| bobg@ericmarder.com |
Okay, this is my last of three questions (for now :).
Everyone agrees that overheated teflon can be lethal.
I know several bird owners who say that as long as there is food in the
pan and the flame is not higher than medium, they have never had a
problem. That the only real danger is if you "forget" a pan on the
stove or crank it way up. One friend has a Macaw and has used teflon
for 20 years (taking care not to overheat it, of course).
Other people scour their homes -- removing everything that could
possibly have been made in a country that produces teflon products.
What is the real deal on this. If one is prudent and doesn't overheat
the pan, is there still significant risk -- or is basically a
precautionary measure.
Thanks,
Bob
|
|
|
| Mike |
<bobg@ericmarder.com> wrote in message news:1104767654.619774.265210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Okay, this is my last of three questions (for now :).
>
> Everyone agrees that overheated teflon can be lethal.
>
> I know several bird owners who say that as long as there is food in the
> pan and the flame is not higher than medium, they have never had a
> problem. That the only real danger is if you "forget" a pan on the
> stove or crank it way up. One friend has a Macaw and has used teflon
> for 20 years (taking care not to overheat it, of course).
>
> Other people scour their homes -- removing everything that could
> possibly have been made in a country that produces teflon products.
>
> What is the real deal on this. If one is prudent and doesn't overheat
> the pan, is there still significant risk -- or is basically a
> precautionary measure.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
A lot has to do with the size of the bird.. Not surprisingly, smaller
birds are more prone to lung damage and death from PTFE than
larger ones.
I've seen credible though anecdotal vet reports of lung abscesses
and deaths in birds being caused by long-term, low-level exposure
to PTFE. These reports indicate the chemical is released in small
amounts even when Teflon pans are used at normal cooking
temperatures. That's probably why some people prefer to not
use Teflon products at all, while others do use it and provide
adequate ventilation.
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
<bobg@ericmarder.com> wrote in message
news:1104767654.619774.265210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Okay, this is my last of three questions (for now :).
>
> Everyone agrees that overheated teflon can be lethal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
First enjoy the bird.
As to PTFE, there is a LOT of hype, and a little fact. If you look at
Google you could read for days on end. The main thing to watch for is people
posting url's. Look at where they lead. Normally when people want to make
some point that they can't prove, they just post sites that anyone can make
to support what they "think", but can't back up.
The bottom line is cooking "can" be very dangerous to birds kept inside a
house. If the house is fairly sealed up there is a possibility of problems.
The burned grease or oil is what kills. Birds air sacs don't work like our
lungs. What the people who "claim" PTFE kills do not ever want to talk about
is the food burning is the real problem, no matter what you burn it in. If
you are the type who cooks with the smoke alarm as a timer, your birds are
in danger. Grease and oil burn at far lower temps than PTFE will outgas at,
but people don't like to tell you this.
As to "PTFE removal" that a few love to claim they did, I always laugh.
The Computer they are using has it in it, which is another thing they don't
want to talk about.
For the heath of your bird, be careful about cooking, household chemicals,
painting, new carpet, and so forth. If it makes you "feel" better take all
you cooking stuff that has a non stick coating to the dumpster, and buy
stainless steel, but you still need to take care. I would avoid cast iron,
as this is the worst possible choice if you have birds.
Again enjoy the bird!!!
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
bobg@ericmarder.com wrote:
> What is the real deal on this. If one is prudent and doesn't overheat
> the pan, is there still significant risk
No.
> -- or is basically a
> precautionary measure.
It is basically a lack of science education, anecdotal story-telling, and
hyperbole. Enjoy your teflon pans.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Mike |
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:IBfCd.16256$RH4.9678@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <bobg@ericmarder.com> wrote in message
> news:1104767654.619774.265210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Okay, this is my last of three questions (for now :).
> >
> > Everyone agrees that overheated teflon can be lethal.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> First enjoy the bird.
> As to PTFE, there is a LOT of hype, and a little fact. If you look at
> Google you could read for days on end. The main thing to watch for is people
> posting url's. Look at where they lead. Normally when people want to make
> some point that they can't prove, they just post sites that anyone can make
> to support what they "think", but can't back up.
> The bottom line is cooking "can" be very dangerous to birds kept inside a
> house. If the house is fairly sealed up there is a possibility of problems.
> The burned grease or oil is what kills. Birds air sacs don't work like our
> lungs. What the people who "claim" PTFE kills do not ever want to talk about
> is the food burning is the real problem, no matter what you burn it in.
So let's get this straight. You know the truth, everyone else is
just posting bad web links?
Read what DuPont (the manufacturer) says about the issue:
"PTFE coated drip pans should be avoided because even in
normal use they reach extremely high temperatures and can
emit fumes that are hazardous to birds."
In any event the causal relationship between PTFE and bird
deaths has been known for over 30 years now. There is no
controversy.
http://www.parrotparrot.com/birdhealth/teflon.htm
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
No "mike", I said there is a lot of hype, just like yours. I notice you only
quoted a very small part of what Dupont has to say, then of course posted a
link to a site made by someone who has a point to make with no facts to back
it up. <shrug>
If you want to know the truth, read the Dupont site. As always when this
comes up I ask why the lawyers have not lined up to sue Dupont, and all the
other companies that make PTFE products. If there was even the slightest bit
of fact behind all this hype they would be lined up to take money. Keep that
aluminum underwear on tight mike, they really are "out there"
LOL.
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:33thqiF45uds9U1@individual.net...
> "Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:IBfCd.16256$RH4.9678@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> So let's get this straight. You know the truth, everyone else is
> just posting bad web links?
>
> Read what DuPont (the manufacturer) says about the issue:
>
> "PTFE coated drip pans should be avoided because even in
> normal use they reach extremely high temperatures and can
> emit fumes that are hazardous to birds."
>
> In any event the causal relationship between PTFE and bird
> deaths has been known for over 30 years now. There is no
> controversy.
> http://www.parrotparrot.com/birdhealth/teflon.htm
>
>
|
|
|
| Mike |
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:N5hCd.6017$Cc.1255@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> No "mike", I said there is a lot of hype, just like yours. I notice you only
> quoted a very small part of what Dupont has to say, then of course posted a
> link to a site made by someone who has a point to make with no facts to back
> it up. <shrug>
As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will
not see. The website I referenced lists several different formal
studies on the issue. If you're interested in knowing the truth, go
to a library and read them.
> If you want to know the truth, read the Dupont site.
That's like saying, "If you want to know what's really going on in
Iraq, ask George W. Bush." My point in referencing DuPont's
statement is to show even *they* recognize there's a danger.
> As always when this
> comes up I ask why the lawyers have not lined up to sue Dupont, and all the
> other companies that make PTFE products. If there was even the slightest bit
> of fact behind all this hype they would be lined up to take money. Keep that
> aluminum underwear on tight mike, they really are "out there"
Lawsuits have been filed in the past. DuPont routinely settles
them because it's less expensive to do that than pull PTFE off
the market. It's a standard cost-benefit analysis, the same
reason Ford didn't recall their exploding Pinto cars back in
the 1970s.
|
|
|
| dkrug |
bobg@ericmarder.com wrote:
> Okay, this is my last of three questions (for now :).
>
> Everyone agrees that overheated teflon can be lethal.
>
> I know several bird owners who say that as long as there is food in the
> pan and the flame is not higher than medium, they have never had a
> problem. That the only real danger is if you "forget" a pan on the
> stove or crank it way up. One friend has a Macaw and has used teflon
> for 20 years (taking care not to overheat it, of course).
>
> Other people scour their homes -- removing everything that could
> possibly have been made in a country that produces teflon products.
