fabricator and use cheap ordinary worktop for the rest. Cheap ordinary worktop is probably cheaper than anything else.

You can also of course buy melamine laminate on its own and apply to the existing worktops, especially if you can de-assemble them rather than relaminating in situ.

Owain

[Adam Aglionby]

Car wrap really ain`t the same as the horrendous crap once available as Fablon.

Top end is 3M Di-Noc but there are a lot of alternatives:

http://www.mdpsupplies.co.uk/vehiclewrapping.asp

Great decorative finishes that take to wood just fine, your right in that they don`t shrink back, also air-release liners that mean less chasing the bubbles..

Decorative rather than wearing, how do you think cupboard fronts are done.

Fridge wraps are becoming popular.

[Tim+]

11 years ago I bet Rachel would have been interested in your reply.

Always worth checking the date of any message you're replying to on groups
Google.

Tim

[polygonum]

Almost long enough for the answer to include Contact self-adhesive vinyl
from Woolworths... :-)

--
Rod

[meow...@care2.com]

Surely lino is rapidly damaged by hot pans


NT

[newshound]

Melamine (e.g. Formica) is quite heat resistant (unlike genuine lino or
the modern vinyl replacement). I havn't seen Formica for ages but it is
(or used to be) a good fix for shelves, worktops, or work benches which
see heavy duty. No good on modern style radiussed worktops though.

[Chris French]

In message <TZCdncyjtsDKVSfJ...@brightview.co.uk>,
newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> writes

Formica is still around.

apparently is was 100 years old in 2013

<http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/ja
n/17/formica-turns-100>

And I know the original post is ancient, but I'd probably just replace
the worktops rather than bother covering them with formica
--
Chris French

[fred]

Melamine is NOT Formica

[charles]

In article <37847a1c-e9b3-4dd1...@googlegroups.com>, fred

Formica is a trade name for a form of Melamine.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[michael adams]

"fred" <tpmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37847a1c-e9b3-4dd1...@googlegroups.com...

While Formica is still in business what probably did for it was the
fact that they manufactured their decorative laminate sheets in so
many different patterns and colours. Which may have been economical
at some point but was hit by the rise of the modular kitchen
manufacturers who made their own. So that their prices nowadays
are a lot higher relative to other materials than was formerly the
case as they mainly serve a niche market who are willing to pay
high prices so as to be different from everybody else.
They even do a range Younique allowing buyers to design
their own.


>
> Melamine is NOT Formica

It's been used for the surface veneer though, since 1938.

When it was invented Formica used bakelite resin as a bonding
agent and surface veneer using layers of fabric as a filler.
From 1938 onwards it used melanine resin as a bonding
agent and surface veneer, using kraft paper as a filler.
Which presumably accounts for the brown colour.
Melamine was chosen because of its heat, abrasion
and moisture resistance and the same would apply
to any material coated with melamine.


michael adams

...

[fred]

My beef was that melamine veneers as generally applied to chipboard or mdf are literally paper thin as opposed to formica which is relatively thick The pattern on malamine will eventually wear away whereas Formica is pretty indestructible in normal use.

High Pressure Laminate appears to be the new poster boy in this area

[michael adams]

"fred" <tpmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0a5735d4-6a37-45c6...@googlegroups.com...

Indeed its galling to see perfectly serviceable*Formica laminate
on tables etc being sent to landfill. All for the lack of a
solvent to get it off cleanly and the problem of being stuck
with the tables

*Serviceable for workshop purposes at least.

>
> High Pressure Laminate appears to be the new poster boy in this area

Nowadays most kitchens will probably go out of style before
the laminate shows any signs of wear. Similarly I can't see
that many granite worktops, being handed down from mother to
daughter, down the generations.


michael adams

...

[Syd Rumpo]

On 17/01/2015 21:01, Chris French wrote:

<snip>

>
> Formica is still around.
>
> apparently is was 100 years old in 2013

And it was originally intended to be a substitute for mica.

NALOPKT

Cheers
--
Syd

[michael adams]

"Syd Rumpo" <use...@nononono.co.uk> wrote in message news:m9lqn9$63p$1...@dont-email.me...

So it's not made of crushed ants (Formicidae) then ?


michael adams

...

[meow...@care2.com]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:58:21 PM UTC, michael adams wrote:

> Nowadays most kitchens will probably go out of style before
> the laminate shows any signs of wear. Similarly I can't see

So what. Keep it long enough & it'll come back in fashion.


NT

[michael adams]

<meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:13320752-2c4e-4333...@googlegroups.com...

25 years of constant earache, just so as to be proved right,
all along ?


michael adams

...

[meow...@care2.com]

25? The last kitchen was over a century old.
Fashion is meaningless. The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then fashionable, etc. Just a way to get people to throw out what they bought and buy again. Why choose to follow it.


NT

[Rod Speed]

<meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:f577ef63-75c7-499a...@googlegroups.com...

We do however see significant improvements on the technology
available over that sort of time and it can be worth using.

[Tim Lamb]

In message <m9msig$gu2$1...@dont-email.me>, michael adams
<mjad...@ukonline.co.k> writes

20 years and counting:-(

The expectation appears to be that a sufficient application of money
will neatly house all the kit that cannot be fitted into the existing
space.....

--
Tim Lamb

[Mike Clarke]

On 21/01/2015 08:34, Tim Lamb wrote:
> 20 years and counting:-(
>
> The expectation appears to be that a sufficient application of money
> will neatly house all the kit that cannot be fitted into the existing
> space.....

... and free up enough space to acquire yet more kit.

--
Mike Clarke

[michael adams]

<meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:f577ef63-75c7-499a...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 12:41:21 AM UTC, michael adams wrote:
>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
>> news:13320752-2c4e-4333...@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:58:21 PM UTC, michael adams wrote:
>
>> >> Nowadays most kitchens will probably go out of style before
>> >> the laminate shows any signs of wear. Similarly I can't see
>> >
>> > So what. Keep it long enough & it'll come back in fashion.
>>
>> 25 years of constant earache, just so as to be proved right,
>> all along ?
>
> 25? The last kitchen was over a century old.

> Fashion is meaningless.

I totally agree with you, certainly where kitchens are concerned.
And I'd imagine around 48% of the population (making allowances for
kitchen designers, salesman, and fitters ) agrees with us.

Unfortunately a large proportion of the other 50% don't.

> The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then fashionable,
> etc. Just a way to get people to throw out what they bought and
> buy again. Why choose to follow it.

Because that's how a vibrant modern economy works. Persuading people
to buy things they don't really need, everything from new cars to
new jumpers* to new kitchens, to power tools, provides more work for
everyone. Rather than having them sitting around with too much time on
their hands, and boring one another to death by contemplating
the essential meaningless of life.

We'd all like to vote green, throw away our cars and visit
our allotments on bicycles and generally be nice to one
another, but history tells us that simply isn't going
to happen. All communes and similar have always eventually
broken up as a result of the participants arguing among
themselves. Because that's what human beings mainly do.
Argue.

Whatever kitchen refuseniks such as yourself might like to
think.



michael adams

...

* One reason stores like Marks and Spencer reported lower
profits this autumn and winter was because the mild weather
meant people bought fewer jumpers and coats. Any they'd bought
previously presumably, having ended up in charity shops
where they both get in the way of the books, and maybe
subsidise their low prices. The push chair rule. The more
push chairs you have to navigate past to reach the books
in any shop, the lower are likely to be the prices.

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 08:47:10 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:
> The expectation appears to be that a sufficient application of money
> will neatly house all the kit that cannot be fitted into the existing
> space.....

If you use that argument to get some new workshop cabinets you can hardly complain if the lady of the house says the same about a kitchen.

Owain

[meow...@care2.com]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 9:20:10 AM UTC, michael adams wrote:
> <meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
> news:f577ef63-75c7-499a...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 12:41:21 AM UTC, michael adams wrote:
> >> <meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
> >> news:13320752-2c4e-4333...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:58:21 PM UTC, michael adams wrote:
> >
> >> >> Nowadays most kitchens will probably go out of style before
> >> >> the laminate shows any signs of wear. Similarly I can't see
> >> >
> >> > So what. Keep it long enough & it'll come back in fashion.
> >>
> >> 25 years of constant earache, just so as to be proved right,
> >> all along ?
> >
> > 25? The last kitchen was over a century old.
>
> > Fashion is meaningless.
>
> I totally agree with you, certainly where kitchens are concerned.
> And I'd imagine around 48% of the population (making allowances for
> kitchen designers, salesman, and fitters ) agrees with us.
>
> Unfortunately a large proportion of the other 50% don't.

I'd say closer to 90% follow fashion

> > The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then fashionable,
> > etc. Just a way to get people to throw out what they bought and
> > buy again. Why choose to follow it.
>
> Because that's how a vibrant modern economy works. Persuading people
> to buy things they don't really need, everything from new cars to
> new jumpers* to new kitchens, to power tools, provides more work for
> everyone. Rather than having them sitting around with too much time on
> their hands, and boring one another to death by contemplating
> the essential meaningless of life.

No, its how a wasteful economy works, spending lots of resources on crap instead of useful things like more construction, more medical research etc etc.

> We'd all like to vote green, throw away our cars and visit
> our allotments on bicycles and generally be nice to one

really??

> another, but history tells us that simply isn't going
> to happen. All communes and similar have always eventually
> broken up as a result of the participants arguing among
> themselves. Because that's what human beings mainly do.
> Argue.
>
> Whatever kitchen refuseniks such as yourself might like to
> think.

I have a kitchen, I'm more a fashion refusenik


NT

[Tim Lamb]

In message <d9906c1f-3076-4c8c...@googlegroups.com>,
spuorg...@gowanhill.com writes

Where do you imagine her last outfit ended up?

--
Tim Lamb

[Rod Speed]

<meow...@care2.com> wrote

> michael adams wrote
>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
>>> michael adams wrote
>>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote

>>>>> michael adams wrote

>>>>>> Nowadays most kitchens will probably go out of style before
>>>>>> the laminate shows any signs of wear. Similarly I can't see

>>>>> So what. Keep it long enough & it'll come back in fashion.

>>>> 25 years of constant earache, just so as to be proved right,
>>>> all along ?

>>> 25? The last kitchen was over a century old.

>>> Fashion is meaningless.

>> I totally agree with you, certainly where kitchens are concerned.
>> And I'd imagine around 48% of the population (making allowances
>> for kitchen designers, salesman, and fitters ) agrees with us.

>> Unfortunately a large proportion of the other 50% don't.

> I'd say closer to 90% follow fashion

Hard to say with the males of the household with kitchens.

I doubt its that high myself.

I doubt it is with clothes or cars either.

>>> The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then fashionable,
>>> etc. Just a way to get people to throw out what they bought
>>> and buy again. Why choose to follow it.

>> Because that's how a vibrant modern economy works. Persuading
>> people to buy things they don't really need, everything from new
>> cars to new jumpers* to new kitchens, to power tools, provides more
>> work for everyone. Rather than having them sitting around with too
>> much time on their hands, and boring one another to death by
>> contemplating the essential meaningless of life.

> No,

Fraid so.

> its how a wasteful economy works,

Yes, but that is what employment is about in modern
first and second world economys where most do have
basically what they need even with houses and the
house market is driven by other factors, particularly
the insane total price of a decent modern house.

> spending lots of resources on crap instead
> of useful things like more construction,

Construction of what ?

> more medical research etc etc.

