Mark Thorson > wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>>
>> Those look flammable. I'm guessing that they're
>> destroyed long before they get near the food.
>
>Highly branched aliphatic hydrocarbons burn
>cleanly. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
>such as napthalene, anthracene, and their
>derivatives are much more resistant to
>initiation of combustion.
>
>There's some relevant information he
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
>
>There will still be uncombusted and
>partially combusted molecules which
>make it past the flame front.
>
>But if you choose to continue living in
>a fool's paradise, don't let yourself be
>dissuaded by me. You can slather yourself
>with 10-year-old duck confit for all I care.

Okay, first, don't throw the ****ing Wikipedia at anyone
and claim you're smart. It's where the truth goes to be
buried under petty political nonsense.

Second, don't use links that don't say anything about the
topic you're trying to discuss.

Third, that blue flame in the burner is at a very high
temperature. Thousands of degrees. The autoignition
temperatures of the two molecules you mentioned are much
lower than that. Hundreds of degrees. The reaction
constant will point to near total combustion.

Fourth, heating the food to a smoking temperature will
create more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons than could
have got past the burner element of a gas grill. This will
occur on a charcoal grill, or in your frying pan. But the
world will not be giving up on the Maillard reaction in
our lifetimes.

Your duck's discomfiture is your own damned problem.

--Blair