user801028

For cooking food. I do cook it, but if I cook it I don't filter it because I saw it as unneeded since the cooking would get rid of stuff anyway and the filter has limited capacity and takes lots of time. Just cooking alone to sterilize is normal practice in camping so don't see the problem.

Thanks for the replies. As the risks seem like they could be an issue, and unquantified, better to find an alternative since it is not a big deal just a little more thought for some more 'natural' solution. I will try again with rocks in the bottom. I think I just didn't put enough in so far. Also think what I could use on the sides, maybe even more rocks squished into the walls, which are mostly clay anyway. Btw a bit of clay is not harmful I guess since we evolved with it most of our history and used for pots since day dot? Also in vegetables in small amounts from garden produce. I suppose people will come with some things bad about clay to give me more to think and be concerned about but it seems like a case of 'the lesser evil'. Actually I recall doing a quick search on this the other day and it is like a trendy thing now to buy clay pots because they release nutrients. May be rubbish but seems pretty benign in that case.

Very weak fresh water source trickling over the land. Have made a sump to collect water however when putting in the container it will disturb the silt on the bottom making it really cloudy. I know the water is pretty much crystal clear as I collected it before this by making an elevated point so it pours straight into the container however the stream is so slow that it would take about 30 minutes to fill that way which brought me to the sump idea. I have some pond liner spare which was given to me. Don't ask me what 'specifications' it is as it was just what was lying around in the garage for however many years before given to me. Would laying that down cause any added issue of the material leeching into the water? Yes I am sterilizing or filtering the water. I use unfiltered for cooking and filter for biological and chemical substances for drinking. I am also near the top of a valley and have walked to the top and do not see what else that would contaminate it. So no arguments of 'toilet water'/chemical waste dumps or the like.

At the start I had thought to only use sustainable material like wood or stone which would decompose back to the land. There are only a couple of things like tarps or liquid containers which are plastic. Well I really needed access on a wet field and you have to get planning consent to build traditional tracks which could take many months and likely to be rejected but I found out about these mats, which would not require consent as they count as temporary surfaces and just lay on top of the ground, that are made from recycled plastic which everyone raves about as being amazing for adding stability even over the worst mud. See here: https://www.mudcontrol.co.uk/ I have bought a few and sure enough they work amazingly. I would now like more to run a whole track to the other side of the land but I am feeling torn about putting a load of this none degradeable material on there. I wasn't able to think of a better way given the above restrictions. If I were have to used stone I would have been looking at 40+ tons probably to make a proper solid surface as well as hiring contractors to lay it probably. With these I can just place them down myself. I was told conversely that even if using compacted gravel this actually damages the soil due to the runoff and/or the engineering work involved or something so is it just a case of picking the lesser evil? The access track is really important as I wanted to be able to get right into the land and after this I would like to stick to using degradeable things when I can. Other green minded people use things like polytunnels and plastic sheeting to suppress weeds so isn't this just the same? They are made from 100% recycled material so that is something but plastic is still plastic.

I eat loads of fruit which would cover that. I also don't mind things like spinach or some of the other stuff like tomatoes but not enough that I would be interesting in making space and doing the whole growing cycle. Plus they can also be cooked. I don't see how composting is going to 100% eliminate that though given the imperfect nature of most compost piles. I am sure there are still pathogens in most piles were they tested. I will continue to research and this thread is a part of it. It could turn out that after one year, having made a pile, the question would become redundant, having enough mature compost to last me with more in processing. Well these issues of open air manure can be mitigated. I actually didn't intend to have the raw stuff in the open air to tread around. I read up and trench composting is one way where I could bury it and have it decomposing beneath a layer of normal soil the latter of which where the crops could be placed. The risks of handling human excreta are the same whether putting it on a compost pile or putting it in a (compost) trench. For trench composting it can be decaying while also having crops above. There are loads of different methods but one is the 3 row system which is one trench for compost, another for crops and another for the path and rotate. This could be a 'valid' and 'kosher' humanure method. Having started an open air pile I do believe it or not dislike the open air compost not only for the unpleasant sight and possible smell but also it becomes the rodent party zone. So trench composting, while said to take longer, seems to deal with that. For those interested, I have just downloaded the Humanure Handbook, which is also free for others to download the individual chapters from the link here: https://humanurehandbook.com/contents.html

