I just wanted to add a lil bit to this post. I'm a part time decorator and i make steering wheels as a full time job. Isocyantes are only harmful immediately if you're allergic to it. If isocyantes are a big concern for you, i hope u don't drive cuz there are isocyantes in your steering wheel too.

How many people use a cell phone daily? and for hours? Don't they cause cancer?

I have never been contradictory in a post but I must be now. I do not appreciate anyone posting messages like the one below.

"I have learned over the years that I need to "dumb it down" in some cases or else I am contiually explaining myself"

Simply because others do not understand your technical terms and because you have a degree in chemistry does not give you the right to insinuate that others are dumb. This could have been stated differently. You simply could have stated that you needed to "tone down" your answers. And now, my credentials are an MBA and nearing completion of a PhD in Knowledge Management and golly gee I hang out on a cake discussion board.

Thanks for the informing information about the roller. I have been thinking about buying one but I think I will stick w/ the viva papertowel method. I wonder if any major grocery store bakeries use the foam roller on cakes, if not what do they use to smooth their cakes?? What would a health inspector say about that if they saw it laying out in the open during an inspection???

gibson wrote:

Anythingsugar wrote:

BOTH VERY WELL SAID.

You can try all you want to not use something potentially dangerous for you, well as previous posts said.. you're only option is living in a bubble. And I agree 100% with the 'dumb it down' statement. It was insulting to many of us cc'ers.

thank-you epenguin for answering my question about the paper

I laughed when you mentioned having your hands full and putting a piece of paper in your mouth. Too true.

I know this has been a some what heated discussion, but I really hope you stay at CC.
Tamara

English teacher speaks:

it's all about "semantics"

a.k.a -- "word choice"

or as English teachers shorten it when editing: wc (and we don't mean "water closet" as some of our European friends would use this term!)

-----

So, do I say "dumb down," which is a perfect description of the process from the viewpoint of the person who is doing the explaining but can be insulting to the one receiving the explanation.

Or do I say "condescend?" (bad choice -- wrong connotations and only semi-related as a synonym)

Or do I say "talk down to?"

Or maybe I choose "put in layman's terms?"

Or do I say "simplify?"


Yes, "dumb down" may carry certain connotations (additional meanings commonly known but not recorded in a dictionary) beyond the denotation (the dictionary definition -- of course you have to be able to spell it to find it!) that are viewed as insulting. But, I assure you, "dumb down" is exactly the feeling engendered (caused to exist at a visceral (gut-level)) in academics (highly educated, book-smart) when dealing with incompetent (poorly educated, poorly prepared) individuals

You just had in writing the way I have to talk in my classes so my students will: a) understand me, b) learn advanced vocabulary.

Personally, I was NOT offended by the "dumb down" usage. I would invite you to any faculty room to listen to "teacher talk."

Nor do I feel that gpenguin was talking down to us or condescending in any manner.

To use a cat analogy, she may have had her "back-up" in responding to me, feeling defensive and questioning my right to question her (for a really bad fight, just watch academics and scientist have at each other when they disagree! You WON'T need a dictionary! It can become so childish, so fast!)

Further, her comment about "dumb down" was not directed at the general CC community but to ME DIRECTLY as she explained to ME DIRECTLY how she felt. Granted, it may have been better to reserve that for a PM to me, but as was obvious on BOTH our parts, after the academic squabble (see above for exhibited maturity level at times), we were both trying to make the peace publicly in a way to let others know there where no hard feelings and that we did understand where the other side was coming from (and yes it is legal in modern grammar to dangle the preposition -- the Midwest has finally won that grammar battle!)

The rest of CC was but the audience to a public make-nice exchange between gpenguin and myself, an audience at a performance if you will. As such, while it is any audience member's right to take offense to anything seen on the stage or screen and exit in a huff, the audience must remember that the exchange of words between the actors, in this case gpenguin and your's truly, was not directed at them or anyone one else in particular.

