Lumina 1.2 L Deep Fryer at ALDI $17.99 from 29th May 2013

Related Stores

Lasoo

Marketplace

ALDI

• 

  jv on 28/05/2013 - 12:27

  not very healthy… but cheap it is…

  • 

    zo1dberg on 28/05/2013 - 19:26

    +1

    Cheap as chips! Lololololollll :-)

• 

  battler on 28/05/2013 - 12:28

  +1

  quite a small unit. most deep fryers hold about 2 litres of oil.
  may not be suited to families.

• 

  51ngh on 28/05/2013 - 12:33

  +3

  Nokia quietly started making home appliances too ??

  • 

    Helmuth on 28/05/2013 - 12:35

    +1

    Heat's gotta go somewhere! Why not use it :)

  • 

    jv on 28/05/2013 - 12:43

    +1

    Nokia quietly started making home appliances too ??

    Why not? Samsung went from home appliances to mobile phones…

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 28/05/2013 - 12:48

    Yep, released weeks ago, Nokia SAM-THING microwave, 5000 watts, 8core with "with the latest eye-tracking technology, which stops the food from rotating when you look at it"

    http://conversations.nokia.com/2013/04/01/nokia-turns-up-the…

    • 

      itsfree on 28/05/2013 - 13:27

      +1

      I thought you were kidding till I saw the URL slug…

      Edit: Hey! It's not April anymore! ಠ_ಠ

      • 

        tooblue on 28/05/2013 - 16:45

        At least we caught a fool. ಠ_ಠ

• 

  TrollBags on 28/05/2013 - 13:14

  +2

  waiting for 2nd Gen of this fryer, maybe will include NFC so I can tap my frozen goods bag and timer settings good to go.

• 

  samfisher5986 on 28/05/2013 - 13:39

  Definitely interested in this.

  I'm assuming the benefit of it being small is that there is less oil wasted?

  I'm assuming you drain the oil after use?

  • 

    jv on 28/05/2013 - 16:20

    +1

    I'm assuming you drain the oil after use?

    Only that oil that hasn't been absorbed into the food…

    The problem with a small unit is that the oil cools much quicker when you add the food, causing more oil absorption than in larger fryers…

• 

  cminez on 28/05/2013 - 14:09

  +1

  You should check the spelling. It's LUMINA.

• 

  cheepwun on 28/05/2013 - 15:13

  You might live longer if you don't cook with non-stick coatings.
  Google.

  • 

    samfisher5986 on 28/05/2013 - 15:20

    There isn't any evidence that non stick coatings are toxic.

    Half of the kitchen appliances at the shop are now non stick.

    The truth is that you'll live longer if you don't eat deep fried food, not if you eat food made in a non stick bowl.

    • 

      cheepwun on 28/05/2013 - 16:22

      There isn't any evidence that non stick coatings are toxic.

      Sure there is. Google.

      Half of the kitchen appliances at the shop are now non stick.

      Half of us die from cancers and/or preventable diseases too. McDonald's also does a brisk trade.

      The truth is that you'll live longer if you don't eat deep fried food, not if you eat food made in a non stick bowl.

      I'd say both are factors, but if you are going to deep-fry, do it in stainless steel. You can get some deep fryers that are stainless steel inside. You can also buy cast iron cookware (ie. pans) which heat evenly, are heavy as heck and don't change the taste of food like non-stick garbage does (and don't put poisons in your bloodstream).

    • 

      jv on 28/05/2013 - 16:24

      +1

      There isn't any evidence that non stick coatings are toxic.

      http://www.ewg.org/research/canaries-kitchen

      "These new tests show that cookware exceeds these temperatures and turns toxic through the common act of preheating a pan, on a burner set on high."

      • 

        natsumezoku on 28/05/2013 - 20:33

        +1

        Not sure which side you're on when you're quoting that but they turn toxic when the get too hot. As far as I know to get them that hot you have to leave them on the stove with nothing in it for a few minutes (probably less for induction cook tops). A little bit of oil in the pan etc will prevent that from happening. So I hardly see it as a problem in the product in this post.

