Janet Kaiser on tue 25 apr 00
A tickle in the throat, a cold and gradually the onset of bronchitis sends
me to all the recipes my mother and grandmother before her used to make
up... Onions braised in honey, etc. etc. Glycerine, lemon and honey is my
personal favourite along with lemonade made with lemon, honey and boiling
water.
It was only when I made it this week, that I realised it was NEVER made in a
ceramic vessel of any sort. I had to climb on a stool to get at the glass
jug on the top shelf... Because I added too much boiling water too fast, the
jug cracked and sticky lemonade flooded the whole kitchen. Not the sort of
thing you need when a couple degrees below par. I ended up making my witch's
brew in a milk bottle. (Yes, we still have milk delivered to the door in one
pint glass bottles daily.)
Wine, vinegar, orange juice... all the acidic liquids are stored and sold in
glass bottles too. I can only think of some Schnapps sold in ceramic
containers and even then it is salt glazed stoneware. Same with
Sauerkraut... Vitreous stoneware. An exception is possibly those oil and
vinegar salad dressing sets so popular some years ago... But they soon went
out of fashion. Possibly because they were not sufficiently "food safe"?
What occurred to me was the current leaching thread and the idea that glazes
all HAVE to be "food safe" and the paranoia they may not be. I suppose we
have to accommodate the loss of knowledge and common-sense in the modern
world. Ignorance of what our grandparents took for granted and taught us.
All part of "off with the old and on with the new".
It seems to me, the more we try to make our lives safe and risk free, the
worse it is going to get. Rules, regulations and litigation will lull
everyone into a real false sense of security. "They" know best. It is all
right, because "they" have given the OK. It meets the rules / standards /
acceptable codes so it must be OK. And when its proven otherwise: well, we
will sue for millions in damages.
I think of the extermination of the traditional pottery of Spain. Because
the glazes were considered pretty lethal by European industrial standards
they were reduced to making decorative ware like ashtrays for the tourist
market. The bottom fell out of that market because the designs were not to
modern taste and that was the end of whole families and villages of potters.
I therefore wonder are potters making a rod for their own backs?
I am personally far more concerned about the chemical and gaseous "leaching"
from paints, preservatives, adhesives and man-made products like MDF. The
formaldehyde content of the later in particular.
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
TEL: (01766) 523570
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
Ray Aldridge on wed 26 apr 00
At 02:42 PM 4/25/00 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>A tickle in the throat, a cold and gradually the onset of bronchitis sends
>me to all the recipes my mother and grandmother before her used to make
>up... Onions braised in honey, etc. etc. Glycerine, lemon and honey is my
>personal favourite along with lemonade made with lemon, honey and boiling
>water.
>
>It was only when I made it this week, that I realised it was NEVER made in a
>ceramic vessel of any sort. I had to climb on a stool to get at the glass
>jug on the top shelf...
Janet, while I agree with your thoughts about the dangers of bureaucratic
paranoia, and its potentially negative effects on artists, I'll point out
that glass isn't necessarily any safer than a ceramic vessel-- because
glass *is* a ceramic material.
In fact, glazes are just glasses. A properly formulated stoneware glaze is
more resistant to leaching than the glass in a milk bottle. The last time
I was in a laboratory (back in Paleolithic times), I saw highly corrosive
substances being stored in nice little stoneware bottles.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Ron Roy on wed 26 apr 00
Think about this - and then think about what we can do to make it better
for ourselves.
Not all concern is paranoia - some times it just makes sense.
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
snip
>I think of the extermination of the traditional pottery of Spain. Because
>the glazes were considered pretty lethal by European industrial standards
>they were reduced to making decorative ware like ashtrays for the tourist
>market. The bottom fell out of that market because the designs were not to
>modern taste and that was the end of whole families and villages of potters.
