Leftists want to ban BBQ. When will it end?
 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/1821346

March 17, 2003, 9:33AM

Barbecue's fatty fumes add to haze
Rice research shows fine particles matter
By DINA CAPPIELLO
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Environment Writer
RESOURCES

When folks say Texans live and breathe barbecue, they really mean it.

In a study about to be published, scientists at Rice University have measured the tiny bits of polyunsaturated fatty acids created by cooking meat. These fine particles -- mixed with the diesel exhaust, car fumes and road dust that make up soot in Houston's air -- can lodge in people's lungs and contribute to the city's haze.

But while Houstonians have long joked about the "smell of money" emanating from the Ship Channel, barbecue enthusiasts don't see the humor in scientists' measuring the "fatty fumes" that are a byproduct of a favorite pastime.

"There are a lot of people who have grills at their house," said Jeff Shivers, executive director of the Texas Barbecue Association. "It's not like everybody is firing them up at the same time. There is so much other stuff in the area."

Analyzing particles in Houston's air, environmental engineer Matt Fraser of Rice University detected fatty acids among the millions of tiny organic particles that float in the city's atmosphere. The acids are released when fat drips onto hot coals and sizzles.

"It's definitely when you have an open grill. It's any process that generates meat smoke," said Fraser, whose study was recently accepted for publication in the journal Atmospheric Environment. "The compounds are specific to meat."

Come December 2004, fine particles may be subject to increased regulation in Texas if it is found that metropolitan areas such as Houston do not meet federal air quality standards for particulate matter -- what scientists call the mix of particles in the air. The area already exceeds federal guidelines for smog, and has until 2007 to come into compliance.

Research like Fraser's could be used by the state to determine which sources to eventually control.

These meaty particles -- a fraction of the width of a human hair -- are what you smell when you drive by a Burger King, steak house or barbecue joint. They are among dozens of particles, from cigarette smoke to tire wear, even cholesterol, that scientists can detect in the air using unique molecular fingerprints.

The only possible source of polyunsaturated fatty acids is meat cooking, according to laboratory tests. Scientists use other one-of-a-kind compounds to trace other pollution sources.

Fraser's analysis excluded inorganic particles, released by industry and large-scale combustion that comprise the bulk of particles in Houston's air.

"That just blows me away, because we are going to be a pollutant," said Sandy Babcock, treasurer of the Texas Gulf Coast Barbecue Association. "You think mold, tree spores ... but not meat particles."

Indeed, any suggestion that meat smoke could be a part of the hazardous particle mix is treated as downright un-Texan. Babcock's association, for example, boasts that the Lone Star state holds more than 400 competitive barbecue events every year. The organization's motto is, "Texans are born with a mission to go out and educate people about barbecue."

But Fraser isn't blaming the backyard cookout for Houston's pollution problem.

"Meat cooking is more important than wood burning, but it's less important than diesel," Fraser said. "These are trace levels. They are very low concentrations."

Fraser analyzed air samples taken from four locations between March 1997 and February 1998 for eight different sources of organic particles. Two samples were located near the heavily industrialized Houston Ship Channel. One, more representative of a suburban area, was on Bingle Road. For comparison, a fourth monitor was placed at the Galveston airport.

He found fatty particles from grilling meat in all areas. Proportionately, meat cooking was the biggest contributor only in Galveston, though the island had the lowest concentration of organic particles overall.

But unlike some of the other sources of organic particles studied -- including fuel oil, diesel- and gasoline-powered engines, road dusts and the waxes released by dead plants as they are run over -- the proportion of particles from meat cooking was constant regardless of season.

Similar air studies in Atlanta and Los Angeles have also found evidence of meat cooking. In health-conscious California, a 1996 study found fatty acids accounted for a greater percentage of the particles there than in Houston.

"There may be some difference in how many people eat meat or something, but it's really the density" of the city that determines the concentration of particles, Fraser explained.

In California, the research prompted officials to require fast-food restaurants that use chain-driven charbroilers to install ceramic filters on their exhaust vents. To meet ozone and small particle air standards by 2010, the state is considering more rigorous rules for restaurants.

"It's just part of our ongoing process here in the smog capital of the U.S. of having to go to every source of air pollution and making them do their fair share," said Sam Atwood, a spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern California.

In Maryland, air permits have been required for industrial-size charbroilers and barbecue pits since 1984, said John Scherer, a public health engineer with the Maryland Department of the Environment.

A search of the Harris County database for air pollution complaints found none related to restaurants, barbecue or grilling.

Regardless, it's tough to imagine much political support for cracking down on grilling in what might be the barbecue capital of the world.

You know what's really going to add to pollution, though? All the BBQ people a certain Texan is whippin' up. We ought to do something about all the human meat particles that good ol' boy is about to serve up.

I mean, not to distract from your humorous little news item. That would be downright un-Texan.

It's sick how you fail to mention how Saddam will probably set fire to the oil wells....

But the again, you would be failing to defend Saddam and you don't want to do that do you. Because since Saddam is an enemy of Bush, he is a friend of yours and that makes you an enemy of our troops saying things like......"the only way to avert doom is for American casualties to be heavy".

