Grease-stained ceiling - stainblock or what?

[Lobster]

I had a kitchen ceiling skim plastered a few weeks ago - it was previously covered in chip-pan grease which I thought I'd successfully cleaned away with sugar soap. Yuk. However, the newly skimmed ceiling is now covered in ever-increasing numbers of dark spots which must be grease leaching through. Although the plaster seems to be stuck OK, I have no doubt that if I emulsion the ceiling now, I'll just end up with the spots coming through the paint.

I think I'm going to have to bite the bullet and paint the whole ceiling with something oil-based before I emulsion it - sound about right? Is there any value in using expensive half-litre cans of 'stain-block' paint, or will cheap oil-based undercoat do the job equally well? Or any easier way of achieving a clean white ceiling :-( ?

Thanks David

[avocado]

If your ceiling is that bad - what are your arteries like?

[Lobster]

Fine thanks: I said "a kitchen ceiling", not "my kitchen ceiling"!

David

[chris French]

In message , Lobster writes

I do know that the stainblock paint isn't just the same as undercoat, for one thing the stuff I used was much smellier.

[The Medway Handyman]

Probably fine. There is no scientifically proven link between a high fat diet and blocked arteries leading to heart disease.

[meow2222]

I dont know the direct answer, but I do know stainblock blocks more things than oil based undercoat, so if its business and you want to ensure a long lasting result for a happy customer it would be safer to use the stainblock. I would expect the undercoat to work, but I guess you'd be taking a chance using it.

NT

[Peter Ashby]

Yes there is, it just involves people with genetic predisposition that shows itself when they eat a high fat diet. It also of course depends on the sort of fat as to how bad it is for you.

The point is that genetic testing is expensive and we're not sure we have identified all the relevant alleles, so it is easier to assume you are at risk and act accordingly.

Peter

[Andy Hall]

Unfortunately, the food industries then go overboard on that and neglect the point that so called low fat products simply substitute fat for sugars and other unsuitable carbohydrates. Meanwhile, the medical establishment goes overboard on recommending high carbohydrate diet with little attention paid to glycaemic index and load.

Since excess carbohydrate is processed into various types of fat, it is misleading to suggest that fat intake of itself is a/the major factor in arterial blocking.

Moreover, since much medical research is funded by the food and drugs conglomerates, projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the benefit of these organisations - e.g. eat low fat products and fix your lipid profile with a statin.

[Stuart Noble]

Eat and drink what you fancy and you can't go far wrong. Pregnant women get cravings and aversions for particular foods, and a similar mechanism operates in all of us, albeit less pronounced. Everyone's metabolism is different, and eating stuff you don't like because it's "good for you" makes for a miserable existence and is probably itself a major cause of health problems.

[The Medway Handyman]

Nail. Hit. Head.

[Peter Ashby]

Not any more.

Again, you are out of date.

Wrong. You are confusing drug development with medical research. The vast majority of medical research in the UK is funded by the research councils or the charities.

projects and their outcomes tend to be funded to the

My wife doesn't need statins, the diet is working just fine.

Peter

[Andy Hall]

Go take a look at the NICE recommendations on the subject.

On the contrary.

I'm not talking about the UK - far too narrow a view. If you look on a global basis, you will find that a high proportion of medical research projects have funding from commercial interests. There is nothing inherently wrong with commercial support of research provided that the interests are declared and outcomes scrutinised.

I have the opposite situation. My lipid profile is highly influenced by carbohydrate intake and timing thereof and hardly at all by fat intake.

It illustrates your earlier point that there is a genetic predisposition and a variation around the population. A one size fits all low fat diet is no more universally suitable that a one size fits all low carbohydrate diet.

[Owain]

Provided you can still fit into the same clothes...

Owain

[The Medway Handyman]

My paramedic (actually EMT grade 3) daughter gets called to loads of cardiac jobs. 99% are on statins - if they were that effective she would be dealing with the non statin takers.

[Lobster]

But that would only be true if the whole population were taking statins, which Big Pharma would no doubt like to see. As it is, they are normally only given to those who are already at risk... so it could be argued that if nobody at all was taking statins then your daughter would be seeing, say, double the number of cardiac cases than she currently is, which would mean that statins were incredibly effective.

David

[Lobster]

Yebbut what about the lipid profile of this kitchen ceiling then? :-)

David

[Peter Ashby]

It also assumes that the many large controlled studies on statins that have been done are wrong. Many have been done outwith big pharma by publically funded scientists too. In addition the idea that most at risk people should take statins is based on the hard nosed, realistic realisation that most of those people are not going to make the required dietary and lifestyle changes. Even if they do the statins appear to do little if any harm. This is so strikingly true that some have even suggested that statins are substituting for some absent component of our diets.

Peter

[Andy Hall]

Doesn't bear thinking about..

[The Medway Handyman]

But thats the point Peter. Anyone even vaguely suspected of being 'at risk' is almost force fed statins. Whilst they may be effective at reducing blood cholresterol there is no link between high cholresterol and heart problems.

You underestimate the huge infuence the drug companies have on the medical profession. GP's are constantly bombarded by 'research' and 'information' from drug manufacturers. And GP's are now heavily 'targeted' by Govmint.

They don't harm the patient true, but what harm does the huge sum of money spent prescribing them do?

[Andy Hall]

That's certainly true. One only has to look at the GP contracts and the various means by which practices can make extra bunce by running the various set piece care programmes. Whether or not they are effective in terms of outcome is neither here nor there.

There's about to be a row about that whole area as attempts are made to switch patients from the (generally more effective) products that are still on patent to some of the less effective and cheaper generics.