On 12/12/25 20:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 09:48:11 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>My perception is that waste disposal is significantly more difficult
wrote:
On 12/11/25 21:01, Martin Brown wrote:Commercial waste disposal has never been free. Nor is it significantly more >> expensive, in real terms, than it has been in the past.
Another one in the news today and lots of hand wringing by the local
council and the environment agency about how nothing can be done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74x9gqynp9o
I could pick half a dozen more...
Why can nothing be done?
Surely it is fairly straightforward to confiscate every waste truck
caught illegally dumping there and prosecute the owners. Confiscate
enough illegal waste operators trucks and the problem should go away.
Given the profits to be had illegally dumping waste the only other
solution is to make the expectation value of the punishment fit the
crime. That probably means unlimited fines for those caught.
There is of course another solution. One that actually worked in the
past. That solution being free disposal, provided by the local authority. >>
and/or more expensive than it was in the past.
Regardless, even if it wasn't, incentivising responsible disposal seems
to me to be a more tractable solution than detection and punishment. The >criminal justice system is overburdened. Having a Bobby permanently >patrolling every country lane, producing more prosecutions for our >overburdened courts, doesn't seem sensible.
The question is, if you want commercial waste disposal to be subsidised,
who pays for the subsidies?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:53:57 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
The question is, if you want commercial waste disposal to be subsidised,
who pays for the subsidies?
As long as profits aren't affected, and taxes are kept low, I don't think >the company cares. Rinse and repeat on the way down until you reach the >level where people have no choice.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:47:08 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/12/25 20:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 09:48:11 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>> wrote:My perception is that waste disposal is significantly more difficult
On 12/11/25 21:01, Martin Brown wrote:Commercial waste disposal has never been free. Nor is it significantly more >>> expensive, in real terms, than it has been in the past.
Another one in the news today and lots of hand wringing by the local >>>>> council and the environment agency about how nothing can be done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74x9gqynp9o
I could pick half a dozen more...
Why can nothing be done?
Surely it is fairly straightforward to confiscate every waste truck
caught illegally dumping there and prosecute the owners. Confiscate
enough illegal waste operators trucks and the problem should go away. >>>>>
Given the profits to be had illegally dumping waste the only other
solution is to make the expectation value of the punishment fit the
crime. That probably means unlimited fines for those caught.
There is of course another solution. One that actually worked in the
past. That solution being free disposal, provided by the local authority. >>>
and/or more expensive than it was in the past.
It's more complex. That's an unavoidable consequence of the need to move
away from highly polluting landfill to more environmentally friendly means
of waste disposal. But, also, modern business practices tend to generate
more waste than in the past.
Regardless, even if it wasn't, incentivising responsible disposal seems
to me to be a more tractable solution than detection and punishment. The
criminal justice system is overburdened. Having a Bobby permanently
patrolling every country lane, producing more prosecutions for our
overburdened courts, doesn't seem sensible.
The question is, if you want commercial waste disposal to be subsidised, who pays for the subsidies?
On 12/18/25 09:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:47:08 +0000, PanchoIf you add a disposal surcharge to goods at the point of sale, it has
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/12/25 20:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 09:48:11 +0000, PanchoMy perception is that waste disposal is significantly more difficult
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/11/25 21:01, Martin Brown wrote:
Another one in the news today and lots of hand wringing by theThere is of course another solution. One that actually worked in the >>>>> past. That solution being free disposal, provided by the local
local council and the environment agency about how nothing can be
done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74x9gqynp9o
I could pick half a dozen more...
Why can nothing be done?
Surely it is fairly straightforward to confiscate every waste truck >>>>>> caught illegally dumping there and prosecute the owners. Confiscate >>>>>> enough illegal waste operators trucks and the problem should go
away.
Given the profits to be had illegally dumping waste the only other >>>>>> solution is to make the expectation value of the punishment fit the >>>>>> crime. That probably means unlimited fines for those caught.
authority.
Commercial waste disposal has never been free. Nor is it
significantly more expensive, in real terms, than it has been in the
past.
and/or more expensive than it was in the past.
It's more complex. That's an unavoidable consequence of the need to
move away from highly polluting landfill to more environmentally
friendly means of waste disposal. But, also, modern business practices
tend to generate more waste than in the past.
the double advantage of discouraging people from using more disposable
goods in the first place, and it can contribute to the cost of
appropriate disposal.
