Re: Re: questions -- toasters

[Guest guest]

LOL This is what we called a " Hobo Stove " when i was a kid. Very

effective.

zoe

Sunday, December 17, 2006, 12:33:20 PM, you wrote:

here's a way to make your own toaster:

http://www.highlonesomeranch.com/LivingWithoutElectricity.html

To replace that electric toaster, take a large coffee can. Using a large

screwdriver poke

holes in a circular manner all over the bottom of the can. This will sit on your

cook stove

and disperse heat. Using a thick wire, form and X across the open top of the

can, attaching

it through holes along the rim. This is where your bread sits. The heat comes up

through

the can and toasts the bread. When it is the color that you want, turn the slice

over and

toast the other side. As you use it, the toaster will heat up and the next

slices won't take

as long to toast. This toaster will last for years, and can be used on a stove,

grill or even a

campfire.

--- In , Spann <jennspagesser@...>

wrote:

> Hi,

> I remember someone in the group once lumping toasters

> in the same category as microwaves. Could someone

> tell me what's bad about toasters? and does that

> include toaster ovens, as well? I've toasted bread in

> a cast-iron skillet and my dh doesn't like it as well

> as toast from the toaster. Have people had good

> results with the " stove top bread toaster " that

> Lehman's sells?

> TIA for any info/help!

> -

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

On 12/17/06, carolyn_graff <zgraff@...> wrote:

> here's a way to make your own toaster:

> http://www.highlonesomeranch.com/LivingWithoutElectricity.html

>

> To replace that electric toaster, take a large coffee can. Using a large

screwdriver poke

> holes in a circular manner all over the bottom of the can. This will sit on

your cook stove

> and disperse heat. Using a thick wire, form and X across the open top of the

can, attaching

> it through holes along the rim. This is where your bread sits. The heat comes

up through

> the can and toasts the bread.

So we're happy with a painted aluminum can and some scrap wire, heated

super-hot over presumably a gas-burning flame (with fumes conveniently

funneled so as to pass exclusively through the bread like a filter)

but we're freaking out about heat generated from low-frequency current

going through wires? Huh?

[Guest guest]

LOL. Touche'. Yes, it would seem so.....and the source of the " fear " ,

acrylamides, won't care how/where the heat source is, but will still happily

form. Yes, I understand your interesting positioning in your first post,

that concern/worry might do more harm than the acrylamides, but yet it is

worth, I think, informing people that THAT is the issue about

toast/toasters. Always good if people asking a sincere question can at

least get the information so they can pick their own poisons....

Interesting UK acrylamide study. Toast info begins on page 18 with toast

photos/comparisons on page 23. Basic summary....90% of acrylamides are

contained in the crust of baked bread, so cut it off. I'm personally

pleased that I was one of those children who hated the crust. Issue with

toast is the process develops more acrylamide - color is indication of how

much is formed, yadi yadi ya......see photos.

https://www.fdf.org.uk/resources/AcrylamideCIAAfinal%20140105.pdf#search='acryla\

mide%20status%20report%20CIAA

'

or, okie dokie that was huge.... here's the tiny url: *

http://tinyurl.com/yyzoh7*

Sharon

On 12/18/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote:

>

>

> So we're happy with a painted aluminum can and some scrap wire, heated

> super-hot over presumably a gas-burning flame (with fumes conveniently

> funneled so as to pass exclusively through the bread like a filter)

> but we're freaking out about heat generated from low-frequency current

> going through wires? Huh?

>

>

> _

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

On 12/19/06, Sharon son <skericson@...> wrote:

> LOL. Touche'. Yes, it would seem so.....and the source of the " fear " ,

> acrylamides, won't care how/where the heat source is, but will still happily

> form. Yes, I understand your interesting positioning in your first post,

> that concern/worry might do more harm than the acrylamides, but yet it is

> worth, I think, informing people that THAT is the issue about

> toast/toasters. Always good if people asking a sincere question can at

> least get the information so they can pick their own poisons....

Oh, that's a totally different issue-- the question was framed in a

way that implied toasters and microwaves do similar radiative damage

to food. It's hard to get subtlety out of email, but it sounded like

one of those " someone once said toasters are also electric and

therefore the same as microwaves and therefore bad for me so I've

worried about it ever since " sorts of questions.

