In article >,
"CSS" > wrote:

> Kingsford is fine.

I've heard, from a very reliable source, that Kingsford puts anthracite
coal dust (a known carcinogen) in their briquettes, as well as stuff
like borax and limestone dust. Makes for a very even-burning briquette,
if you don't mind the smell and the added risk of cancer.

> Once you get some experience with it, you can move onto
> lump and enjoy the benefits of sparking and uneven burning.

In my experience, most of the sparking happens in the chimney starter,
and I generally enjoy the fireworks! As for uneven burning, I haven't
experienced that problem. And, I much prefer the pleasant aroma of
clean-burning lump to the stench of Kingsford!

YMMV

Stan Marks

"Stan Marks" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "CSS" > wrote:
>
> > Kingsford is fine.
>
> I've heard, from a very reliable source, that Kingsford puts anthracite
> coal dust (a known carcinogen) in their briquettes, as well as stuff
> like borax and limestone dust. Makes for a very even-burning briquette,
> if you don't mind the smell and the added risk of cancer.



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®

On 22-Jun-2005, "TFM®" > 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
> > coal dust (a known carcinogen) in their briquettes, as well as stuff
> > like borax and limestone dust. Makes for a very even-burning briquette,
> > if you don't mind the smell and the added risk of cancer.
>
>
>
> 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 saw that same episode. It was enough to gag a maggot. I suspect that
the coal adds immensly to their profitability, so the end justifies the
means,
'eh?
--
The Brick® said that (Work harder; millions on welfare depend on you. )

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

TFM® wrote:
<snip>
> 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®
>
>

GASP! You said the "B" word! ;-0

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

> 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

"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

> coal dust (a known carcinogen) in their briquettes, as well as stuff
> like borax and limestone dust. Makes for a very even-burning briquette,
> if you don't mind the smell and the added risk of cancer.
snip
> Stan Marks

Stan,
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.

"I read a newsgroup on the Internet called, alt.food.barbecue. On it there
is a message that is citical of Kingsford charcoal and I was wondering if
you could respond to it. Here is a part of the posting:

In article >,
"CSS" > wrote:

> Kingsford is fine.

I've heard, from a very reliable source, that Kingsford puts anthracite
coal dust (a known carcinogen) in their briquettes, as well as stuff
like borax and limestone dust. Makes for a very even-burning briquette,
if you don't mind the smell and the added risk of cancer. "

I woud like to know what your standard charcoal is composed of and how do
you control the contents of the charcoal. The above posting subject of what
is in Kingsford has been stated before and I would like to have it clarified
please.

Sincerely,
Mike Willsey"

Lets see what they have to say about it.


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

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

"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®

"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.

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

"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

"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®