For particularly toxic waste, you might also add a deposit at point of
sale, which can be reclaimed from appropriate disposal sites.
These are not new ideas.
Subsidy is an emotive term, I would characterise it as providing
national infrastructure.
I don't know why you distinguish between commercial and domestic?
On 12/18/25 09:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
Subsidy is an emotive term, I would characterise it as providing
The question is, if you want commercial waste disposal to be subsidised, who >> pays for the subsidies?
national infrastructure.
I don't know why you distinguish between commercial and domestic?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:13:30 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 12/18/25 09:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:47:08 +0000, PanchoIf you add a disposal surcharge to goods at the point of sale, it has
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/12/25 20:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 09:48:11 +0000, PanchoMy perception is that waste disposal is significantly more difficult
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/11/25 21:01, Martin Brown wrote:
Another one in the news today and lots of hand wringing by theThere is of course another solution. One that actually worked in the >>>>>> past. That solution being free disposal, provided by the local
local council and the environment agency about how nothing can be >>>>>>> done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74x9gqynp9o
I could pick half a dozen more...
Why can nothing be done?
Surely it is fairly straightforward to confiscate every waste truck >>>>>>> caught illegally dumping there and prosecute the owners. Confiscate >>>>>>> enough illegal waste operators trucks and the problem should go
away.
Given the profits to be had illegally dumping waste the only other >>>>>>> solution is to make the expectation value of the punishment fit the >>>>>>> crime. That probably means unlimited fines for those caught.
authority.
Commercial waste disposal has never been free. Nor is it
significantly more expensive, in real terms, than it has been in the >>>>> past.
and/or more expensive than it was in the past.
It's more complex. That's an unavoidable consequence of the need to
move away from highly polluting landfill to more environmentally
friendly means of waste disposal. But, also, modern business practices
tend to generate more waste than in the past.
the double advantage of discouraging people from using more disposable
goods in the first place, and it can contribute to the cost of
appropriate disposal.
For particularly toxic waste, you might also add a deposit at point of
sale, which can be reclaimed from appropriate disposal sites.
These are not new ideas.
But that just means people who have no source of income would have to
have benefits increased to match. Not very popular in the current climate.
Also, hypothecation isn't really a thing in Britain. If it was our NI
would cover the welfare state.
On 12/18/25 16:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]Taxation changes could be flat for targeted groups. Anyway,
redistribution of wealth is an issue we need to tackle, it is getting
more urgent, and will continue to do so.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:13:30 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The infrastructure is provided out of taxation. But the use of it isn't.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 21:07:08 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:13:30 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The infrastructure is provided out of taxation. But the use of it isn't.
That could be said of a lot of things.
Healthcare. Education. Policing ...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:12:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 21:07:08 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:13:30 +0000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The infrastructure is provided out of taxation. But the use of it
isn't.
That could be said of a lot of things.
Healthcare. Education. Policing ...
All of those are free at point of use, at least as far as the
state-provided services are concerned.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:13:30 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 12/18/25 09:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
Subsidy is an emotive term, I would characterise it as providing
The question is, if you want commercial waste disposal to be subsidised, who
pays for the subsidies?
national infrastructure.
The infrastructure is provided out of taxation. But the use of it isn't.
It's the use of it that you also want to be funded from taxation. I thik
it's perfectly reasonable to describe that as a subsidy.
I don't know why you distinguish between commercial and domestic?
I do, because the law does. And the law does, because commercial waste is a by-product of a profit-making activity, whereas domestic waste is a consequence of simply living. Waste disposal is just another overhead of a business, along with rent, utilities and salaries.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:12:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 21:07:08 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:13:30 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The infrastructure is provided out of taxation. But the use of it isn't.
That could be said of a lot of things.
Healthcare. Education. Policing ...
All of those are free at point of use, at least as far as the state-provided services are concerned.
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve this, but so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve this,
but so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
aTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of recevied >>cardboard boxes when sending orders.
Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is it >different for cardboard boxes?
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve this, but so >>> would a disposal tax at point of sale.
-a-aTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of recevied
cardboard boxes when sending orders.
Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is it different for cardboard boxes?
