"Piedmont" > wrote

> > > Kingsford is fine.
> >
> > I've heard, from a very reliable source, that Kingsford puts anthracite
>
> Stan, please post you source. thanks


> Lets see what they have to say about it.



Do you doubt me and Bricker? We both saw saw the same show on the Food
Network during their grillin' and chillin' week.

Not only do they put coal in their product, they're absolutely, completely
unashamed of it.

****in' assmunches.


TFM®

"Stan Marks" > wrote

> I will be very interested in their response.
>
> Stan


From http://www.cbbqa.com/wood/Kingsford.html

Kingsford Brand Charcoal ingredients
By JOE O'CONNELL, cbbqa past President

Kingsford Brand Charcoal Briquettes are the best selling briquettes in the
U.S. They are also widely used by many veteran barbecue experts, including
cooks at barbecue contests.

Some claim that Kingsford briquettes have an unpleasant odor, especially
when they are first lit, and many wonder if they contain any petroleum
products. After an investigation, it has been determined that neither
Kingsford Brand nor any other known commercial charcoal briquettes contain
any petroleum products.

Kingsford ingredients
Kingsford sends a form letter in response to consumers' questions about the
ingredients. According to the form letter sent in August, 2000, Kingsford
contains the following ingredients:

a.. wood char
b.. mineral char
c.. mineral carbon
d.. limestone
e.. starch
f.. borax
g.. sodium nitrate
h.. sawdust

From http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/prod.../charcoal.html

Kingsford ingredients:
Wood Charcoal, Lignite Charcoal, Anthracite Coal, Limestone, Starch,
Borax, Sawdust and Sodium Nitrate





From http://www.cbbqa.com/grilling/CharcoalFAQ.html



A Kingsford Company spokeswoman stated: "Briquettes are preferred by
Americans for their uniform size and stable heat." She mentions their
ingredients, which include: powdered charcoal, anthracite coal for long
burning, limestone to create ash, starch as binders, and sawdust and sodium
nitrate for quick lighting. "The starch is perfectly natural and the coal is
high-quality."







Argue all you want about it folks. It's shit. Pure worthless shit. If
you use it, you're producing second rate BBQ. And it might even be poison.



TFM®

"Piedmont" > wrote:
> "Stan Marks" > wrote in message
> > "Piedmont" > wrote:
> >
> > > I believe the problems of lump being inconsistat is often the lump is
> > > so small that it burns up quicker but if you sort the lump all the
> > > time and hand pick the pieces, you can always have a consistant burn.
> > > But if you just dump the bag as you go, bigger pieces tend to rise to
> > > the top.
> >
> > I think it far more likely that the smaller pieces "settle to the
> > bottom" of the bag.
> >
> Oh so you don't believe large lump has the ability to "levitate" up
> through the bag,,, well let me tell you Stan! (grin)

Technically, Stan is right. Smaller pieces tend to have smaller voids and
so they will gravitate to the bottom. Concomitantly, the big lumps will
rise to the top, as with politicians.

--
Nick. To support severely wounded and disabled War on Terror Veterans and
their families go to: http://saluteheroes.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !

"Stan Marks" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Piedmont" > wrote:
>
>> "Stan Marks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "CSS" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Kingsford is fine.
>> >
>> > I've heard, from a very reliable source, that Kingsford puts anthracite
>>
>> Stan, please post you source. thanks
>
> There is no one source, Mike. (I guess I should have said, "...from very
> reliable sources...", although I do consider both this newsgroup and the
> Smokering BBQ mailing list to be reliable "individual" sources. Do a
> Google search for "Kingsford ingredients" on this newsgroup and you will
> find plenty of documentation on the subject. It has also been discussed
> on the Smokering BBQ mailing list.
>
> Just to make it interesting, though, my wife is a chemist working on her
> doctorate and doing her dissertation research on coal, so I asked her to
> run an analysis of Kingsford and see if it does have any coal in it. She
> will also analyse lump charcoal and other brands of briquets for
> comparison. Should be interesting. Stay tuned!
>
> On the question of Kingsford's burning properties compared to lump
> charcoals, the Naked Whiz website has such a comparison. Check it out at:
>
> http://www.nakedwhiz.com/burntimetest/lumpcompare.htm
>
> Note that Kingsford ranked last in burn time by weight, only middling in
> burn time by volume and that it produces more ash than the four
> different brands of lump tested *combined*! (I also feel compelled to
> add that the Kingsford ash is considered to be toxic.
>
>> Here is a copy of the email that I sent to Kingsford regarding the above
>> comments, of which has been purported more than once here on AFB. They
>> say
>> they will respond within 48 hours.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> I will be very interested in their response.
>
> Stan