        As for normal teflon coated pans for those of you who don't want to put oil or anything in it while getting it to heat, then you'd have to be conscious of not leaving on the stove for too long with nothing in it (2 minutes on highest heat on an electric cook top according to the linked article.) Although I'm not sure if it's considered 'normal use' but if even while cooking it passes 340 degrees Celsius it would be a problem.

      • 

        samfisher5986 on 28/05/2013 - 20:43

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tefal admit exactly what they claim.

        http://www.tefal.com.au/Consumer+service/Questions+and+answe…

        "Any material heated high enough will give off fumes. Fumes from overheated non-stick cookware do not adversely affect humans or household pets with the exception of birds."

        This happens at 400C and ONLY gives off hazardous fumes.

        They specifically mention

        "non-stick coating is not attacked by acid or alkaline bases and is very stable when heated to temperatures of up to 400C"

        The page you posted even sums up at the end

        "Additionally, we recommend that bird owners completely avoid cookware and heated appliances with non-stick coatings."

        Nothing about how humans should avoid it.

        ---

        The website you posted mentions exactly what they mention on their website which is:

        When heated to 400C its dangerous to birds and not healthy for humans

        There is no evidence that eating non stick coating is dangerous, Tefal says this is ok.

      • 

        cheepwun on 28/05/2013 - 23:49

        In other news….

        Doctors approve of cigarettes and claim there are no adverse effects from prolonged cigarette smoke.

        Fluoride has no adverse effects on people and can be safely added in the water supply.

        Asbestos has no proven harmful effects to humans.

        And finally, companies raking in millions per year have every incentive to stop and no incentives to lie or pay people off.

        http://ecowatch.com/2012/chemical-linked-to-cancer-found-in-…

        Anyhow, have a Winfield.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OngDbS0QOaw

      • 

        natsumezoku on 29/05/2013 - 03:45

        +1

        Firstly, you should start out with a link backing up your claims next time instead of just saying 'Google'.

        Secondly, the link that was actually presented (by jv) actually pretty much confirms what the tefal itself is saying, which is that it's fine for use under normal conditions (Although I have not looked at other manufacturers.)

        Thirdly, the link you then presented only talks about the release of emissions during the process of manufacture by one particular company of non stick pans. Not the actual process of using them.

        You come off as sounding like one of those people who would raise a storm if some kid told them 'did you know dihydrogen monooxide is linked to the manufacture of <insert some product people fear>' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

        Now I'm not saying I know for certain non stick pans are absolutely safe, what I am saying you're making a very poor argument against it. Just look at all the cancer warnings in California how they attach it to pretty much everything just on the off chance that it does to the point no one even pays attention to the labels anymore. Also did you know toothpaste can cause cancer? (if you swallow equivalent to a truck worth based on how much they fed to a laboratory mouse.)

        I'm surprised you didn't go all out and say eating fries at McDonald's would give you cancer, since http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/business/21chips.html?page…

      • 

        cheepwun on 29/05/2013 - 12:09

        I'm surprised you didn't go all out and say eating fries at McDonald's would give you cancer, since http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/business/21chips.html?page…

        Eating fries at McDonald's can give you cancer. And eating the rest of their menu without adequate exercise can give you heart disease and diabetes and triple cancer extreme. But I respect everyone's right to eat there without warnings, and even ignoring any hazards. It's part of the law of the jungle.

        Over-regulation is a wet dream for govs: they can profit and micro-manage everything. They can profit on flouting of the laws, all while pretending to care for their populations, while extracting more of their money and accepting yet more pay-offs when formulating laws designed to protect people from themselves. Brilliant.

        With McDonald's you're supporting a huge monoculture environment due to their huge buying power and contracts with our farmers and those around the world, not to mention enabling the funds that enable their lobbying power to approve so many toxic substances used in the food supply for maximum profit and maximum death to you.

        You can wait until you have cancer long after millions have died, waiting for your "scientific proof" from a body controlled and intent on profiting the most from you first, or use your intuition regarding unsafe substances that come in intimate contact with your food, especially when they have already been linked with cancers.

