Actually I believe it was me that said "toxic enough to kill". My other posted covered details of one "for instance". But I didn't say anything about in a cutting board.
You could say that using peanut oil on a cutting board is harmless. Until you get the dinner guest that's allergic to peanuts.
Who can eat the oil with impunity. The allergy is to the proteins.
You want real danger, worry about bacteria not the foolish stuff.
Why is it the, that people are so panicked about using peanut oil with allergies? Lack of knowledge or real threat?
As for bacteria, it is a real problem in many cases, but wood tends to have less than plastic boards.
So you are denying that
is your post? And that "any of them can" is _your_ statement?
I've posted the text of your message once and a link to your entire message.
If you "made no comment" then are you saying that someone forged that post in your name?
Because according to the record you did indeed say it.
******************************************************************************************************************************** From: "Edwin Pawlowski" Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:46:24 GMT Local: Sun, Feb 18 2007 7:46 pm Subject: Re: mahogany for cutting board?Any of them can, depending on your tolerance, susceptibility, general health. Aside from that, I did not say they would kill, I just posted FACTS. Use them how you see fit.
*********************************************************************************************************************************Are you denying that that is your post? If so then whose was it?
Are you asserting that "any of them can" can be interpreted in any manner other than to indicate that any wood on either of those lists can kill due to toxicity when used n a cutting board? If so please be kind enough to explain this alternative interpretation.
Or are you saying that "any of them can" is negated by "I did not say they would kill"? If so then you are contradicting yourself in a single paragraph. Either they can or they can't, so which is it?
If you are so smart, figure it out. It is not mine. Re-read the thread
Any wood, or for that matter, most any substance can kill a few very sensitive people. Rare, but talk to an allergist about it. BUT, I did not say these woods are toxic. I just posted the information. I did not say these woods can kill in a cutting board, nor did the listings. The list says nothing about cutting boards, but does mention dust and direct exposure. As I said, I posted information for others to interpret, with no comments as shown in the re-print of the entire post. You have a difficult time with that, it seems.
Why not just go back, read the entire thread and stop making a fool of yourself. You look silly with egg on your face.
I've re-read it until I'm blue in the face. According to the headers on the message you posted it. According to Google Groups you posted it. If you didn't post it then please explain why your headers are on it.
And you know of an instance in which someone has been killed as a result of food coming into contact with a maple cutting board?
No, you said that any of them could kill when used in a cutting board.
Yes, you did. I'm not going to repost the message _again_.
Since the topic of the thread is wood for a cutting board, and since the question to which you responded asked specifically about cutting boards, and since you stated "any of them can", the content of the _list_ is irrelevant to your response.
So "any of them can" is not a "comment"? Then what is is?
Why not just back down gracefully on your "any of them can"?
You keep saying "reread the thread" and yet you won't even read the copy of your statement and its immediate antecedent that were posted in the message to which you were responding. Pot, kettle.
Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 11:05am (EST+5) snipped-for-privacy@home.net (George) did so burbleth: Who can eat the oil with impunity. The allergy is to the proteins. You want real danger, worry about bacteria not the foolish stuff.
Tell ya what Bunky. Go here.
The dog didn't eat "my" homework.
Note to self. Don't go to this guy's house to eat either.
JOAT When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small
You _did_ read only what you want, didn't you? If the oil is, as you, "crude and unrefined," which would be squashed only, rather than extracted, it's peanut butter.
Well, now, your link pretty much confirms what George said--according to that site there is no evidence to support the contention that refined peanut oil is dangerous even to people with peanut allergies and only ten percent had non-severe reactions to the unrefined oil. And that was with a 10ml dose, which is an almighty lot more than anybody is going to pick up off a cutting board.
So it appears that the risk inherent in using peanut oil on a cutting board is in fact vanishingly small.
Because you can't show it. Youre either a liar or just can't find the truth
I did not write the immediate antecedent. Look at the >> markings and see who wrote what. Pot, kettle, idiot. No sense in trying to reason with you as you have no rational. The proof is on the thread. Bye.
Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 3:07pm (EST+5) snipped-for-privacy@home.net (George) now claimeth thusly: You _did_ read only what you want, didn't you? =A0 If the oil is, as you, "crude and unrefined," which would be squashed only, rather than extracted, it's peanut butter.
Oh yeah, I not only read it, I understood it too. Here's a partial quote from that link: quote: "Is peanut oil dangerous? Amazingly, people who are allergic to peanuts only rarely have reactions to peanut oil which has been refined." end quote
The operational word there as I see it is "rarely". Which does not mean, or even imply, "impunity" as you phrased it. And, as I recall it, the subject was peanut oil, not peanut butter.