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? Haven't
people cooked over coal for oh, a few hundred (if not more) years? Does the
use of coal make it any less of a product than lump? Some lump users have
reported finding pieces of old hardwood flooring in their bags-- does a bit
of shellac or varnish in your cook concern you? What guarantee do you have
as to the contents or purity of any type of charcoal? Do you think that a
product made in the US by a major company (that you can contact with
questions) might be subject to stricter control than a brown paper bag of
charcoal marked "made in Mexico?"

People who consider themselves to be "BBQ experts" like to jump on the
bandwagon and trash Kingsford. It's a product that has good points and bad
points, like any product that has multiple suppliers. Ford and Chevy, IBM
and Mac, Coke and Pepsi, on and on...I've used it, I continue to use it, and
I also use lump. And in about ten years of barbecuing, I've never had any
say "Ewww-- did you cook this over Kingsford?"

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.

Coal also contains sulfur, which most likely doesn't do much for the
taste of the food it comes in contact with.

> 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.

> Does the use of coal make it any less of a product than lump? Some
> lump users have reported finding pieces of old hardwood flooring in
> their bags-- does a bit of shellac or varnish in your cook concern
> you?

Not really, for two reasons:

1. Although I have found pieces of lump charcoal that are obviously
lumber scraps, I assume (and I could be wrong on this that those
scraps come from lumber mills and are left over from the production of
finished lumber. I do not know of any charcoal producers that use "old
hardwood flooring" and such in their products. Some of that scrap might
also come from furniture and cabinet manufacturers, but I can't imagine
that they would waste finish on raw lumber before it is cut or shaped to
make the finished products. If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate
someone setting me straight!

2. The process of making charcoal burns off almost all but the carbon
content of the wood, which would suggest that anything like shellac or
varnish would be burned away, as well. The only thing that might give me
pause for concern, though, would be the use of wood that has been
treated with preservatives or pesticides that contain heavy metals, like
copper, chromium, or arsenic. Again, I can't imagine any responsible
charcoal producer knowingly using such lumber, if only because of the
potential for devastating lawsuits.

> What guarantee do you have as to the contents or purity of any type
> of charcoal? Do you think that a product made in the US by a major
> company (that you can contact with questions) might be subject to
> stricter control than a brown paper bag of charcoal marked "made in
> Mexico?"

I would hope so, but the only "guarantee" that I can depend on is the
fact that lump charcoal is a basic product that is simple, easy, and
economical to produce. 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?

> People who consider themselves to be "BBQ experts" like to jump on the
> bandwagon and trash Kingsford. It's a product that has good points and bad
> points, like any product that has multiple suppliers. Ford and Chevy, IBM
> and Mac, Coke and Pepsi, on and on...I've used it, I continue to use it, and
> I also use lump.

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?

If you are happy with Kingsford, that's cool. More power to you. I'm not
only happy with my choice of lump charcoal, I'm also convinced that it
is better for me and my family than Kingsford. (...and yes, I used
Kingsford for years, before I "discovered" lump.

> And in about ten years of barbecuing, I've never had any say "Ewww--
> did you cook this over Kingsford?"

How many of those people would have known the difference, anyway?

Stan

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


> 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. 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.
>
>> 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.