Its far from clear how much difference that would
make to most of us now. The bulk of what we die of
now is lifestyle stuff, most obviously with obesity etc.

Certainly if you could come up with something that
allows you to eat anything you like without getting
fat that would have a hell of an impact on the life
of many of us, but its far from clear that that is even
possible. Ditto with eliminating cancer and dementia.

Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
point in going that route for the manufacturers.

Its less true with cars where cars are vastly better than
they were 100 years ago. The last car I had lasted for
40 years fine and even that was only replaced because
I was stupid enough to not fix the known windscreen
leak so the floor rusted out and I couldn't be arsed to
just put in a new floor.

I don't know of any 100 year old houses that I'd prefer
to live in than my passive solar that I designed and built
myself on a bare block of land.

>> We'd all like to vote green, throw away our cars and visit our

>> allotments on bicycles and generally be nice to one another,

> really??

Yeah, I don't buy that either. Or even that most want allotments either.

>> but history tells us that simply isn't going to happen.
>> All communes and similar have always eventually broken
>> up as a result of the participants arguing among themselves.

That's not so true of the religious communes. Those have mostly
just seen few interested in that sort of lifestyle anymore.

>> Because that's what human beings mainly do. Argue.

Or discuss, anyway.

>> Whatever kitchen refuseniks such as yourself might like to think.

> I have a kitchen, I'm more a fashion refusenik

I just ignore fashion completely whenever that is feasible.

Not possible tho quite a bit of the time, particularly with
stuff like cars and clothes etc. While I can certainly make
all my clothes from scratch I'd rather do other stuff like
build kitchens from scratch instead. And while I am quite
capable of building a car from scratch too, I prefer to buy
the car new and keep it for decades and concentrate on
doing the stuff like kitchens and the whole house from
scratch instead.

[meow...@care2.com]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 7:18:19 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> > michael adams wrote
> >> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>> michael adams wrote
> >>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>>>> michael adams wrote

8><

> >>> The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then fashionable,
> >>> etc. Just a way to get people to throw out what they bought
> >>> and buy again. Why choose to follow it.
>
> >> Because that's how a vibrant modern economy works. Persuading
> >> people to buy things they don't really need, everything from new
> >> cars to new jumpers* to new kitchens, to power tools, provides more
> >> work for everyone. Rather than having them sitting around with too
> >> much time on their hands, and boring one another to death by
> >> contemplating the essential meaningless of life.
>

> > No, its how a wasteful economy works,

>
> Yes, but that is what employment is about in modern
> first and second world economys

It is partly, its very wasteful

> where most do have
> basically what they need even with houses and the

depends how you define need. For survival, lots die unnecessarily young due to limited medical budgets and lack of research. Loads live in passable but unsatisfactry situations due to lack of resources. Most would rather throw their money away on crap than pay attention to life's real issues and address them in any way.

> > spending lots of resources on crap instead
> > of useful things like more construction,
>
> Construction of what ?

UK is very short of houses. The average young adult now has no likelihood of being able to buy one.

> > more medical research etc etc.
>
> Its far from clear how much difference that would
> make to most of us now. The bulk of what we die of
> now is lifestyle stuff, most obviously with obesity etc.

great topic to research, as with all the major ones.

> Certainly if you could come up with something that
> allows you to eat anything you like without getting
> fat that would have a hell of an impact on the life
> of many of us, but its far from clear that that is even
> possible.

Zero calorie foods do exist. Researching zero calorie cake, as trivial as it might sound, could save a huge number of life years.

> Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
> toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
> wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
> toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
> point in going that route for the manufacturers.

I wonder if theres a market %age for a lifetime toaster. Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.

> Its less true with cars where cars are vastly better than
> they were 100 years ago.

Indeed :) Century old cars are fairly valuable though, even if nuttily designed.

> I don't know of any 100 year old houses that I'd prefer
> to live in than my passive solar that I designed and built
> myself on a bare block of land.

Theyre still highly valuable

> >> Whatever kitchen refuseniks such as yourself might like to think.
>
> > I have a kitchen, I'm more a fashion refusenik
>
> I just ignore fashion completely whenever that is feasible.
>
> Not possible tho quite a bit of the time, particularly with
> stuff like cars and clothes etc.

Thankfully with many things one can bypass fashion completely, some its impossible. But its seldom sense chucking stuff out over it.


NT

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 15:03:09 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:
> >If you use that argument to get some new workshop cabinets you can
> >hardly complain if the lady of the house says the same about a kitchen.
> Where do you imagine her last outfit ended up?

:-)

Did you get the fridge and partswasher, er dishwasher as well?

Owain

[Rod Speed]

<meow...@care2.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
>>> michael adams wrote
>>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
>>>>> michael adams wrote
>>>>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
>>>>>>> michael adams wrote

>>>>> The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then fashionable,
>>>>> etc. Just a way to get people to throw out what they bought
>>>>> and buy again. Why choose to follow it.

>>>> Because that's how a vibrant modern economy works. Persuading
>>>> people to buy things they don't really need, everything from new
>>>> cars to new jumpers* to new kitchens, to power tools, provides
>>>> more work for everyone. Rather than having them sitting around
>>>> with too much time on their hands, and boring one another to
>>>> death by contemplating the essential meaningless of life.

>>> No, its how a wasteful economy works,

>> Yes, but that is what employment is about
>> in modern first and second world economys

> It is partly,

Not just partly, its entirely what modern first
and second world economys are about now.

> its very wasteful

That is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.

You can make a case that it makes more sense
to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
be repaired when anything fails.

Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
china to make you a new one than to have a
fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
year life toaster. The production of the parts
is likely to involve exactly the same as the
production of the whole toaster etc.

>> where most do have basically
>> what they need even with houses

> depends how you define need.

No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
even those in squats are basically just doing that
because of the insane prices of houses today.

> For survival, lots die unnecessarily young due
> to limited medical budgets and lack of research.

Not in the modern first and second world anymore.

Virtually everyone who dies unnecessarily young now
do that as a result of accidents and lifestyle stuff like
smoking and obesity. Hardly anyone dies of infectious
disease anymore.

> Loads live in passable but unsatisfactry situations

Yes, particularly with the work they do.

> due to lack of resources.

Hardly ever due to lack of resources
in the modern first and second world.

> Most would rather throw their money away
> on crap than pay attention to life's real issues

Just what do you believe those are ?

Most do in fact spend heaps on their kids etc
and that has always been one of life's real issues.

> and address them in any way.

In fact its what they spend on that provides
employment for everyone else, even if its
frivolous stuff like football or a haircut.

>>> spending lots of resources on crap instead
>>> of useful things like more construction,

>> Construction of what ?

> UK is very short of houses.

I don't believe that many are actually living in their cars
or under a bridge because of a shortage of houses.

> The average young adult now has no
> likelihood of being able to buy one.

I don't buy that and that is due to a different
problem entirely, the outrageous price of them.

>>> more medical research etc etc.

>> Its far from clear how much difference that would
>> make to most of us now. The bulk of what we die of
>> now is lifestyle stuff, most obviously with obesity etc.

> great topic to research,

That is well understood, no need for research on that.

> as with all the major ones.

There aren't actually all that many of them that do affect
most of us if there can be significant advances made.

>> Certainly if you could come up with something that
>> allows you to eat anything you like without getting
>> fat that would have a hell of an impact on the life
>> of many of us, but its far from clear that that is even
>> possible.

> Zero calorie foods do exist.

But aren't anything like as good to eat so few bother with them.

> Researching zero calorie cake,

Not even possible.

We haven't even been able to come up with a perfect
zero calorie sugar substitute after having tried to do
that for more than half a century now.

> as trivial as it might sound, could
> save a huge number of life years.

But we have been trying to do that for more than
half a century now. Its unlikely that spending more
will make any difference now.

>> Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
>> toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
>> wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
>> toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
>> point in going that route for the manufacturers.

> I wonder if theres a market %age for a lifetime toaster.

I doubt it, essentially because it would cost
more to have it repaired than to buy a new one.

Its certainly possible to design one that can have
say the element replaced by anyone in their own
home, but that element would cost more than
a whole new 10 year toaster so the only real
market would be those who have a philosophical
objection to replacing the whole toaster when
anything fails.

And its very arguable if its even less wasteful
too given that the user replaceable element
would involve just as much resources as a whole
new toaster that will only last 10 years.

> Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.

And they don't last for anything like 100 years.

>> Its less true with cars where cars are vastly
>> better than they were 100 years ago.

> Indeed :) Century old cars are fairly valuable
> though, even if nuttily designed.

Sure, but that's scarcity value, a different matter entirely.

>> I don't know of any 100 year old houses that
>> I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
>> designed and built myself on a bare block of land.

> Theyre still highly valuable

Yes, but a lot less useful and cost much more to run too.

>>>> Whatever kitchen refuseniks such as yourself might like to think.

>>> I have a kitchen, I'm more a fashion refusenik

>> I just ignore fashion completely whenever that is feasible.

>> Not possible tho quite a bit of the time,
>> particularly with stuff like cars and clothes etc.

> Thankfully with many things one can bypass fashion completely,

Yes, most obviously with cutlery and plates and stuff like that.

I've just bought another example of some heavily plated
nail clippers that I had when I was a kid more than 60 years
ago now. Identical and they will certainly last more than
hundreds of years with only the most minimal of care.

Not so practical with a toaster or a car tho.

> some its impossible. But its seldom
> sense chucking stuff out over it.

But it does provide significant employment and
is one of the areas where it hasn't all been exported
to china particularly with kitchens and houses.

[meow...@care2.com]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:39:37 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>> michael adams wrote
> >>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>>>> michael adams wrote
> >>>>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> michael adams wrote

> >>>>> The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then fashionable,
> >>>>> etc. Just a way to get people to throw out what they bought
> >>>>> and buy again. Why choose to follow it.
>
> >>>> Because that's how a vibrant modern economy works. Persuading
> >>>> people to buy things they don't really need, everything from new
> >>>> cars to new jumpers* to new kitchens, to power tools, provides
> >>>> more work for everyone. Rather than having them sitting around
> >>>> with too much time on their hands, and boring one another to
> >>>> death by contemplating the essential meaningless of life.
>
> >>> No, its how a wasteful economy works,
>
> >> Yes, but that is what employment is about
> >> in modern first and second world economys
>
> > It is partly,
>
> Not just partly, its entirely what modern first
> and second world economys are about now.

No there's plenty of useful work done here too

> > its very wasteful
>
> That is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.
>
> You can make a case that it makes more sense
> to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
> to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
> be repaired when anything fails.
>
> Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
> china to make you a new one than to have a
> fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
> year life toaster. The production of the parts
> is likely to involve exactly the same as the
> production of the whole toaster etc.

If you want a toaster to last 100, give it elements that seldom fail. Its doable - though toasters would be low on my priority list for centurification. If I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires, I expect that to be required in 2115.

> >> where most do have basically
> >> what they need even with houses
>
> > depends how you define need.
>
> No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
> anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
> even those in squats are basically just doing that
> because of the insane prices of houses today.
>
> > For survival, lots die unnecessarily young due
> > to limited medical budgets and lack of research.
>
> Not in the modern first and second world anymore.
>
> Virtually everyone who dies unnecessarily young now
> do that as a result of accidents and lifestyle stuff like
> smoking and obesity. Hardly anyone dies of infectious
> disease anymore.

Lack of funding for NHS and research are significant killers in the top 10

> > Loads live in passable but unsatisfactry situations
>
> Yes, particularly with the work they do.
>
> > due to lack of resources.
>
> Hardly ever due to lack of resources
> in the modern first and second world.