On 19/12/2025 16:57, Pancho wrote:
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is it
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve this, but
so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
-a-aTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of recevied
cardboard boxes when sending orders.
different for cardboard boxes?
I admit I was assuming your disposal tax would be closely related to
the
actual cost of disposal. What did you have in mind ?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 10:18:14 +0000, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 16:57, Pancho wrote:
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is it
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve this, but >>>>> so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
-a-aTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of recevied
cardboard boxes when sending orders.
different for cardboard boxes?
I admit I was assuming your disposal tax would be closely related to
the
actual cost of disposal. What did you have in mind ?
The actual or nomalised cost ?
It could cost a lot more in a rural location, than a city (for example).
(You will, of course, be familiar with the way the postal service works).
Individual items of waste are not collected from homes on a daily basis
In message <10i8j86$2jfai$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:47:35 on Sun, 21 Dec
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
Individual items of waste are not collected from homes on a daily basis
They are in some places. See Eddington.
On 21/12/2025 11:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10i8j86$2jfai$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:47:35 on Sun, 21
Dec 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
Individual items of waste are not collected from homes on a daily
basis
They are in some places. See Eddington.
"The items fall into a large underground chamber, and a sensor notifies
the council when it is full, so that collections need only take place
when needed. A specialist lorry then hoists the container out of the
ground with a crane and empties the waste into the vehicle." ?
https://eddington-cambridge.co.uk/news-and-updates/unique-waste-and-recy >cling-system-starts-collection
On 19/12/2025 16:57, Pancho wrote:
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve this,
but so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
-a-aTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of recevied
cardboard boxes when sending orders.
Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is it
different for cardboard boxes?
-aI admit I was assuming your disposal tax would be closely related to
the actual cost of disposal. What did you have in mind ?
On 12/21/25 10:18, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 16:57, Pancho wrote:
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve this, >>>>>but so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
aaTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of recevied >>>>cardboard boxes when sending orders.
Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is it >>>different for cardboard boxes?
aI admit I was assuming your disposal tax would be closely related
to the actual cost of disposal. What did you have in mind ?
I was making a general point that paying a disposal cost for goods at
the point of purchase could have a behavioural effect, encouraging
people to re-use items and reduce waste. This was in comparison to a
similar behavioural effect created by charging people at the point of >disposal, pay to tip.
In a rational world, one would expect a broadly similar effect of
disposal costs, regardless of if they were charged at point of sale or
point of disposal.
In general, one would try to tailor the disposal costs levied on
specific types of item to reflect how environmentally problematic they
were. It may be that reuse of cardboard boxes is not particularly >cost-effective. However, that applies to both costs at point of
purchase or costs at point of disposal. Hence, my not understanding
what point you were trying to make?
In message <10i8rge$122ue$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:28 on Sun, 21
Dec 2025, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
On 12/21/25 10:18, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 16:57, Pancho wrote:
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve
this,
but so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
-a-aTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of
recevied
cardboard boxes when sending orders.
Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is
it
different for cardboard boxes?
-aI admit I was assuming your disposal tax would be closely
related
to the actual cost of disposal. What did you have in mind ?
I was making a general point that paying a disposal cost for goods
at the point of purchase could have a behavioural effect,
encouraging people to re-use items and reduce waste. This was in
comparison to a similar behavioural effect created by charging
people at the point of disposal, pay to tip.
In a rational world, one would expect a broadly similar effect of
disposal costs, regardless of if they were charged at point of sale
or point of disposal.
Only if the "disposal tax" was itemised on the receipt, the way it is
for plastic bags.
(I got charged 10p for a flimsy plastic bag to carry my Indian takeway
recently, and zero on the various plastic food containers - which
seem to wholesale at about 15p each - each of which contains far
more plastic).
In message <10i8rge$122ue$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:28 on Sun, 21 Dec
2025, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
On 12/21/25 10:18, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 16:57, Pancho wrote:
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve this, >>>>>> but so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
-a-aTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of recevied >>>>> cardboard boxes when sending orders.
Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is it
different for cardboard boxes?
-a -aI admit I was assuming your disposal tax would be closely related
to-a the actual cost of disposal. What did you have in mind ?