>> Does the use of coal make it any less of a product than lump? Some
>> lump users have reported finding pieces of old hardwood flooring in
>> their bags-- does a bit of shellac or varnish in your cook concern
>> you?
>
> Not really, for two reasons:
>
> 1. Although I have found pieces of lump charcoal that are obviously
> lumber scraps, I assume (and I could be wrong on this that those
> scraps come from lumber mills and are left over from the production of
> finished lumber. I do not know of any charcoal producers that use "old
> hardwood flooring" and such in their products. Some of that scrap might
> also come from furniture and cabinet manufacturers, but I can't imagine
> that they would waste finish on raw lumber before it is cut or shaped to
> make the finished products. If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate
> someone setting me straight!
>
> 2. The process of making charcoal burns off almost all but the carbon
> content of the wood, which would suggest that anything like shellac or
> varnish would be burned away, as well. The only thing that might give me
> pause for concern, though, would be the use of wood that has been
> treated with preservatives or pesticides that contain heavy metals, like
> copper, chromium, or arsenic. Again, I can't imagine any responsible
> charcoal producer knowingly using such lumber, if only because of the
> potential for devastating lawsuits.
>

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?

>> What guarantee do you have as to the contents or purity of any type
>> of charcoal? Do you think that a product made in the US by a major
>> company (that you can contact with questions) might be subject to
>> stricter control than a brown paper bag of charcoal marked "made in
>> Mexico?"
>
> I would hope so, but the only "guarantee" that I can depend on is the
> fact that lump charcoal is a basic product that is simple, easy, and
> economical to produce. 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. 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?

>> People who consider themselves to be "BBQ experts" like to jump on the
>> bandwagon and trash Kingsford. It's a product that has good points and
>> bad
>> points, like any product that has multiple suppliers. Ford and Chevy,
>> IBM
>> and Mac, Coke and Pepsi, on and on...I've used it, I continue to use it,
>> and
>> I also use lump.
>
> 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.

> If you are happy with Kingsford, that's cool. More power to you. I'm not
> only happy with my choice of lump charcoal, I'm also convinced that it
> is better for me and my family than Kingsford. (...and yes, I used
> Kingsford for years, before I "discovered" lump.
>
>> And in about ten years of barbecuing, I've never had any say "Ewww--
>> did you cook this over Kingsford?"
>
> How many of those people would have known the difference, anyway?

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

"Stan Marks" > wrote in message
...
snip
> Just to make it interesting, though, my wife is a chemist working on her
> doctorate and doing her dissertation research on coal, so I asked her to
> run an analysis of Kingsford and see if it does have any coal in it. She
> will also analyse lump charcoal and other brands of briquets for
> comparison. Should be interesting. Stay tuned!

Excellent! Now we all know where to go for all of are strange and bizarre Q
chemical questions! (lol)

> On the question of Kingsford's burning properties compared to lump
> charcoals, the Naked Whiz website has such a comparison. Check it out at:
>
> http://www.nakedwhiz.com/burntimetest/lumpcompare.htm

Very interesting article, lots of good data! Txs to NW!

>
> [SNIP]
>
> I will be very interested in their response.
>
> Stan


--
Mike Willsey (Piedmont)
The Practical Bar B Q'r at,
http://groups.msn.com/ThePracticalBarBQr/_whatsnew.msnw

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

In article
>,
Stan Marks > wrote:

> 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.

OOPS! I left off an important point!

5. I enjoy the "fireworks" (sparking) from lump! Oh...and I also like
the "tinkling" sound it makes!
>
> 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

Stan Marks said

> OOPS! I left off an important point!
>
> 5. I enjoy the "fireworks" (sparking) from lump! Oh...and I also
> like the "tinkling" sound it makes!

This is the second time I've seen a reference to lump sparking. I'm
a newby with lump, does some particular kinds spark? I've used
Cowboy lump twice and it's never sparked?

Interesting thread BTW.



--
Better living through smoking.

In article >,
"Heavy_Smoker" > wrote:

> This is the second time I've seen a reference to lump sparking. I'm
> a newby with lump, does some particular kinds spark? I've used
> Cowboy lump twice and it's never sparked?

The bag of lump from BBQ Galore was shooting off fireworks for a bit,
but stopped before I dumped it from the chimney starter in to the WSM.