Really. Go ask some people how they'd improve their lives if they had a big lump sum. Not all would waste it on junk.

> > Most would rather throw their money away
> > on crap than pay attention to life's real issues
>
> Just what do you believe those are ?

maybe when I have more time :)

> Most do in fact spend heaps on their kids etc
> and that has always been one of life's real issues.

that's one.

> > and address them in any way.
>
> In fact its what they spend on that provides
> employment for everyone else, even if its
> frivolous stuff like football or a haircut.

whateevr one spends on creates employment. Some spends also create something useful

> >>> spending lots of resources on crap instead
> >>> of useful things like more construction,
>
> >> Construction of what ?
>
> > UK is very short of houses.
>
> I don't believe that many are actually living in their cars
> or under a bridge because of a shortage of houses.

they live at home with parents, or live in a room in shared houses. We do also have a homelessness problem, but thats something else.

> > The average young adult now has no
> > likelihood of being able to buy one.
>
> I don't buy that

shrug

> and that is due to a different
> problem entirely, the outrageous price of them.

which is due to govt policy

> >>> more medical research etc etc.
>
> >> Its far from clear how much difference that would
> >> make to most of us now. The bulk of what we die of
> >> now is lifestyle stuff, most obviously with obesity etc.
>
> > great topic to research,
>
> That is well understood, no need for research on that.

ha. The professionals have barely a clue how to motivate overweight people to get healthy. Its epidemic.

> > as with all the major ones.
>
> There aren't actually all that many of them that do affect
> most of us if there can be significant advances made.

/All/ the top 10 killers kill large numbers of us

> >> Certainly if you could come up with something that
> >> allows you to eat anything you like without getting
> >> fat that would have a hell of an impact on the life
> >> of many of us, but its far from clear that that is even
> >> possible.
>
> > Zero calorie foods do exist.
>
> But aren't anything like as good to eat so few bother with them.

cost is the probelm

> > Researching zero calorie cake,
>
> Not even possible.

I don't agree at all.

> We haven't even been able to come up with a perfect
> zero calorie sugar substitute after having tried to do
> that for more than half a century now.

we have several zero calorie sweeteners. That nut was cracked long ago

> > as trivial as it might sound, could
> > save a huge number of life years.
>
> But we have been trying to do that for more than
> half a century now.

rather inadequately

> Its unlikely that spending more
> will make any difference now.

I totally disagree

> >> Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
> >> toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
> >> wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
> >> toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
> >> point in going that route for the manufacturers.
>
> > I wonder if theres a market %age for a lifetime toaster.
>
> I doubt it, essentially because it would cost
> more to have it repaired than to buy a new one.

that only means a long life toaster either wouldnt need repair, or would be user repairable. Both of which are doable.

> Its certainly possible to design one that can have
> say the element replaced by anyone in their own
> home, but that element would cost more than
> a whole new 10 year toaster so the only real
> market would be those who have a philosophical
> objection to replacing the whole toaster when
> anything fails.
>
> And its very arguable if its even less wasteful
> too given that the user replaceable element
> would involve just as much resources as a whole
> new toaster that will only last 10 years.
>
> > Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.
>
> And they don't last for anything like 100 years.

they managed 50 ok, so arent a bad place to start.

> >> Its less true with cars where cars are vastly
> >> better than they were 100 years ago.
>
> > Indeed :) Century old cars are fairly valuable
> > though, even if nuttily designed.
>
> Sure, but that's scarcity value, a different matter entirely.
>
> >> I don't know of any 100 year old houses that
> >> I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
> >> designed and built myself on a bare block of land.
>
> > Theyre still highly valuable
>
> Yes, but a lot less useful

only slightly

> and cost much more to run too.

yup

> >>>> Whatever kitchen refuseniks such as yourself might like to think.
>
> >>> I have a kitchen, I'm more a fashion refusenik
>
> >> I just ignore fashion completely whenever that is feasible.
>
> >> Not possible tho quite a bit of the time,
> >> particularly with stuff like cars and clothes etc.
>
> > Thankfully with many things one can bypass fashion completely,
>
> Yes, most obviously with cutlery and plates and stuff like that.
>
> I've just bought another example of some heavily plated
> nail clippers that I had when I was a kid more than 60 years
> ago now. Identical and they will certainly last more than
> hundreds of years with only the most minimal of care.
>
> Not so practical with a toaster or a car tho.
>
> > some its impossible. But its seldom
> > sense chucking stuff out over it.
>
> But it does provide significant employment and
> is one of the areas where it hasn't all been exported
> to china particularly with kitchens and houses.

Employment is the big excuse for the waste. Employ people to do something useful and we'd see a great improvement in longevity and quality of life. Begin by educating people about money.


NT

[Rod Speed]

The manufacture of durable goods is a tiny part
of any modern first and second world economy now.

And while its certainly feasible to have cars that are
used for say 40 years, its less clear that that is actually
very desirable given the significant improvements we
have seen in cars over that time.

Same with say kitchens, there have been very significant
improvements in kitchens over say 50 years, most obviously
with microwave ovens, convection ovens, bread machines,
dishwashers. specialised appliances for making the sort of stuff
that some people eat like pies and toasted sandwiches etc.

While in theory say beds haven't changed than much in say
50 years, in practice it isn't really viable to expect a mattress
to work just as well when its 50 years old as when new etc.

Same with armchairs. I have some bent wood leather armchairs
where the frame is just as good as it ever was, but the chair that
I sit in most of the time doesn't last anything like 50 years, the
leather is worn out well before that.

>>> its very wasteful

>> That is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.

>> You can make a case that it makes more sense
>> to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
>> to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
>> be repaired when anything fails.

>> Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
>> china to make you a new one than to have a
>> fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
>> year life toaster. The production of the parts
>> is likely to involve exactly the same as the
>> production of the whole toaster etc.

> If you want a toaster to last 100, give it
> elements that seldom fail. Its doable -

But you have to be able to replace
the ones that don't last that long.

> though toasters would be low on
> my priority list for centurification.

It is one rather obvious example of
the 'waste' you are talking about.

Yes, its possible to design an incandescent bulb
to last 100 years in normal use, but it makes more
sense to design them the other way and replace
them more frequently than that and get a much
better light from them.

> If I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have
> a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires,

But its far from clear how feasible it is to have
one of those that will last for 100 years.

> I expect that to be required in 2115.

Bet it isn't.

>>>> where most do have basically
>>>> what they need even with houses

>>> depends how you define need.

>> No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
>> anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
>> even those in squats are basically just doing that
>> because of the insane prices of houses today.

And it doesn't really make any difference
whether its owned or rented anyway.

>>> For survival, lots die unnecessarily young due
>>> to limited medical budgets and lack of research.

>> Not in the modern first and second world anymore.

>> Virtually everyone who dies unnecessarily young now
>> do that as a result of accidents and lifestyle stuff like
>> smoking and obesity. Hardly anyone dies of infectious
>> disease anymore.

> Lack of funding for NHS and research
> are significant killers in the top 10

I don't believe that. The real killers are lifestyle stuff like obesity.

>>> Loads live in passable but unsatisfactry situations

>> Yes, particularly with the work they do.

>>> due to lack of resources.

>> Hardly ever due to lack of resources
>> in the modern first and second world.

> Really.

Yep, really.

> Go ask some people how they'd improve
> their lives if they had a big lump sum.

But its clear from those that do get big lump
sums all the time, the lottery etc winners, that
that hardly ever does improve their lives at all.

> Not all would waste it on junk.

Sure, plenty of renters would buy
somewhere better to live instead.

That's got nothing to do with resources,
everything to do with the insane way that
the housing market has ended up now.

Trivially fixable in the same way as
was done after the war had ended.

>>> Most would rather throw their money away
>>> on crap than pay attention to life's real issues

>> Just what do you believe those are ?

> maybe when I have more time :)

I think you would find that they are
harder to list than to just mention.

>> Most do in fact spend heaps on their kids etc
>> and that has always been one of life's real issues.

> that's one.

The other obvious one is what work you do
but its very far from clear how to do much
about either of those life's real issues.

Another is the utter insanity house prices.

>>> and address them in any way.

>> In fact its what they spend on that provides
>> employment for everyone else, even if its
>> frivolous stuff like football or a haircut.

> whateevr one spends on creates employment.

What I said.

> Some spends also create something useful

That's a tiny part of what is spent in modern
first and second world economys.

The absolute vast bulk of what gets spent is just
pissed against the wall keeping everyone going,
fed, housed, transported, entertained etc etc etc.

>>>>> spending lots of resources on crap instead
>>>>> of useful things like more construction,

>>>> Construction of what ?

>>> UK is very short of houses.

>> I don't believe that many are actually living in their cars
>> or under a bridge because of a shortage of houses.

> they live at home with parents,

Just like plenty always did.

> or live in a room in shared houses.

Just like plenty always did.

> We do also have a homelessness
> problem, but thats something else.

Yeah, the bulk of those used to be kept in locked
wards and aren't anymore and they mostly do
prefer to not be kept in the locked wards anymore.

>>> The average young adult now has no
>>> likelihood of being able to buy one.

>> I don't buy that

> shrug

Doesn't really matter if you are renting
or paying off a mortgage anyway.

>> and that is due to a different problem
>> entirely, the outrageous price of them.

> which is due to govt policy

Nope, it can't be govt policy because its what
has happened everywhere, right thruout the
entire modern first and second world now.

>>>>> more medical research etc etc.

>>>> Its far from clear how much difference that would
>>>> make to most of us now. The bulk of what we die of
>>>> now is lifestyle stuff, most obviously with obesity etc.

>>> great topic to research,

>> That is well understood, no need for research on that.

> ha. The professionals have barely a clue how
> to motivate overweight people to get healthy.

And we have been trying to work out how to do that for more
than half a century now and still haven't worked that out.

> Its epidemic.

And more research isn't going to change that.

>>> as with all the major ones.

>> There aren't actually all that many of them that do affect
>> most of us if there can be significant advances made.

> /All/ the top 10 killers kill large numbers of us

Yes, but it you have to die of something.

>>>> Certainly if you could come up with something that
>>>> allows you to eat anything you like without getting
>>>> fat that would have a hell of an impact on the life
>>>> of many of us, but its far from clear that that is even
>>>> possible.

>>> Zero calorie foods do exist.

>> But aren't anything like as good to eat so few bother with them.

> cost is the problem

Nope, the zero calorie sugar substitutes
actually cost less than real sugar.

>>> Researching zero calorie cake,

>> Not even possible.

> I don't agree at all.

With something that people will prefer to the normal cake it is.

>> We haven't even been able to come up with a
>> perfect zero calorie sugar substitute after having
>> tried to do that for more than half a century now.

> we have several zero calorie sweeteners.

None of which are PERFECT.

> That nut was cracked long ago

Must be why we never use sugar in anything.

>>> as trivial as it might sound, could
>>> save a huge number of life years.

>> But we have been trying to do that
>> for more than half a century now.

> rather inadequately

Because its impossible to produce a
zero calorie food that is even better
than the real thing.

If it was possible we wouldn't have
an obesity problem.

>> Its unlikely that spending more
>> will make any difference now.

> I totally disagree

But have no evidence for that disagreement.

Anyone who could actually produce zero calorie
food that was even better than the real thing
would get stinking rich so fast that they wouldn't
know what hit them. The reason that hasn't
happened is because it isn't even possible.