No, but believe it or not I am able to control what type of manure I put where. So you concede that boiling would destroy all the nasties listed in your above post? I could put the humanure on the boiled crops and use only 'kosher' compost for others. Besides, I am really not keen on the none cooked vegetables. I find them a waste of time. The ones you listed don't fill you up except the illusion of being full from fibre, not actually having nutritionally fulfilling qualities. I am more interested in growing things like root veges like potatoes and things that would offer high caloric (if that is the right term) content. Beans too and legumes. Much more bang for your buck with those. Lettuce and those 'light' vegetables seem a waste of time. All that effort growing them and they barely make a dent in your hunger. I am glad there has been fruitful (crapful) discussion so far. If there are valid rational reasons for not doing it then I will not do it but it is 'ew yuch you sick' comments which were unhelpful which I received elsewhere as they did nothing to aid in me forming a conclusive opinion. That last sentence is interesting. So simple desiccation would do to sterilize it? That could only take a few days. In the damp uk weather that would probably not happen at all except in a couple of months in summer but one could imagine a crap oven could quite easily be made to manufacture the drying process no? Even so, as per the OP, seems a waste of time and resources vs taking good precautions while spreading and cooking after harvest. It is not pure sludge either, with danger of slopping around all over the places and into any cavities I don't think. The compost I am making is mixed with a good amount of other brown and green material so the actual humanure is only perhaps 30% of the total bulk. It doesn't have a smell after the first few days and just mixes in with the rest of the stuff. Of course I would still take proper hygiene steps when handling regardless. The first postulate is form a hypothesis. Then the next ones are test it. I have not got to testing yet no. I have the hypothesis: can crap be put on crops safely untreated, and am exploring that before seeing if it is viable to put to action. I have a hypothesis and I am looking for pros and cons to see if I should do it. I think it is disingenuous for you to imply I made it and post-hoc just want reasons to do it regardless of feedback. I have a hypothesis and of course, since it is of interest as a plausible idea, I want to look for reasons in favour of trying it. That doesn't mean I will ignore all advice to the contrary, which seems to be what you are implying. Any scientist who wants to try an experiment are going to be biased for reasons to do it vs not aren't they or else why would they be wanting to try? They would not bother with any inquiry at all or even forming the question. If the lion's share of valid reasons for not doing it presented themselves I would be open to changing my position but I still have not yet seen reason against it provided the vegetables would always be cooked which I have not deviated from as being a mandatory step. I am not advocating for anything or anyone else. I mentioned 'humanure' already so I thought that would be understood as synonymous with permaculture and self-composting, which is where the term is coined from said circles. As such I am only proposing using the waste I create, in generous sum on a week by week basis, and using it locally, not from anywhere else. One of the common phrases in those areas for the food chain is 'from field to fork'; well this is something like 'from ass to field'. Not applicable, as above. No idea how you got that interpretation from my post. It is quite the opposite. It is about closing the loop of sustainable living and using one's own crap for good (instead of say travelling to garden centers to buy compost bags) to rely less and less on outside resources, and in turn lowering your footprint and use of containers for transport, to sustain the individual.

I already tried asking this on a more gardening based forum which would be more fitting for the subject matter but they just shut down their rational minds and became emotional accusing me of being a troll or that I deserve to be proscuted for making such a suggestion. So, 'humanure' is a practice of making ones waste into compost over a year plus to kill the pathogens or such. They had no issue with that but when I suggested using it without waiting, for the reasons below, they would not even entertain the idea and started the name caling. I will add that I read that 40% or more of crops grown now are of the 'bio-solid' grown variety. Sure they will have been processed much more but it should allay people's squemishness about the concept. Also bill and melinda gates have some projects of using such waste to fuel energy plants. Ok not the same as eating but still using this usually taboo resource. I thought that perhaps you all, as students of reason and the scientific method, would better be able to follow the logical thread and maintain your rationalist's hat. My question is why wait IF the plants you are putting it on are going to be boiled, which would sterilize them anyway? Not going to be offering them to anyone else so don't see the problem or risk beyond normal precautions for dealing with other compost? Also normal vegetable waste compost has loads of bacteria in it and parasites too so I don't see the difference. Sure the general principle is that composting causes the temp to raise to kill them all but that has not been my experience in practice working on farms. The new compost is chucked on the old stuff in a big mix and so the sterile compost is 'contaminating' the older stuff such that there is never a 'clean pile'. Maybe I have misremembered that and they did cover some iirc but I doubt very much that the matured piles were 100% sterile as with uk weather being lukewarm at best most of the year I doubt the piles would get hot enough for long enough through out to be fully sterile. In those cases that compost was used on the new vegetables as is. I will note a person I know who handled it a lot got worms suspected most likely from the compost. In this case it was from poor hygiene precautions though which would be the same issue with human waste. Maybe this is not the correct way to do composting and they should be separated at a point to leave one for a year to mature. This didn't seem practical when it was always needed to put more on. Also there is the long history of using the raw sewage to grow crops. Now of course people will jump to say disease also came along with that but in those days they didn't know about proper hygeine practices. So if I don't want to wait a whole year for it to mature, and I would be boiling the food anyway, I don't see why it is any different than boiling water of unknown origin when camping in order to sterilize it? Also of course washing hands thoroughly after applying compost and perhaps even using a good quality face mask. The whole point of the waiting a year seems to be so that the compost pile will reach temperatures of 70c+ to kill anything which would be harmful to consume. Well, that seems a redundant step if you would just be boiling the food anyway which would achieve the same result within minutes and saves a year of time. As the land currently is very poor quality it seems a terrible waste to not use this crap based on, what seems, irrational sensibilities.