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Janet Kaiser on fri 28 apr 00
Ray
As I pointed out in the same post, stoneware and salt-glazed jars are the
*only* ones that acidic products are kept in... to my knowledge. Not having
the benefit working much in laboratories, I was prattling on about
Sauerkraut and Schnapps... But I will take your word for it that acids and
corrosive substances keep as well (and probably safer re breakage) in
stoneware, although glass acid containers are the only ones I have ever
seen. For example, the acid batteries of my youth were large rectangular
glass containers. (Let's have a competition on who is more stone age than
the other :-)
I am sorry, but I do not agree with "glass *is* a ceramic material". It is
not! At least clay has been no where near any glass recipes I have seen. For
your information, milk bottles are made to very high specifications, because
they get re-used countless times and the dairies never know what people have
used them for... (probably just as well in some cases).
I fail to see what there is to leach in high quality glass. Perhaps you
could tell us?
Yes, glaze is just a sort of glass, BUT, let's face it, a poor cousin seeing
it can be of very varying quality. Porous, prone to crazing, even needs a
clay body to stand up... Even the poorest glass will hold liquid or keep the
wind out. Of course good stoneware glazes are "fool proof", but once
again... You have to trust the integrity of the maker... And the postings on
"stoneware" which is only fired to cone 6 or 7 have shaken my faith in that
once and for all!
I do not really find "glass is not necessarily safer" helpful. If in doubt
about ceramic jugs and mugs at hand, then glass is far safer or at least the
safest option under the circumstances. The whole point I was trying to make,
was that we have to use our brains.
You may personally produce high quality stoneware which you could put your
hand in the fire about... But that cannot be said for every pot and pitcher
that hits the market-place. As a consumer, I must use my judgement,
education/tradition and common sense. I would also expect others to do the
same.
Your agenda may be to prove to people they should have nothing but stoneware
pots, bottles, crocks, drinking vessels, etc. etc. in their homes, but I
personally cannot think of anything more boring. Please allow me my lemon
juice in a glass jug (or bottle) and drinking glass. Apart from the leaching
aspect, I need to see if it has started to cloud or ferment... Much more
practical in glass. Unless you have perfected a transparent stoneware? (Just
kidding!)
Janet Kaiser - now administering lemon and vitamins to an ailing Eckhard
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
TEL: (01766) 523570
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
> Janet, while I agree with your thoughts about the dangers of bureaucratic
> paranoia, and its potentially negative effects on artists, I'll point out
> that glass isn't necessarily any safer than a ceramic vessel-- because
> glass *is* a ceramic material.
>
> In fact, glazes are just glasses. A properly formulated stoneware glaze
is
> more resistant to leaching than the glass in a milk bottle. The last time
> I was in a laboratory (back in Paleolithic times), I saw highly corrosive
> substances being stored in nice little stoneware bottles.
Debby Grant on sat 29 apr 00
Dear Janet,
I really do enjoy your posts but on this one I just have to take issue with
you. Glass certainly is considered to be a ceramic material. So is
cement for that matter. Ask any ceramic engineer. In fact, any material
with silica as the main material is considered to be ceramic. And as
for glass not leaching, what about lead crystal? I should think that it
may depend on the flux used in the glass making. Also, colored glass
may have leaching problems, and as you know, acid certainly can
etch glass. Sorry to disagree with you, but keep your posts coming.
Debby Grant in NH
Cindy Strnad on mon 1 may 00
Janet,
I think that Ray was making the same kind of point you were, and though I've
reread his post, I can't see that he was particularly belligerent about it.
He seems simply not to quite agree with you. At any rate, had his reply been
to me, I don't think I would have felt attacked.
Your point is well-taken. We need to use our heads and not assume that every
ceramic (or glass or wood or metal or whatever) item is suitable for use in
any and every environment. It's unreasonable to expect that this would be so
and we must begin to live in the real world here. Use things for purposes
they are appropriate for. Am I correctly interpreting what you were trying
to say? I sincerely mean to do so, and will humbly accept your correction if
not. This is what I, personally, hear you saying.
As to the safety of glass, I have my own little pet peeve here. Lead in
pottery is taboo, whereas people seem to think that lead in crystal
(typically used for serving alcoholic drinks, and sometimes even for the
storage of alcoholic drinks) is perfectly safe. Not so, not so, not so at
all. And this is a product which is made for the express purpose of serving
drinks.