It was my first time with the WSM and lump, I wasn't sure what was going
on.

In article >,
"Heavy_Smoker" > wrote:

> Stan Marks said
>
> > OOPS! I left off an important point!
> >
> > 5. I enjoy the "fireworks" (sparking) from lump! Oh...and I also
> > like the "tinkling" sound it makes!
>
> This is the second time I've seen a reference to lump sparking. I'm
> a newby with lump, does some particular kinds spark? I've used
> Cowboy lump twice and it's never sparked?

The Royal Oak that I use sparks a bit, but it's no big deal.
>
> Interesting thread BTW.

"Stan Marks" > wrote in message
...
> 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


Frankly, I can't tell anything from that poor-quality graphic, can you?
What are the particular PAHs that are shown in the graphic? Which ones are
carcinogenic?

My understanding is that PAHs are a generic name for any one of many
aromatic hydrocarbons, such as naphthalene, pyrene, and others. See:
http://www.ecochem.biz/PAH/pah_primer.htm


>
> 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.

I'd rather see the facts than use my imagination. Your assumption appears
to be that because coal contains PAHs, it must emit more PAHs when it burns
than other materials. If that is indeed the case, can you explain why
woodsmoke from a wood stove contains far more benzo[a]pyrene (BaP, a known
PAH carcinogen) than a comparable coal fire? See:

http://www.webcom.com/~bi/pah-comp-wood-coal.htm

That really doesn't support your assumption, does it? In fact, it shows
that the method of burning probably has a more significant impact on the
amount of emitted PAH than the fuel source (fireplace versus wood stove).
Damn- science is never simple, is it?


> 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.

The sulphur in coal varies from about 0.5 % to close to 10%. Here's an
analysis of one particular type of charcoal:
Fix Carbon : 80.00%
Moisture : 12.00%
Volatile matter: 14.50%
Ash content : 0.25%
Sulphur content: 0.70%

This particular charcoal has more sulphur than low-sulphur coal, would you
agree?

>
>> >> 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!

My point is that the research I've seen connects cancers in developing
countries caused by coal fires to the toxic metals found in those coals.
EPA regulations in the US prevent the burning of coals with toxic metal
content, regulations that do not apply in developing countries. Do you have
data that indicates these cancers are caused by PAH emitted fom the caol
used as cooking fuel?


> 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".

Now you're just being silly...


>> 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!

Ask them for an analysis of their product and post the result here. I'm
sure we'd all like to know, and it's better tthan speculating about the
quality of the product, don't you think? .


>
>> > 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...

Not to me. That's only one man's subjective opinion. You could also find
at least another person that says lump is inferior to Kingsford because it
burns more evenly and doesn't spark. My point is that blanket statements
that certain products are "better" than others are always subjective, and
many times are not based on facts.

>
>> 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.

You haven't started many lump fires, have you?


>
> 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.

Oh, right, your PAH and sulphur contentions.

>
> 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.

I guess, but that does that have to do with the supposed dangerous aspects
of cooking over Kingsford?


> 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.

What is your source that the ash is *toxic*?


>
> 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?
>

Agreed.

In article >,
"CSS" > wrote:

> > 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
>
>
> Frankly, I can't tell anything from that poor-quality graphic, can you?
> What are the particular PAHs that are shown in the graphic? Which ones are
> carcinogenic?
>
> My understanding is that PAHs are a generic name for any one of many
> aromatic hydrocarbons, such as naphthalene, pyrene, and others. See:
>
> http://www.ecochem.biz/PAH/pah_primer.htm

Okay, I'm going to let my wife, Giselle, respond to this one:

"As you correctly understood, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) is
a generic term for any fused system of aromatic carbon rings -
aromaticity being a particular arrangement of double bonds in the
system that gives it additional stability. The number of carbon rings
(mostly 6-carbon rings) in the system can be anywhere from 2 rings
upwards. I think the graphic, from the website of the premier coal
research laboratory in the United States, Argonne National Lab, albeit
somewhat small (you can download and increase the size if you have a
graphics viewing program), does show quite clearly the large number of
fused aromatic rings in coal structure - the smaller molecules in red
being a more volatile fraction, the rest being part of a large polymer-
like macromolecular network. If you compare this structure with the
structures on the website to which you referred, the similarity is
obvious. The structure of coal is very heterogenous, and the graphic
only represents a possible combination of polycyclic aromatic units, so
one could not pick out any one in particular, claiming that it is a
carcinogenic component of all coal. Also, the toxicity of many PAHs is
not known. However, during the combustion of coal, bonds within these
units are broken as the coal reacts with oxygen, and, if the combustion
is incomplete, a large variety of smaller PAHs can also be formed, some
of them being known carcinogens.

"Charcoal does not contain PAHs. Good charcoal consists mainly of pure
carbon, the structure of which is still the subject of debate. It is
possibly amorphous, having no particular structure. Recent findings
indicate that it might consist of small curved sheets built up of 5- to
7-membered rings, not aromatic in character. If tar, a heterogenous
substance with varying composition, depending on the origin of the
charcoal, is present, it does not consist of PAHs. (The "tar" is a very
desirable product, also having medicinal applications.) It is possible
that some PAHs could form from these substances if combustion were to
take place under oxygen-poor conditions.

"Taking these facts into consideration, it seems logical to me that if
the combustion of pure charcoal is compared to the combustion of coal,
under the same conditions, as used for a BBQ, more PAHs are likely to
be emitted from the coal, as it already contains these substances,
whereas they would have to first be formed from charcoal.

Giselle Marks
Graduate Research Assistant
Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of Southern Mississippi

> > 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.
>
> I'd rather see the facts than use my imagination. Your assumption appears
> to be that because coal contains PAHs, it must emit more PAHs when it burns
> than other materials.

Yes...

> If that is indeed the case, can you explain why woodsmoke from a wood
> stove contains far more benzo[a]pyrene (BaP, a known PAH carcinogen)
> than a comparable coal fire? See:
>
> http://www.webcom.com/~bi/pah-comp-wood-coal.htm
>
> That really doesn't support your assumption, does it? In fact, it shows
> that the method of burning probably has a more significant impact on the
> amount of emitted PAH than the fuel source (fireplace versus wood stove).
> Damn- science is never simple, is it?

I think you partly answered your own question. Yes, the *method* of
burning (hence, also, the temperature) probably affects the respective
amounts of PAH. Notice that the unrestricted-air-flow, wood-burning
fireplace had the lowest overall emissions, followed by those from
coal-fired heaters. Now, being unfamiliar with coal heaters, I had to do
a search to get an idea of what this study is talking about and the
conditions under which the coal is burned. I found an interesting
article in the Mother Earth News archives, Issue # 135 -
December/January 1993 (http://tinyurl.com/ahlfl):

"...you couldn't burn coal in an airtight, oxygen-starved, and smoky
mode if you tried. Coal burns much hotter than wood, and so needs a
firebox with a heat-retaining and burnout-resistent firebrick liner.
Coal must rest on an open grate permitting a constant oxygen flow
through the bed from below, or the fire will go out. Air must also be
introduced to the top of the coal bed so combustibles in the smoke will
burn. You can't close the draft of a properly designed coal stove. You
can't improve its efficiency much either‹60 percent is about tops."

Now, to be fair, this does contradict a statement in the article you
referred to ("A wood stove or coal stove is air (oxygen) starved."), but
I wonder if the authors were very knowledgeable of the design
differences between a coal heater and an restricted-draft wood-burning
heater. In any event, coal heaters operate at hotter temps, right?
(Some, such as in a coal furnace, may even use forced-air feed to get
the temps even higher and extract the maximum BTUs.) This suggests to me
that most of the PAHs are being largely burned off, hence the low
amounts of PAH compared to restricted-draft wood-burning heaters.

Now, this brings a couple more questions to mind:

1. Do the coal particles in Kingsford burn at higher temps, or do they
burn at the lower temps of the charcoal? I don't know the answer to
that, but if the former is true, then the coal content may provide only
negligible amounts of PAH. If the latter is true , the PAH content could
be considerably higher and, therefore, more of a health risk. Until
someone proves otherwise, I'm betting on the latter instance. (...and
Giselle also thinks this may be the case.)