>>>> Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
>>>> toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
>>>> wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
>>>> toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
>>>> point in going that route for the manufacturers.

>>> I wonder if theres a market %age for a lifetime toaster.

>> I doubt it, essentially because it would cost
>> more to have it repaired than to buy a new one.

> that only means a long life toaster either wouldnt need repair,
> or would be user repairable. Both of which are doable.

Yes, but its not possible to do that and
waste less than with a 10 year toaster.

It is with cutlery, crockery, etc etc etc but not
with toasters or cars or kitchens etc etc etc.

>> Its certainly possible to design one that can have
>> say the element replaced by anyone in their own
>> home, but that element would cost more than
>> a whole new 10 year toaster so the only real
>> market would be those who have a philosophical
>> objection to replacing the whole toaster when
>> anything fails.

>> And its very arguable if its even less wasteful
>> too given that the user replaceable element
>> would involve just as much resources as a whole
>> new toaster that will only last 10 years.

>>> Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.

>> And they don't last for anything like 100 years.

> they managed 50 ok, so arent a bad place to start.

But most don't buy them. There's a reason for that.

>>>> Its less true with cars where cars are vastly
>>>> better than they were 100 years ago.

>>> Indeed :) Century old cars are fairly valuable
>>> though, even if nuttily designed.

>> Sure, but that's scarcity value, a different matter entirely.

>>>> I don't know of any 100 year old houses that
>>>> I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
>>>> designed and built myself on a bare block of land.

>>> Theyre still highly valuable

>> Yes, but a lot less useful

> only slightly

Dramatically in fact.

>> and cost much more to run too.

> yup

>>>>>> Whatever kitchen refuseniks such as yourself might like to think.

>>>>> I have a kitchen, I'm more a fashion refusenik

>>>> I just ignore fashion completely whenever that is feasible.

>>>> Not possible tho quite a bit of the time,
>>>> particularly with stuff like cars and clothes etc.

>>> Thankfully with many things one can bypass fashion completely,

>> Yes, most obviously with cutlery and plates and stuff like that.

>> I've just bought another example of some heavily plated
>> nail clippers that I had when I was a kid more than 60 years
>> ago now. Identical and they will certainly last more than
>> hundreds of years with only the most minimal of care.

>> Not so practical with a toaster or a car tho.

>>> some its impossible. But its seldom
>>> sense chucking stuff out over it.

>> But it does provide significant employment and
>> is one of the areas where it hasn't all been exported
>> to china particularly with kitchens and houses.

> Employment is the big excuse for the waste.

Its not an excuse, it's the reason.

> Employ people to do something useful

We do that too, most obviously with education.

But that doesn't provide enough employment
in modern first and second world economys.

> and we'd see a great improvement in longevity

We haven't seen anything like that
in the last 50 years, for a reason.

> and quality of life.

In spades.

> Begin by educating people about money.

They aren't interested. Nothing you can do about that.

[meow...@care2.com]

Plenty else goes on here.

> And while its certainly feasible to have cars that are
> used for say 40 years, its less clear that that is actually
> very desirable given the significant improvements we
> have seen in cars over that time.

agreed

> Same with say kitchens, there have been very significant
> improvements in kitchens over say 50 years, most obviously
> with microwave ovens, convection ovens, bread machines,
> dishwashers. specialised appliances for making the sort of stuff
> that some people eat like pies and toasted sandwiches etc.

New types of appliances yes, the fitted part of kitchens no. Even 1930s kettles, toasters etc are close to as good as new, and far more reliable & durable.

> While in theory say beds haven't changed than much in say
> 50 years, in practice it isn't really viable to expect a mattress
> to work just as well when its 50 years old as when new etc.

No, but beds can, and plenty of century old beds are still in service

> Same with armchairs. I have some bent wood leather armchairs
> where the frame is just as good as it ever was, but the chair that
> I sit in most of the time doesn't last anything like 50 years, the
> leather is worn out well before that.

That's solvable, but something I won't go into here now

> >>> its very wasteful
>
> >> That is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.
>
> >> You can make a case that it makes more sense
> >> to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
> >> to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
> >> be repaired when anything fails.
>
> >> Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
> >> china to make you a new one than to have a
> >> fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
> >> year life toaster. The production of the parts
> >> is likely to involve exactly the same as the
> >> production of the whole toaster etc.
>
> > If you want a toaster to last 100, give it
> > elements that seldom fail. Its doable -
>
> But you have to be able to replace
> the ones that don't last that long.

have to no, there's more than 1 way to do it
Anyway replaceability of elements isnt that hard to design in

> > though toasters would be low on
> > my priority list for centurification.
>
> It is one rather obvious example of
> the 'waste' you are talking about.

sure, but the trivial end of it

> Yes, its possible to design an incandescent bulb
> to last 100 years in normal use, but it makes more
> sense to design them the other way and replace
> them more frequently than that and get a much
> better light from them.

an exceptional example

> > If I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have
> > a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires,
>
> But its far from clear how feasible it is to have
> one of those that will last for 100 years.

is it?

> > I expect that to be required in 2115.
>
> Bet it isn't.
>
> >>>> where most do have basically
> >>>> what they need even with houses
>
> >>> depends how you define need.
>
> >> No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
> >> anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
> >> even those in squats are basically just doing that
> >> because of the insane prices of houses today.
>
> And it doesn't really make any difference
> whether its owned or rented anyway.

It does, and more difference whether its shared digs or not

> >>> For survival, lots die unnecessarily young due
> >>> to limited medical budgets and lack of research.
>
> >> Not in the modern first and second world anymore.
>
> >> Virtually everyone who dies unnecessarily young now
> >> do that as a result of accidents and lifestyle stuff like
> >> smoking and obesity. Hardly anyone dies of infectious
> >> disease anymore.
>
> > Lack of funding for NHS and research
> > are significant killers in the top 10
>
> I don't believe that. The real killers are lifestyle stuff like obesity.

The top 2 killers, heart disease & cancer, kill 50% of the population. Of those deaths the general concensus is that 50% are due to personal choice, 50% other factors. That's just the top 2.

> >>> Loads live in passable but unsatisfactry situations
>
> >> Yes, particularly with the work they do.
>
> >>> due to lack of resources.
>
> >> Hardly ever due to lack of resources
> >> in the modern first and second world.
>
> > Really.
>
> Yep, really.
>
> > Go ask some people how they'd improve
> > their lives if they had a big lump sum.
>
> But its clear from those that do get big lump
> sums all the time, the lottery etc winners, that
> that hardly ever does improve their lives at all.

So folk unsmart enough to play lottery are hopeless with money. No news there.

> > Not all would waste it on junk.
>
> Sure, plenty of renters would buy
> somewhere better to live instead.
>
> That's got nothing to do with resources,

obviously it takes resources, ie money

> everything to do with the insane way that
> the housing market has ended up now.
>
> Trivially fixable in the same way as
> was done after the war had ended.

politics stops it

food, housing, transport is useful. Entertainment not so

> >>>>> spending lots of resources on crap instead
> >>>>> of useful things like more construction,
>
> >>>> Construction of what ?
>
> >>> UK is very short of houses.
>
> >> I don't believe that many are actually living in their cars
> >> or under a bridge because of a shortage of houses.
>
> > they live at home with parents,
>
> Just like plenty always did.

no, there's been a huge rise of it here

> > or live in a room in shared houses.
>
> Just like plenty always did.

again a big rise

> > We do also have a homelessness
> > problem, but thats something else.
>
> Yeah, the bulk of those used to be kept in locked
> wards and aren't anymore and they mostly do
> prefer to not be kept in the locked wards anymore.
>
> >>> The average young adult now has no
> >>> likelihood of being able to buy one.
>
> >> I don't buy that
>
> > shrug
>
> Doesn't really matter if you are renting
> or paying off a mortgage anyway.
>
> >> and that is due to a different problem
> >> entirely, the outrageous price of them.
>
> > which is due to govt policy
>
> Nope, it can't be govt policy because its what
> has happened everywhere, right thruout the
> entire modern first and second world now.

same policy trend, for ever tighter control, ever more red tape, much of which isnt really needed

> >>>>> more medical research etc etc.
>
> >>>> Its far from clear how much difference that would
> >>>> make to most of us now. The bulk of what we die of
> >>>> now is lifestyle stuff, most obviously with obesity etc.
>
> >>> great topic to research,
>
> >> That is well understood, no need for research on that.
>
> > ha. The professionals have barely a clue how
> > to motivate overweight people to get healthy.
>
> And we have been trying to work out how to do that for more
> than half a century now and still haven't worked that out.

Lots of people have solved that problem. Researchers can start by looking at how. It sounds basic, but health professionals are stuck in denial, head up arse on this.

> > Its epidemic.
>
> And more research isn't going to change that.

identifying what works normally does

> >>> as with all the major ones.
>
> >> There aren't actually all that many of them that do affect
> >> most of us if there can be significant advances made.
>
> > /All/ the top 10 killers kill large numbers of us
>
> Yes, but it you have to die of something.

but not prematurely

> >>>> Certainly if you could come up with something that
> >>>> allows you to eat anything you like without getting
> >>>> fat that would have a hell of an impact on the life
> >>>> of many of us, but its far from clear that that is even
> >>>> possible.
>
> >>> Zero calorie foods do exist.
>
> >> But aren't anything like as good to eat so few bother with them.
>
> > cost is the problem
>
> Nope, the zero calorie sugar substitutes
> actually cost less than real sugar.

yup, hence its middling popularity. in other cases not cheaper though

> >>> Researching zero calorie cake,
>
> >> Not even possible.
>
> > I don't agree at all.
>
> With something that people will prefer to the normal cake it is.

not the point

> >> We haven't even been able to come up with a
> >> perfect zero calorie sugar substitute after having
> >> tried to do that for more than half a century now.
>
> > we have several zero calorie sweeteners.
>
> None of which are PERFECT.

nothing is, so what

> > That nut was cracked long ago
>
> Must be why we never use sugar in anything.

again thats addressable

> >>> as trivial as it might sound, could
> >>> save a huge number of life years.
>
> >> But we have been trying to do that
> >> for more than half a century now.
>
> > rather inadequately
>
> Because its impossible to produce a
> zero calorie food that is even better
> than the real thing.
>
> If it was possible we wouldn't have
> an obesity problem.

adequate comes first, better might come later

> >> Its unlikely that spending more
> >> will make any difference now.
>
> > I totally disagree
>
> But have no evidence for that disagreement.

theres a limit to how much I'm gonna type in 1 day

> Anyone who could actually produce zero calorie
> food that was even better than the real thing
> would get stinking rich so fast that they wouldn't
> know what hit them. The reason that hasn't
> happened is because it isn't even possible.

cost is the issue. Otherwise barenaked zero calorie noodles would be a bigger hit

> >>>> Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
> >>>> toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
> >>>> wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
> >>>> toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
> >>>> point in going that route for the manufacturers.
>
> >>> I wonder if theres a market %age for a lifetime toaster.
>
> >> I doubt it, essentially because it would cost
> >> more to have it repaired than to buy a new one.
>
> > that only means a long life toaster either wouldnt need repair,
> > or would be user repairable. Both of which are doable.
>
> Yes, but its not possible to do that and
> waste less than with a 10 year toaster.

you dont think one could be made with less than 10x as much material?

