[Vern]

I'm watching a cooking show and this guy is using what appears to be a large
piece of mahogany for his cutting board. Is mahogany a good choice for
cutting boards or not?

[Roger Shoaf]

"Vern" wrote in message
k.net...
I'm watching a cooking show and this guy is using what appears to be a
large
piece of mahogany for his cutting board. Is mahogany a good choice for
cutting boards or not?



It works fine especially if you want to add visual interest by alternating
strips of different colored wood.

The first cutting board I made for my Mom when I was in the 8th grade was
mahogany and birch.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.

[Tim W]

"Vern" wrote in message
k.net...
I'm watching a cooking show and this guy is using what appears to be a
large piece of mahogany for his cutting board. Is mahogany a good choice
for cutting boards or not?
Favoured timbers for food preparation have closed grain (no unhygenic
pores), and not taste or smell. hence often Beech or Maple, but really you
can use any wood you like. I use teak and iroko because you can put them in
the dishwasher.

Tim w

[charlieb]

Mahogany, being a somewhat open grained and relatively soft
wood might not be the best for something to which a sharp edge
and fluids will be applied. Save it for a nice box or turning.

It's really nice to work with hand tools and the Cuban Mahogany
version was called The King of Woods.

charlie b

[George]

"charlieb" wrote in message
...
Mahogany, being a somewhat open grained and relatively soft
wood might not be the best for something to which a sharp edge
and fluids will be applied. Save it for a nice box or turning.

It's really nice to work with hand tools and the Cuban Mahogany
version was called The King of Woods.


Young lieutenant of my acquaintance asked if I could fix the damaged corner
on a coffee table she had. Her dad had made it years ago in Gitmo. You
guessed it, top was 22 inches by 2 inch by 36 inch Cuban mahogany. The
years had been kind to the color and the finish, but the movers, as always,
hadn't. I enjoyed just looking at that wood.

[J T]

Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 10:57pm (EST+5)
(Tim*W) doth burble:
snip really you can use any wood you like. snip

Note to self, don't eat at your house. There are some woods out
there toxic enough to kill.



JOAT
When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small

[Tim W]

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 10:57pm (EST+5)

really you can use any wood you like

Note to self, don't eat at your house. There are some woods out
there toxic enough to kill.

Grown near nuclear power stations?

Go on, tell us, what wood is that toxic? We know you are dying to.

Tim W

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 10:57pm (EST+5)

really you can use any wood you like

Note to self, don't eat at your house. There are some woods out
there toxic enough to kill.

Grown near nuclear power stations?

Go on, tell us, what wood is that toxic? We know you are dying to.

Tim W

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

[J T]

Sun, Feb 18, 2007, 10:06pm (EST+5)
doth puzzedly query:
Grown near nuclear power stations?
Go on, tell us, what wood is that toxic? We know you are dying to.

No, I understand the trees there move around too much to cut. You
obviously weren't paying attention; I said woods, plural, not wood,
singular. But who am I to try to interfere with your freedom of choice?
I'm not doing your homework for you either, DAGS.



JOAT
When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:09:10 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 10:57pm (EST+5)

really you can use any wood you like

Note to self, don't eat at your house. There are some woods out
there toxic enough to kill.

Grown near nuclear power stations?

Go on, tell us, what wood is that toxic? We know you are dying to.

Tim W

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

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

[J T]

Sun, Feb 18, 2007, 11:09pm (EST+5) (Edwin*Pawlowski) did
posted:
http://www.lumberpost.com/ArticleID-105.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wis30.pdf

Ah Hell, I was willing to either let him think I was lying, or make
him look it up himself. But, seeing as you've spoiled that, here's one
for him. ONE I said, there's more.
http://www.cds.ed.cr/teachers/harmon/page50.html

A few years back I read about a couple in Mexico touring - with a
chainsaw - why the story didn't say. Anyway, they found a fresh stump
alongside the road, and proceeded to apply their chainsaw to it. They
consequently sufferred severe reaction, and were fortunately gotten to a
hospital and treated. The story said that if they hadn't gotten
treatment they probably would have died. I guess the moral of the this
is, work "can" kill you.



JOAT
When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

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



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. Aside from that, I did not say they would kill, I just posted
FACTS. Use them how you see fit.

[J. Clarke]

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



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. Aside from that, I did not say they would kill, I just posted
FACTS.