Of course if you're very sensitive to acrylamides you shouldn't be

ignoring the problem; you should, as you said, not be eating toast (or

crust) in the first place. Anyway, no one's stopping anyone from

saying there are problems with toasters.

[Guest guest]

On 12/19/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote:

>

>

> Of course if you're very sensitive to acrylamides you shouldn't be

> ignoring the problem; you should, as you said, not be eating toast (or

> crust) in the first place. Anyway, no one's stopping anyone from

> saying there are problems with toasters.

>

>

>

,

Interesting phrase, " sensitive to acrylamides " . You're the first one to

describe it as such. Curious what you mean by that. I'm aware they're a

suspected neuro-toxin, but I'm curious if you've seen research stating it

more emphatically than " suspected " . I ask because I have an Autistic son.

Acrylamides are my latest research project looking at it from a neuro-toxin

viewpoint. Thanks!

Sharon

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

On 12/20/06, Sharon son <skericson@...> wrote:

> On 12/19/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote:

> > Of course if you're very sensitive to acrylamides you shouldn't be

> > ignoring the problem; you should, as you said, not be eating toast (or

> > crust) in the first place. Anyway, no one's stopping anyone from

> > saying there are problems with toasters.

>

> Interesting phrase, " sensitive to acrylamides " . You're the first one to

> describe it as such. Curious what you mean by that. I'm aware they're a

> suspected neuro-toxin, but I'm curious if you've seen research stating it

> more emphatically than " suspected " . I ask because I have an Autistic son.

> Acrylamides are my latest research project looking at it from a neuro-toxin

> viewpoint. Thanks!

> Sharon

Sorry, no, I don't know a thing about it. I just assumed it was one

of the chemicals to which the sensitive are sensitive. That would be

a good question for Emma Davies, I guess.

[Guest guest]

On 12/21/06, Spann wrote:

>

> It would be

> unfortunate if people become leary of asking a

> question which others might perceive as " stupid " and

> have their honest concerns be torn apart.

>

>

LOL, it's way too late for that on this group! Why do you think so

many groups have branched off of this one? :-)

, stupid question asker and branch off group creator

[Guest guest]

Hi,

On 12/21/06, Spann <jennspagesser@...> wrote:

> Thank you, Sharon, for understanding that I just

> wanted to know what may or may not form on bread when

> toasted in a toaster. Your mention of acrylamides,

> which I had never heard of before now, is exactly the

> info for which I was looking. I am interested in

> learning more about this supposed neuro-toxin.

As I said in the last post, if that was the question then my response

doesn't apply.

> , I'm sorry you thought I had some question in my

> mind about radiation in toasaters, and that I have

> been worried about this for months. As Sharon said, I

> made an honest question, one you evidently found

> stupid and not worthy of this group's time. I

> appreciate all the people on this site who respond to

> questions in a supportive manner. I do not appreciate

> the way you repeatedly criticized me, making huge

> assumptions about my stress levels and what I've been

> worrrying about.

Evidently I misread the intent of the question; sorry. But surely you

can admit that it's pretty reasonable to read:

" I remember someone in the group once lumping toasters

in the same category as microwaves. Could someone

tell me what's bad about toasters? "

to mean that you're asking whether toasters do the same sort of damage

to food as microwaves.

> I have learned so much from this group. It's a great

> forum for information and education. It would be

> unfortunate if people become leary of asking a

> question which others might perceive as " stupid " and

> have their honest concerns be torn apart.

Is that what really happened here, that your question was called

stupid and was torn apart? Maybe I'm nuts but I don't read it that

way at all. I intended to say with levity that it's no big deal,

don't worry about it, your toaster isn't microwaving your food, focus

on bigger issues. And I never called anybody stupid, so let's not

project that on to me.

Speaking *generally*: If people are allowing themselves to be bullied

by that kind of response from some internet jerk like me, whose

criticism means exactly jack, then I'd be tempted to call that a

personal problem. The world would be better without (genuine)

bullying, but it'd also be better without self-abasing timidity, i.e.

exactly the same thing but self-inflicted.

Boring personal/philosophical aside, you may want to stop reading:

There's a tendency toward credulity on groups like these when someone

says something is harmful. That credulity and the fact that we're all

sort of fringe types anyway when it comes to food (and thus kind of

isolated) often seems to result in groups of people building up huge

complexes over little or nonexistent problems. I feel that the

complexes often do as much harm as the feared food might " actually "

do. Harm in the sense of resulting from, in a way, a manifestation of

the same poisonous cultural state of mind that brought us poisonous

food in the first place. If that makes any sense. Good food alone

will never produce good health in the full sense of the word. So when

I think I hear that sort of question I probably do tend to be more

critical than others as a conscious reaction against that state of

mind. When questions of health are constantly reduced to strictly the

material I get ants in my spiritual pants.