I have a set of beautiful lead crystal goblets which I dearly love. I love
the feel, the sound, the look of them, but I use them only seldom because
lead does leach from crystal in prodigious quantities. And do we regulate
this? No way. Do we warn the consumer? No. Lead crystal is glamorous and
expensive and high class and elite, lovely, tasteful, luxurious, but it is
never portrayed as deadly--like lead in pottery glazes is portrayed.
I don't use lead in my glazes and I don't eat from lead-glazed pottery, so
I'm not advocating we return to that. I'm just saying "play fair." Lead in
glass is just as, if not more, dangerous. Then there's fiesta ware, with its
uranium glazes--same kind of toxicity, yet how many people have heard of it?
And farther, there are, in the USA at least, imported wares. My ceramic
supplier tells me these are not, as a rule, tested or regulated for lead
release. So, if this is true, your customers who gladly buy that bright,
bright colorful glazed low-fire ware at the local department store feel safe
because it's sold in a store. Therefore it must be okay. How many clerks at
Penny's get asked whether this imported bright red, glass-shiny soup bowl
contains lead? Well, it probably does. Yet they will always ask you if your
high-fired stoneware contains lead. People are trying to protect themselves,
but they simply don't know how.
Handmade pottery is not the only thing that can be dangerous. Glass and
other things can also be very much so. Using our common sense is a good
starting point, true, but people also need knowledge. We should do our very
best to give them that.
Cindy Strnad
earthenv@gwtc.net
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
Ray Aldridge on mon 1 may 00
At 05:55 PM 4/28/00 EDT, Janet wrote:
(snip)
>
>I am sorry, but I do not agree with "glass *is* a ceramic material". It is
>not!
Then later Janet said:
>Yes, glaze is just a sort of glass, BUT, let's face it, a poor cousin seeing
>it can be of very varying quality.
I'm not sure which of these statements I should believe.
Ray
Aldridge Porcelain and Stoneware
http://www.goodpots.com
Janet Kaiser on tue 2 may 00
Ray,
As Michael Banks has already pointed out, the definition of glass varies
from one side of the Atlantic to the other. You (in the US) class and define
glass as a ceramic material, so I therefore stand corrected that you can,
whereas we (in the UK) do not.
So please quit the selective snipping!
My point was: glass (object made of glass i.e. glass ware) is not ceramic.
Obviously we have two views, supported by national definitions. We will just
have to live with that. Although it does make recent discussion on "glass
male versus ceramic female", "glass vs ceramic" and moans about glass makers
raking in $ compared to simple potters, seem rather odd if you (USA)
consider glass is ceramic.
Glaze is a special form of glass. I do not have a problem with this and it
is not a contradiction of the above. It is glass-like. It is not glass (like
windows or glass ware) because it has a lower thermal expansion and contains
higher alumina levels. Yes, glass and glaze both normally contain silica and
exhibit certain qualities which are similar. Is does not mean they are the
same thing.
My original post talked of using a crystal jug then a glass bottle in
preference to a ceramic pitcher for making lemon juice. I would still chose
a quality glass over a ceramic pitcher of unknown make (an earthenware, slip
decorated jug with clear glaze purchased in Switzerland ca. 1980). It is my
choice and I believe my decision is educated, informed and wise. It is based
on experience, knowledge and tradition. I was bemoaning the fact that these
common sense choices and decisions seem to be going out of fashion. Nothing
more.
So, from the red corner: Ray A. and C. Strnad and in the blue corner: Janet
K... How about a cup of tea? Shall we make a party of it? In Boston maybe?
Been done before? What a pity.
Janet Kaiser - Not half as argumentative as some people would believe.
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path
TEL: (01766) 523570
WEB: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
> >I am sorry, but I do not agree with "glass *is* a ceramic material". It
is
> >not!
> Then later Janet said:
> >Yes, glaze is just a sort of glass, BUT, let's face it, a poor cousin
seeing
> >it can be of very varying quality.
> I'm not sure which of these statements I should believe.
> Ray
| |
|