> It is with cutlery, crockery, etc etc etc but not
> with toasters or cars or kitchens etc etc etc.

doable with those bar cars

> >> Its certainly possible to design one that can have
> >> say the element replaced by anyone in their own
> >> home, but that element would cost more than
> >> a whole new 10 year toaster so the only real
> >> market would be those who have a philosophical
> >> objection to replacing the whole toaster when
> >> anything fails.
>
> >> And its very arguable if its even less wasteful
> >> too given that the user replaceable element
> >> would involve just as much resources as a whole
> >> new toaster that will only last 10 years.
>
> >>> Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.
>
> >> And they don't last for anything like 100 years.
>
> > they managed 50 ok, so arent a bad place to start.
>
> But most don't buy them. There's a reason for that.

not the point. Just begin by doing it. Hone it, cheapen it, popularise it later

> >>>> Its less true with cars where cars are vastly
> >>>> better than they were 100 years ago.
>
> >>> Indeed :) Century old cars are fairly valuable
> >>> though, even if nuttily designed.
>
> >> Sure, but that's scarcity value, a different matter entirely.
>
> >>>> I don't know of any 100 year old houses that
> >>>> I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
> >>>> designed and built myself on a bare block of land.
>
> >>> Theyre still highly valuable
>
> >> Yes, but a lot less useful
>
> > only slightly
>
> Dramatically in fact.

Both do the same job

it does when folk stop pissing their money up the wall & spend it on more useful things

> > and we'd see a great improvement in longevity
>
> We haven't seen anything like that
> in the last 50 years, for a reason.

sure we have

> > and quality of life.
>
> In spades.
>
> > Begin by educating people about money.
>
> They aren't interested. Nothing you can do about that.

Actually I do. Once again start by finding out what the successes have done.


NT

[Rod Speed]

What I said.

>> And while its certainly feasible to have cars that
>> are used for say 40 years, its less clear that that
>> is actually very desirable given the significant
>> improvements we have seen in cars over that time.

> agreed

>> Same with say kitchens, there have been very significant
>> improvements in kitchens over say 50 years, most obviously
>> with microwave ovens, convection ovens, bread machines,
>> dishwashers. specialised appliances for making the sort of stuff
>> that some people eat like pies and toasted sandwiches etc.

> New types of appliances yes, the fitted part of kitchens no.

I don't agree with that. The decent modern fitted
drawers with decent modern slides and that sort
of thing leaves what we had 70 years ago for dead.

> Even 1930s kettles, toasters etc are close to as good as new,

Don't agree with that either. The 1930s toasters that I
used were those ones with a door on each side which
you had to keep checking if the toast was done and
you had to toast each side separately as well. My current
popup up toaster leaves it for dead convenience wise.

The 1930s massive great china electric jug likely is
still in a tea chest somewhere but I much prefer a
decent modern one that you don't even have to
plug the cord into.

> and far more reliable & durable.

I don't agree with the toaster. And I don't care with the jug.

>> While in theory say beds haven't changed than much in say
>> 50 years, in practice it isn't really viable to expect a mattress
>> to work just as well when its 50 years old as when new etc.

> No, but beds can, and plenty of century old beds are still in service

>> Same with armchairs. I have some bent wood leather armchairs
>> where the frame is just as good as it ever was, but the chair that
>> I sit in most of the time doesn't last anything like 50 years, the
>> leather is worn out well before that.

> That's solvable,

Nope.

> but something I won't go into here now

>>>>> its very wasteful

>>>> That is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.

>>>> You can make a case that it makes more sense
>>>> to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
>>>> to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
>>>> be repaired when anything fails.

>>>> Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
>>>> china to make you a new one than to have a
>>>> fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
>>>> year life toaster. The production of the parts
>>>> is likely to involve exactly the same as the
>>>> production of the whole toaster etc.

>>> If you want a toaster to last 100, give it
>>> elements that seldom fail. Its doable -

>> But you have to be able to replace
>> the ones that don't last that long.

> have to no, there's more than 1 way to do it
> Anyway replaceability of elements isnt that
> hard to design in

User replaceable ones are. It costs more to have
someone in the west replace the element than it
costs to get a chinese person to make a whole
new toaster.

>>> though toasters would be low on
>>> my priority list for centurification.

>> It is one rather obvious example of
>> the 'waste' you are talking about.

> sure, but the trivial end of it

But the same applies to all the other appliances
that are so commonly used in kitchens now.

Its true of microwave ovens and convection ovens too.

Its certainly completely trivial to plug in a new element
in the big wall oven and griller and I have done that
a few times with the oven, never needed to with the grill.

Lot harder with the hotplates that have a sheet of glass
over all the elements. That leaves 50 year old hotplates
for dead and nothing has ever failed in 40 years.

>> Yes, its possible to design an incandescent bulb
>> to last 100 years in normal use, but it makes more
>> sense to design them the other way and replace
>> them more frequently than that and get a much
>> better light from them.

> an exceptional example

Not really. Its true of all light technologys.

>>> If I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have
>>> a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires,

>> But its far from clear how feasible it is to have
>> one of those that will last for 100 years.

> is it?

Have fun listing even a single example of a
smoke detector that will reliably detect smoke
for 100 years and turn a toaster sized load off.

>>> I expect that to be required in 2115.

>> Bet it isn't.

>>>>>> where most do have basically
>>>>>> what they need even with houses

>>>>> depends how you define need.

>>>> No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
>>>> anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
>>>> even those in squats are basically just doing that
>>>> because of the insane prices of houses today.

>> And it doesn't really make any difference
>> whether its owned or rented anyway.

> It does,

Not for the economy of a country.

> and more difference whether its shared digs or not

The only difference there is that you
aren't related to those you share it with.

>>>>> For survival, lots die unnecessarily young due
>>>>> to limited medical budgets and lack of research.

>>>> Not in the modern first and second world anymore.

>>>> Virtually everyone who dies unnecessarily young now
>>>> do that as a result of accidents and lifestyle stuff like
>>>> smoking and obesity. Hardly anyone dies of infectious
>>>> disease anymore.

>>> Lack of funding for NHS and research
>>> are significant killers in the top 10

>> I don't believe that. The real killers are lifestyle stuff like obesity.

> The top 2 killers, heart disease & cancer, kill 50% of the population.

But you have to die of something.

> Of those deaths the general concensus is that 50%
> are due to personal choice, 50% other factors.

General consensus is irrelevant and those
are much too round numbers to be real.

> That's just the top 2.

Which wouldn't be affected by spending more on the NHS.

>>>>> Loads live in passable but unsatisfactry situations

>>>> Yes, particularly with the work they do.

>>>>> due to lack of resources.

>>>> Hardly ever due to lack of resources
>>>> in the modern first and second world.

>>> Really.

>> Yep, really.

>>> Go ask some people how they'd improve
>>> their lives if they had a big lump sum.

>> But its clear from those that do get big lump
>> sums all the time, the lottery etc winners, that
>> that hardly ever does improve their lives at all.

> So folk unsmart enough to play lottery
> are hopeless with money. No news there.

Just as true of all big lump sums.

The only real exception is that it does usually
allow people who are stuck in a job they hate
to stop having to do that. But few manage to
find anything more useful to do even then.

>>> Not all would waste it on junk.

>> Sure, plenty of renters would buy
>> somewhere better to live instead.

>> That's got nothing to do with resources,

> obviously it takes resources, ie money

Money isn't resources. We have different words for a reason.

>> everything to do with the insane way that
>> the housing market has ended up now.

>> Trivially fixable in the same way as
>> was done after the war had ended.

> politics stops it

Its public attitudes that stops that happening.

If it wasn't, there would be nothing to stop someone
setting up a new party with that policy getting elected
to do it.

That's essentially what happened after war.

People have to have something to do when they arent
working or sleeping etc. That's why movies and TV and
radio took off.

>>>>>>> spending lots of resources on crap instead
>>>>>>> of useful things like more construction,

>>>>>> Construction of what ?

>>>>> UK is very short of houses.

>>>> I don't believe that many are actually living in their cars
>>>> or under a bridge because of a shortage of houses.

>>> they live at home with parents,

>> Just like plenty always did.

> no, there's been a huge rise of it here

Not compared with what happened
say between the wars and before that.

>>> or live in a room in shared houses.

>> Just like plenty always did.

> again a big rise

Again, not compared with what happened
say between the wars and before that.

>>> We do also have a homelessness
>>> problem, but thats something else.

>> Yeah, the bulk of those used to be kept in locked
>> wards and aren't anymore and they mostly do
>> prefer to not be kept in the locked wards anymore.

>>>>> The average young adult now has no
>>>>> likelihood of being able to buy one.

>>>> I don't buy that

>>> shrug

>> Doesn't really matter if you are renting
>> or paying off a mortgage anyway.

>>>> and that is due to a different problem
>>>> entirely, the outrageous price of them.

>>> which is due to govt policy

>> Nope, it can't be govt policy because its what
>> has happened everywhere, right thruout the
>> entire modern first and second world now.

> same policy trend, for ever tighter
> control, ever more red tape,

That isn't the reason for the immense rise in the
cost of houses and isn't seen everywhere either.

> much of which isnt really needed

Sure. But we don't see the sort of
obscene slums we used to see either.

>>>>>>> more medical research etc etc.

>>>>>> Its far from clear how much difference that would
>>>>>> make to most of us now. The bulk of what we die of
>>>>>> now is lifestyle stuff, most obviously with obesity etc.

>>>>> great topic to research,

>>>> That is well understood, no need for research on that.

>>> ha. The professionals have barely a clue how
>>> to motivate overweight people to get healthy.

>> And we have been trying to work out how to do that for more
>> than half a century now and still haven't worked that out.

> Lots of people have solved that problem.

More accurately they never had that problem.

> Researchers can start by looking at how.

Don't need any research on that, you shovel
less calories into your mouth than you burn.

> It sounds basic, but health professionals
> are stuck in denial, head up arse on this.

Easy to claim. How odd that no one
world wide does it any differently.

>>> Its epidemic.

>> And more research isn't going to change that.

> identifying what works normally does

We have known what works for more than a century now,
you shovel less calories into your mouth than you burn.

>>>>> as with all the major ones.

>>>> There aren't actually all that many of them that do affect
>>>> most of us if there can be significant advances made.

>>> /All/ the top 10 killers kill large numbers of us

>> Yes, but it you have to die of something.

> but not prematurely

Depends on how you define prematurely. Its been
known for a long time now that you will live longer
on a starvation diet. Whether that is how anyone
much wants to live is a separate matter entirely.

>>>>>> Certainly if you could come up with something that
>>>>>> allows you to eat anything you like without getting
>>>>>> fat that would have a hell of an impact on the life
>>>>>> of many of us, but its far from clear that that is even
>>>>>> possible.

>>>>> Zero calorie foods do exist.

>>>> But aren't anything like as good to eat so few bother with them.

>>> cost is the problem

>> Nope, the zero calorie sugar substitutes
>> actually cost less than real sugar.

> yup, hence its middling popularity.

That isn't the reason its popular.

> in other cases not cheaper though

The vast bulk of them are.

>>>>> Researching zero calorie cake,

>>>> Not even possible.

>>> I don't agree at all.

>> With something that people will prefer to the normal cake it is.

> not the point

Corse it's the point, if it isn't as good
or better, few will choose to eat it.

>>>> We haven't even been able to come up with a
>>>> perfect zero calorie sugar substitute after having
>>>> tried to do that for more than half a century now.

>>> we have several zero calorie sweeteners.

>> None of which are PERFECT.

> nothing is, so what

So that is the reason sugar continues to be used.