You posted in response to a request that woods that were toxic enough
to KILL be identified.

Use them how you see fit.

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.

[Vern]

"Vern" wrote in message
k.net...
I'm watching a cooking show and this guy is using what appears to be a
large piece of mahogany for his cutting board. Is mahogany a good choice
for cutting boards or not?


Dang,
I really didn't expect a thread like that from a seemingly innocent
question. I agree that the mahogany is soft so probably not the best choice
for a cutting board. I just happened to have some reasonable chunks laying
around, but the board the TV chef was using looked really nice. Probably a
prop. Thanks for the replies and entertainment though!

[J T]

Sun, Feb 18, 2007, 8:21pm (J.*Clarke) doth
sayeth:
Well, since you say that any of the woods on those lists are "toxic
enough to kill" when used in a cutting board, snip

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.



JOAT
When in doubt, go to sleep.
- Mully Small

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"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.
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.

[sweet sawdust]

How about poison ivy? Around here it gets big enough to make things out of
(small things). ( Meet a spoon carver that made spoons out of it, keep them
in a glass case and called them "Mother in Law" spoons.) That might do a
job on you if you used it in a cutting board.
"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 10:57pm (EST+5)

really you can use any wood you like

Note to self, don't eat at your house. There are some woods out
there toxic enough to kill.

Grown near nuclear power stations?

Go on, tell us, what wood is that toxic? We know you are dying to.

Tim W

[J. Clarke]

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?

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:17:30 -0600, "sweet sawdust"
wrote:

How about poison ivy? Around here it gets big enough to make things out of
(small things). ( Meet a spoon carver that made spoons out of it, keep them
in a glass case and called them "Mother in Law" spoons.) That might do a
job on you if you used it in a cutting board.

Oleander's another possible.

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 10:57pm (EST+5)

really you can use any wood you like

Note to self, don't eat at your house. There are some woods out
there toxic enough to kill.

Grown near nuclear power stations?

Go on, tell us, what wood is that toxic? We know you are dying to.

Tim W

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
So you're now denying this exchange:

NO, I was not the person that posted it was toxic. I'm not denyhing
anything, YOU are putting words in my mouth and making the wrong
attributions.



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?

Why are you making a fool of yourself? Go back in your newsreader,
carefully follow the postings. I was not the one that said anything about
toxicity. I merely posted two informative links to pages that address the
situation. I made no comment about it. Draw your own conclusions about how
they affect you and how the wood is used.

Any sensible person that followed the thread, read who said what, knows who
the jerk is. Why do you insist I said something that I didn't say?


Below is a copy of my post as it appeared. Sorry about your problem
following it.

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 10:57pm (EST+5)

really you can use any wood you like

Note to self, don't eat at your house. There are some woods out
there toxic enough to kill.

Grown near nuclear power stations?

Go on, tell us, what wood is that toxic? We know you are dying to.

Tim W

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

[George]

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sun, Feb 18, 2007, 8:21pm (J. Clarke) doth
sayeth:
Well, since you say that any of the woods on those lists are "toxic
enough to kill" when used in a cutting board, snip

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.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"George" wrote in message

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.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:03:50 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
So you're now denying this exchange:

NO, I was not the person that posted it was toxic. I'm not denyhing
anything, YOU are putting words in my mouth and making the wrong
attributions.

So you are denying that
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/38729504d88cc7cf
is your post? And that "any of them can" is _your_ statement?

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?

Why are you making a fool of yourself? Go back in your newsreader,
carefully follow the postings. I was not the one that said anything about
toxicity. I merely posted two informative links to pages that address the
situation. I made no comment about it. Draw your own conclusions about how
they affect you and how the wood is used.

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?

Any sensible person that followed the thread, read who said what, knows who
the jerk is. Why do you insist I said something that I didn't say?

Because according to the record you did indeed say it.

Below is a copy of my post as it appeared. Sorry about your problem
following it.

************************************************* ************************************************** *************************

"Tim W" wrote in message
...

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sat, Feb 17, 2007, 10:57pm (EST+5)

really you can use any wood you like

Note to self, don't eat at your house. There are some woods out
there toxic enough to kill.

Grown near nuclear power stations?

Go on, tell us, what wood is that toxic? We know you are dying to.