I was making a general point that paying a disposal cost for goods at
the point of purchase could have a behavioural effect, encouraging
people to re-use items and reduce waste. This was in comparison to a
similar behavioural effect created by charging people at the point of
disposal, pay to tip.
In a rational world, one would expect a broadly similar effect of
disposal costs, regardless of if they were charged at point of sale or
point of disposal.
Only if the "disposal tax" was itemised on the receipt, the way it is
for plastic bags.
(I got charged 10p for a flimsy plastic bag to carry my Indian takeway
-arecently, and zero on the various plastic food containers - which
-aseem to wholesale at about 15p each - each of which contains far more
-aplastic).
On 21/12/2025 18:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10i8rge$122ue$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:28 on Sun, 21
Dec 2025, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
On 12/21/25 10:18, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 16:57, Pancho wrote:
On 12/19/25 13:50, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/12/2025 10:37, Pancho wrote:
The current disposal charges, "pay to tip", roughly achieve >>>>>>>this, but so would a disposal tax at point of sale.
aaTax at point of sale would not encourage e.g. re-use of >>>>>>recevied cardboard boxes when sending orders.
Tax at point of sale did encourage reuse of plastic bags, why is
it different for cardboard boxes?
a aI admit I was assuming your disposal tax would be closely
related toa the actual cost of disposal. What did you have in mind ?
I was making a general point that paying a disposal cost for goods
at the point of purchase could have a behavioural effect,
encouraging people to re-use items and reduce waste. This was in >>>comparison to a similar behavioural effect created by charging
people at the point of disposal, pay to tip.
In a rational world, one would expect a broadly similar effect of >>>disposal costs, regardless of if they were charged at point of sale
or point of disposal.
Only if the "disposal tax" was itemised on the receipt, the way it
is for plastic bags.
(I got charged 10p for a flimsy plastic bag to carry my Indian
takeway arecently, and zero on the various plastic food containers - >>which aseem to wholesale at about 15p each - each of which contains
far more aplastic).
Some of those containers can be really useful and can have a long
afterlife when freezing individual portions of food - as long as you
can get the smell of the original contents to go away.
That plastic bag on the other hand, is barely strong enough to get your >curry safely home. Just as at the supermarket, I always take my own
bag with me.
On 21/12/2025 18:54, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Some of those containers can be really useful and can have a long
afterlife when freezing individual portions of food - as long as you can
get the smell of the original contents to go away.
In message <10i8n24$2jfah$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:52:37 on Sun, 21 Dec
2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 21/12/2025 11:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10i8j86$2jfai$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:47:35 on Sun, 21 Dec >>> 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
Individual items of waste are not collected from homes on a daily basis
-aThey are in some places. See Eddington.
"The items fall into a large underground chamber, and a sensor notifies
the council when it is full, so that collections need only take place
when needed. A specialist lorry then hoists the container out of the
ground with a crane and empties the waste into the vehicle."-a ?
https://eddington-cambridge.co.uk/news-and-updates/unique-waste-and-recy
cling-system-starts-collection
Exactly, the items are collected from the homes not just daily, but could
be hourly. They are then removed from the central facility, as required.
On 21/12/2025 18:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10i8rge$122ue$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:08:28 on Sun, 21 Dec
I was making a general point that paying a disposal cost for goods at
the point of purchase could have a behavioural effect, encouraging
people to re-use items and reduce waste. This was in comparison to a
similar behavioural effect created by charging people at the point of
disposal, pay to tip.
In a rational world, one would expect a broadly similar effect of
disposal costs, regardless of if they were charged at point of sale
or point of disposal.
Only if the "disposal tax" was itemised on the receipt, the way it is
for plastic bags.
(I got charged 10p for a flimsy plastic bag to carry my Indian takeway
-a-arecently, and zero on the various plastic food containers - which
-a-aseem to wholesale at about 15p each - each of which contains far more
-a-aplastic).
Some of those containers can be really useful and can have a long
afterlife when freezing individual portions of food - as long as you can
get the smell of the original contents to go away.
That plastic bag on the other hand, is barely strong enough to get your curry safely home.-a Just as at the supermarket, I always take my own bag with me.