Only slightly? How about the huge advantage of not cracking like glass. :) Yes sadly a must is that it has to be sealed, thus ruling out many options, in order to keep the diesel fumes contained in the appliance's chamber and exhausted outside. Seems taking my chances with glass again is my only viable option. I suppose £60 for 8 months of daily usage is not the worst as a lot of things require servicing every 6 to 12 months and would cost more. Certainly not ideal and a faff to have to change it out each time. I would try and prevent by keeping a cleaner stovetop as I suspect the uneven base due to old food and general muck may have caused the overheating and cracking where the pot was not flush with the surface.

Looking online it seems very hard to find a piece of cast iron metals making this option seem unattainable. All that is sold is raw iron bars. Any other options that would actually within reach or ways to get a 30cm x 30cm cast iron sheet repurposed from something else? I think the latter is unlikely since it would be a real fluke to be the right size and depth and no way I want to try and fashion it myself. Would stainless steel be no good? As discussed earlier that doesn't seem to warp under heat when looking at pots and pans and is superabundant. From the previous replies stainless steel should have similar thermal expansion properties to pyrex? Hmm that is weird...so mild still should have even performed better due to lower rating yet it is the one which spurred this thread in the beginning. Lower is better right? I am presuming so because the pyrex and such glasses, made for heat resistance, are also low listed here. I don't get how the mild steel which caused me problems from the start is supposedly the same range for thermal expansion as pyrex?

Yes that was the crux of the statement that there is no none toxic level of alcohol as it was debunking the long held belief that one glass of wine a day is good for you. I just looked it up again and it seems David Nutt is also advocating the moderation approach so not sure when he changed his tack. However I just found this who article which is rounding up what I was getting at. From the above article: So it is the 'first drop' argument that is in question. Perhaps it is hyperbole and we have no clear data that just one drop is harmful and as alluded to above in the thread we can assume it probably isn't due to trace elements existing in the body already? I am asking for the reasoning for holding that view. Well what all I am trying to get at is whether the trace elements coming from outside of the body consumed as food would increase the baseline risk to any degree above the static gastro levels.

Since I saw the good Dr. David Nutt state that any amount of alcohol is toxic and that there is no safe amount it made me shun it in every form. Not that I was a drinker before that, having hated it for years, but it made me think of those foods which may contain it in small quantities. I read that even the smallest amount can have effects for up to 30 years before you would turn to none alcohol exposure equivalent status, similar to smoking. As such is it rational to avoid foods that contain only incidental trace amounts as byproducts? Vinegar has a little doesn't it, since it is made from wine? I do love salt and vinegar snacks but have generally stuck to only salted due to the above reasoning. Strangely enough I have not been as strict about bread, which I would sometimes make myself. I have read it can even contain up to one beer's worth of alcohol in a loaf. No specific reason for thinking this is different it is just since I was making the bread myself I did not think about what the by products would be as much. Haven't made it for some time though due to not having an oven any more. I suppose there would be tiny amounts in other foods that I eat that I am just not aware of? I am not sure what though and maybe not because I eat only legumes and pulses and rice mostly now. Lots of fruit so maybe if I eat a tiny bit of bruised fruit the fermentation would have a little in there. :D Fermented foods I think are more likely to have them aren't they? These have their own health benefits and are usually very tasty so I wonder if the puritan view of alcohol consumption, or lack thereof, is rational? Would such trace amounts of alcohol increase risks of cancers or other alcohol related diseases to any real degree? Or is it like in quantum mechanics where anything is theoretically possible, like falling through a solid wall but the chance is so infinitesimally minute as to be inconsequential?

