In article >,
"CSS" > wrote:

> "Stan Marks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "CSS" > wrote:
> >
> >> It's no secret that coal is one of the ingredients used in Kingsford. So
> >> what? Does coal smoke contaminate food or make it taste bad?
> >
> > According to my wife, the chemist who is doing her dissertion research
> > on coal, coal contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are
> > known carcinogens. (To be fair, these compounds are formed when burning
> > wood or charcoal, but the difference is that they are already present in
> > significant quantities in coal.) These compounds enter the body via
> > ingestion, inhalation, or contact with skin and are known to cause
> > cancer, reproductive difficulties, and birth defects.
>
> The research I've seen indicates that PAHs form from incomplete combusion of
> carbon-containing materials.

True. "Incomplete combustion" means that there are still volatile
compounds left in the exhaust gases. It would take fairly high
temperatures - much higher than generally used for cooking - to achieve
*complete* combustion, the byproducts of which would be CO2 and water
vapor.

> I haven't seen anything that states that coal contains high amounts
> of PAH without combustion, or that there is a significatly more PAH
> in foods cooked over coal versus other carbon fuel sources.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't negate the facts! Again,
according to my wife, coal doesn't just "contain" significant amounts of
PAH, it *consists largely* of PAHs in its chemical makeup. Here's a link
that she provided me to a web page that shows a graphical representation
of coal structu

http://chemistry.anl.gov/carbon/coal...roperties.html

Scroll down the page to the first graphic. (Model of Bituminous Coal)
See those molecules in red? Those are PAHs. Then scroll down to the next
graphic. (Network Model) See all the numbered ovals? Those represent
PAHs, also. These compounds are not typically found in sources of
organic carbon (wood, for instance), but - as I stated previously - they
are formed during the combustion of those materials. It shouldn't take
much of a stretch of imagination to see that burning coal produces
*much* more PAH than burning wood, since it is present in coal to begin
with, and that more of those PAHs are available to contaminate your food.

Of course, I realize that we may be talking about very small amounts of
coal - and even miniscule amounts of PAH - in Kingsford briquets, but
how much does it take? I, for one, am not interested in being a "guinea
pig" in some research study to find out.

> Some of the research states that carcinogenic PAHs only form in
> meats cooked at high temperatures.

My wife thinks that highly unlikely. Perhaps you could provide some
documentation?

> > Coal also contains sulfur, which most likely doesn't do much for the
> > taste of the food it comes in contact with.
>
> Sulphur content really depends upon the type of coal, doesn't it? There is
> greater than an order of magnitude difference between low-sulphur and
> high-sulphur coals.

Agreed...

> You can also get varying sulphur content in wood charcoals based on
> the carbonization temperature, also. Thus, some charcoals have a
> greater sulphur content than that of low-sulphur coal.

I'm going to have to ask you to also back that up with some
documentation. My wife doesn't think that you're correct, but then her
specialty is not biochemistry.

> >> Haven't people cooked over coal for oh, a few hundred (if not more)
> >> years?
> >
> > People have used coal as a fuel for cooking in closed stove systems
> > where the exhaust gases are kept separated from the food, but coal used
> > in grilling or other applications where the food is exposed directly to
> > the exhaust? The only incidences that I have heard of are from Asia
> > (Korea, or Hong Kong, perhaps?) where street vendors grill meats over
> > coal fires. I've also heard that the incidence of cancer is higher among
> > those vendors.
>
> The research I've seen states that coal in some developing countries
> contains lead, arsenic, mercury, and other toxic metals, and this is the
> cause of some cancers or other ailments due to ingestion or inhalation when
> used as a fule source for cooking. Coal sold in the US does not contain
> these materials.

So, are you trying to justify the the cancer rates for those street
vendors, or are you saying that it should be okay to grill a steak
directly over a coal fire using US coal?? Let me know how that steak
turns out!

Sure...in addition to PAHs, other impurities - especially heavy metals -
in coal can cause their own health problems. However, if, as you say, US
coal does not contain such substances, that still leaves us with the PAH
problem, doesn't it?