        Oh, and minor point: non-stick makes food taste like crap. McDonald's tastes like crap as it is without it. You are what you eat.

        Anyhow, have a Winfield?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OngDbS0QOaw

      • 

        natsumezoku on 29/05/2013 - 17:21

        +1

        The sun gives you cancer. Let's regulate that. Bananas also give off radiation. Eating a single banana gives you a higher radiation does than living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant for a year. We all know radiation causes cancer. Let's regulate that. The acrylamide in food that 'has links to cancer' that is regulated under California's proposition 65 is also found in bread, black olives, peanut butter and cereals. Let's scream 'cancer: google it' every time those items are mentioned. Oh and apples also have cyanide in them http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp We all know how many people have died from eating apples right?

        Almost everything gives you cancer to some degree, some more than others. Scaremongering without scientific proof doesn't help anyone. That's actually the attitude that allows over-regulation, because people start to believe everything is out to get them so they will allow the warning labels thinking it will protect them from 'big corp'. Like you said 'brilliant', and yet you perpetuate it. I'm more worried about mass media sensationalistic headlines causing irrational fears and stirring up mob mentality to be honest.

        I love how you put scientific proof in inverted commas when the article you claim supposedly links non stick coatings with cancer doesn't actually even say that it occurs in the general use of pans and only irresponsible manufacturing. That's like saying if a farm dumps all its waste into a local river and causes people in the surrounding area to be sick, it must therefore mean all the produce of the farm must be linked to people being sick. Or like I suggested previously dihydrogen monoxide is used in the manufacture of <products people fear>, therefore must be bad.

        Without conclusive scientific proof, you are led into situations like people fearing vaccinations and not getting them, allowing outbreaks of easily preventable diseases. And the reason for people believe that myth is because the doctor who proposed a link from vaccinations to autism was paid off by lawyers who had cases against pharmaceuticals, and once that was revealed even his co-investigators withdrew their names from that paper. http://briandeer.com/mmr-lancet.htm And now even with scientific evidence to the contrary, people still believe in the myth because too many people reciting false facts fear-mongering has drowned out the voice of everything else.

        Here's the thing, there are pretty much conspiracy theories for most products available on the market. Some are legitimate concerns, most are not. Without conclusive scientific evidence which ones are you going to believe? I wouldn't even mind a bit more regulation in specific areas for example to get rid of snake oils like homeopathy (and yes they do cause harm when the people believing in it choose to take it over scientifically proven medications and not actually getting treated).

        And your minor point of McDonald's tasting like crap? Well some people must like it, they do sell nearly six and a half million burgers a day. I'm not even sure what the point you're trying to make is.

        It's the 'silly' scientific proofs we've built so far that let's us live to an age where cancer is even a problem, and pretty soon it's that same science that will cure cancers. They've already given us treatments for it. I'm pretty sure cancer was more a problem that evolution didn't really care about because we really only needed to live long enough to reproduce rather than something we created, and yet science is now allowing us to solve that problem. So yes while science has made some mistakes, I'll continue to stick with it thanks. If you wanted to use an example in the past of where it has gone wrong I would have went with DDT personally instead of cigarets, but it has gotten way more right than wrong. And yes this has gone way off topic so I'm going to leave it at that. Have some homeopathy memory water I suppose?

      • 

        cheepwun on 29/05/2013 - 23:30

        Your first paragraph talks about regulation. I think I mentioned my thoughts on that already.

        Your second paragraph says: "almost everything gives you cancer to some degree". It does?

        Your third paragraph seems to call for scientific proof overheating a pan (or heating a pan) can cause cancer before you stop using one. Your choice. I'd rather use tried-and-true cooking materials tested through the ages. At one stage we didn't know lead was poisonous too. Yeah, that went on for some time. With millions made each year on non-stick coatings, I expect the 'proof' to be very slow coming. Possibly after you or your friend have developed unexplainable cancers. Like I say, law of the jungle. You make your choices.

        Your fourth paragraph talks of vaccinations. Vaccinations cause more harm than good, in my opinion. I would never get my kids vaccinated. Choices, again.