>
> What is the real deal on this. If one is prudent and doesn't overheat
> the pan, is there still significant risk -- or is basically a
> precautionary measure.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
I have read all kinds of horror stories and rebuttals. I had teflon, but
it was older and the coating was coming off. I replaced it with
stainless. I love the stainless and I don't have a bunch of stuff
sticking to the bottom. No matter what you use, if you burn your food
you are causing potential problems for your birds if they are in close
proximity to the burning food. I choose not to use teflon and after
having the stainless I wouldn't use teflon again.
Debbie, Dusty (CAG) and Casperella(U2)
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Mike wrote:
> That's like saying, "If you want to know what's really going on in
> Iraq, ask George W. Bush." My point in referencing DuPont's
> statement is to show even *they* recognize there's a danger.
But you failed to show all the information, you were selective in your
"evidence".
> Lawsuits have been filed in the past. DuPont routinely settles
> them because it's less expensive to do that than pull PTFE off
> the market. It's a standard cost-benefit analysis, the same
> reason Ford didn't recall their exploding Pinto cars back in
> the 1970s.
Oh, please. Show us the case-files on that.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
Xref: 127.0.0.1 rec.pets.birds:209920
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:YvkCd.13391$z94.5060@fe07.lga...
> Mike wrote:
>
>
>> That's like saying, "If you want to know what's really going on in
>> Iraq, ask George W. Bush." My point in referencing DuPont's
>> statement is to show even *they* recognize there's a danger.
>
> But you failed to show all the information, you were selective in your
> "evidence".
>
>> Lawsuits have been filed in the past. DuPont routinely settles
>> them because it's less expensive to do that than pull PTFE off
>> the market. It's a standard cost-benefit analysis, the same
>> reason Ford didn't recall their exploding Pinto cars back in
>> the 1970s.
>
> Oh, please. Show us the case-files on that.
ROTFLOL!!
Don't hold your breath waiting for the proof Dave.
The Pinto statement is a GREAT example. It was only one year that Ford made
the mistake of the "drop in" tank, of course that fact does not fit so he
just pretends like it does not exist, and tries to make it look like Ford
just kept making the same car the same way and "paid people off". I think
his aluminum hat fell off for a while. <G>
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
>
>
|
|
|
| Mike |
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7glCd.16555$RH4.12931@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> "Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:YvkCd.13391$z94.5060@fe07.lga...
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> >
> >> That's like saying, "If you want to know what's really going on in
> >> Iraq, ask George W. Bush." My point in referencing DuPont's
> >> statement is to show even *they* recognize there's a danger.
> >
> > But you failed to show all the information, you were selective in your
> > "evidence".
> >
> >> Lawsuits have been filed in the past. DuPont routinely settles
> >> them because it's less expensive to do that than pull PTFE off
> >> the market. It's a standard cost-benefit analysis, the same
> >> reason Ford didn't recall their exploding Pinto cars back in
> >> the 1970s.
> >
> > Oh, please. Show us the case-files on that.
>
>
> ROTFLOL!!
> Don't hold your breath waiting for the proof Dave.
Ah, the age of web-based "experts", where if proof of something
can't be found on the internet then it simply doesn't exist. Utterly
pathetic. When's the last time either of you clowns visited a real
library? Have you ever even been in a law library? Be honest.
> The Pinto statement is a GREAT example. It was only one year that Ford made
> the mistake of the "drop in" tank, of course that fact does not fit so he
> just pretends like it does not exist, and tries to make it look like Ford
> just kept making the same car the same way and "paid people off". I think
> his aluminum hat fell off for a while. <G>
Good grief Alex. You're abysmally ignorant. Entire books
have been written about the Pinto episode. I never claimed
Ford produced the exploding Pinto for any specific length
of time, I simply said they knew about the problem, did an
internal cost-benefit analysis and calculated it would cost less
to pay off death and injury suits than to recall and fix their
damned car. So they turned a blind eye and allowed their
customers to die. None of these facts are even controversial.
Of course you seem to think because it was only for a year,
it was somehow ok. Not much I can do about your amorality.
God will have to take care of that little problem.
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Mike wrote:
> Ah, the age of web-based "experts"
Hmmm... pot-kettle-black.
>, where if proof of something
> can't be found on the internet then it simply doesn't exist.
So, citations of your "evidence" cannot be accessed on the 'net?
> Utterly
> pathetic. When's the last time either of you clowns visited a real
> library? Have you ever even been in a law library? Be honest.
Well, yesterday, as a matter-of-fact. I needed to look up a referenced RCW
(revised code of Washington) relating to local jurisdictional authority to
levy excess fees for sewage disposal when a commercial kitchen exists on
ones property.
> Good grief Alex. You're abysmally ignorant. Entire books
> have been written about the Pinto episode.
Name three.
> I never claimed
> Ford produced the exploding Pinto for any specific length
> of time, I simply said they knew about the problem, did an
> internal cost-benefit analysis and calculated it would cost less
> to pay off death and injury suits than to recall and fix their
> damned car. So they turned a blind eye and allowed their
> customers to die. None of these facts are even controversial.
To you, maybe; but I believe that is a simplistic and biased "analysis".
> Of course you seem to think because it was only for a year,
> it was somehow ok.
That's NOT what Alex stated OR implied. But it does show how sloppy your
assesment of written information is, and why your statements should be taken
with a few grains of salt. Or a 10 pound bag, even.
> Not much I can do about your amorality.
Alex has no problem with amorality, but apparently you do, when trying to
abuse the meaning of someones words to make them appear callous and mean.
Nice try, bubba.
> God will have to take care of that little problem.
"Do not bear false witness". You first.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
ROTFLMAO!!!
This just keeps getting better!!
I'll be waiting for those books about the 73 Pinto disaster, and how Ford
ignored it. I'm sure they will show up right after he finds all those law
suits Dupont pays out on every year huh?
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:z3mCd.13401$Ih7.2944@fe07.lga...
> Mike wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, the age of web-based "experts"
>
> Hmmm... pot-kettle-black.
>
>
>>, where if proof of something
>> can't be found on the internet then it simply doesn't exist.
>
> So, citations of your "evidence" cannot be accessed on the 'net?
>
>> Utterly
>> pathetic. When's the last time either of you clowns visited a real
>> library? Have you ever even been in a law library? Be honest.
>
> Well, yesterday, as a matter-of-fact. I needed to look up a referenced
> RCW
> (revised code of Washington) relating to local jurisdictional authority to
> levy excess fees for sewage disposal when a commercial kitchen exists on
> ones property.
>
>> Good grief Alex. You're abysmally ignorant. Entire books
>> have been written about the Pinto episode.
>
> Name three.
>
>> I never claimed
>> Ford produced the exploding Pinto for any specific length
>> of time, I simply said they knew about the problem, did an
>> internal cost-benefit analysis and calculated it would cost less
>> to pay off death and injury suits than to recall and fix their
>> damned car. So they turned a blind eye and allowed their
>> customers to die. None of these facts are even controversial.
>
> To you, maybe; but I believe that is a simplistic and biased "analysis".
>
>> Of course you seem to think because it was only for a year,
>> it was somehow ok.
>
> That's NOT what Alex stated OR implied. But it does show how sloppy your
> assesment of written information is, and why your statements should be
> taken
> with a few grains of salt. Or a 10 pound bag, even.
>
>> Not much I can do about your amorality.
>
> Alex has no problem with amorality, but apparently you do, when trying to
> abuse the meaning of someones words to make them appear callous and mean.
> Nice try, bubba.
>
>> God will have to take care of that little problem.
>
> "Do not bear false witness". You first.
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
>
>
|
|
|
| Wheeler |
By the way Bugg you can do the RCW search on line as well:
http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/default.asp
Bob W
--
Check out our web site,
A few new features and new pictures.
http://www.onemorebird.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/parrotletsandfun/
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:z3mCd.13401$Ih7.2944@fe07.lga...
> Mike wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, the age of web-based "experts"
>
> Hmmm... pot-kettle-black.
>
>
>>, where if proof of something
>> can't be found on the internet then it simply doesn't exist.