GOD Bless America

Ronnie Raygun, Feb 3, 2003:

________
LovelyWendie

NEWS ALERT:

Burning Iraqi bodies will not, as previously thought, be environmentally damaging. New American technology will assure a very efficient clean burning soldier. In other news, Iraqi soldiers have been warned not to obstruct our objective. Their choice to burn is theirs. Alternative options include white flags, and/or staying home and watching the war on television.

Ahh but if you burn an Iraqi body, would you not be releasing those oh-so-horrible meat particles into the air? Greenpeace would be on us like white on rice, not to mention Amnesty International, but that's killing the joke there.

"It's sick how you fail to mention how Saddam will probably set fire to the oil wells....

But the again, you would be failing to defend Saddam and you don't want to do that do you. Because since Saddam is an enemy of Bush, he is a friend of yours and that makes you an enemy of our troops saying things like......"the only way to avert doom is for American casualties to be heavy".

Are you honestly this dense or are you striving for irony?

I was referencing your stupid BBQ article. It makes speciffic reference to 'meat partciles' as pollutants. Burning bodies would give off 'meat' particles. Burning oil wells would not. I was making fun of your decision to post a REALLY dumb ass article and think it was in any way meaningful.

For the record: When Saddam set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire, it was a terrible thing to do, and environmentally devestating.

Sadam is not my friend, and I don't belive I've said anything that might be construed as defending him. I've said a lot about defending the iraqi people.

I think it's sick you call other people liars and reserve for yourself the right to lie and lie and lie. Sick, but hardly surprising. You can cast the blame any way you like, you can say this is ll Sadams fault and it may well be, but in the end, American bombs and American soldiers are going to kill human beings. Children are going to die. If your okay with that to avert a larger doom, what exactly is your problem with my statement. It's my contention we are courting World War Three. That's my sincere belief. I may well be wrong. But suppose for the sake of argument I'm right. Would it be worth the loss of American lives on the appauling scale of Vietnam to avert World War Three? Is this argument any different than yours that we need to invade Iraq now to prevent Sadam from doing more damage later.

I see two differences.

1.) You're are as absolutely certain you are right and I'm wrong as I am the sun is the center of the solar system.

2.) You are appauled that I talk of American deaths. If I'm right, I think you need to look at that. You see us and them. I see people. Human beings with the same wants aand needs and capacity to suffer as us. If fact, you should be MORE concerned about them than us. Christian (real christian) Americans who perish on the battlefield will go to heaven. Muslims (who will be soldiers and blameless civillians) will go to hell.

i don't think i say this enough: thank you, max burbank.

Well you're more than welcome, Glow. It just grinds my beans how mean Ronnie is to me and all the lies he spreads about me! Why, someone new coming to these boards could get the impression I wasn't a nice guy!

If an American soldier did this you'd call them a traitor.

Plus since we generally lead with air strikes, it's not realy an option. And I doubt Iraqi soldiers get the choice to 'stay home' any more than American soldiers do.

But that's okay. No big deal. They're not real human beings, they're just the enemy making the choice to burn. So the suffering they feel doesn't matter at all.

Max,

"If fact, you should be MORE concerned about them than us. Christian (real christian) Americans who perish on the battlefield will go to heaven. Muslims (who will be soldiers and blameless civillians) will go to hell."

Oh! Not again!? You wouldn't try to decieve anyone here would you, Maxi?

Didn't I just start a thread saying that we should pray for Iraqis and American soldiers?

I believe I did. Therefore you have once again been exposed for the liar you are.

I hope you are disappointed and very few if any American soldiers die. In my opinion, THAT is the only way to "avert doom".

I notice you didn't mention the Iraqi soldiers or citizens here. But you're praying for them.

The only thing I'm wondering is...are you praying for them to live, or praying for them to die?

No, Naldo, I won't be disapointed.

And I see no lie here. You said you would pray for both. Which is very good of you.

I said you should be MORE concerned for the Iraqis, who's souls as well as there lives are in peril. Many of the American souls as well, but my point remians. Also, I said nothing at all about what you were doing, only suggested where your concerns ought morally to balance. Love thy enemy and all.

I know nothing of your relative concern levels. It's not a lie. Like when you say I "Hate what America stands for", which clearly is.

I always love it when the anti-war groups put on their 70's SuperFly outfits and bring up the pimped children.

"OH NO! WAR KILLS CHILDREN!"

No, really?!? I thought we had special bombs that would not pierce the skin of those that have not entered puberty.

For the few, VERY unfortunate civilian causalities that will happen because of this war that we tried to prevent (not including those that Saddam tries to murder himself or place in military areas. I have talked to a coworker that served in the Gulf. IT HAPPENS.), we will save a MASS amount of lives. I guess those kids of the dissenters that have their EYES gouged out don't mean shit, because we accidentally killing children to PERSERVE THEIR AND THEIR CHILDERN'S freedom is a vast atrocity that must be STOPPED. I guess the women rapped and hung upside during their menstrual cycles to bleed all over themselves are just something we should "tolerate", because we wouldn't want to impose our evil jingoistic capitalist Xian pro-selected president views on them, huh?