        Your fifth paragraph puts science on a pedestal. Most scientific research is sponsored by corporations selling the poisons. So any TRUE science is stifled, and can only lead (and provide employment) where the masters paying for it all dictate.

        Your following sentence equates popularity with 'rightness'. My point was exactly as I stated: McDonald's tastes like crap. Food cooked in non-stick devices tastes like crap too. I would consider McDonald's one of the lowest forms of 'food' on earth, made to the lowest standards, injected with preservatives, sugar and salt and grown in the worst factory farm conditions imaginable, for both the animals and plants. The lowest of the low, and it affects the whole food chain because even if we don't eat at McDonald's we are affaceted by their huge buying power and their dictates to farmers…and the resulting poisoning of our land and food supply for maximum profit is quite un-nice. Not just to pick on them of course, but they sure are a perfect example of the problem and mass ignorance. Mass ignorance of non-stick coatings is bad too. So are cover-ups.

        Your final paragraph makes a condescending stab at me and equates my thoughts and actions with homeopathy, as if science is somehow a distant or opposite extreme of it. Laughable. As if something is only valid when explained by science. Or revealed by science. And you ignore the political and financial corporate realities as if they are mere trivialities that "true science" will break beyond without any resistance. I consider myself living in the real world and making real decisions on what goes into my body on a daily basis, and I also rely on INTUITION without waiting for someone to release a book on it and justify its use to me.

        You use intuition too, but you refuse to acknowledge it (science hasn't explained it yet!!). Do you only take action when someone OUT THERE (with so many of their own motives and corporate sponsors) has justified a train of thought to you? Sad to hear that.

        None of what I've said here is fear-mongering. Simply open your mind to the possibility of non-stick garbage being a health-hazard. You certainly have gone no way to disprove or prove anything here.

        But you are free to throw in some more long-winded thoughts about 'science'…TRUE science, that will come bursting out of the clouds with TRUTH, presented to ALL OF US on a silver platter…with no corporate sponsorship at ALL. All of this will just come out at ONCE to SAVE US at no cost or burden or profit motive…all FREE knowledge so we can be SAFE and LIVE LONGER and stronger!

        Yeah, that's why the supermarkets are full of toxic food and we are dying from all kinds of modern preventable diseases.

        Anyhow, have a Winfield?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OngDbS0QOaw

      • 

        natsumezoku on 30/05/2013 - 10:32

        Actually no I wasn't putting it on a pedestal, I admit it gets things wrong, but overall it gets things right, even after manipulation from money. It's actually more profitable to develop good cures for diseases then charge through the nose for it because for those people it's either pay or die. For example medications that cost hundreds even though it cost dollars to physically produce (although the money spent on research and development is another matter).

        How else do you explain the increased life expectancy in humans over the years?
        Australia: http://pdhpe12.pbworks.com/f/1223513246/life%20expectancy%20…
        Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-229-x/2009001/c-g/c-g-1/ch1_…
        United states: http://blog.goldenhelix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/life-…

        As to agreeing homeopathy is a joke but non stick cookware and vaccines are a not. What is the method you use to deciding one is a joke and the others are not? Because you think it's true therefore it is?

        Based on your reply about vaccinations, I doubt you bothered to look at the link which showed that the original claim they caused more harm than good was made buy a doctor who was paid off by litigators who had private interest to say they do. To which later there was a full retraction and labeled as dishonest unethical and callous. Yet the stigma of vaccinations are still around because of fear mongering and media sensationalist headlines. Even the main media interview with Desiree Jennings that makes people believe that vaccines are harmful was shown she was faking.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N45-famr_Zk

        In the years after those events vaccinations dropped to 80% in the UK, measles returned to the UK and the first death from measles occurred in 14 years. Here's a graph of measles cases before and after the vaccination was introduced. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Measles_U… Measles by the way has been known to kill a third of an entire population at times. Two thirds of the population in Cuba in 1529. One fifth of the population in Hawaii in the 1850s. But hey, they didn't have to worry about cancer right? And yes you're right, that was ages ago and way before the vaccine but outbreaks still occur and it's thanks to a still high percentage of people who are vaccinated preventing it from spreading like wildfire and medical technology showing us how to deal with it. And that's just measles.