>>> That nut was cracked long ago

>> Must be why we never use sugar in anything.

> again thats addressable

Not in any feasible way it isn't.

>>>>> as trivial as it might sound, could
>>>>> save a huge number of life years.

>>>> But we have been trying to do that
>>>> for more than half a century now.

>>> rather inadequately

>> Because its impossible to produce a
>> zero calorie food that is even better
>> than the real thing.

>> If it was possible we wouldn't have an obesity problem.

> adequate comes first,

We've had that for ever now with drink, its called water.

> better might come later

Didn't happen with what we drink.

There have been zero calorie drinks around
since before we even showed up on this earth.

>>>> Its unlikely that spending more
>>>> will make any difference now.

>>> I totally disagree

>> But have no evidence for that disagreement.

> theres a limit to how much I'm gonna type in 1 day

Fuck all to type in a wikipedia link.

>> Anyone who could actually produce zero calorie
>> food that was even better than the real thing
>> would get stinking rich so fast that they wouldn't
>> know what hit them. The reason that hasn't
>> happened is because it isn't even possible.

> cost is the issue.

It clearly isn't with a zero calorie drink.

> Otherwise barenaked zero calorie noodles would be a bigger hit

I don't believe that given that zero calorie
drinks have been around for millennia now.

>>>>>> Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
>>>>>> toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
>>>>>> wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
>>>>>> toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
>>>>>> point in going that route for the manufacturers.

>>>>> I wonder if theres a market %age for a lifetime toaster.

>>>> I doubt it, essentially because it would cost
>>>> more to have it repaired than to buy a new one.

>>> that only means a long life toaster either wouldnt need repair,
>>> or would be user repairable. Both of which are doable.

>> Yes, but its not possible to do that and
>> waste less than with a 10 year toaster.

> you dont think one could be made
> with less than 10x as much material?

It isn't the material that is the main thing wasted.

>> It is with cutlery, crockery, etc etc etc but not
>> with toasters or cars or kitchens etc etc etc.

> doable with those bar cars

Which hardly anyone chooses to have for a car.

>>>> Its certainly possible to design one that can have
>>>> say the element replaced by anyone in their own
>>>> home, but that element would cost more than
>>>> a whole new 10 year toaster so the only real
>>>> market would be those who have a philosophical
>>>> objection to replacing the whole toaster when
>>>> anything fails.

>>>> And its very arguable if its even less wasteful
>>>> too given that the user replaceable element
>>>> would involve just as much resources as a whole
>>>> new toaster that will only last 10 years.

>>>>> Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.

>>>> And they don't last for anything like 100 years.

>>> they managed 50 ok, so arent a bad place to start.

>> But most don't buy them. There's a reason for that.

> not the point.

Corse it's the point. If few will buy it, very little waste will be saved.

And I don't believe its even possible with a smoke detecting toaster anyway.

> Just begin by doing it. Hone it, cheapen it,

We did that with a zero calorie drink a number of time.

> popularise it later

Easier said than done with zero calorie drinks.

If few are interested in buying it with a toaster,
you won't have any way of popularising it.

And I don't believe its even possible with
a 100 year life smoke detecting toaster.

>>>>>> Its less true with cars where cars are vastly
>>>>>> better than they were 100 years ago.

>>>>> Indeed :) Century old cars are fairly valuable
>>>>> though, even if nuttily designed.

>>>> Sure, but that's scarcity value, a different matter entirely.

>>>>>> I don't know of any 100 year old houses that
>>>>>> I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
>>>>>> designed and built myself on a bare block of land.

>>>>> Theyre still highly valuable

>>>> Yes, but a lot less useful

>>> only slightly

>> Dramatically in fact.

> Both do the same job

One does it much better than the other does.

People spend fuck all on what they piss up the wall.

>>> and we'd see a great improvement in longevity

>> We haven't seen anything like that
>> in the last 50 years, for a reason.

> sure we have

Like hell we have.

>>> and quality of life.

>> In spades.

>>> Begin by educating people about money.

>> They aren't interested. Nothing you can do about that.

> Actually I do.

Fraid not.

> Once again start by finding out what the successes have done.

Most people arent interested. Nothing you can do about that.

[Tim Lamb]

In message <983eb46a-fc3e-49cc...@googlegroups.com>,
spuorg...@gowanhill.com writes

Actually the business purchased a parts washer which I have to confess
remains unused.

--
Tim Lamb

[RobertL]

On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 6:44:04 PM UTC, pollywolly wrote:
> replying to Rachel, pollywolly wrote:
> > rwallis wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> > We are renovating our house as we go along, we have put new doors on
> > the existing carcass of our kitchen, and they look great.
> > One problem we have is the worktops, really out of date and naf
> > looking. We can't afford to replace all the worktops yet, as the
> > cooker fits into the corner of one of them and they we can't get the
> > depth without ordering it, and it is going to cost quite a lot....

> > My question is : Has anyone had any experience of covering the
> > existing worktops using FABLON ?

> > If so, how was it? Does it still look ok, and is it a good idea.
> > Obviously we realise that we would have to be careful with the surface
> > with sharp objects etc .. but nothing can be as bad as it looks at
> > the moment.
> > There are some quite nice patterns available these days too :-)
> > Many thanks in advance for your help.
> > Regards
> > Rachel
>
>
> We did ours 3 years ago and its still like new, we chose a nice green. The
> cupboards are white so it looked good and still does so for 28 pounds
> itsvwas a bargain.


It's now 11 years since Rachel posted her question. Perhaps she could tell us how well the Fablon has actually lasted...

Robert

[meow...@care2.com]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:47:58 AM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>> Rod Speed wrote
> >>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>>>> Rod Speed wrote
> >>>>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> michael adams wrote
> >>>>>>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>> michael adams wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> <meow...@care2.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>> michael adams wrote


> >>>>>>>>> The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then
> >>>>>>>>> fashionable, etc. Just a way to get people to throw out
> >>>>>>>>> what they bought and buy again. Why choose to follow it.

> >> And while its certainly feasible to have cars that
> >> are used for say 40 years, its less clear that that
> >> is actually very desirable given the significant
> >> improvements we have seen in cars over that time.
>
> > agreed
>
> >> Same with say kitchens, there have been very significant
> >> improvements in kitchens over say 50 years, most obviously
> >> with microwave ovens, convection ovens, bread machines,
> >> dishwashers. specialised appliances for making the sort of stuff
> >> that some people eat like pies and toasted sandwiches etc.
>
> > New types of appliances yes, the fitted part of kitchens no.
>
> I don't agree with that. The decent modern fitted
> drawers with decent modern slides and that sort
> of thing leaves what we had 70 years ago for dead.

I found both functioned ok

> > Even 1930s kettles, toasters etc are close to as good as new,
>
> Don't agree with that either. The 1930s toasters that I
> used were those ones with a door on each side which
> you had to keep checking if the toast was done and
> you had to toast each side separately as well. My current
> popup up toaster leaves it for dead convenience wise.

sounds earlier than 30s

> > and far more reliable & durable.
>
> I don't agree with the toaster. And I don't care with the jug.

almost anything thats lasted 80 years is

> >> Same with armchairs. I have some bent wood leather armchairs
> >> where the frame is just as good as it ever was, but the chair that
> >> I sit in most of the time doesn't last anything like 50 years, the
> >> leather is worn out well before that.
>
> > That's solvable,
>
> Nope.
>
> > but something I won't go into here now

not thinking today are you

> >>>> That is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.
>
> >>>> You can make a case that it makes more sense
> >>>> to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
> >>>> to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
> >>>> be repaired when anything fails.
>
> >>>> Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
> >>>> china to make you a new one than to have a
> >>>> fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
> >>>> year life toaster. The production of the parts
> >>>> is likely to involve exactly the same as the
> >>>> production of the whole toaster etc.
>
> >>> If you want a toaster to last 100, give it
> >>> elements that seldom fail. Its doable -
>
> >> But you have to be able to replace
> >> the ones that don't last that long.
>
> > have to no, there's more than 1 way to do it
> > Anyway replaceability of elements isnt that
> > hard to design in
>
> User replaceable ones are.

no Rod, its simple. Its also simple to make elements much longer lived.

> It costs more to have
> someone in the west replace the element than it
> costs to get a chinese person to make a whole
> new toaster.

hence you dont take that approach if you want it to last a century

> >>> though toasters would be low on
> >>> my priority list for centurification.
>
> >> It is one rather obvious example of
> >> the 'waste' you are talking about.
>
> > sure, but the trivial end of it
>
> But the same applies to all the other appliances
> that are so commonly used in kitchens now.
>
> Its true of microwave ovens and convection ovens too.

they're far bigger wastes than a toaster

> Its certainly completely trivial to plug in a new element
> in the big wall oven and griller and I have done that
> a few times with the oven, never needed to with the grill.

its beyond most end users

> >> Yes, its possible to design an incandescent bulb
> >> to last 100 years in normal use, but it makes more
> >> sense to design them the other way and replace
> >> them more frequently than that and get a much
> >> better light from them.
>
> > an exceptional example
>
> Not really. Its true of all light technologys.

which are an exceptional example. Other kitchen goods 30 years old are still perfectly good technology-wise. Many far older are also ok, but not nukes.

> >>> If I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have
> >>> a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires,
>
> >> But its far from clear how feasible it is to have
> >> one of those that will last for 100 years.
>
> > is it?
>
> Have fun listing even a single example of a
> smoke detector that will reliably detect smoke
> for 100 years and turn a toaster sized load off.

Ionisation, Americium halflife 432 years.
Optical detectors too with washable covers

> >>>>>> where most do have basically
> >>>>>> what they need even with houses
>
> >>>>> depends how you define need.
>
> >>>> No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
> >>>> anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
> >>>> even those in squats are basically just doing that
> >>>> because of the insane prices of houses today.
>
> >> And it doesn't really make any difference
> >> whether its owned or rented anyway.
>
> > It does,
>
> Not for the economy of a country.

obviously people owning houses is a wealthier situation than renting rooms in shared houses

> > and more difference whether its shared digs or not
>
> The only difference there is that you
> aren't related to those you share it with.

lol. You really arent thinking today.

> > The top 2 killers, heart disease & cancer, kill 50% of the population.
>
> But you have to die of something.
>
> > Of those deaths the general concensus is that 50%
> > are due to personal choice, 50% other factors.
>
> General consensus is irrelevant and those
> are much too round numbers to be real.

umm ok

> > That's just the top 2.
>
> Which wouldn't be affected by spending more on the NHS.

ummmm ok

> >>> Go ask some people how they'd improve
> >>> their lives if they had a big lump sum.
>
> >> But its clear from those that do get big lump
> >> sums all the time, the lottery etc winners, that
> >> that hardly ever does improve their lives at all.
>
> > So folk unsmart enough to play lottery
> > are hopeless with money. No news there.
>
> Just as true of all big lump sums.

Its pretty obvious not all money makers wee it up the wall

> Money isn't resources. We have different words for a reason.

it buys resources. It pays for resources to be dug up, made, etc

> >> everything to do with the insane way that
> >> the housing market has ended up now.
>
> >> Trivially fixable in the same way as
> >> was done after the war had ended.
>
> > politics stops it
>
> Its public attitudes that stops that happening.

politics determine school content

> If it wasn't, there would be nothing to stop someone
> setting up a new party with that policy getting elected
> to do it.

there is nothing stopping folk.

