There have been reports of people ingesting a large amount of rust from other means, but never from off of any type of utensil. Steel cleaning kits use special chemicals in which you soak the utensils and remove rust.
Another method of rust removal would be to go to any local sheet metal shop and ask them to use a fine steel wool scrubber. Rust forms on the surface of iron and is soft, porous and crumbly.
Surface rust that you can remove by rubbing with your finger or a paper towel is not serious. If you open the cans and there is any rust inside, do not eat the food.
Rust (oxidized iron) is not safe to eat. While tetanus is a potentially fatal infection of the nervous system, it's caused by bacteria (spores of the bacterium Clostridium retain, to be specific), not by rust itself.
So if for some strange reason your bakeware has been exposed to those particular elements (and if you're not up to date on your tetanus vaccinations) it's probably better to replace the rusty item outright. If your rusty cookware happens to be made of cast iron, most culinary authorities say it's completely salvageable.
I use water from a metallic tank to cook, bath and do other household chores. Now I noticed there is a lot of rust in the tank that won't come off after washing it severally.
Here's a link describing what the Institute of Medicine thinks about iron in the diet:. And the batteries were old and rusted, I didn't think about it but I put my fingers in my mouth and felt a scratchy feeling in my throat.
I'm currently breastfeeding, is it going to hurt me or my son?- Kayla (age 25)Peoria, Illinois, US I noticed that the tips were a little rusted but I decided to cook a one pot chicken and rice dish in it any way.
I searched around on the web a bit and couldn't really get a straight answer about eating rust. I think that cooking and eating the food this one time probably won't put my health at risk.
You won't get much iron out of the pan unless you cook something acidic in it. Rust is insoluble in water without acid present, and in order to become soluble you have to convert to iron nitrate, sulfate, or chloride, according to the solubility table.
The gist is that most cooking in cast iron added from 1 to 5 mg of iron to the food, with the highest numbers coming from acidic foods with tomatoes. This level of iron intake is quite safe and healthy.
So, as I initially stated, you're perfectly safe cooking in your cast iron, and are probably helping your health rather than hurting it! Iron in this form is insoluble and will, I assume, pass through the digestive system.
There is a hereditary condition called haemochromatosis where iron accumulates in the body. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.
#399791 09/08/0707:20 PM09/08/0707:20 PM Joined: Jun 2001Posts: 18,089 Albany area, New YorkBob_Q Carpal Tunnel Joined: Jun 2001 Posts: 18,089 Albany area, New York It depends on where you live and how much salt it's been exposed to, but normally frames don't rust enough to just collapse in a 20-year-old car. It's usually the smaller metal components like brackets, exhaust hangers, and of course the sheet metal skin of the car. In most States I don't believe rust is a vehicle inspection item,other than Vermont.
If it makes you feel better, you can have it put on a lift and have someone check the frame and attached components for rigidity and safety. Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,240 Barnett, NJ Yep and if the lift goes up and the car stays down, you got too much rust.
Joined: Sep 2001 Posts: 11,605 Akron, OH Quote:If it makes you feel better, you can have it put on a lift and have someone check the frame and attached components for rigidity and safety. Now, with mostly unibody construction, an inspection should be made by someone knowledgeable about the structural components.
The place to watch is the section where the frame goes over the rear axle. I've heard of guys welding braces and plates in place where rust ate through the frame.
In my area, the front suspension and the frame are still some things that get looked at and would be affected by rust. Granted, a Cavalier doesn't have a “real frame”, but the same areas can be affected.
It amazes me to read posts by people having problems with vehicles from the 80s or older. The weather and salt around here kill vehicles unless their collector cars that are not driven in the Winter.
I was seriously considering buying a Chevy Her and one problem was that if people in the Northern US and Canada didn't get it with running boards, the Winter crap off the front wheels would sand blast the paint off the rear doors and quarter panels. #399795 09/09/0703:30 PM09/09/0703:30 PM Joined: Jan 2005Posts: 734 FLORIDANEONNIGHT34609 Handyman Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 734 FLORIDA we are also talking about an unibody car here with no real frame to speak of . I would watch out for the centers of the floor pans and the door sills this seems to be where the backbone of most unibody cars are . Also where the front engine cradle mounts to the body of the car I have seen them totally gone . You should start to see things going wrong like door gaps being bigger at the bottom than the top . Doors hard to open and close.
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 12,823 Canada The car may stay together under normal driving circumstances, but if you have enough rust, safety in an accident can be compromised. If the passenger cage is weakened, well bad things can happen.
It offers precise control over data layout and runtime behavior of the code, granting you maximal performance and flexibility. Complexity Programmer’s time is valuable, and, if you pick Rust, expect to spend some of it on learning the ropes.
This is not necessary the end of the world (the resulting runtime performance improvements are real), but it does mean that you’ll have to fight tooth and nail for reasonable build times in larger projects. Rust also lacks an analog for the pimps idiom, which means that changing a crate requires recompiling (and not just relinking) all of its reverse dependencies.
(But keep in mind that picking Java over Cobol for banking software in 90s retrospectively turned out to be the right choice). The most advanced alternative implementation, must, purposefully omits many static safety checks.
Hence, its support for CPU architectures is narrower than that of C, which has GCC implementation as well as a number of vendor specific proprietary compilers. However, if you already maintain a large body of C++ code, it makes sense to check if following best practices and using sanitizers helps with security issues.
If you use C, you can use formal methods to prove the absence of undefined behaviors, or just exhaustively test everything. Integration Whatever the Rust promise is, it’s a fact of life that today’s systems programming world speaks C, and is inhabited by C and C++.
One specific gotcha is that Cargo’s opinionated world view (which is a blessing for pure Rust projects) might make it harder to integrate with a bigger build system. The biggest one is probably the fact that Rust ’s move semantics is based on values (memory at the machine code level).
Finally, while in theory Rust code should be more efficient due to the significantly richer aliasing information, enabling aliasing-related optimizations triggers LLVM bugs and compilations: #54878. A potentially bigger issue is that Rust, with its definition time checked generics, is less expressive than C++.
It’s pretty clear that the promise works out in practice: fuzzing Rust code unearths panics, not buffer overruns. First, there’s no definition of Rust memory model, so it is impossible to formally check if a given unsafe block is valid or not.
There’s informal definition of “things rust does or might rely on” and in in-progress runtime verifier, but the actual model is in flux. So there might be some unsafe code somewhere which works OK in practice today, might be declared invalid tomorrow, and broken by a new compiler optimization next year.