        So yes stories with unsubstantiated facts and parents jumping on the 'it was vaccines that caused it' bandwagon when proven otherwise is absolutely fear mongering.

        You're polarizing the situation saying it's either 'trust what someone tells you 100% and ignore your own intuition' (which is stupid), or 'trust your own intuition and ignore what everyone else says 100%' (which is also stupid.) The best place is to be somewhere in the middle and listen to all the information coming in and deciding whats true or false yourself. Heck where would you even get 'vaccinations cause more harm than good' from if not for believing some guy making up fake facts cause he was paid off by lawyers? Or 'nonstick coatings cause cancer' if it wasn't for some fear mongering media websites trying to get a hit on people reading their stories. And like I said, those things may as well be true, but how do you separate truth from lies without examining the evidence and reasonings yourself as opposed to listening to a whole bunch of rhetoric from whichever side you want to agree with. Contrary to your belief I read the article you linked, I thought about what it said, I concluded that it was only to do with irresponsible manufacturing, not of the use of the pans instead of jumping to conclusions 'oh that must mean the pans themselves are bad'. Instead of listening to people saying that it must be bad so therefore it is without considering the evidence, and I'm right because that's not the agenda of 'big corps'.

        By the way, what is it thanks to that now we know that cigarets are confirmed to cause cancer? That's how science works, incremental improvements over time when built on a foundation of provable facts while getting rid of old facts that are proven wrong. In which case we'll all point and laugh and say 'lulz science, have a windfield' and saying you'll live longer if you don't believe it and go back to the natural ways of ole when our life expectancy has increased from 55 years to 75 years in females and 60 to 80 in males in the last 100 years. Hardly any people even die to cancer before age 50 http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/mort… and even then a lot of those are people who never caught it early enough to seek medial help before they die or are never treated. Yet we're criticizing the very thing that's allowed us to live long enough to be concerned with cancer for creating it? And yet it is also the very thing that is curing it.

      • 

        cheepwun on 31/05/2013 - 13:23

        Actually no I wasn't putting it on a pedestal, I admit it gets things wrong, but overall it gets things right, even after manipulation from money.

        And it's your perfectly reasonable choice to continue eating from non-stick cookware, bread-makers, sandwich-makers and so forth.

        Based on your reply about vaccinations, I doubt you bothered to look at the link which showed that the original claim they caused more harm than good was made buy a doctor who was paid off by litigators who had private interest to say they do.

        I also doubt you've had someone you know living with permanent debilitating illness caused by vaccination. ie. essentially the destroying of a life and destroying of a life who still takes care of him.

        So yes stories with unsubstantiated facts and parents jumping on the 'it was vaccines that caused it' bandwagon when proven otherwise is absolutely fear mongering.

        Mate, if I asked you to substantiate everything in your life or your life choices to scientific facts, it would inevitably lead to "I don't know" because you don't. No single person can substantiate every fact as justification for their choices. It's impossible to live a normal life doing so. Let alone impossible to verify most 'facts' presented to us.

        You are free to continue using non-stick stuff, OK? If you think the truth of science is behind it, great! If it gives you great pleasure. Great!

        The best place is to be somewhere in the middle and listen to all the information coming in and deciding whats true or false yourself.

        Done that, thanks. Not asking you to be like me.

        Life expectancy: yeah, with an severe over-reliance on the public purse never before seen in our collective human histories with ballooning unsustainable health budgets anything is possible…or so it seems.

        It's all roses as nations go bankrupt and the healthy producers pay for the unhealthy to be kept alive on drugs that they shouldn't be taking to start with. While the QUALITY of food and the stuff we cook it in continues to go to 'cheap zone' and modern diseases never seen 100 years ago cut the lives of those that don't make it and weaken the QUALITY of life for those that do.