>
> So, citations of your "evidence" cannot be accessed on the 'net?
>
>> Utterly
>> pathetic. When's the last time either of you clowns visited a real
>> library? Have you ever even been in a law library? Be honest.
>
> Well, yesterday, as a matter-of-fact. I needed to look up a referenced
> RCW
> (revised code of Washington) relating to local jurisdictional authority to
> levy excess fees for sewage disposal when a commercial kitchen exists on
> ones property.
>
>> Good grief Alex. You're abysmally ignorant. Entire books
>> have been written about the Pinto episode.
>
> Name three.
>
>> I never claimed
>> Ford produced the exploding Pinto for any specific length
>> of time, I simply said they knew about the problem, did an
>> internal cost-benefit analysis and calculated it would cost less
>> to pay off death and injury suits than to recall and fix their
>> damned car. So they turned a blind eye and allowed their
>> customers to die. None of these facts are even controversial.
>
> To you, maybe; but I believe that is a simplistic and biased "analysis".
>
>> Of course you seem to think because it was only for a year,
>> it was somehow ok.
>
> That's NOT what Alex stated OR implied. But it does show how sloppy your
> assesment of written information is, and why your statements should be
> taken
> with a few grains of salt. Or a 10 pound bag, even.
>
>> Not much I can do about your amorality.
>
> Alex has no problem with amorality, but apparently you do, when trying to
> abuse the meaning of someones words to make them appear callous and mean.
> Nice try, bubba.
>
>> God will have to take care of that little problem.
>
> "Do not bear false witness". You first.
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
>
>
|
|
|
| BLL-bird lover lady |
I have read that teflon heated to approx. 700 degrees can be harmful to
not only birds but small children.
BEWARE!!! I lost two dearly loved conures to teflon....it is not worth
it. I am extremely careful with teflon and use stainless steel
(Revere) the majority of the time. I rarely use anything with teflon.
It will probably take a small child dying to get the attention of the
manufacturers.
|
|
|
| BLL-bird lover lady |
Correction! When teflon, silverstone or T-fal is heated above 530
degrees it undergoes breakdown and emits caustic (acid) fumes.
BLL
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
"BLL-bird lover lady" <lhoyman2004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104850750.622690.214080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I have read that teflon heated to approx. 700 degrees can be harmful to
> not only birds but small children.
> BEWARE!!! I lost two dearly loved conures to teflon....it is not worth
> it. I am extremely careful with teflon and use stainless steel
> (Revere) the majority of the time. I rarely use anything with teflon.
> It will probably take a small child dying to get the attention of the
> manufacturers.
>
That's right lets "ban" it "for the children". I'll vote for that.
ROTFLOL!!!!
|
|
|
| jberger |
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:IPfCd.13354$uB2.5489@fe07.lga...
> bobg@ericmarder.com wrote:
>
>> -- or is basically a
>> precautionary measure.
>
> It is basically a lack of science education, anecdotal story-telling, and
> hyperbole. Enjoy your teflon pans.
Take it for whatever grain of salt you want, but the studies referenced in
this website do not appear to be mere anecdotal story-telling.
http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/
I'll leave it for everyone to judge for themselves.
--Jerry Berger
|
|
|
| Laurie |
Xref: 127.0.0.1 rec.pets.birds:209939
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:oapCd.13539$Dd2.9007@fe07.lga...
> Thanks, Bob.
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
Aw...man Dave, I haven't eaten all day and I've been craving ribs for
weeks!!! Send me a 1/2 slab of your ribs, will ya?
Laurie <wiping the drool from my chin>
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
jberger wrote:
> Take it for whatever grain of salt you want, but the studies
> referenced in this website do not appear to be mere anecdotal
> story-telling. http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/
> I'll leave it for everyone to judge for themselves.
Yawn... hand-picked to skip thosestudies which do not corroborate those
"findings". Of course, the Environmental Working Group is hardly looking
for the truth, only something to campaign about.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
BLL-bird lover lady wrote:
> Take for what you want....my article at 7:33am of the the temperature
> reaching 530 degrees
> breaking down and emitting caustic fumes was directly out of The
> Complete Bird Owner's Handbook by Gary Gallerstein DVM page 177.
And this is based on what information? Gallestein didn't exactly do
original research. Also, pray tell, how do seperate the caustic fumes
emited from a teflon pan at high heat, vs. the other by-products that
off-gas from an unattended pan that has over-heated? Perhaps the REAL
answer is to prevent those with attention deficit disorders from being
allowed to cook?
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Laurie wrote:
> Aw...man Dave, I haven't eaten all day and I've been craving ribs for
> weeks!!! Send me a 1/2 slab of your ribs, will ya?
>
> Laurie <wiping the drool from my chin>
You just come on over anytime, Laurie, the ribs will be on the house :-)
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Mike |
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message news:IFLCd.20326$WP2.5744@fe07.lga...
> BLL-bird lover lady wrote:
> > Take for what you want....my article at 7:33am of the the temperature
> > reaching 530 degrees
> > breaking down and emitting caustic fumes was directly out of The
> > Complete Bird Owner's Handbook by Gary Gallerstein DVM page 177.
>
> And this is based on what information? Gallestein didn't exactly do
> original research. Also, pray tell, how do seperate the caustic fumes
> emited from a teflon pan at high heat, vs. the other by-products that
> off-gas from an unattended pan that has over-heated? Perhaps the REAL
> answer is to prevent those with attention deficit disorders from being
> allowed to cook?
You're an idiot.
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Mike wrote:
> You're an idiot.
About what I'd expect as a reply. Unfortunately, your level of inane
thought process matches perfectly with your lack of critical and evaluative
thinking skills. Must be the exposure to all that teflon out-gassing.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:341llpF43tigkU1@individual.net...
> "Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:IFLCd.20326$WP2.5744@fe07.lga...
> You're an idiot.
>
>
ROTFLOL!!
There you go "mike". Now that shows a lot, since you can't find any fact's
Dave is an idiot. This is pretty much how this kind of thread normally goes,
but it is often great for a few laughs. I remember when Febreze first came
out we got the same kind of panic. People started sending around e-mails
about how it was going to kill your birds, and of course a few people like
you picked it up and ran with it. I guess P&G must be making out all kind of
pay out's with Dupont huh?
"mike" you need a new foil hat dude, they are getting through.
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
|
|
|
| legalprocess |
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:VBLCd.20318$zO2.2553@fe07.lga...
> jberger wrote:
>
>> Take it for whatever grain of salt you want, but the studies
>> referenced in this website do not appear to be mere anecdotal
>> story-telling. http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/
>> I'll leave it for everyone to judge for themselves.
>
> Yawn... hand-picked to skip thosestudies which do not corroborate those
> "findings". Of course, the Environmental Working Group is hardly looking
> for the truth, only something to campaign about.
Okay, Dave. I'm willing to have an open mind. If you can provide links to
studies where the results are inconclusive or even favorable (i.e. not
unfavorable) to heating Teflon in the presence of birds and other small
animals (or at least provide citations to journal articles where they
appear), I'll forestall links to how statistics work and how research
designs might result in varying results (especially in the hands of either
people who practice "bad" science and/or those who know how to manipulate
the design to generate results favorable to specific
expectations/hypotheses).
--Jerry Berger
************************************************
http://home.sprynet.com/~legalprocess
Sue and Jerry Berger's Comic Books/Mags for Sale/Bid
************************************************
|
|
|
| Anonny Moose |
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:VBLCd.20318$zO2.2553@fe07.lga...
> jberger wrote:
>
>> Take it for whatever grain of salt you want, but the studies
>> referenced in this website do not appear to be mere anecdotal
>> story-telling. http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/
>> I'll leave it for everyone to judge for themselves.
>
> Yawn... hand-picked to skip thosestudies which do not corroborate those
> "findings". Of course, the Environmental Working Group is hardly looking
> for the truth, only something to campaign about.