As if to say yes, let's clean up the material issues, but let's not

pretend they're the root of the problem or that they can be solved

with the same mentality that brought them about. I mean, um, there's

a chicken and an egg and the egg definitely came first and more eggs

aren't going to get you fewer chickens. Or, ...

OK, I'm stopping despite the inadequacy of all that.

[Guest guest]

On 12/21/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote:

> Boring personal/philosophical aside, you may want to stop reading:

Yeah, OK, but why subject the world to all that. Call me Onan and

slay me, Jehovah.

[Guest guest]

I'm still musing over replacing a good old fashioned toaster with a painted

aluminum can.....

-Terry

[Guest guest]

Hi,

It's the male female thingy. Philosophical me: 's very male.

I'm married to one like him. Personally, when the dh gets very logical

and his mind goes off into all kinds of possible scenarios, I've

gotten to the point where it can be viewed as foreplay. It has a

certain charm once you get used to it. I view it as a

urban/techno/modern caveman personna. 's super bright, super

logical....the shelter, the food sources, the hunting have been

mastered so now he has lots of times for thinking, creativity and

ideas. There's a wealth of information to be gleaned from him as well

as others. Glad you got the information you needed. may well be

caught like a deer in my headlights on this one.

Sharon

On 12/21/06, Spann <jennspagesser@...> wrote:

> Thank you, Sharon, for understanding that I just

> wanted to know what may or may not form on bread when

> toasted in a toaster. Your mention of acrylamides,

> which I had never heard of before now, is exactly the

> info for which I was looking. I am interested in

> learning more about this supposed neuro-toxin.

>

> , I'm sorry you thought I had some question in my

> mind about radiation in toasaters, and that I have

> been worried about this for months. As Sharon said, I

> made an honest question, one you evidently found

> stupid and not worthy of this group's time. I

> appreciate all the people on this site who respond to

> questions in a supportive manner. I do not appreciate

> the way you repeatedly criticized me, making huge

> assumptions about my stress levels and what I've been

> worrrying about.

>

[Guest guest]

On 12/21/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote:

> Boring personal/philosophical aside, you may want to stop reading:

>

> There's a tendency toward credulity on groups like these when someone

> says something is harmful. That credulity and the fact that we're all

> sort of fringe types anyway when it comes to food (and thus kind of

> isolated) often seems to result in groups of people building up huge

> complexes over little or nonexistent problems. I feel that the

> complexes often do as much harm as the feared food might " actually "

> do. Harm in the sense of resulting from, in a way, a manifestation of

> the same poisonous cultural state of mind that brought us poisonous

> food in the first place. If that makes any sense.

Lots of good sense. I was writing a post saying pretty much saying the

same thing and expecting to get ganged torched in return...of course

not on this list

> Good food alone

> will never produce good health in the full sense of the word.

See now you have gone from preaching to down right meddling.

> So when

> I think I hear that sort of question I probably do tend to be more

> critical than others as a conscious reaction against that state of

> mind. When questions of health are constantly reduced to strictly the

> material I get ants in my spiritual pants.

That must be a serious set of the itches your dealing with on regular

basis around here

--

" All [gov't] can see in an original idea is potential change, and

hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any

gov't, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without

regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably

he comes to the conclusion that the gov't he lives under is dishonest,

insane, and intolerable, and so, if he is a romantic, he tries to

change it. And even if he is not...he is very apt to spread discontent

among those who are. "

H.L. Mencken

[Guest guest]

On 12/21/06, Sharon son <skericson@...> wrote:

> Hi,

> It's the male female thingy.

Whew! Thats good to know. For a second there I thought it might be a

gluten thing.

--

" All [gov't] can see in an original idea is potential change, and

hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any

gov't, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without

regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably

he comes to the conclusion that the gov't he lives under is dishonest,

insane, and intolerable, and so, if he is a romantic, he tries to

change it. And even if he is not...he is very apt to spread discontent

among those who are. "

H.L. Mencken

How sweet it is! The GOP, RIP

http://snipurl.com/w7d6