> I don't think we disagree. There is really no way of knowing what exactly
> is the source of wood for lump, and how it is processed. It could be
> flooring scraps, dimensional lumber, treated or not, or wood from trees
> grown in contaminated soil. How would one know or tell the difference?

....or would it even matter, if such contaminants go up in smoke during
the anaerobic combustion process? However, if some contaminants do
remain in the raw charcoal, then it is also likely that the charcoal in
your Kingsford briquets is subject to the same problem, isn't it? Add
that to the rest of the mix, and it makes Kingsford look even less
appealing!

> > When you look at a piece of lump, you *know* that it was once a
> > piece of raw wood, and nothing more. Can you say the same about a
> > briquet of Kingsford?
>
> I can look at a piece of meat and also tell that it was once a cow, but that
> doesn't mean it does not contain something that can make me sick.

Sure, but can you look at a pile of ground meat and tell for sure what's
in it? By your own analogy, lump charcoal is a ribeye steak, and
Kingsford is a pile of unidentifiable "mystery meat".

> I can call Kingsford and ask them about what is in their product.
> They will tell me, as they have countless people who have asked them
> before, much of which has been posted on Usenet. Do you have any
> idea where the lump you buy comes from? The source of the wood, how
> it is processed, what the quality control is, what the composition
> is?

Okay, now you're being argumentative and redundant. I've already stated
my thoughts on that in my previous response, when I said, "lump charcoal
is a basic product that is simple, easy, and economical to produce." I'm
not terribly concerned where the wood comes from, or what kind of wood
it is (as long as it is hardwood), or what its composition is, or what
the quality control or manufacturing process is like. Basically, you
start with a natural product (wood) and, by the process of anaerobic
combustion, you reduce it to almost pure carbon. Relatively simple and
straightforward. Humans have been making and using charcoal for fuel for
thousands of years. Turning it into briquets doesn't necessarily make it
"better". Neither does adding other "stuff" like coal, borax, sodium
nitrate, etc.

Sure, I can call Royal Oak (for instance) and ask them what's in their
lump charcoal, and I'm pretty sure that they would answer, "Well...
wood! What else would it be?". I'm also sure that they would have a good
laugh at my expense, too!

> > Hey...it's all about freedom of choice, man! The trick is to make an
> > informed decision about your choices! How many people will buy a car
> > simply because they "like the way it looks" and not because they have
> > done some research on it? How many will buy a Windows-based computer
> > instead of a Mac simply because it's far and away the most common OS? (I
> > use a Mac, BTW. And how many drink Coke or Pepsi simply because it's
> > what they've always drunk?
>
> Assumptions and statements not based on facts are like that. Statements
> that lump is far superior to Kingsford fall into this category also.

So you're saying that "lump is far superior to Kingsford" is not a
factual statement? Aside from the "other stuff" that's in it, did you
see the camparison that the Naked Whiz website did that shows that lump
charcoal *is* superior to Kingsford? Just in case you didn't:

http://www.nakedwhiz.com/burntimetest/lumpcompare.htm

Looks pretty convincing to me...

> People do know when something tastes good and when it doesn't.

Of course, but the key word there is "taste"...something that is largely
subjective, personal, and unquantifiable. I'm not even claiming that
food cooked with lump charcoal "tastes" better than food cooked with
Kingsford (although I do *believe* that to be the case), and I don't
base my belief that lump is better than - or superior to - Kingsford on
my personal sense of taste. What I DO KNOW, though, is really pretty
simple:

1. Kingsford gives off a rather foul odor when it burns. Lump doesn't.

2. Kingsford contains *added* substances that are of questionable value
that may adversely affect the taste of food and may even be harmful to
your health. Lump doesn't.

3. Kingsford may be cheaper, on a pound-for-pound basis, than most lump
charcoal, but it doesn't burn as long as most lump, which makes it less
economical to use in the long run.

4. Kingsford produces much more ash than any of the lump charcoals
tested. The ash from Kingsford is also considered to be *toxic*. When
you buy Kingsford, consider that you are also paying for all that ash.

Now, we can argue this issue back and forth 'til the cows come home and
never convince the other that our respective stances are "right", so why
don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

Stan