Old Bay, you have it correct.

People suffering from Alzheimers have a build up of aluminin in certain parts of the brain. But the jury is out, as of now, as to whether the aluminum builds up, and contributes to the disease, or whether people with the disease attract aluminum to that part of the brain.

But I figure just the suggestion is enough of an additional reason not to use aluminum cookware.

Aluminum is linked to Alzheimers - but do people ever stop to think that beer cans, soda cans, veggie cans, soup cans, etc, etc, etc, are also to blame??

As far as teflon, T-fal, etc. - there are poisons in that - and it is not good for you - I have several articles about aluminum, coated pans, etc. Also - don't forget the DuPont products - like the chemical coated wrappers that are used by fast food places and other take-outs which also causes cancer - and just what do they use on this release type aluminum foil, etc. I will not use any thing like that. I do not believe in microwaves and plastic should not be used in microwaves - it is poisonous as well. I have so much info on all this - and I won't use the crockpot liners for cooking either - I would much rather scrub my fingers off cleaning my crockpot than cook in plastic.

Old Bay - you mention cooking eggs in a non-stick skillet - I have skillets that I use and they are not coated - heat the pan, then oil it up to season it, wipe out the oil and you won't have a problem. And a well seasoned cast iron pan or griddle is great for eggs!

Any pan that has any coating in it - I do not want. I don't care how great they claim it is - 3 - 7 years later they will find something that it causes!

Don't hold back, Mama. Tell us how you really feel.

I have to say I'm getting pretty tired of hearing that song and dance from people about "you need at least one non-stick pan for eggs." Well, golly gee. Whatever did grandma use? And her mother before her.

Nonstick is part of the general "convenience first" world that we live in. In this case, people would rather use something they know has potential health risks than learn to use other cookware correctly. Just as they continue eating in those squat & gobble fast food joints, despite the documentation about how unhealthy they are.

Lets put aside cast iron for another, separate thread. It's unfair to compare anything to cast iron, cuz the anything will lose on any criteria except, possibly, weight.

The fact is, I regularly cook eggs in stainless, and they no more stick then they would in a non-stick pan. You just have to learn the properties of the material.

And it's not as if non-stick doesn't require oil. It still has to be greased, if for no other reason than the flavor and appearance of what gets cooked in it. So I don't understand what people who use it are really saving.

In my house there is no non-stick cookware. And no aluminum cookware. And, as to crockpot liners: The only think sillier than those are the Crockpot Classics from the frozen food locker.

Not that I'm real big on crockpots. But that, too, is grist for a different mill.

yahoo groups parrotflock is where I learned about this and bird talk magazine.

NO TEFLON, MICROWAVES, LINERS OR COOKING IN PLASTIC IN MY HOUSE!

I'll post some reasons:

DuPont Fined for Teflon Cover-Up


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will fine Teflon maker DuPont $16.5 million for two decades' worth of covering up studies that showed it was polluting drinking water and newborn babies with an indestructible chemical. It was EWG's petition that sparked EPA's lawsuit against DuPont. The fine is the largest administrative fine the EPA has ever levied under a weak toxic chemical law. However, the $16.5 million fine is less than half of one percent of DuPont's profits from Teflon from this time period, and a fraction of the $313 million the agency could have imposed. Yet another reason to strengthen our toxic chemical laws, which EWG is launching a campaign to do.


The DuPont Co.'s failure to report widespread exposures to a potentially toxic chemical used to manufacture nonstick pans, stain-resistant carpet and hamburger wrappers will cost the company $16.5 million in fines and compensatory payouts.

Environmental Protection Agency officials said the settlement produced the largest administrative, noncourt civil penalty in agency history, and would serve as a warning to industries that flout federal toxic substance control laws.

"This settlement sends a strong message that companies are responsible for promptly informing EPA about risk information associated with their chemicals," said Granta Y. Nakayama, assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assur- ance.

Although the action was triggered by revelations about problems at DuPont's Teflon plant in Parkersburg, W.Va., its terms require the company to spend $5 million studying how a wider variety of related chemicals and consumer products behave and break down in the environment.

Some of the chemicals covered by the research deal are handled at DuPont's Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, N.J., at the foot of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, including C-8 -- also known as perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA -- a chemical used in the production of Teflon.

One national organization, Environmental Working Group, said the penalty highlighted the federal government's weak hand in dealing with industrial polluters.

"What's the appropriate fine for a $25 billion company that for decades hid vital health information about a toxic chemical that now contaminates every man, woman and child in the United States?" Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "We're pretty sure it's not $16 million, even if that is a record amount under a federal law that everyone acknowledges is extremely weak."

Under its pact with the EPA, DuPont acknowledged no liability for failure to report its 1981 discovery that a compound used to make Teflon had contaminated the placenta and bloodstream of a West Virginia worker's unborn child. The agreement also settled seven other claims of company failure to disclose violations of the Toxic Substance Control Act and a related hazardous pollution control law.

Among the complaints were allegations that DuPont withheld information for years about unexpected contamination in the blood of workers, and pollution releases that eventually contaminated water supplies serving thousands in West Virginia and Ohio.

"The fact of the matter is, we could have litigated this thing. We could have paid a lot of money and been in court for several years," said DuPont Senior Vice President and General Counsel Stacey Mobley. "We made a determination that we're going to put this thing behind us."

Mobley said DuPont believes there are no human health effects associated with C-8.

More cases pending

DuPont has come under intense scrutiny in recent years with disclosures that the company's synthetic chemicals, including PFOA, have been detected in the bloodstreams of people and animals around the globe. An EPA scientific advisory panel recently recommended labeling the material a "likely" carcinogen, although the finding remains in dispute.

Earlier this year, DuPont set aside $15 million in anticipation of settling the case. Still pending is a federal criminal probe of the company's handling of federal requests for information.

The settlement requires DuPont pay $10.25 million in fines while also spending $5 million on a three-year study of the environmental breakdown characteristics of nine "fluorotelomer-based" products. The group includes soil-, stain- and grease-resistant coatings. Another $1.25 million will go to support school projects in West Virginia that reduce student exposure to harmful chemicals in science classrooms.

A former DuPont Co. engineer who lives in Hockessin recently accused the company of covering up indications that one of those chemicals escaped at higher-than-expected rates from paper coatings widely used for fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags and other prepared foods.

Mobley said DuPont already has cut PFOA emissions by 98 percent at its U.S. plants "and we are committed to reducing those emissions by 99 percent by 2007."

Millions set for settlements

The company established a $108 million reserve last year to pay settlements in a West Virginia class action lawsuit involving citizen water pollution claims in Ohio and West Virginia. The settlement includes a medical monitoring agreement that could cost the company up to $235 million.

Vincent, Ohio, resident Kathy Minerd said tests had shown that she carries 480 parts per billion of PFOA in her blood, while her husband's levels are 290 ppb -- concentrations that were unknown outside of the workplace before the lawsuit forced community testing.

"At first they said it couldn't hurt you, but I'm sure it'll be a long time before they really know," Kathy Minerd said.

DuPont is the nation's only manufacturer of PFOA, although several other companies use the compound.

Company spokesman R. Clifton Webb said DuPont's experience at its Parkersburg, W.Va. plant, where emissions have fallen dramatically, would help in other pollution control efforts. He also said that the company releases at a different plant that makes PFOA in Fayetteville, N.C., were far lower than those experienced by 3M Co., DuPont's previous supplier. In 2002 3M stopped selling C-8; DuPont began producing at Fayetteville the same year, and now is investigating contamination of groundwater near the plant.