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
>
For those of us trying to find "the truth" about Teflon, how about providing
some links to the research disproving the findings. I'd also like to know
what you base your statement about the Environmental Working Group on.
Thanks.
Karen
|
|
|
| jberger |
"Anonny Moose" <nospam@leavemealone.com> wrote in message
news:10to5s2qpb4kc9a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:VBLCd.20318$zO2.2553@fe07.lga...
>> jberger wrote:
>>
>>> Take it for whatever grain of salt you want, but the studies
>>> referenced in this website do not appear to be mere anecdotal
>>> story-telling. http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/
>>> I'll leave it for everyone to judge for themselves.
>>
>> Yawn... hand-picked to skip thosestudies which do not corroborate those
>> "findings". Of course, the Environmental Working Group is hardly looking
>> for the truth, only something to campaign about.
>> --
>> Dave
>> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
>> http://davebbq.com/
>>
>
> For those of us trying to find "the truth" about Teflon, how about
> providing some links to the research disproving the findings. I'd also
> like to know what you base your statement about the Environmental Working
> Group on. Thanks.
> Karen
I thought I pretty much made that challenge.
;-)
--Jerry Berger
************************************************
http://home.sprynet.com/~legalprocess
Sue and Jerry Berger's Comic Books/Mags for Sale/Bid
************************************************
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
legalprocess wrote:
> Okay, Dave. I'm willing to have an open mind. If you can provide
> links to studies where the results are inconclusive or even favorable
> (i.e. not unfavorable) to heating Teflon in the presence of birds and
> other small animals (or at least provide citations to journal
> articles where they appear),
That's funny. No one has said that teflon, or other pfte substances cannot
EVER cause problems such as illness or death. The problem comes with taking
what IS known to extremes. ANY substance is toxic if the exposure levels
exceed the norm. Teflon, in everyday practice -- including cooking --
doesn't exceed that norm. And no one seems to mention the fact that pfte
products, like teflon, have evolved and have become vastly more heat stable
and durable than those products from even 5 years ago. Especially in
cookware products.
I wonder why, given the much higher probabilities involved for injury or
death, why anyone drives a car with a pet inside. There is too much
fearmongering and not enough common sense surrounding this whole issue.
I have no worries about teflon in cookware, my computer, or in the next-door
neighbors ironing-board cover. I've looked at the issue, the text and data
that has been written, the studies that are referred to, and have zero
problems with my budgies and parrotlets residing in the room adjacent to my
kitchen.
> I'll forestall links to how statistics
> work and how research designs might result in varying results
> (especially in the hands of either people who practice "bad" science
> and/or those who know how to manipulate the design to generate
> results favorable to specific expectations/hypotheses).
In my 17 years with public health (I retired last year in order to open up
my restaurant) I have spent a lot of time dealing with epidemiology,
scientific research, and have even developed research designs as models to
capture evaluation data. But I'm sure the rest of the NG will be profoundly
(yawn) interested in your version of my penis is larger than yours :-)
There are already ample threads that can be Googled, if one is really
interested.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Andrew Neilson |
Personally, I happen to love my Conures like they were my own children. If
there is a risk, then why take it?
This debate reminds me of "seat belt" and "motorcycle helmet"
discussions that I have had with various people. One man I know refuses to
wear a seat belt on the basis that he was in an accident once and had he
been wearing a seat belt, then he would have been killed, despite a large
amout of data that suggests otherwise. Others argue about the safety of
motorcycle helmets. I know people who will only wear them if forced to (by
law). The swear up and down that helmets actually increase the danger of
injury in an accident when there is data that clearly shows that helmets
reduce injuries.
The bottom line is that no matter how much data you provide, some people
will refuse to listen. They think that they are correct and do not want to
be confused with the facts.
Andrew.
"jberger" <jberger@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:342jjgF45qvn1U1@individual.net...
> "Anonny Moose" <nospam@leavemealone.com> wrote in message
> news:10to5s2qpb4kc9a@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:VBLCd.20318$zO2.2553@fe07.lga...
> >> jberger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Take it for whatever grain of salt you want, but the studies
> >>> referenced in this website do not appear to be mere anecdotal
> >>> story-telling. http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/
> >>> I'll leave it for everyone to judge for themselves.
> >>
> >> Yawn... hand-picked to skip thosestudies which do not corroborate those
> >> "findings". Of course, the Environmental Working Group is hardly
looking
> >> for the truth, only something to campaign about.
> >> --
> >> Dave
> >> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> >> http://davebbq.com/
> >>
> >
> > For those of us trying to find "the truth" about Teflon, how about
> > providing some links to the research disproving the findings. I'd also
> > like to know what you base your statement about the Environmental
Working
> > Group on. Thanks.
> > Karen
>
> I thought I pretty much made that challenge.
> ;-)
> --Jerry Berger
>
> ************************************************
> http://home.sprynet.com/~legalprocess
> Sue and Jerry Berger's Comic Books/Mags for Sale/Bid
> ************************************************
>
>
|
|
|
| Anonny Moose |
"jberger" <jberger@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:342jjgF45qvn1U1@individual.net...
> "Anonny Moose" <nospam@leavemealone.com> wrote in message
> news:10to5s2qpb4kc9a@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:VBLCd.20318$zO2.2553@fe07.lga...
>>> jberger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Take it for whatever grain of salt you want, but the studies
>>>> referenced in this website do not appear to be mere anecdotal
>>>> story-telling. http://www.ewg.org/reports/toxicteflon/
>>>> I'll leave it for everyone to judge for themselves.
>>>
>>> Yawn... hand-picked to skip thosestudies which do not corroborate those
>>> "findings". Of course, the Environmental Working Group is hardly
>>> looking for the truth, only something to campaign about.
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
>>> http://davebbq.com/
>>>
>>
>> For those of us trying to find "the truth" about Teflon, how about
>> providing some links to the research disproving the findings. I'd also
>> like to know what you base your statement about the Environmental Working
>> Group on. Thanks.
>> Karen
>
> I thought I pretty much made that challenge.
> ;-)
> --Jerry Berger
>
You did, and much better than I so let's just consider mine a second! :-)
It didn't show up in my newsreader until after I'd posted.
Karen
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
"Andrew Neilson" <net_stuff@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:crh8p7$4gd$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> Personally, I happen to love my Conures like they were my own children.
> If
> there is a risk, then why take it?
>
>
> The bottom line is that no matter how much data you provide, some
> people
> will refuse to listen. They think that they are correct and do not want
> to
> be confused with the facts.
>
> Andrew.
>
LOL, you're more on the mark than you probably realize Andrew. They "hype"
can't be proved, yet you believe it and are not about to be swayed by
"facts", you have your mind made up.
If you really believe in not taking risks like you claim, then you have
your birds in a separate building, right? After all you would certainly
NEVER have them in the same house you cook in right? Also you NEVER take
them in a car right?
LOL, don't get confused with all those facts now, maybe you should get the
design for mikes aluminum hat, after all he "may" be right you know, better
make one for your birds too, why take chances?
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
|
|
|
| jberger |
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:azZCd.1524$v76.403@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Andrew Neilson" <net_stuff@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:crh8p7$4gd$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
>> Personally, I happen to love my Conures like they were my own children.
>> If there is a risk, then why take it?
>>
>>
>> The bottom line is that no matter how much data you provide, some people
>> will refuse to listen. They think that they are correct and do not want
>> to be confused with the facts.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>
> LOL, you're more on the mark than you probably realize Andrew. They "hype"
> can't be proved, yet you believe it and are not about to be swayed by
> "facts", you have your mind made up.
> If you really believe in not taking risks like you claim, then you have
> your birds in a separate building, right? After all you would certainly
> NEVER have them in the same house you cook in right? Also you NEVER take
> them in a car right?
> LOL, don't get confused with all those facts now, maybe you should get the
> design for mikes aluminum hat, after all he "may" be right you know,
> better make one for your birds too, why take chances?