Ah yes, useful comments thanks. Cast iron sounds a good idea as also @Externet suggests. Yes, as you say, with regards to the surface contact of pot to stovetop I think that might be a likely cause because the instruction manual clearly states 'no idle cooking' which I took to mean no cooking with no pot on the stove due to risk of breaking the glass. When the hood is down the fan then blows the hot air out and into the room, forming the heater part of the cooker/heater combo. When lifted the fan is not engaged so there must be something to absorb the heat. I have been doing a lot of outdoor work lately so lots of gunk and gravel being brought into the van floor, where I set the pot down. Also I must admit I had been lax on cleaning the stove surface and quite a bit of gunge including a bit of lentil overspill having caked it when I looked this morning. So I wonder if it was a case of the pot not being flush causing the crack. Seems the most likely culprit. For cast iron it would have to be a sealed plate as otherwise there will be diesel fumes being released in an enclosed space - which would be a nono :). Also, as above, the pot must stay flush to absorb the heat so would be no good to put a cast iron onto a glass surface. Cast iron, from my experience of stoves is usually very thick, to the order of several cms or so. This glass was only 5mm and there is little more clearance for thicker, maybe a couple more mm, for the hood to be able to go down without obstruction. Would a thinner piece of cast iron still have the same thermal expansion resistance properties. That has not been discussed either - what is the thermal expansion or lack thereof of cast iron. As per the OP, due to the sealed nature, it has to have very little so as not to break the seal, releasing diesel fumes, during operation. Besides the expansion properties will it have similar thermal transfer to the glass? As it is used so much for other cooking tops I guess it must be pretty good. It doesn't have to be identical and the cooker is rather efficient so I could lose some efficiency in place of reliability and sturdiness of the top.

Ok to resurrect this thread, the glass cracked after what is that 8 months since making this thread when I bought it? That is disappointing. It has a rating of 700c and yet the crack was certainly from the heat rather than an impact, the latter of which what caused it in the first instance for the one it originally replaced. I was boiling some food and there was a definite pop/crack sound. I raise the stove off and the crack is in a circular region right where the diesel flame hits it. For the number crunchers what average top temperatures should a diesel flame produce or is it too much how long is a piece of string? I couldn't imagine the direct diesel flame from a small stove would amount to higher temperatures than a log burner, which the glass is also geared for I think. Anyway, regardless, it worked fine for those months in the interim so not sure why it would happen all of a sudden. I can only guess that the daily placing on an off of the heavy pot perhaps weakened it causing micro fractures and then on that day the heat broke the camel's back so to speak. Still it was sold as stove glass so would expect it to be able to handle that too. I am wondering where to go from here as it seems I paid around £60 for that glass and having to pay that every 8 months, not to mention the tricky job of replacing the glass, is not too enticing. Winter is coming too, where I want to use it as a heater most. Looks like I will be getting a lot of early nights in the double sleeping bags if I don't fix it. I have been doing that already though due to working a lot of manual labor lately and just because it is going dark early so might not be much of a deprivation. So the idea of metal would be out for something which would be comparable in price for comparable thermal expansion qualities?

Thanks. Hmm interesting. Even if the theory is valid the question also would be how effective commercial products using the technology would be. I have never heard about the smell of the sea maybe it part because I never lived by it but I have heard about the sweet smell after rain but that is something else called patrichor right? What about the sweet smell on model railways and also any engines. Is that right? I once posed the question what the sweet smell was when I run my diesel cooker as I was concerned it could be leaky diesel and someone suggested it could just be ozone.

I have seen ozone mentioned in various contexts when researching off grid living. Some when discussing how all engines create it and it gives off a distinctive smell. From all industrial engines down to the model railway sets. I was told the sweet smell of the railway sets is ozone. Another is that when I wanted to stop mold in my van I was advised to use an ozone generator. The latest I have seen is to be used for water purification. I have been assured that this is based on established and proper science not hocus pocus but I can't help but get the feeling it sounds like 'phlogeston' or the 'humours' or other pseudoscientific theories of old. The only legitimate discussion of ozone I remember is when it used to be talked about in the 90s often when they would say there was a hole in the ozone layer. I had no reason to disbelieve the sources in that case but I don't know about these new uses of the term and reading the wiki on it I still do not understand it any better as to whither these other uses of it are legit or not. The feeling I get is that it is like Deepak Chopras hideous misuse of quantum theory.