That is why I love liberals. When it comes to keeping children away from porno, homosexuality, depravity, drugs, broken homes, and govt educational enslavement, we "fascist right-wingers" are the scourge of children everywhere, but when it comes to war in which we try to AVOID children dying, suddenly children's welfare means something. Blah.

:rolleyes

For some reason I fear I'll be finding myself in agreement with Ronnie more often....

Yes, govt educational enslavement. Read a book sometime. Joe Clark, ya know, the guy who the movie Lean On Me was about, says himself that govt education for the most part is a bunch of bull that does nothing but keep underprivledged children, who a vast amount of them are minorites (ya know, the people the liberals like to pimp out every 2 to 4 years for votes) nice and stupid so people can take advantage of them. It's all about votes. Keep people relying on the govt, they are going to vote for govt handouts, who keeps giving the handouts for the most part? Liberals, who are mostly Democrats. Who is big on not having school vouchers? Liberals, who are mostly Democrats.

I work in a private school. I know the public school games that are ran. I want all kids to have a right to a good education, not the foo-foo crapola one we give kids now thanks to dumbing down of test scores and grades based on "progress" instead of what they did.

I only read books that are recommended by Rush Limbaugh or Micahel Savage, sorry. :(

I don't doubt that the public education system has serious problems, but I'm sure you and I disagree on the solutions, and I certainly don't believe vouchers and Edisen (Edison?) schools are that answer.

That was pretty cool. I think an ELIZA program could be written to do the same thing, but still, it was classic form.

There were more than 200 civillian casualties in Panama. I'm kind of thinking this might be a little more drawn out. I certainly hope not, but if you have some sort of iside scoop on the body count, you should share it.

If you think our administration is over there to stop the maltreatemnt of women, I'd suggest that bad as it is, the mostly secular Iraq treats women more equally than any of our allies. We used to be allied with the Taliban, and they kept their women in bags.

I assume you have no kids of your own. If you have any, I beg your pardon and change my assumption to your lacking the natural chemicals involved in compassion.

Here's what I don't know. The future. Here's what I do know. Children who die when bombs fall on them are children and they die because bombs fall on them. Whatever the causality, wherever you place the blame, whichever side you are on in this, if that doesn't cause you some discomfort, that our country is killing people, especially children, and I do apologize that their status as children makes a difference to me then I respectfully request you bite my bag.

Oh, an woah, dude, you talked with a co-worker who worked in the gulf? Did you know friend of my cousins gynacologist met Wayne Newton? The annecdotal evidence of a guy you met doesn't make you some sort of authority on war. And note, I'm not denying it, I don't have 'intel' like that. Do I think Sadam should go? I do. Do I think we need to start whole new policy of global pre-emption to achieve that goal. Hmmmmmm. Let me think a moment. Okay, I thought. If that's what it takes I don't think it's worth it. The list of barbaric dictators is too long, and most of them are our allies, so the chance of justifying regime change could be a tougher sell.

Max, if you are the lone liberal voice in the neo-conservative wilderness, then color me Davey Crockett and pass me a coon-skin cap, because I'll join your cause. That is the most brilliant quote I've read all day. :)

The war declared by this country will save children's lives in the long term. Saddam Hussein has killed many, many children. Sacrifice and pain are sometimes the only means to an end, and this should not be overlooked as a reality. No one knows the future, and no one wants to kill children. I do not believe the United States deliberately targets civilians, nor should anyone else. If you do believe that, you are only lying to yourselves.

This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. If you actually knew your 1st amendment jurisprudence, these liberals that you speak of are the ones advocating the freedom of expression, porn, nude dancing and the freedom of playboy to broadcast all day. Republicans and conservatives are the ones trying to repress speech everywhere and are the ones sending these children to die. So shut the fuck up. You can't avoid children dying by killing them or sending them to be killed. So if you care to clarify, I'm all for it.

I missed where I said we did it on purpose.

The phrase collateral damage was invented because there was a messy truth that needed a nice blanket pulled up over it's head.

Here's another phrase from the folks who came up with that one:

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it"

This is what happens in wars.

If I thought we were over there for purely altruistic purpose I would feel less sick about it, but I'd still feel sick. I just don't see any other reaction as appropriatte. I think any other reaction dehumanizes the other side, makes them 'the enemey'. And people believeing other people are 'the enemy' is what leads to war.

And I don't think we're over there for altruistic reasons. In fact, I almost hope we aren't. If we are, we're going to be very, very busy. And our allies will get mad when we invade them. And we'll have to cut china's most favored trading status. The last President to make any serious connection between our foreign policy and human rights was Carter. Remember him?

I remember a cowardly peanut farmer crying and praying in the garden, down on his knees broadcasting his weakness to the world, because he coundn't "diplomatically" negotiate the release of Americans being held hostage in Iran. I also remember Ronald Reagan counting down the days to his inauguration.... which incidentally, happened to be the day the hostages were released. Read your history my boy.

by the way......

BREACH..... hes in BREACH

:lol

I don't know about "history," but your version would make a great mini-series. :lol