> >> The absolute vast bulk of what gets spent is just
> >> pissed against the wall keeping everyone going,
> >> fed, housed, transported, entertained etc etc etc.
>
> > food, housing, transport is useful. Entertainment not so
>
> People have to have something to do when they arent
> working or sleeping etc. That's why movies and TV and
> radio took off.

Maybe. I can think of much better options. Anyway they dont have to spend so much money on it.

> >>> they live at home with parents,
>
> >> Just like plenty always did.
>
> > no, there's been a huge rise of it here
>
> Not compared with what happened
> say between the wars and before that.
>
> >>> or live in a room in shared houses.
>
> >> Just like plenty always did.
>
> > again a big rise
>
> Again, not compared with what happened
> say between the wars and before that.

comparison to pre-war conditions is immaterial on both counts

> >>>>> The average young adult now has no
> >>>>> likelihood of being able to buy one.

> >> Doesn't really matter if you are renting
> >> or paying off a mortgage anyway.
>
> >>>> and that is due to a different problem
> >>>> entirely, the outrageous price of them.
>
> >>> which is due to govt policy
>
> >> Nope, it can't be govt policy because its what
> >> has happened everywhere, right thruout the
> >> entire modern first and second world now.
>
> > same policy trend, for ever tighter
> > control, ever more red tape,
>
> That isn't the reason for the immense rise in the
> cost of houses and isn't seen everywhere either.

Sure it is. I worked out I could build a tiny house for 5k + land cost 10k if it werent for endless red tape.

> > much of which isnt really needed
>
> Sure. But we don't see the sort of
> obscene slums we used to see either.

Most of BR, PP, greenbelts, AONB, CAs etc are not about slum avoidance

> >>> ha. The professionals have barely a clue how
> >>> to motivate overweight people to get healthy.

> > Lots of people have solved that problem.
>
> More accurately they never had that problem.

I see your brain's gone to sleep

> > Researchers can start by looking at how.
>
> Don't need any research on that, you shovel
> less calories into your mouth than you burn.

your brain's gone to sleep

> > It sounds basic, but health professionals
> > are stuck in denial, head up arse on this.
>
> Easy to claim. How odd that no one
> world wide does it any differently.

your brain's gone to sleep

> >>> Its epidemic.
>
> >> And more research isn't going to change that.
>
> > identifying what works normally does
>
> We have known what works for more than a century now,
> you shovel less calories into your mouth than you burn.

your brain's gone to sleep

> >>> /All/ the top 10 killers kill large numbers of us
>
> >> Yes, but it you have to die of something.
>
> > but not prematurely
>
> Depends on how you define prematurely. Its been

well, from readily avoidable & treatable diseases

> known for a long time now that you will live longer
> on a starvation diet. Whether that is how anyone
> much wants to live is a separate matter entirely.

immaterial

> >>>>> Researching zero calorie cake,
>
> >>>> Not even possible.
>
> >>> I don't agree at all.
>
> >> With something that people will prefer to the normal cake it is.
>
> > not the point
>
> Corse it's the point, if it isn't as good
> or better, few will choose to eat it.

Some is a great start. Better can be developed later.

> >>>> We haven't even been able to come up with a
> >>>> perfect zero calorie sugar substitute after having
> >>>> tried to do that for more than half a century now.
>
> >>> we have several zero calorie sweeteners.
>
> >> None of which are PERFECT.
>
> > nothing is, so what
>
> So that is the reason sugar continues to be used.

nothing to do with it whatsoever. Sugar is a cheap bulker for factory made foods.

> >>> That nut was cracked long ago
>
> >> Must be why we never use sugar in anything.
>
> > again thats addressable
>
> Not in any feasible way it isn't.

brain gone to sleep again

> >> Because its impossible to produce a
> >> zero calorie food that is even better
> >> than the real thing.
>
> >> If it was possible we wouldn't have an obesity problem.
>
> > adequate comes first,
>
> We've had that for ever now with drink, its called water.

food rodders, food.

> >>>> Its unlikely that spending more
> >>>> will make any difference now.
>
> >>> I totally disagree
>
> >> But have no evidence for that disagreement.
>
> > theres a limit to how much I'm gonna type in 1 day
>
> Fuck all to type in a wikipedia link.

QALY based rationing is just one aspect of it

> >> Anyone who could actually produce zero calorie
> >> food that was even better than the real thing
> >> would get stinking rich so fast that they wouldn't
> >> know what hit them. The reason that hasn't
> >> happened is because it isn't even possible.
>
> > cost is the issue.
>
> It clearly isn't with a zero calorie drink.
>
> > Otherwise barenaked zero calorie noodles would be a bigger hit
>
> I don't believe that given that zero calorie
> drinks have been around for millennia now.

that's cos your brain gone to sleep

> >>>>>> Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
> >>>>>> toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
> >>>>>> wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
> >>>>>> toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
> >>>>>> point in going that route for the manufacturers.

> > you dont think one could be made
> > with less than 10x as much material?
>
> It isn't the material that is the main thing wasted.

10x as much material & 10x as much labour then. A decent toaster doesnt require that much.

> >> It is with cutlery, crockery, etc etc etc but not
> >> with toasters or cars or kitchens etc etc etc.
>
> > doable with those bar cars
>
> Which hardly anyone chooses to have for a car.

that makes no sense

> >>>>> Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.
>
> >>>> And they don't last for anything like 100 years.
>
> >>> they managed 50 ok, so arent a bad place to start.
>
> >> But most don't buy them. There's a reason for that.
>
> > not the point.
>
> Corse it's the point. If few will buy it, very little waste will be saved.

lord youre slow. All products follow a development course that starts with it being possible, and usually pricey.

> And I don't believe its even possible with a smoke detecting toaster anyway.
>
> > Just begin by doing it. Hone it, cheapen it,

> > popularise it later
>
> Easier said than done with zero calorie drinks.

???

> If few are interested in buying it with a toaster,
> you won't have any way of popularising it.

brain gone asleep again

> >>>>>> I don't know of any 100 year old houses that
> >>>>>> I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
> >>>>>> designed and built myself on a bare block of land.
>
> >>>>> Theyre still highly valuable

> > Both do the same job
>
> One does it much better than the other does.

they do the same job, that much is pretty obvious

> >> > Employment is the big excuse for the waste.
>
> >> Its not an excuse, it's the reason.
>
> >>> Employ people to do something useful
>
> >> We do that too, most obviously with education.
>
> >> But that doesn't provide enough employment
> >> in modern first and second world economys.
>
> > it does when folk stop pissing their money
> > up the wall & spend it on more useful things
>
> People spend fuck all on what they piss up the wall.

really. From what I've seen, apart from rent or mortgage most of the rest of most people's spend is wasted on waste/entertainment in one way or another. A look at the local waste disposal site and how much of the stuff works perfectly can partly confirm that.

> >>> Begin by educating people about money.
>
> >> They aren't interested. Nothing you can do about that.
>
> > Actually I do.
>
> Fraid not.

dumb boy

> > Once again start by finding out what the successes have done.
>
> Most people arent interested. Nothing you can do about that.

too foolish. Here ends the discussion


NT

[Rod Speed]

The decent modern slides work a lot better with the bigger
drawers that have the major cooking vessels in them etc.

And allow you to have massive great 6' wide very shallow
drawers that allow you to see all the unusual cooking tools
at a glance rather than having to remember which are in
which small drawer etc too.

>>> Even 1930s kettles, toasters etc are close to as good as new,

>> Don't agree with that either. The 1930s toasters that
>> I used were those ones with a door on each side which
>> you had to keep checking if the toast was done and
>> you had to toast each side separately as well. My current
>> popup up toaster leaves it for dead convenience wise.

> sounds earlier than 30s

Nope, you could still buy those in the 40s and 50s.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Toaster2Closed.jpg/540px-Toaster2Closed.jpg
That one looks suspiciously like you can still buy it today given the
lettering on the top.

http://www.modip.ac.uk/artefact/aibdc-005467
clearly says it was buyable in the 30s and 40s

>>> and far more reliable & durable.

>> I don't agree with the toaster. And I don't care with the jug.

> almost anything thats lasted 80 years is

I didn't say it lasted for 80 years. The elements in the toasters certainly
didn't.

>>>> Same with armchairs. I have some bent wood leather armchairs
>>>> where the frame is just as good as it ever was, but the chair that
>>>> I sit in most of the time doesn't last anything like 50 years, the
>>>> leather is worn out well before that.

>>> That's solvable,

>> Nope.

>>> but something I won't go into here now

> not thinking today are you

Wrong.

>>>>>> That is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.

>>>>>> You can make a case that it makes more sense
>>>>>> to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
>>>>>> to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
>>>>>> be repaired when anything fails.

>>>>>> Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
>>>>>> china to make you a new one than to have a
>>>>>> fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
>>>>>> year life toaster. The production of the parts
>>>>>> is likely to involve exactly the same as the
>>>>>> production of the whole toaster etc.

>>>>> If you want a toaster to last 100, give it
>>>>> elements that seldom fail. Its doable -

>>>> But you have to be able to replace
>>>> the ones that don't last that long.

>>> have to no, there's more than 1 way to do it
>>> Anyway replaceability of elements isnt that
>>> hard to design in

>> User replaceable ones are.

> no Rod, its simple. Its also simple to make elements much longer lived.

Not toaster elements that all last for more than 100 years.

>> It costs more to have someone in the west
>> replace the element than it costs to get a
>> chinese person to make a whole new toaster.

> hence you dont take that approach if you want it to last a century

It wasn't known that we would end up with that
situation a century ago. In fact it was assumed at
that time that it would always be economic to
replace the element if it failed.

And it isn't even possible to have a smoke detector
in a toaster that will reliably turn the toaster off
and will last for more than 100 years anyway.

>>>>> though toasters would be low on
>>>>> my priority list for centurification.

>>>> It is one rather obvious example of
>>>> the 'waste' you are talking about.

>>> sure, but the trivial end of it

>> But the same applies to all the other appliances
>> that are so commonly used in kitchens now.

>> Its true of microwave ovens and convection ovens too.

> they're far bigger wastes than a toaster

They don't get replaced as often as toaster. My wall oven
and hotplates are more than 40 years old. The wall oven
has had at least 3 elements which are trivially easy to
change, the element plugs in and is easily swapped from
within the oven itself, you don't even have to take all the
racks out to change it.

>> Its certainly completely trivial to plug in a new element
>> in the big wall oven and griller and I have done that
>> a few times with the oven, never needed to with the grill.

> its beyond most end users

Only because they don't realise how easy that is to do.

Its actually easier than changing a light bulb essentially
because it's a lot more solid and robust and much
easier to get to than all except a desk light.

>>>> Yes, its possible to design an incandescent bulb
>>>> to last 100 years in normal use, but it makes more
>>>> sense to design them the other way and replace
>>>> them more frequently than that and get a much
>>>> better light from them.

>>> an exceptional example

>> Not really. Its true of all light technologys.

> which are an exceptional example.

Not when they are so common they aren't.

> Other kitchen goods 30 years old are
> still perfectly good technology-wise.

Yes, most obviously with wall ovens and hotplates.

> Many far older are also ok,

Not many on the far older claim.

> but not nukes.

And even with non nukes, we have seen these show up
which leave full ovens for dead for the smaller stuff.
https://www.bigdiscount.com.au/17l-convection-wave-micro-oven-manual.html?___store=default&gclid=CjwKEAiA3IKmBRDFx-P_rLyt6QUSJACqiAN84zIn508OKC7evhD6e5ykfG62rRoLRDLcd1lENs_UAxoCXSXw_wcB

While they don't last anything like as long as full sized
wall ovens do, they save so much electricity that you
end up with a lot less waste that way than with full
wall ovens for everything you put in an oven.