2. How much PAH does raw, lump charcoal produce? Again, I don't know the
answer, but (according to Giselle) it should be the lowest of all, since
most of the volatiles have been burned off, leaving mostly carbon. If we
are wrong and lump charcoal does produce significant amounts of PAH,
then stands to reason that Kingsford, with its coal and other
ingredients, would most likely produce more PAH than lump.

(BTW, for anyone else who checked that link and might have become
alarmed at the copious amounts of carcinogens emitted by those
wood-burning heaters, please note that the study in questions dates back
to *1985* - three years before the EPA imposed tighter restrictions on
such heaters in order to reduce emissions.

> The sulphur in coal varies from about 0.5 % to close to 10%. Here's an
> analysis of one particular type of charcoal:
> Fix Carbon : 80.00%
> Moisture : 12.00%
> Volatile matter: 14.50%
> Ash content : 0.25%
> Sulphur content: 0.70%
>
> This particular charcoal has more sulphur than low-sulphur coal, would you
> agree?

That depends. What is your source for these figures? (I'm certainly not
about to agree with data from an anonymous, undocumented/unreferenced
source!) And what "one particular type of charcoal" was measured? Lump?
From what kind of wood and by what manufacturing process? Briquets?
(Maybe even Kingsford? There are a lot of possible variables in
question, here.

> My point is that the research I've seen connects cancers in developing
> countries caused by coal fires to the toxic metals found in those coals.
> EPA regulations in the US prevent the burning of coals with toxic metal
> content, regulations that do not apply in developing countries. Do you have
> data that indicates these cancers are caused by PAH emitted fom the caol
> used as cooking fuel?

No, and I never claimed to have any such data. As I said before, I have
*heard* (or read) that such was the case, and I only mentioned it in
response to your idea of people "cooking over coal fires" (...as in
"grilling"?).

> >> 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".
>
> Now you're just being silly...

Hey, man, it was your idea!

> > 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!
>
> Ask them for an analysis of their product and post the result here. I'm
> sure we'd all like to know, and it's better tthan speculating about the
> quality of the product, don't you think?

Well, in case you missed it, I've already enlisted my wife to run
comparison analyses of lump charcoal and Kingsford. Hopefully, she will
be able to get to it next week. (Gotta find a couple pieces of
Kingsford, though, since I don't buy the stuff.

> > http://www.nakedwhiz.com/burntimetest/lumpcompare.htm
> >
> > Looks pretty convincing to me...
>
> Not to me. That's only one man's subjective opinion.

Subjective?? It appears to me that he is being quite objective and
methodical in his tests! What did you find lacking?

> You could also find at least another person that says lump is
> inferior to Kingsford because it burns more evenly and doesn't spark.

And others, like myself, would say that those are non-issues...

> My point is that blanket statements that certain products are
> "better" than others are always subjective, and many times are not
> based on facts.

Certainly, but to which "blanket statements" are you referring?

> >> 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.
>
> You haven't started many lump fires, have you?

I've used lump charcoal exclusively for the past four years, so I have
started plenty of them! The first time I used it, I immediately noticed
that it didn't stink like Kingsford and, in fact, smelled quite pleasant.

> > 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.
>
> Oh, right, your PAH and sulphur contentions.

Yes.

> > 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.
>
> I guess, but that does that have to do with the supposed dangerous aspects
> of cooking over Kingsford?

Nothing at all. I merely mentioned it as one of the facts that I do know
about Kingsford and one of the reasons I choose to use lump.

> > 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.
>
> What is your source that the ash is *toxic*?

Coal ash is toxic.

http://tinyurl.com/djytm

http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/wastecoal

Kingsford contains coal; therefore, Kingsford ash is toxic.

> > 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?
> >
>
> Agreed.

Okay, then. I'm done with it!

