On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:35:18 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:46:24 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message

http://www.lumberpost.com/ArticleID-105.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wis30.pdf


Well, since you say that any of the woods on those lists are "toxic
enough to kill" when used in a cutting board, and since maple is on
the list, I guess that we shouldn't make cutting boards at all lest
they kill us.

GEEZ, Ed, I thought you were smarter than that.

First, I did not say anything about toxicity. Another poster did, I just
posted FACTS about wood toxicity and reaction. If you take the time to look
over the list, you will see that only some are toxic.
While maple is on the list, if you read it, you will find it is rare to have
any sensitivity. Others were extreme.

So you're now denying this exchange:

" So please identify the entry in either of those lists which is
"toxic
" enough to kill" when used in a cutting board.

"Any of them can, depending on your tolerance, susceptibility, general
"health.

Maple sensitizer respiratory great dust, wood rare


If you bothered reading the footnotes, you would have seen
"sensitizer- A substance to which you must first be susceptible, like an
allergy. Symptoms may not develop for some time, but once they do, they get
much worse with each exposure".

I thought when faced with a list of wood reactions, you'd be smart enough to
draw your own conclusions from testing others have done. Evidently not as
you can't even keep track of who said what.

Since you don't even seem to be able to keep track of what _you_ said
that puts me one up.

Further, neither of those lists addresses food contact with a finished
product made of the wood in question.

Why are you being such a jerk about this?