>>>>> If I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have
>>>>> a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires,

>>>> But its far from clear how feasible it is to have
>>>> one of those that will last for 100 years.

>>> is it?

>> Have fun listing even a single example of a
>> smoke detector that will reliably detect smoke
>> for 100 years and turn a toaster sized load off.

> Ionisation, Americium halflife 432 years.

That isn't what fails.

> Optical detectors too with washable covers

That isn't what fails either.

>>>>>>>> where most do have basically
>>>>>>>> what they need even with houses

>>>>>>> depends how you define need.

>>>>>> No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
>>>>>> anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
>>>>>> even those in squats are basically just doing that
>>>>>> because of the insane prices of houses today.

>>>> And it doesn't really make any difference
>>>> whether its owned or rented anyway.

>>> It does,

>> Not for the economy of a country.

> obviously people owning houses is a wealthier
> situation than renting rooms in shared houses

But someone obviously owns what they are renting.

>>> and more difference whether its shared digs or not

>> The only difference there is that you
>> aren't related to those you share it with.

> lol. You really arent thinking today.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

>>> The top 2 killers, heart disease & cancer, kill 50% of the population.

>> But you have to die of something.

>>> Of those deaths the general concensus is that 50%
>>> are due to personal choice, 50% other factors.

>> General consensus is irrelevant and those
>> are much too round numbers to be real.

> umm ok

>>> That's just the top 2.

>> Which wouldn't be affected by spending more on the NHS.

> ummmm ok

>>>>> Go ask some people how they'd improve
>>>>> their lives if they had a big lump sum.

>>>> But its clear from those that do get big lump
>>>> sums all the time, the lottery etc winners, that
>>>> that hardly ever does improve their lives at all.

>>> So folk unsmart enough to play lottery
>>> are hopeless with money. No news there.

>> Just as true of all big lump sums.

> Its pretty obvious not all money makers wee it up the wall

Money makers are quite different to big lump sums.

>> Money isn't resources. We have different words for a reason.

> it buys resources.

That isn't usually what is done with it.

> It pays for resources to be dug up, made, etc

That isn't usually what is done with it.

>>>> everything to do with the insane way that
>>>> the housing market has ended up now.

>>>> Trivially fixable in the same way as
>>>> was done after the war had ended.

>>> politics stops it

>> Its public attitudes that stops that happening.

> politics determine school content

Bullshit. And school content is irrelevant to what
was done about housing after the war anyway.

>> If it wasn't, there would be nothing to stop someone
>> setting up a new party with that policy getting elected
>> to do it.

> there is nothing stopping folk.

Just the fact that that new party isn't going to be the govt.

Even on issues like say being part of the EU, there
just aren't enough who feel that way that will get
a new party into govt on that issue. It hasn't even
happened in Scotland.

>>>> The absolute vast bulk of what gets spent is just
>>>> pissed against the wall keeping everyone going,
>>>> fed, housed, transported, entertained etc etc etc.

>>> food, housing, transport is useful. Entertainment not so

>> People have to have something to do when they arent
>> working or sleeping etc. That's why movies and TV and
>> radio took off.

> Maybe.

No maybe about it.

> I can think of much better options.

Most clearly feel differently on that.

> Anyway they dont have to spend so much money on it.

But they choose to anyway.

>>>>> they live at home with parents,

>>>> Just like plenty always did.

>>> no, there's been a huge rise of it here

>> Not compared with what happened
>> say between the wars and before that.

>>>>> or live in a room in shared houses.

>>>> Just like plenty always did.

>>> again a big rise

>> Again, not compared with what happened
>> say between the wars and before that.

> comparison to pre-war conditions
> is immaterial on both counts

Nope, it shows that what we might well have see
is a blip after the war that is no more than a blip
and nothing to start hyperventilating about.

>>>>>>> The average young adult now has no
>>>>>>> likelihood of being able to buy one.

>>>> Doesn't really matter if you are renting
>>>> or paying off a mortgage anyway.

>>>>>> and that is due to a different problem
>>>>>> entirely, the outrageous price of them.

>>>>> which is due to govt policy

>>>> Nope, it can't be govt policy because its what
>>>> has happened everywhere, right thruout the
>>>> entire modern first and second world now.

>>> same policy trend, for ever tighter
>>> control, ever more red tape,

>> That isn't the reason for the immense rise in the
>> cost of houses and isn't seen everywhere either.

> Sure it is.

Nope.

> I worked out I could build a tiny house for 5k
> + land cost 10k if it werent for endless red tape.

That isn't the reason normal houses are the price they are.

>>> much of which isnt really needed

>> Sure. But we don't see the sort of
>> obscene slums we used to see either.

> Most of BR, PP, greenbelts, AONB, CAs
> etc are not about slum avoidance

But much of what you are allowed to do is.

>>>>> ha. The professionals have barely a clue how
>>>>> to motivate overweight people to get healthy.

>>> Lots of people have solved that problem.

>> More accurately they never had that problem.

> I see your brain's gone to sleep

Nope, they just don't get overweight
so don't have a problem to solve.

>>> Researchers can start by looking at how.

>> Don't need any research on that, you shovel
>> less calories into your mouth than you burn.

> your brain's gone to sleep

The record's stuck.

>>> It sounds basic, but health professionals
>>> are stuck in denial, head up arse on this.

>> Easy to claim. How odd that no one
>> world wide does it any differently.

> your brain's gone to sleep

The record's stuck.

>>>>> Its epidemic.

>>>> And more research isn't going to change that.

>>> identifying what works normally does

>> We have known what works for more than a century now,
>> you shovel less calories into your mouth than you burn.

> your brain's gone to sleep

The record's stuck.

>>>>> /All/ the top 10 killers kill large numbers of us

>>>> Yes, but it you have to die of something.

>>> but not prematurely

>> Depends on how you define prematurely.

> well, from readily avoidable & treatable diseases

Fuck all die of that in the modern first and second world anymore.

>> Its been known for a long time now that you will live

>> longer on a starvation diet. Whether that is how anyone
>> much wants to live is a separate matter entirely.

> immaterial

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>>>> Researching zero calorie cake,

>>>>>> Not even possible.

>>>>> I don't agree at all.

>>>> With something that people will prefer to the normal cake it is.

>>> not the point

>> Corse it's the point, if it isn't as good
>> or better, few will choose to eat it.

> Some is a great start. Better can be developed later.

Didn't work like that with water.

There's a reason for that.

>>>>>> We haven't even been able to come up with a
>>>>>> perfect zero calorie sugar substitute after having
>>>>>> tried to do that for more than half a century now.

>>>>> we have several zero calorie sweeteners.

>>>> None of which are PERFECT.

>>> nothing is, so what

>> So that is the reason sugar continues to be used.

> nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Bullshit.

> Sugar is a cheap bulker for factory made foods.

Its also essential in stuff like home made
marmalade and beer. Doesn't work without it.

>>>>> That nut was cracked long ago

>>>> Must be why we never use sugar in anything.

>>> again thats addressable

>> Not in any feasible way it isn't.

> brain gone to sleep again

Record's stuck.

>>>> Because its impossible to produce a
>>>> zero calorie food that is even better
>>>> than the real thing.

>>>> If it was possible we wouldn't have an obesity problem.

>>> adequate comes first,

>> We've had that for ever now with drink, its called water.

> food rodders, food.

Bullshit gutless, bullshit.

>>>>>> Its unlikely that spending more
>>>>>> will make any difference now.

>>>>> I totally disagree

>>>> But have no evidence for that disagreement.

>>> theres a limit to how much I'm gonna type in 1 day

>> Fuck all to type in a wikipedia link.

> QALY based rationing is just one aspect of it

Doesn't happen in most health care systems.

>>>> Anyone who could actually produce zero calorie
>>>> food that was even better than the real thing
>>>> would get stinking rich so fast that they wouldn't
>>>> know what hit them. The reason that hasn't
>>>> happened is because it isn't even possible.

>>> cost is the issue.

>> It clearly isn't with a zero calorie drink.

>>> Otherwise barenaked zero calorie noodles would be a bigger hit

>> I don't believe that given that zero calorie
>> drinks have been around for millennia now.

> that's cos your brain gone to sleep

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>>>>> Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
>>>>>>>> toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
>>>>>>>> wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
>>>>>>>> toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
>>>>>>>> point in going that route for the manufacturers.

>>> you dont think one could be made
>>> with less than 10x as much material?

>> It isn't the material that is the main thing wasted.

> 10x as much material & 10x as much labour
> then. A decent toaster doesnt require that much.

It isn't even possible to do a toaster with a smoke
detector that will hardly ever fail in 100 years.

>>>> It is with cutlery, crockery, etc etc etc but not
>>>> with toasters or cars or kitchens etc etc etc.

>>> doable with those bar cars

>> Which hardly anyone chooses to have for a car.

> that makes no sense

Your original about bar cars never did.

>>>>>>> Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.

>>>>>> And they don't last for anything like 100 years.

>>>>> they managed 50 ok, so arent a bad place to start.

>>>> But most don't buy them. There's a reason for that.

>>> not the point.

>> Corse it's the point. If few will buy it, very little waste will be
>> saved.

> lord youre slow.

We'll see...

> All products follow a development course that
> starts with it being possible, and usually pricey.

Bullshit on that last with most of what comes out of china.

>> And I don't believe its even possible
>> with a smoke detecting toaster anyway.

>>> Just begin by doing it. Hone it,
>>> cheapen it, popularise it later

>> Easier said than done with zero calorie drinks.

> ???

We honed it by making it completely safe and clean,
cheapened it so much that in some cases it isn't even
charged for by volume, and never did work out how
to popularise it enough to see most drink nothing
but it with water.

>> If few are interested in buying it with a toaster,
>> you won't have any way of popularising it.

> brain gone asleep again

Broken record, as always when you can't dispute the point made.

>>>>>>>> I don't know of any 100 year old houses that
>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
>>>>>>>> designed and built myself on a bare block of land.

>>>>>>> Theyre still highly valuable

>> > Both do the same job

>> One does it much better than the other does.

> they do the same job, that much is pretty obvious

You can say that about a tent or a van.

>>>>> Employment is the big excuse for the waste.

>>>> Its not an excuse, it's the reason.

>>>>> Employ people to do something useful

>>>> We do that too, most obviously with education.

>>>> But that doesn't provide enough employment
>>>> in modern first and second world economys.

>>> it does when folk stop pissing their money
>>> up the wall & spend it on more useful things

>> People spend fuck all on what they piss up the wall.

> really.

Yes, really.

> From what I've seen, apart from rent or mortgage most of the rest of most
> people's spend is wasted on waste/entertainment in one way or another.

Pity about the food, car, moving around/petrol etc etc etc.

> A look at the local waste disposal site and how much
> of the stuff works perfectly can partly confirm that.

Fuck all of it works perfectly.

>>>>> Begin by educating people about money.

>>>> They aren't interested. Nothing you can do about that.

>>> Actually I do.

>> Fraid not.

> dumb boy

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.

>>> Once again start by finding out what the successes have done.

>> Most people arent interested. Nothing you can do about that.

> too foolish. Here ends the discussion

Yep, even you have noticed you have dug yourself a
hole that even you can't work out how to get out of.