The issue is not whether the "hype" (for or against) is to be believed, or
whether to completely discount the "hype" and mainain the status quo
(keeping in mind that what is status quo for one is not necessary status quo
for another), the issue is whether -- given the fact that some evidence
exists for harm -- one is willing to take a foreseeable risk. The choice is
up to the individual.
-------------------------------
Some relevant definitions:
-------------------------------
CAUTION: (noun)
1. a. Careful forethought to avoid danger or harm.
b. Close attention or vigilance to minimize risk: The car proceeded over
the rickety bridge with caution.
2. Prudence or restraint in action or decision: advised caution in choosing
a school.
3. A warning or admonishment, especially to take heed: I received a caution
from the doctor about fat in my diet.
4. A cautious action; a precaution: The climbers took the necessary cautions
in preparing for the ascent.
5. Informal: One that is striking or alarming.
------------------------------
RECKLESS: (adjective)
1. a. Heedless or careless.
b. Headstrong; rash.
2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences: a reckless driver.
----------------------------------
NEGLIGENCE: (noun)
1. The state or quality of being negligent.
2. A negligent act or a failure to act.
3. Law: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under
the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.
-------------------------------
PRUDENT: (adjective)
1. Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common
sense.
2. Careful in regard to one's own interests; provident.
3. Careful about one's conduct; circumspect.
------------------------------
|
|
|
| Mike |
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:azZCd.1524$v76.403@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Andrew Neilson" <net_stuff@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:crh8p7$4gd$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> > Personally, I happen to love my Conures like they were my own children.
> > If
> > there is a risk, then why take it?
> >
> >
> > The bottom line is that no matter how much data you provide, some
> > people
> > will refuse to listen. They think that they are correct and do not want
> > to
> > be confused with the facts.
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
>
> LOL, you're more on the mark than you probably realize Andrew. They "hype"
> can't be proved
To the contrary, that PTFE outgassing can cause both flu-like
symptoms in humans and deaths in birds have been established
facts for over 30 years now. It's not even controversial. What's
amazing is the lengths some people (especially Americans) go
through to continue wallowing in their own ignorance.
The bottom line is, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Every
modern convenience has a price.
Plastics? Dioxin-induced cancer.
Non-stick coating? Lung damage.
Aluminum cookware? Alzheimer's disease.
Microwave ovens? Gastrointesinal disease and eventual
stomach cancer.
And on and on and on.
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
"jberger" <jberger@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:3437qpF46btrlU1@individual.net...
>
> The issue is not whether the "hype" (for or against) is to be believed, or
> whether to completely discount the "hype" and mainain the status quo
> (keeping in mind that what is status quo for one is not necessary status
> quo for another), the issue is whether -- given the fact that some
> evidence exists for harm -- one is willing to take a foreseeable risk. The
> choice is up to the individual.
>
Yah right.
Here's some "relevant" info for yah. Do you have an Avian Vet? If so, ask
them about birds air sacs and burning oil or fat from food. If they are an
Avian Vet they "should" be able to give you some "relevant" facts to take
home and think about. As I said at the beginning of this thread, and every
time this comes up, the real risk is cooking. You can burn animal and
vegetable fats at fairly low temps. Cast Iron pans are especially bad for
this. The metal "soaks up" this fat, and then becomes "seasoned". Then if
someone leaves this pan on a burner, even at medium heat and forgets it, it
will soon put out impressive amounts of smoke, which to us humans is a
nuisance, but to a bird can, and is lethal if the bird can't get away from
it, ie, is locked in a house.
Now as usual when this comes up no one wants to talk about this while they
proudly proclaim how they "love their birds like children" and because of
this they tossed out all their PTFE cookware. Then of course there is always
a few who say "well we can't back up any of this panic about PTFE with
facts, but (just to be safe) why use it"? They of course completely ignore
what their Vet, if they bother to have one, will tell them about the real
danger of cooking food that contains fats.
You have to remember the warning about self cleaning ovens and birds was
NOT anything to do with PTFE. People found out the hard way, that the fumes
from the "crud" in the oven being literally burned off, could be very hard
on a birds air sacs.
Meanwhile you keep reading that dictionary, and make some more hats.
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
Xref: 127.0.0.1 rec.pets.birds:209974
"Mike" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:34391gF46a901U1@individual.net...
> "Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:azZCd.1524$v76.403@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Andrew Neilson" <net_stuff@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>> news:crh8p7$4gd$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
>> > Personally, I happen to love my Conures like they were my own children.
>> > If
>> > there is a risk, then why take it?
>> >
>> >
>> > The bottom line is that no matter how much data you provide, some
>> > people
>> > will refuse to listen. They think that they are correct and do not
>> > want
>> > to
>> > be confused with the facts.
>> >
>> > Andrew.
>> >
>>
>> LOL, you're more on the mark than you probably realize Andrew. They
>> "hype"
>> can't be proved
>
> To the contrary, that PTFE outgassing can cause both flu-like
> symptoms in humans and deaths in birds have been established
> facts for over 30 years now. It's not even controversial. What's
> amazing is the lengths some people (especially Americans) go
> through to continue wallowing in their own ignorance.
>
> The bottom line is, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Every
> modern convenience has a price.
>
> Plastics? Dioxin-induced cancer.
>
> Non-stick coating? Lung damage.
>
> Aluminum cookware? Alzheimer's disease.
>
> Microwave ovens? Gastrointesinal disease and eventual
> stomach cancer.
>
> And on and on and on.
>
>
>
Your aluminum hat is slipping again "mike". Better double it up, the rays
are getting through.
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
|
|
|
| jberger |
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IU_Cd.1317$Pm6.3@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "jberger" <jberger@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:3437qpF46btrlU1@individual.net...
>>
>> The issue is not whether the "hype" (for or against) is to be believed,
>> or whether to completely discount the "hype" and mainain the status quo
>> (keeping in mind that what is status quo for one is not necessary status
>> quo for another), the issue is whether -- given the fact that some
>> evidence exists for harm -- one is willing to take a foreseeable risk.
>> The choice is up to the individual.
>>
>
> Yah right.
> Here's some "relevant" info for yah. Do you have an Avian Vet? If so, ask
> them about birds air sacs and burning oil or fat from food. If they are an
> Avian Vet they "should" be able to give you some "relevant" facts to take
> home and think about. As I said at the beginning of this thread, and every
> time this comes up, the real risk is cooking. You can burn animal and
> vegetable fats at fairly low temps. Cast Iron pans are especially bad for
> this. The metal "soaks up" this fat, and then becomes "seasoned". Then if
> someone leaves this pan on a burner, even at medium heat and forgets it,
> it will soon put out impressive amounts of smoke, which to us humans is a
> nuisance, but to a bird can, and is lethal if the bird can't get away from
> it, ie, is locked in a house.
> Now as usual when this comes up no one wants to talk about this while
> they proudly proclaim how they "love their birds like children" and
> because of this they tossed out all their PTFE cookware. Then of course
> there is always a few who say "well we can't back up any of this panic
> about PTFE with facts, but (just to be safe) why use it"? They of course
> completely ignore what their Vet, if they bother to have one, will tell
> them about the real danger of cooking food that contains fats.
> You have to remember the warning about self cleaning ovens and birds was
> NOT anything to do with PTFE. People found out the hard way, that the
> fumes from the "crud" in the oven being literally burned off, could be
> very hard on a birds air sacs.
> Meanwhile you keep reading that dictionary, and make some more hats.
Believe it or not, Alex... I completely agree with you. The dictionary stuff
not only pertains to Teflon and other sky-is-falling-type-stuff, but to ANY
potential hazard. As I stated, "negligence" is the "failure to exercise the
DEGREE OF CARE considered REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, resulting in
an unintended injury to another party." Unintentionally burning some food
and harming another living creature is one thing... but failing to ensure
the safety of those creatures by TURNING UP THE HEAT on cooking food and
allowing it to burn without any safeguards or common sense.... JUST -
PLAIN - STUPID!
