Mark Thorson > wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>>
>> Until you can prove that the aromatics settle out of the
>> liquid propane, and then that they don't burn, I'm just
>> not going to worry about it. You've done neither, and
>> the links you've posted haven't even mentioned those
>> processes.
>
>Here's what the warning says on a 14.1 oz container
>of Bernzomatic brand propane, Model TX9:
>
>"This container and byproducts of the combustion
>of its contents contain chemicals known to the
>state of California to cause cancer, birth defects,
>or other reproductive harm."
>
>So at least Bernzomatic is aware that not all
>of the hydrocarbons are completely combusted
>to harmless carbon dioxide and water.

Okay. Read that again. See the first two words?
"This container." In addition to what's in the
container, they're warning you that the container
itself is a dangerous chemical.

Are you going to stop using the container, too?

And you do know that the "byproducts of the combustion"
of any hydrocarbon may result in the formation of almost
any other hydrocarbon.

Those labels appear on any product with any kind of plastic
or petroleum product. They mean, essentially, nothing.
They indicate that someone managed to convince the
legislature (of California, most notably) that a warning
label of that sort was necessary.

The fact that it's a Bernzomatic propane bottle
adds no meaning to the label. I'm surprised it
doesn't appear on the side of every bottle of
extra-virgin olive oil as well... I wonder how
those guys ducked it.

>In the supply chain, propane is handled as
>a liquid. However, your tank is a "converter",
>that is to say conversion from liquid to gas
>occurs in your tank. That's why heavy ends
>(hydrocarbons with higher molecular weight than
>propane) accumulate in the tank.
>
>Here's what PetroCanada said to a guy inquiring
>about accumulation of impurities in propane-
>powered vehicles.

Just because you didn't, I'm going to point out that all
of the text of your post that follows the link is a quote
from that link.

>Quoting from:
>http://cars.rasoenterprises.com/Propane-Residuals.htm

You might want to reread that. It's mostly about
polymerization of the propylene that appears in propane
gases. Not a word about polycyclic aromatics, carcinogens,
etc.

There's more nasty chemicals evaporating from the asphalt
in front of your house than is getting out of the propane
bottle in your back yard.

>Unfortunately, the current propane specification
>allows rather a lot of oily residues - up to
>500 ppm. I've seen instances of 6 - 12 ppm
>oily contaminants (6 - 12 litres of oil from a
>million litres of propane used in a high volume
>heating situation) being enough to cause problems
>with build-up of the oil in the bottom of large
>converters.

My little low-volume converter isn't frightening anyone.

And an "oily substance" at the bottom of my tank isn't
going to become a major source of volatile gases. It
may be "smelly" but that doesn't take much. Almost all
of those contaminants will stay in the tank. Trapped
there by the non-dangerous portion of the oil, in fact...

You've reacted poorly to half-baked information.

Grill bottles aren't causing cancer, whether they're
run empty or not.

If they were, you'd probably see a label on each one
saying NEVER RUN THIS EMPTY or something like it.

Maybe you could talk the California legislature into
demanding it happen.

--Blair

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:
>Mark wrote to Blair:
>
>> You don't know squat about combustion.
>
>Now THIS is what I call a flame war!

You want him medium-rare or shall I take him to Pittsburgh?

--Blair

wrote:
> In rec.food.cooking, Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In rec.food.cooking, biig > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm looking forward to trying some slow roasting and I
> > >> have a couple of pork tenderloin in the freezer. Can't wait.....Sharon
> > >
> > > Why would you slow roast a pork tenderloin?
> > >
>
> > 80% chance they are loins, not tenderloins too.
>
> Probaby. But the question would still stand as to why you would
> slow-roast a loin roast.

Why do people refer to gas grilling as barbecue?
>
> I like to grill them until the outside is nice and golden brown ad seared,
> and then I move them off the heat to "bake" until the Polder goes "beep".

It took me many years to get over the "pork has to be cooked well" rule
from my childhood. I still like it no less than medium, whereas beef I
prefer rare, and lamb medium rare to medium. Trichinosis is ancient
history, and I'm sure that good cuts of pork would be best medium rare,
but still.
>
> --
> A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
> --Edward R. Murrow

Hey, that describes the current situation rather well.

--Bryan

In rec.food.cooking, Food Snob > wrote:


> Why do people refer to gas grilling as barbecue?

Because they speak imprecisely.

> It took me many years to get over the "pork has to be cooked well" rule
> from my childhood.

Thanks for sharing.


--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

Mark Thorson > wrote:
>"Blair P. Houghton" wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> >Here's what the warning says on a 14.1 oz container
>> >of Bernzomatic brand propane, Model TX9:
>> >
>> >"This container and byproducts of the combustion
>> >of its contents contain chemicals known to the
>> >state of California to cause cancer, birth defects,
>> >or other reproductive harm."
>> >
>> >So at least Bernzomatic is aware that not all
>> >of the hydrocarbons are completely combusted
>> >to harmless carbon dioxide and water.
>>
>> Okay. Read that again. See the first two words?
>> "This container." In addition to what's in the
>> container, they're warning you that the container
>> itself is a dangerous chemical.
>>
>> Are you going to stop using the container, too?
>
>You have unusually poor reading comprehension.

That erroneous claim is about to bite you on the ass.

>It is not the container itself which the warning
>says is a hazardous material. The verb "contain"
>applies both to chemicals in the container and
>chemicals in the byproducts.

The conjunction "and" in "this container and byproducts of
the combustion of its contents" states clearly that the
warning applies to both the byproducts of the contents
and to the container.

>How could you be
>so incredibly dense you'd interpret it any
>other way?

That's what it says. Talk to your lawyer before asking
anyone what it actually means. He'll beat you over the
head with your own cane.

>One might suspect you're being
>delibrately dense, which would qualify you
>as dishonest in addition to being a fool.

You're projecting.

>I've provided plenty of evidence to back up
>my point and you have provided none.

Your "evidence" consisted of an unrelated discussion of the
collection of goop in automotive converters operating at
certain temperatures. You provided no evidence that this
goop is toxic, no evidence that this collection applies
to grill bottles, and no evidence that aromatics are not
burned when the flame temperature is a large multiple of
their autoignition temperature.

>But
>that's about par for you. All bluff and
>bluster and no facts.

I gave you the facts and you ignored them. You threw unrelated
wikipedia articles at me and then dug around until you found
some blather about paraffin and diesel oil.

Face it. You're scared of a boogeyman in your backyard.
You're a blithering idiot. Sell your grill before you
burn down your house with it.

--Blair