So, are you saying you'd be willing to use peanut oil, of any type, knowing that a person is allergic to peanuts, with the firm conviction no harm would occur? Or would you tell the person before hand, and expect him/her to trust you that no harm would come of it? Let's see a show of hands, from just the eople here allergic to peanust: Would you trust him that no harm would occur? Or would you go somewhere else to eat?
I'll say this. If I was allergic to peanuts, I'd stay away from peanut oil too - period - and I wouldn't care how many people said it wouldn't hurt me.
JOAT When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small
Please explain what you would accept as "proof". Most people would accept quoting the entire post and providing a link to the archived copy on Google Groups as sufficient proof.
If you think someone forged your headers on that post, please SAY SO. Your continuing to just deny, deny, deny when it is out there in front of God and everybody makes you look, well, out of touch with reality.
I've posted it three times now. I just don't see any point in posting it a fourth or a fifth or a sixth.
No, you stated your concurrence with it. If you did not agree with the post then why did you say that you did?
Yes, what of it. You concurred with the statement that some of the woods on those lists would kill someone if used in a cutting board.
Your argument is kind of like having one guy say "I just killed somebody" and then the other says "so did I" and then trying to claim that he didn't say that he killed anybody because he did not use the words "I killed".
Yes, it proves I did not state that.
No, it is you looking the fool. Check my post. I already re-quoted it for you once. The portion you attribute to me was not said by me. No headers were forged. I deny nothing. Your inability to properly comprehend the postings is sad, really. The truth is in the acrhives and it is up for anyone reading to make a decision as to who said what. Why would I try to deny something that is recorded for posterity? Sadly, you are so far into this you cannot admit you were wrong. Yes the truth is out there.
Nope, I made NO comment at all. I posted two links. Perhaps you can get somone to interpret it for you. I do want to thank you though, you've been giving me a few laugns these past few hours.
That's what's required. Those who are known to be sensitive should take the responsibility upon themselves to avoid exposure, not demand that the world pad itself lest they fall and be injured. Carry your epi pen and wear a bracelet, or preferably a necklace, because they'll look at your face in the first part of their survey.
FWIW, in 25 years of answering the beep, I have had two suspected cases of anaphylaxis from nuts. Neither was. First was someone known allergic to seafood who ate chicken fried in oil which had been used for the scallops and clams. Seafood allergies are much more common than nut allergies, BTW.
Second was another teacher who had helped herself from a box of chocolates in the lounge. Turns out she had been cleaning up the nets and collecting gear used the Friday before for the pond unit prior to coming into the lounge. Molds and their toxins are common sources of sensitivity.
Though it currently 404's, the AAAAI conducted experiments which confirmed that oils were safe to consume as long as they were extracted, not the simple pressed "organic" types. Not that you should believe them either.
Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 11:10am snipped-for-privacy@cox.net (J.=A0Clarke) doth mumble: So it appears that the risk inherent in using peanut oil on a cutting board is in fact vanishingly small.
But does it appear so vanishingly small that you'd be willing to risk it if you were allergic to peanuts? I know I wouldn't.
JOAT When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small
Let see .... what type of wood for cutting board..... SawStop is a safer saw ..... Festool Domino....... Dust collection ... David Marks vs Norm ... and many more usally get the ball rollin
Maple is traditional for cutting boards because it is very hard and doesn't have open grain. Open grain traps food with decays or grows bacteria. Softer woods would also get cut marks that do the same.
No, you did not, you quoted a different post.
Then who was it said by?
Then you're a damned liar.
Yes, it is, and the truth is not what you claim it to be.
Yes, it is, and the truth is that you stepped on your dick and aren't man enough to admit it.
I am not talking about the post in which you posted two links. I am talking about the subsequent post in which you agreed that any of the woods in the lists that you posted could kill someone when used in a cutting board.
I wouldn't likely be keeping a container of peanut oil around so I wouldn't use it myself due to lack of peanut oil. But if someone gave me a cutting board oiled with peanut oil I doubt I'd worry about it.
You referenced the other post. Yes I did later say
************* Any of them can, depending on your tolerance, susceptibility, general health. Aside from that, I did not say they would kill, I just posted FACTS. Use them how you see fit. **************I did not refer to cutting board, but wood in general. If you happen to have some strange allergy yes, it is possible to have a reaction. Billions of people in the world and a very few get sick and die from some rather seemingly benign material.
Read the second sentence. The one where I said ***Aside from that, I did not say they would kill****
You were replying to a question which specifically mentioned the cutting board, not "wood in general". If you meant to address "wood in general" then you should have said so or posted in some other context.
Which does not alter the first.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.