Wow, I'm at work and there's a lot of content in this thread, so I'll revisit it later to digest all of the info
Going to the other Steve's direct response...
I’m intrigued at how your responses seem to focus a bit on black and white. I seem to remember you mentioning you’d studied aspects of theology in one of your posts so you must think in infinite shades of grey. But then maybe you are just sparking discussion here.
Anyway, I think we’ve gone through application of logic and moved into the realm of decision making based on limited information and the unknown. The holiday destination argument doesn’t stack up against what I’ve said about considering risk.
Afghanistan – a dangerous place to be. A high level of risk can be measured via proven information regarding a real level of threat.
Mali – Current advise by Foreign office is to avoid travel there, so again high level of risk can be assumed.
Maldives (my addition as contrast) not currently perceived as a dangerous place over and above the normal risks of foreign traveling. No proven level of threat so low risk.
But then one would also give thought to benefit, if Afghanistan or Mali were number one on my top places to visit before I die list and I only had six months to live, I might pack the bullet proof beach towel and go anyway.
If the Maldives were a complete sh*t hole and I had no desire to visit, then I might sit at home and watch Eastenders instead.
Extemes I know, but considering the briquette question. Whatever fuel I choose, I am ingesting potentially carcinogenic residues on my food and current accepted scientific thought is that will increase my risk of developing some kinds of cancer. So any fuel carries a risk. I know there is something in the Weber briquettes that causes a yellow ash that on an emotional response level, I find unappealing. I know they emit a smell that I don’t find pleasant, again an emotional (or instinctive??) response. I don’t know what the ingredient is and whether it poses any risk to my health. I do know that if the yellow ash causing ingredient were to be harmful, there is a risk that the harm may be subtle, slow and irreparable, but I cannot asses the level of this risk.
Now vs benefit, eating BBQ presents a risk to my health, from carcinogens, fat, cholesterol, salt and probably many more, but
I love eating BBQ and I’d rather live a shorter more fulfilled life than a longer more boring one.
So risk assessment on BBQ, I’m going to cook it and eat it.
I can cook with lump wood which I know contains no additives so I see this as the base level of risk. Now if I start to cook with any briquettes, I add the burning binders, borax and whatever else into the mix, If I use Weber briquettes I add the yellow ash and smell into the equation too. Now I cannot measure whether these factors elevate the danger to me because I don’t have the information to do so but I am adding an unknown which by definition increases uncertainty and therefore risk.
Now what benefits do the briquettes give me over my lump wood, or rather does the use of lump wood meet my requirements and does it have any shortcomings that may be addressed by changing to briquettes, in particular the Weber briquettes? In short, no, lumpwood meets my requirements and I cannot identify any area where I would seek, let alone require improvements.
So by changing to the briquettes, I increase my exposure to risk for no discernible benefits. At least when I go to Afghanistan on holiday I should pick up a tan