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
"jberger" <jberger@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:343e2dF45e4pnU1@individual.net...
> Believe it or not, Alex... I completely agree with you.
Hey that's great, but for most cooking you do not need to "turn up the heat"
to cause the kind of problem I am talking about. I used to use cast iron
frying pans, as my wife insisted they were the best thing since sliced
bread. A few times one got left on empty. It did not take long before the
damn thing would set off the smoke alarm. I got tired of trying to clean the
damn things and gave up on them. I bought some Teflon, and she finally
started using it too as she had to admit it was just too damn easy to use. A
friend of mine used to be into stir fry. She cooked with the wok very hot,
and only used one kind of oil because it would take the heat without
burning. Most animal and vegetable fat does not need "the heat turned up".
Regular cooking temps will do fine if someone forgets the food. This is why
I laugh so much at people saying "why take the chance" with PTFE. The new
stainless or Iron cookware they claim they bought will cause problems at
temps that are easy to generate on a stove, where as it's a lot harder than
people believe to get a PTFE coated pan to over 500 degree's.
If people really believed this crap about "not taking chances" they would
never cook in the same house with the bird, no matter what they cook in.
It's just like the infamous "for the children" line. It covers anything
people want to try to justify. <shrug>
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
|
|
|
| jberger |
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S80Dd.1387$Pm6.1263@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "jberger" <jberger@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:343e2dF45e4pnU1@individual.net...
>> Believe it or not, Alex... I completely agree with you.
>
> Hey that's great, but for most cooking you do not need to "turn up the
> heat" to cause the kind of problem I am talking about....
Point taken, Alex. My phrasing of "turning up the heat" was for emphasis
purposes only. Rule of thumb, if the smoke starts to rise from your pan,
don't walk away from it. Lower the heat, and use your brain. However, the
gases that eminates from a non-stick pan or self-cleaning oven are not
always visible and the visual cues one gets from a seasoned pan that starts
to heat are just not there to warn someone that something may be amiss. I'm
not an alarmist; however, I don't go blindly into the night either.
|
|
|
| Laurie |
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message
news:CGLCd.20329$nI2.5621@fe07.lga...
> Laurie wrote:
>
>> Aw...man Dave, I haven't eaten all day and I've been craving ribs for
>> weeks!!! Send me a 1/2 slab of your ribs, will ya?
>>
>> Laurie <wiping the drool from my chin>
>
> You just come on over anytime, Laurie, the ribs will be on the house :-)
>
> --
> Dave
> Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
> http://davebbq.com/
Thank you kind sir! Next time I'm in the neighborhood, I'll take you up on
your offer!
Just tell me you're better than Famous Daves!!!
Laurie
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Mike wrote:
> The bottom line is, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Every
> modern convenience has a price.
> Aluminum cookware? Alzheimer's disease.
Jeez, aluminum has been disproved or, at best, relegated to an unknown role
(if any) in alzheimers.
From the Alzheimers Society:
http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/Facts_...o_aluminium.htm
A number of environmental factors have been put forward as possible
contributory causes of Alzheimer's disease in some people. Among these is
aluminium.
There is circumstantial evidence linking this metal with Alzheimer's disease
but no causal relationship has yet been proved. As evidence for other causes
continues to grow, a possible link with aluminium seems increasingly
unlikely.
This information sheet looks at the circumstantial evidence and current
medical and scientific views.
Researchers believe that, in the majority of those affected, Alzheimer's
disease results from a combination of different risk factors rather than a
single cause.
Such factors, which vary from person to person, may include age, genetic
predisposition, other diseases or environmental agents.
The chief symptoms of Alzheimer's disease are progressive decline of memory
and other higher mental functions. These changes are associated with the
loss of brain cells and the development of two kinds of microscopic damage
in the brain - the so-called plaques and tangles. Plaques consist of an
abnormal deposit of a particular protein called beta amyloid between the
brain cells. Tangles occur within cells and are formed from abnormal
thread-like deposits of a protein called tau, which is normally part of the
cell's 'skeleton'.
For a discussion of other factors see the Alzheimer's Society information
sheets: Am I at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease? and Genetics and
Alzheimer's disease.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Laurie wrote:
> Thank you kind sir! Next time I'm in the neighborhood, I'll take you
> up on your offer!
> Just tell me you're better than Famous Daves!!!
We have customers that have eaten at numerous "Famous Daves" stores, and
they tell me our stuff is much better. I will guarantee we are. :-) We'll
feed uou GOOD.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Mike |
"Dave Bugg" <dbugg@charter.net> wrote in message news:K_3Dd.24597$fM1.2273@fe07.lga...
> Mike wrote:
> > The bottom line is, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Every
> > modern convenience has a price.
>
> > Aluminum cookware? Alzheimer's disease.
>
> Jeez, aluminum has been disproved or, at best, relegated to an unknown role
> (if any) in alzheimers.
>
> From the Alzheimers Society:
> http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/Facts_...o_aluminium.htm
> A number of environmental factors have been put forward as possible
> contributory causes of Alzheimer's disease in some people. Among these is
> aluminium.
>
> There is circumstantial evidence linking this metal with Alzheimer's disease
> but no causal relationship has yet been proved. As evidence for other causes
> continues to grow, a possible link with aluminium seems increasingly
> unlikely.
>
> This information sheet looks at the circumstantial evidence and current
> medical and scientific views.
>
> Researchers believe that, in the majority of those affected, Alzheimer's
> disease results from a combination of different risk factors rather than a
> single cause.
>
> Such factors, which vary from person to person, may include age, genetic
> predisposition, other diseases or environmental agents.
>
> The chief symptoms of Alzheimer's disease are progressive decline of memory
> and other higher mental functions. These changes are associated with the
> loss of brain cells and the development of two kinds of microscopic damage
> in the brain - the so-called plaques and tangles. Plaques consist of an
> abnormal deposit of a particular protein called beta amyloid between the
> brain cells. Tangles occur within cells and are formed from abnormal
> thread-like deposits of a protein called tau, which is normally part of the
> cell's 'skeleton'.
>
> For a discussion of other factors see the Alzheimer's Society information
> sheets: Am I at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease? and Genetics and
> Alzheimer's disease.
Yet again you rely on the internet for your information.
And yet again a visit to your local library is in order:
http://www.alz.org/resources/resources/rtrlalum.asp
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Mike wrote:
> Yet again you rely on the internet for your information.
>
> And yet again a visit to your local library is in order:
> http://www.alz.org/resources/resources/rtrlalum.asp
Gee, and if you HAD read any of the books and studies that exist in a
medical library, you'd find that the supposed link of aluminum to alzheimers
is a 1965 theory that has largely been shown to be non-existent.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| Dave Bugg |
Mike wrote:
> Yet again you rely on the internet for your information.
>
> And yet again a visit to your local library is in order:
> http://www.alz.org/resources/resources/rtrlalum.asp
And yet, Bubba, you were hollering earlier for internet urls about teflon.
Make up yer mind.... unless of course aluminum and teflon has eaten up da
grey matter.
--
Dave
Dave's Pit-Smoked Bar-B-Que
http://davebbq.com/
|
|
|
| BLL-bird lover lady |
Take for what you want....my article at 7:33am of the the temperature
reaching 530 degrees
breaking down and emitting caustic fumes was directly out of The
Complete Bird Owner's Handbook by Gary Gallerstein DVM page 177.
Therefore, I do consider it a fact and not merely BS.
Bird lovers judge for yourselves...better yet for your birds!
BLL bird lover lady
|
|
|
| Andrew Neilson |
Alex
Tut tut. Sarcasm only belittles the person who speaks it. There is
room for intelligent dialogue with resorting to such tactics. To mock a
person with different beliefs speaks of an immature philosphy at best.