      • 

        natsumezoku on 08/06/2013 - 23:19

        I also doubt you've had someone you know living with permanent debilitating illness caused by vaccination. ie. essentially the destroying of a life and destroying of a life who still takes care of him.

        I don't, I also doubt many people do because it's incredibly rare. Referring to measles vaccines "Central nervous system (CNS) conditions, including encephalitis and encephalopathy, have been reported with a frequency of less than one per million doses administered." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm The next highest concern for adverse effects was rashes with a 5% incident rate. Next up was a 0-15% incident rate of a fever. Of course anyone can point and say 'my kid had autism because he took a vaccine.' But I could blame anything on anything else, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true unless you can prove cause.

        And those risk rates are compared to the occurrence of measles prior to vaccination, over 400 thousand cases a year in the US alone out of their population of about 260 million, ie one person out of 650 per year had measles prior to the introduction of the vaccine (mortality in developed countries is one in 1000, one in 10 in lesser developed countries)). But now it's considered not necessary because for some reason outbreaks of measles have 'magically' disappeared and not really a huge threat so all of a sudden people stop seeing the importance of vaccines (leading to measles becoming a threat once again as shown in the UK).

        By the way, since you hate money hungry corporations, guess which group gains the most by telling people vaccines cause more harm from good? It's the homeopaths trying to push their own remedies (which don't work). Pretty much everyone is out to make a buck off you, so again it goes back to who do you choose who to trust and how do you choose.

        Life expectancy: yeah, with an severe over-reliance on the public purse never before seen in our collective human histories with ballooning unsustainable health budgets anything is possible…or so it seems.

        The US doesn't have a 'public purse' (yet) for health care and their life expectancy went up all the same.

        It's all roses as nations go bankrupt and the healthy producers pay for the unhealthy to be kept alive on drugs that they shouldn't be taking to start with.

        I agree, preventative measures are cheaper than treating people who are already sick. But your comment right there contradicts itself because simultaneously you would say that it's 'over-medication' if it's from any source that's not considered 'natural' and to a point I would agree, however it's a matter of picking which fights are worth it and having good reason to do so. I don't advocate substantiating everything you do with facts, but I do advocate not fear mongering without solid reasoning and facts. And the modern diseases you talk about didn't exist 100 years ago because people didn't live long enough to the age people generally contract said diseases. Most of them anyway.

        And if by quality of food you mean switch to organic farming, "We aren't going to feed 6 billion people with organic fertilizer," said Nobel Prize-winning plant breeder Norman Borlaug at a 2002 conference. "If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time." It was estimated if we converted most of the land on earth to organic farms, the yield would be enough to feed only about 4 billion people. The planet's population is over 6 billion. However looking up that quote found results that imply further advances technology could/has changed that.

        Done that, thanks. Not asking you to be like me.

        Actually you are by going by your initial comment, then justifying it with every subsequent comment. You're free to make your own choices just like everyone else, however don't be surprised to get a response questioning your reasoning if you voice your opinion in an open forum. And since we went so far off topic, while I do get miffed at people who don't get vaccinations since it puts those people who can't (due to allergies) at risk, I'm not going to advocate forcefully jabbing everyone in the arm with a needle or even bring the topic up when uncalled for.

    • 

      tooblue on 28/05/2013 - 16:30

      No deep fried food? Rather die.

  • 

    Abbycat on 28/05/2013 - 22:38

    Possibly, but chances are you'll have dementia. Cooking in the old school aluminium pans is linked to Alzheimer's disease. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    • 

      cheepwun on 28/05/2013 - 23:43

      Don't cook in aluminium or use non-stick surfaces. It's simpler than you think. Humans have done it for centuries.

• 

  niksrulz on 28/05/2013 - 17:08

  I went to kmart and found 3L Homebrand deep fryer for $27.
  http://www.kmart.com.au/product/homemaker-deep-fryer/114172

  I don't know which one to go for now. Its only for me …. Single ready to mingle !!

• 

  foggy10 on 28/05/2013 - 20:11

  Incidentally, how do those air fryers compare to a deep fryer? Are things like chips, etc… even comparable in crispness?