Tim W

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

sigh

Try

************************************************** ************************************************** ****************************
From: "Edwin Pawlowski"
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:46:24 GMT
Local: Sun, Feb 18 2007 7:46 pm
Subject: mahogany for cutting board?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

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


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. 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?

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Are you denying that that is your post? If so then whose was it?

If you are so smart, figure it out. It is not mine. Re-read the thread


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?

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.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:32:55 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Are you denying that that is your post? If so then whose was it?

If you are so smart, figure it out. It is not mine. Re-read the thread

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.

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?

Any wood, or for that matter, most any substance can kill a few very
sensitive people.

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?

Rare, but talk to an allergist about it. BUT, I did not
say these woods are toxic.

No, you said that any of them could kill when used in a cutting board.

I just posted the information. I did not say
these woods can kill in a cutting board, nor did the listings.

Yes, you did. I'm not going to repost the message _again_.

The list
says nothing about cutting boards, but does mention dust and direct
exposure.

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.

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.

So "any of them can" is not a "comment"? Then what is is?

Why not just go back, read the entire thread and stop making a fool of
yourself. You look silly with egg on your face.

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.

[J T]

Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 11:05am (EST+5) (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.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~aair/nuts.htm Scroll down to "Is
peanut oil dangerous?" and read what it says about it.

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

[George]

"J T" wrote in message
...
Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 11:05am (EST+5) (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.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~aair/nuts.htm Scroll down to "Is
peanut oil dangerous?" and read what it says about it.

The dog didn't eat "my" homework.

Note to self. Don't go to this guy's house to eat either.


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.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:11:10 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 11:05am (EST+5) (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.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~aair/nuts.htm Scroll down to "Is
peanut oil dangerous?" and read what it says about it.

The dog didn't eat "my" homework.

Note to self. Don't go to this guy's house to eat either.

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.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
No, you said that any of them could kill when used in a cutting board.

Prove it.


I just posted the information. I did not say
these woods can kill in a cutting board, nor did the listings.

Yes, you did. I'm not going to repost the message _again_.

Because you can't show it. Youre either a liar or just can't find the
truth


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.

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.

[J T]

Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 3:07pm (EST+5) (George) now claimeth
thusly:
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.

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

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:19:21 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
No, you said that any of them could kill when used in a cutting board.

Prove it.

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 just posted the information. I did not say
these woods can kill in a cutting board, nor did the listings.

Yes, you did. I'm not going to repost the message _again_.

Because you can't show it. Youre either a liar or just can't find the
truth

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.

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.

I did not write the immediate antecedent.

No, you stated your concurrence with it. If you did not agree with
the post then why did you say that you did?

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.

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".

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
No, you said that any of them could kill when used in a cutting board.

Prove it.

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.

Yes, it proves I did not state that.

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.


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.




No, you stated your concurrence with it. If you did not agree with
the post then why did you say that you did?

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.

[George]

"J T" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

[J T]

Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 11:10am (J.*Clarke) doth
mumble:
snip 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

[[email protected]]

On Feb 18, 7:27 pm, "Vern" wrote:
"Vern" wrote in message

k.net...

I'm watching a cooking show and this guy is using what appears to be a
large piece of mahogany for his cutting board. Is mahogany a good choice
for cutting boards or not?

Dang,
I really didn't expect a thread like that from a seemingly innocent
question.


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

[Norminn]

Vern wrote:
I'm watching a cooking show and this guy is using what appears to be a large
piece of mahogany for his cutting board. Is mahogany a good choice for
cutting boards or not?


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.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:11:29 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
No, you said that any of them could kill when used in a cutting board.

Prove it.

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.

Yes, it proves I did not state that.

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.


No, it is you looking the fool. Check my post. I already re-quoted it for
you once.

No, you did not, you quoted a different post.

The portion you attribute to me was not said by me.

Then who was it said by?

No headers
were forged. I deny nothing.

Then you're a damned liar.

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.

Yes, it is, and the truth is not what you claim it to be.

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.

Yes, it is, and the truth is that you stepped on your dick and aren't
man enough to admit it.

No, you stated your concurrence with it. If you did not agree with
the post then why did you say that you did?

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.

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.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:46:33 -0500, (J T)
wrote:

Mon, Feb 19, 2007, 11:10am (J.*Clarke) doth
mumble:
snip 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.

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.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
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.


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****

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:52:33 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
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.


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.

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.

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****

Which does not alter the first.