Now, the remonstration aside, I will respond to your comments. As a
sideline, I am certified to teach people how to ride motorcycles. One thing
we teach our students is "Risk Management". In teaching risk management, we
tell them that everything we do has risk. We teach that we all need to
balance the risk with our desire to participate. When you ride a
motorcycle, you take a risk. You balance your desired riding style with the
level of risk that you are willing to take responsibility for.
Now, let's look at the teflon issue. I fully acknowledge that there is
conflicting data. I am not an expert on these types of chemicals. I have
been, however, a firefighter in the past. Firefighters are taught that the
products of combustion (i.e. smoke) are not predictable. If you have a
number of different compounds burning, there is no way to predict what the
combustion will produce. There is a synergistic effect between the
chemicals present and the particular temperature, which can produce many
different "brews". The difference of a few degrees can change the
composition of the products. The upshot is that smoke can be very deadly.
In fact, in a fire, far more people are killed by the smoke than by the
flames.
Finally, I want to combine the above two paragraphs - risk management
and products of combustion. For me, I have to look at different risk
potentials for a given situation. With cooking there is a risk of
overheating and burning food. This can be countered by watching things
closely. Watching things closely can be countered by an unexpected or
distracting event which causes one to completely forget about the cooking
food. With the overheating of a cooking utensil, there are the risks of the
products of combustion, with no way to predict what they will be or in what
concentrations. I choose to manage some of those risks by removing factors
that I can control. Have I removed all risk? No, I have not. I have
simply applied risk management to the situation to a point where I feel it
is balanced with the desired outcome. Obviously, you believe differently
than others in this situation and I respect your beliefs. You have simply
chosen a different level of risk than I have.
With respect
Andrew.
PS. My comment about "Not wanting to be confused with the facts" was not
mentioned in any particular context. This was to deliberate in order to
illustrate that it applies equally to BOTH sides of the issue.
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:azZCd.1524$v76.403@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Andrew Neilson" <net_stuff@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:crh8p7$4gd$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> > Personally, I happen to love my Conures like they were my own children.
> > If
> > there is a risk, then why take it?
> >
> >
> > The bottom line is that no matter how much data you provide, some
> > people
> > will refuse to listen. They think that they are correct and do not want
> > to
> > be confused with the facts.
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
>
> LOL, you're more on the mark than you probably realize Andrew. They "hype"
> can't be proved, yet you believe it and are not about to be swayed by
> "facts", you have your mind made up.
> If you really believe in not taking risks like you claim, then you have
> your birds in a separate building, right? After all you would certainly
> NEVER have them in the same house you cook in right? Also you NEVER take
> them in a car right?
> LOL, don't get confused with all those facts now, maybe you should get the
> design for mikes aluminum hat, after all he "may" be right you know,
better
> make one for your birds too, why take chances?
> --
> If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
>
>
|
|
|
| Toucanldy |
>From: "Mike" me@privacy.net
>> If you want to know the truth, read the Dupont site.
>
>That's like saying, "If you want to know what's really going on in
>Iraq, ask George W. Bush."
LOL.
My solution, I eat like my birds. Fresh fruits and veggies. No cooking, end of
problem. Simplify, yes! :-)
Regards
|
|
|
| Stroud |
> >From: "Mike" me@privacy.net
>
> >> If you want to know the truth, read the Dupont site.
> >
> >That's like saying, "If you want to know what's really going on in
> >Iraq, ask George W. Bush."
EPA Rules Teflon A Potentially Risky Product
The dangers of using products coated with Teflon. Specifically, the toxic
chemical used to produce it, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C-8), has been
appearing in people and animals worldwide.
Wednesday, the EPA ruled low-level exposure to PFOA could pose "a potential
risk of developmental and other adverse effects" on human health. The
preliminary ruling is significant because it could help to determine if the
Feds will regulate its use.
And the EPA has also fined DuPont some $300 million for failing to report
its studies of the possible dangers linked to the processing agent. (Next
month, DuPont will finalize a settlement for upwards of $300 million in a
class-action lawsuit accusing the company of allowing PFOA to contaminate
drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia.)
In that same report, the EPA found PFOA could boost people's levels of
cholesterol and triglycerides, which might increase the likelihood of a
heart attack or stroke, mirroring the findings of a study DuPont issued
earlier this week.
Birdman.
|
|
|
| Alex Clayton |
"Stroud" <Birdman@alcatraz.SF.Ca> wrote in message
news:B4udnZ39mYmfm3HcRVn-hA@is.co.za...
>
>> >From: "Mike" me@privacy.net
>>
>> >> If you want to know the truth, read the Dupont site.
>> >
>> >That's like saying, "If you want to know what's really going on in
>> >Iraq, ask George W. Bush."
>
>
> EPA Rules Teflon A Potentially Risky Product
>
> The dangers of using products coated with Teflon. Specifically, the toxic
> chemical used to produce it, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C-8), has
> been
> appearing in people and animals worldwide.
>
> Wednesday, the EPA ruled low-level exposure to PFOA could pose "a
> potential
> risk of developmental and other adverse effects" on human health. The
> preliminary ruling is significant because it could help to determine if
> the
> Feds will regulate its use.
>
> And the EPA has also fined DuPont some $300 million for failing to report
> its studies of the possible dangers linked to the processing agent. (Next
> month, DuPont will finalize a settlement for upwards of $300 million in a
> class-action lawsuit accusing the company of allowing PFOA to contaminate
> drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia.)
>
> In that same report, the EPA found PFOA could boost people's levels of
> cholesterol and triglycerides, which might increase the likelihood of a
> heart attack or stroke, mirroring the findings of a study DuPont issued
> earlier this week.
>
> Birdman.
Notice the parts of this article you choose to list here? The problem Dupont
got into was in the manufacturing process. So are you trying to warn people
not to feed their birds the chemical waste that comes form a plant that
makes PTFE?
LOL
--
If at first you don't succeed blame someone else and seek counseling.
|
|
|
| Stroud |
On 7-Jan-2005, "Andrew Neilson" <net_stuff@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Now, let's look at the teflon issue. I fully acknowledge that there is
> conflicting data. I am not an expert on these types of chemicals. I have
> been, however, a firefighter in the past. Firefighters are taught that
> the
> products of combustion (i.e. smoke) are not predictable. If you have a
> number of different compounds burning, there is no way to predict what the
> combustion will produce. There is a synergistic effect between the
> chemicals present and the particular temperature, which can produce many
> different "brews". The difference of a few degrees can change the
> composition of the products. The upshot is that smoke can be very deadly.
> In fact, in a fire, far more people are killed by the smoke than by the
> flames.
Copyright © 2005 Chicago Tribune
EPA charges DuPont hid Teflon's risks
Tue Jan 18, 9:40 AM ET
By Michael Hawthorne Tribune staff reporter
More than 50 years after DuPont started producing Teflon near this
Ohio River town, federal officials are accusing the company of hiding
information suggesting that a chemical used to make the popular stick-
and stain-resistant coating might cause cancer, birth defects and
other ailments.
Environmental regulators are particularly alarmed because scientists
are finding perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, in the blood of people
worldwide, and it takes years for the chemical to leave the body. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) reported last
week that exposure even to low levels of PFOA could be harmful.
With virtually no government oversight, PFOA has been used since the
early 1950s in the manufacture of non-stick cookware, rain-repellent
clothing and hundreds of other products. The EPA says at this point
there is no reason for consumers to stop using those items. But so
many unresolved questions remain about PFOA that the agency is asking
an outside panel of experts to assess the risks.
"The fact that a chemical with those non-stick properties nonetheless
accumulates in people was not expected," said Charles Auer, director
of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Critics say the lack of knowledge about PFOA and related
chemicals--called perfluorinated compounds--exposes a system where
environmental regulators largely rely on companies that profit from
industrial chemicals to sound alarms about their safety. Questions
about potential effects on human health and the environment often
aren't raised until years after a chemical is introduced to the
marketplace.