On 21/12/2025 12:28, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10i8n24$2jfah$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:52:37 on Sun, 21
Dec 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 21/12/2025 11:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10i8j86$2jfai$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:47:35 on Sun, 21 >>>>Dec 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
Individual items of waste are not collected from homes on a daily basis >>aThey are in some places. See Eddington.
"The items fall into a large underground chamber, and a sensor
notifies the council when it is full, so that collections need only >>>take place when needed. A specialist lorry then hoists the container >>>out of the ground with a crane and empties the waste into the vehicle."a ? >>>
https://eddington-cambridge.co.uk/news-and-updates/unique-waste-and-recy >>> cling-system-starts-collection
Exactly, the items are collected from the homes not just daily, but >>could be hourly. They are then removed from the central facility, as >>required.
... but in large full containers, not as individual items from each home.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 01:17:47 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 21/12/2025 18:54, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Some of those containers can be really useful and can have a long
afterlife when freezing individual portions of food - as long as you can
get the smell of the original contents to go away.
We haven't used anything plastic for years, since we realised that the >panopoly of glass jars that are used for everything (except, weirdly, >vinegar, which now comes in nasty plastic bottles) are perfect for
freezing meals. They stack nicely and unlike nearly all the crap sold in >stores today won't fail after repeated used.
(I got charged 10p for a flimsy plastic bag to carry my Indian takewaySome of those containers can be really useful and can have a long >>afterlife when freezing individual portions of food - as long as you
aarecently, and zero on the various plastic food containers - which
aaseem to wholesale at about 15p each - each of which contains far more
aaplastic).
can get the smell of the original contents to go away.
I'm still using Chinese takeaway containers from 2011 and before.
That plastic bag on the other hand, is barely strong enough to get
your curry safely home.a Just as at the supermarket, I always take my
own bag with me.
People here throw their rubbish away in 10p "bags for life". If clean,
I retrieve them from the collective bin and use them. I don't think
I've paid anything for a shopping bag in my life.
In message <10ib7bp$25kd4$4@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:05 on Mon, 22 Dec
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 01:17:47 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 21/12/2025 18:54, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Some of those containers can be really useful and can have a long
afterlife when freezing individual portions of food - as long as you
can get the smell of the original contents to go away.
We haven't used anything plastic for years, since we realised that the >>panopoly of glass jars that are used for everything (except, weirdly, >>vinegar, which now comes in nasty plastic bottles) are perfect for
freezing meals. They stack nicely and unlike nearly all the crap sold in >>stores today won't fail after repeated used.
The rectangular aluminium foil containers (not used by takeaways as much these days) stack better than jars, because they go all the way into the corners.
We haven't used anything plastic for years, since we realised that the >>>panopoly of glass jars that are used for everything (except, weirdly, >>>vinegar, which now comes in nasty plastic bottles) are perfect for >>>freezing meals. They stack nicely and unlike nearly all the crap sold in >>>stores today won't fail after repeated used.
The rectangular aluminium foil containers (not used by takeaways as much
these days) stack better than jars, because they go all the way into the
corners.
Yeah, we used to use those (got them in the 100s from Makro).
Right up until I felt a little queasy noticing that the sealing wasn't >airtight and wondering what that layer of ice crystals that slowly built
up was hiding.
In message <10ibs0k$25kd4$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:32 on Mon, 22 Dec
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
We haven't used anything plastic for years, since we realised that the >>>> panopoly of glass jars that are used for everything (except, weirdly,
vinegar, which now comes in nasty plastic bottles) are perfect for
freezing meals. They stack nicely and unlike nearly all the crap sold in >>>> stores today won't fail after repeated used.
The rectangular aluminium foil containers (not used by takeaways as much >>> these days) stack better than jars, because they go all the way into the >>> corners.
Yeah, we used to use those (got them in the 100s from Makro).
Right up until I felt a little queasy noticing that the sealing wasn't
airtight and wondering what that layer of ice crystals that slowly built
up was hiding.
You aren't supposed to freeze things for more than about three months,
and in that time you don't get much of the freezer-burn build up.
You aren't supposed to freeze things for more than about three months,
and in that time you don't get much of the freezer-burn build up.
A rather conservative policy, and mainly relevant to food with a high lipid >content. Gametes and embryoes at liquid nitrogen temperature seem to last a >lot longer.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:47:39 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,176 |
| Posted today: | 1 |