project

YES, grease on the outside of a pot, frying pan, or roasting pan is a good candidate for some of the toughest nonmetallic stuff around! The time I wanted to get that stuff off the outside of an aluminum deep fat fryer, I used something abrasive enough to leave lots of scratches in the aluminum. Often wondered what solvent would work. Tried the usual ones, acetone, rubber cement thinner, and some others, and didn't get anywhere. The stuff's TOUGH! As I recall, long the standard ingredient in paint remover was methyl chloride. Hmm? So, typing "methyl chloride" into Google and taking the first hit at http://www.who.int/pcs/cicad/summaries/cicad_28.html see some really tasty remarks such as "Methyl chloride is clearly genotoxic in in vitro systems in both bacteria and mammalian cells. Although the positive effects seen in a dominant lethal test most likely were cytotoxic rather than genotoxic, methyl chloride might be considered a very weak mutagen in vivo based on some evidence of DNA -- protein cross-linking at higher doses. Testicular lesions and epididymal granulomas followed by reduced sperm quality lead to reduced fertility in rats at 980 mg/m3 (475 ppm) and to complete infertility at higher doses. Methyl chloride induced heart defects in mouse fetuses when dams were exposed to 1032 mg/m3 (500 ppm) during the gestation period. Effects on humans, especially on the central nervous system, can be clearly seen after accidental inhalation exposure. In short-term exposure of volunteers to methyl chloride, no significant effects were seen that could be attributed to the exposure. There are insufficient epidemiological data available to assess the risk for humans to develop cancer as a result of methyl chloride exposure." So, better use it outdoors, when no one from the EPA or NYT is watching, and use rubber gloves, a chemical suit, and a breathing apparatus. And, on what to do with the rinse water, can't say! Seems a lot just to wash a pot. There has to be a better way.

The expertise in this forum is awesome. I know I'm wrong, but I don't know the details of why so am ready to learn: I started in wine with a copy of Frank Schoonmaker, 'Schoonmaker's Encyclopedia of Wine', Hastings House, New York, 1968. and shopping in Georgetown in DC in the late 1960s. Bought Volnay, Pommard, Beaune, Corton, Nuit St. George, etc. up to Chambertin. Tasted good to me. Keep the temperature a little under 70 F and let some air get to it for maybe 30 minutes, and it often took on some unbelievably good aromas. As I recall, 1964, 1961, and 1959 were good. In the early 1990s, had some Morey St. Denis from 1985 shipped by Neal Rosenthal -- "one of the few good old-time flavors left to enjoy!" Tried some of the more expensive common samples from Chianti and Barolo -- liked them. Anything Appellation Controlee from around Macon -- fine with me. Meursault? A favorite. Put ten pounds of ice cubes in a plastic mop bucket, cover with water, bury the bottle, wait 30 minutes, and enjoy, say with a buttered white sauce over seafood. These whites all seemed dry (no sugar?), 'crisp' (some acid?), and 'clean' (nicely balanced delicate flavors?). One I used to get in the early 1990s was shipped by Neal Rosenthal and was from a little northwest of the town of Macon -- liked it a lot. Rhone Valley and Chateauneuf du Pape? Seemed, say, 'less intense flavors' than Chambertin but fine. Bordeaux? Reminded me of chalk or "licking dusty window panes". Mostly didn't like it too well. One Brane-Cantenac seemed okay. And, the whites seemed too sweet. California? I tried and tried. Poured a lot down the drain. I couldn't try them all, and then try them all again each year, before forming an opinion. So, I formed an opinion: The reds -- Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir -- tasted, say, 'crude'. In comparison to Macon, I found the California Chardonnay sweet, flat (I guess low in acid), and with an unpleasant mixture of all the flavors of the fruit section of a grocery store produce department. My recipe for an imitation would be to start with, say, DelMonte fruit cocktail, strain the fruit, to the liquid add some vodka and some water, bottle it, and price it, now, at ุ for 24 ounces. Better, still: Discard the liquid and just eat the fruit. I hate to say these things. I know that the efforts at UC Davis give the California wine makers some of the best expertise on the planet. But, I'm just judging by what I poured. It's been a few years since I tried California wines and poured my last one down the drain. Now, looking at the prices, since I can buy a negotiated Pouilly Fuisse for half the price of a California Chardonnay, I'm not tempted to try again. But, Chile? Sure. For Ű can get 1.5 L plenty good enough for making white sauces and even drinking with the resulting food. And, the last one I got was nicely dry and crisp although the flavors were not quite as nice as from Macon. I know I'm wrong about California, at least. But, where in detail? I know I'm easily confused: I like the Mendelssohn violin concerto better than anything by Elvis, and I grew up in Memphis! I confess, I'm a man. But I can improve, if I really have to, I guess!