The long and mostly secret history of PFOA began to unravel down the
road from DuPont's Teflon plant in a West Virginia courtroom, where a
Parkersburg family began asking questions in the late 1990s about a
mysterious wasting disease killing their cattle.
Jim and Della Tennant suspected the culprit might lurk in a
froth-covered creek that meandered past a DuPont landfill near the
Teflon plant before spilling into their pasture. Their lawsuit ended
with a monetary settlement that avoided assigning blame for the dead
cows, but the legal battle uncovered a trove of industry documents
about PFOA.
One document detailed how DuPont scientists started warning company
executives to avoid human contact with PFOA as early as 1961. Industry
tests later determined the chemical accumulates in the body, doesn't
break down in the environment and causes ailments in animals,
including cancer, liver damage and birth defects.
Recent studies have found that PFOA levels in some children are in the
range of those that caused developmental problems in rats.
"We're not very popular with some of the folks over at the plant,"
said Della Tennant, who lives in a subdivision known as DuPont Manor,
a sign of the firm's importance in this corner of Appalachia. "But I
don't know how you could sleep at night not telling people about this
contamination."
If found guilty of illegally withholding information by an
administrative law judge, DuPont could face more than $300 million in
fines--about $100 million more than the company is estimated to make
each year from products manufactured with PFOA.
DuPont already has agreed to pay up to $345 million to settle another
lawsuit filed on behalf of 60,000 West Virginians and Ohioans whose
drinking water is contaminated with PFOA. Much of what the public is
starting to learn about the chemical comes from industry documents
submitted during court proceedings.
Those documents also prompted the EPA's ongoing review of health
risks, which could lead to rules that limit or phase out the use of
PFOA.
Company's responsibility
Company officials say they share the government's concerns about the
presence of PFOA in human blood but contend that they did nothing
wrong and that the chemical affects animals differently than people.
"DuPont remains confident that based on over 50 years of use and
experience with PFOA there is no evidence to indicate that it harms
human health or the environment," company spokesman R. Clifton Webb
said.
The company's Teflon plant--a sprawling complex of towers, smokestacks
and metal buildings--rises above the flood plain in a sharp bend of
the Ohio River. The area has become something of a makeshift
laboratory as scientists scramble to learn more about chemicals behind
world-famous brand names such as Teflon, Stainmaster and Gore-Tex.
Since 1976, federal law has required companies to disclose what they
know about any risks posed by toxic chemicals. The EPA says
independent efforts to figure out how people are exposed to PFOA and
what it might do to them should have started by the early 1980s, when
DuPont discovered an employee had passed the chemical to her fetus.
Among other things, the EPA accuses DuPont of failing to notify the
agency when two of five babies born to plant employees in 1981 had eye
and face defects similar to those found in newborn rats exposed to
PFOA.
DuPont also has known since at least 1984 that water wells in West
Virginia and Ohio were contaminated with PFOA, according to company
records. But people who rely on the wells for drinking water didn't
find out until 2002, when internal DuPont documents started pouring
into court.
"Someone made a conscious decision to expose us to this without
telling us," said Robert Griffin, general manager of the Little
Hocking Water Association, which supplies drinking water to 12,000
Ohio customers from wells across the river from the Teflon plant.
"If you wanted people to be lab rats for such a long period, nobody
would ever allow it," Griffin said.
Company lawyers contend DuPont wasn't obligated to share the
information because PFOA doesn't meet the legal definition of a toxic
chemical that poses a "substantial risk."
DuPont documents, though, show company officials were worried the
public would learn that PFOA had contaminated local water supplies.
One benefit of settling the lawsuit over the Tennant family's dead
cattle, company attorneys advised in an internal e-mail, would be
preventing the release of information about PFOA in the water.
"Biggest potential downside: plant contamination issues surface, case
becomes class action," DuPont attorney Bernard Reilly concluded in a
March 2000 e-mail outlining tradeoffs if the company chose to fight
the Tennants in court.
DuPont says it has reduced air and water emissions of PFOA by 90
percent at the Teflon plant. Yet levels of the chemical in water wells
on the Ohio side of the river are the highest recorded to date,
according to tests last fall.
"Drinking water data in possession of DuPont `reasonably supports the
conclusion' that PFOA `presents a substantial risk of injury to
health,'" the EPA wrote in an October filing.
Scientists are just now starting to learn how much of the chemical is
in people's blood and how far it has traveled from the handful of
sites where PFOA is manufactured or used--information that highlights
new challenges for scientists and regulators.
Substances added to food are regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (news - web sites) and must undergo rigorous testing
before their use. But critics say that with industrial chemicals, the
EPA is limited by laws that make it difficult to order testing.
The agency reported in 1998 that it had no toxicity data or "safe
level" for 43 percent of the 2,800 chemicals produced in volumes of 1
million pounds a year or more.
"It borders on the ridiculous," said Tim Kropp, a senior scientist
with the non-profit Environmental Working Group, which has helped draw
the EPA's attention to PFOA and other compounds. "There is no way
consumers can be knowledgeable about all of these chemicals. That's
why we need the government to ensure they are safe."
EPA case evolves
The EPA's case against DuPont gradually has evolved over four years as
industry concerns about PFOA came to light.
Agency officials initially were worried about a related perfluorinated
chemical in Scotchguard, the stain-resistant coating pioneered by 3M.
Regulators started focusing on PFOA after the EPA pressured 3M in 2000
to stop making the compounds, prompted by research that found the
chemicals in human blood and in foods such as apples, bread, green
beans and ground beef.
3M had been the chief supplier of PFOA to DuPont, which now makes the
chemical at a plant in North Carolina.
DuPont announced last week that a new study of more than 1,000 workers
at the Teflon plant found virtually no health effects from exposure to
PFOA. Some workers were found to have higher-than-expected cholesterol
levels.
Tests on lab animals have found links to illnesses including liver and
testicular cancer, reduced weight of newborns and immune-system
suppression. The findings concern EPA officials because rats flush the
chemical out of their bodies within days, while PFOA stays in human
blood for at least four years.
As a result, the EPA says, the potential for human health effects
cannot be ruled out.
"Low-level exposure to people over time produces blood concentrations
that may be of concern," Auer said. "As time goes on and the
opportunity for exposure continues, those blood concentrations could
move to even higher levels."
Scientists still aren't sure how PFOA is spreading around the planet.
Although DuPont says the manufacturing process leaves only trace
amounts of the chemical in non-stick cookware and other goods, some
researchers think that as Teflon products age they release chemicals
that then break down into PFOA.
The compound also is released into air and water during manufacturing.
Studies that have found PFOA in salmon in the Great Lakes, polar bears
in the Arctic and dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea suggest the
chemical travels easily through the atmosphere.
Another theory the EPA and academic researchers are testing is that
other perfluorinated chemicals, known as telomers, break down to PFOA.
Made by DuPont and other companies, telomers are used in stain- and
grease-repellent coatings for carpets, clothing and fast-food
packaging.
Researchers studying PFOA levels in the Great Lakes think that when
carpets and clothing treated with telomers are cleaned, some of the
chemicals wash into sewage treatment plants that are not equipped to
remove them before wastewater is dumped into lakes and rivers.
Landfill runoff could be another source.
Last spring, former DuPont chemist Glenn Evers told a lawyer for
people living near the DuPont plant that the chemicals can be absorbed
from french fry boxes, microwave popcorn bags and hamburger wrappers,
among other items, according to a partial transcript filed by the EPA.
The company responded by describing Evers as a disgruntled former
employee with little direct knowledge of PFOA.
Reactions in community
In Parkersburg, some are reluctant to question one of the community's
leading benefactors, even after the PFOA contamination became public.
With more than 2,000 employees, the Teflon | | | |