Stan

Steve Calvin wrote:
> Stan Marks wrote:
>
>> I've heard it said that the only reason you see so much Kingsford at
>> such events is because they give it away for promotional reasons. I
>> use Royal Oak lump charcoal with excellent results, and I wouldn't use
>> Kingsford if they *paid* me to do so!
>>
>> Stan Marks
>
>
> I use R.O. as well. Pretty good stuff.
>
where do you buy it in calif.?

fishman99 wrote:
> Steve Calvin wrote:
>
>> Stan Marks wrote:
>>
>>> I've heard it said that the only reason you see so much Kingsford at
>>> such events is because they give it away for promotional reasons. I
>>> use Royal Oak lump charcoal with excellent results, and I wouldn't
>>> use Kingsford if they *paid* me to do so!
>>>
>>> Stan Marks
>>
>>
>>
>> I use R.O. as well. Pretty good stuff.
>>
> where do you buy it in calif.?

Sorry - I don't live in Ca. Someone out that way should know though.

--
Steve
Ever notice that putting the and IRS together makes "theirs"?

"Steve Calvin" > wrote in message
...

> > where do you buy it in calif.?
>
> Sorry - I don't live in Ca. Someone out that way should know though.

Shit, he doesnt say where in California. Saying in California is like saying
"somewhere in the original 13 colonies". Crescent City aint Redding ain't
Coalinga aint San Diego.

> where do you buy it in calif.?

Fish Dude,

Though I never used Lazarri b/c I was visiting Ca. it looked like a good lump. I
know BevMo carried in the East Bay area and saw it in a couple of grocery
stores.


T

> Dude, they were showing on the Food Network a while back how Kingsford was
> made.
>
> They almost sounded proud that coal was added in one of the final steps.
>
> Anybody that keeps buying that crap deserves what they get. I mean if they
> can't smell the nastiness, they probably can't distinguish real bbq from
> boiled ribs anyway.

TFM, I guess we saw the same show. In addition to the coal they carbonize cedar
to put in it.


T

"Heavy_Smoker" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Marks said
>
>> OOPS! I left off an important point!
>>
>> 5. I enjoy the "fireworks" (sparking) from lump! Oh...and I also
>> like the "tinkling" sound it makes!
>
> This is the second time I've seen a reference to lump sparking. I'm
> a newby with lump, does some particular kinds spark? I've used
> Cowboy lump twice and it's never sparked?

Fire up some mesquite lump at night and turn off the lights. It's real purty.


T

I know that we agreed to disagree about the Lump vs. Kingsford issue,
but I really would like to have a response about this particular item
you brought up:

In article
>,
Stan Marks > wrote:

> > The sulphur in coal varies from about 0.5 % to close to 10%. Here's an
> > analysis of one particular type of charcoal:
> > Fix Carbon : 80.00%
> > Moisture : 12.00%
> > Volatile matter: 14.50%
> > Ash content : 0.25%
> > Sulphur content: 0.70%
> >
> > This particular charcoal has more sulphur than low-sulphur coal, would you
> > agree?
>
> That depends. What is your source for these figures? (I'm certainly not
> about to agree with data from an anonymous, undocumented/unreferenced
> source!) And what "one particular type of charcoal" was measured? Lump?
> From what kind of wood and by what manufacturing process? Briquets?
> (Maybe even Kingsford? There are a lot of possible variables in
> question, here.

--
Stan Marks

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

Stan Marks wrote:

> 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.


Are we comparing coal to wood or are we comparing coal to charcoal,
there is a difference.

FatBill

In article >,
Bill Horner > wrote:

> Stan Marks wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Are we comparing coal to wood or are we comparing coal to charcoal,
> there is a difference.
>
> FatBill
>

Actually, Bill, the discussion/debate was about the merits (or lack,
thereof? of Kingsford charcoal, especially with regard to some
questionable ingredients, such as anthracite and bituminous coal dust,
that Kingsford puts into its briquets. In this particular exchange, I
was pointing out that coal contains carcinogeous chemical compounds
called PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) that are not present in
raw wood *or* good quality lump charcoal; therefore, the inclusion of
coal dust in Kingsford briquets means that they will produce carcinogens
that lump charcoal will not.

--
Stan Marks

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.