Yes, the nuances of semantics when taking the jargon and lexicon of esoterica and explicating it to neophytes is problematic.

What, didn't understand that?

Oh..

It's hard to find the right words to explain something very difficult to those who know little to nothing about it.

And as academics, we were trained to talk as in the first of those two paragraphs so as to sound properly "academic" or as my mom loved to chide (aka tease me about) "ed-u-muh-kay-tid."

Please know that when "dumb down" is used it reveals that there is a fear that the information will be so OVER simplified that the true meaning and value will be lost in the translation.

As we don't know the reading level or academic level or training of every person on CC, it is hard to gauge at what level of reading comprehension we should write. I've seen everything from barely literate to very erudite (immense control and use of higher level language skills).

I see no need to excoriate (to flay as with a cat-of-nine-tails), to eviscerate (to disembowel, to cut open and remove the entrails (aka the guts)), to express approbation (public condemnation), or in any way rake gpenquin over the coals.

Simply put, it's your choice to take offense where NONE was intended.


--------------

now, see what happens when you ask an English teacher for an explanation!? OY VEY!!

Well put Doug! It would be nice to see an apology from the party who made the statement rather than from the one it supposedly was intended for.

Yes, it was a very well worded explanation. I didn't need to read it again. My statement should have read apology/explanation instead of just apology. I just didn't go back and edit my post. Anything else you want to pick over?

Thanks Doug for explaining for gpenguin. Also, thank you for the statement of "taking offense where NONE was intended." This could be taken as an apology of sorts. It certainly clearified that no offense was intended but that came from Doug also.

And you gloss right over the fact that many people (not just me)would like an apology.

Well here's my degree-less take on it....

The roller is on the cake for a matter of minutes at most. There is no long term contact for much of anything to get absorbed. As with most things, it's continual or repeated long term exposure that could possibly create a safety issue.

I for one am not about to pay 5 times the price for something that may come out in the future that will be exactly the same thing, only have a label stuck on it that says it's for cake decorating.

I'm as cautious as anyone, but there is such a thing as going overboard and for me, this is one of them.

Anythingsugar wrote:

I agree 100% with anythingsugar. Honestly, of we go back to what is originally said, yes, you may be ingesting a substance that is potentially harmfull to you, YEAH.. SO WHAT.. YOU INGEST HUNDREDS OF THINGS THAT ARE HARMFUL TO YOU. I guess what has me so worked up is this one thing has peope questioning products in your life. And no, you don't have to eat a steering wheel to see the harms. How many people hold onto a sterring wheel for hours at a time. You honsetly don't think that
the diiscoycanates is leaching into your skin and causing some harm??
In my un-degree in chemistry, wouldn't diiscoycanates or whater they're called be leachecd into my skin just by holding it for hours on end?? Since when does only ingesting somethinhg make it the cause of some serious disease?? I mean, if going back to the original post... isnt' the whole thing based on the roller touching oil based products for an hour?? Well what do hands let off?? OIL. gpenguins discussion is such a one sided thing, which is why cc'ers should consider some of doug's questions. I guess the thing with this argument is that people know and trust Doug, where as gpenguin is someone new, who comes off as forcing their opinon and expecting us to completly side with them.

hmmmm....could it have been soft padded $20,000 toilet seats for the military???

couldn't resist that crack as that is exactly where this thread seems to be going -- into the toilet w/ personal attacks.

for shame!

moy! trusted? granted been around the block but, hey, my word is neither "scripture" nor "gospel."

----

and I choose to defer to gpenguin's data as a cause of concern.

----

and as for momentary contact -- well try that w/ arsenic or cyanide or ....(and the list of death on contact chemicals goes on)

----

and as for my "Simply put, it's your choice to take offense where NONE was intended. "

that was NOT directed at gpenguin but at those with their shorts in a knot because of the choice of words in her explanation to ME DIRECTLY with the rest of CC as bystanders.

-----

enough -- gpenquin and I have made our peace.

she too only wants the best for all of us -- to live long, happy, safe lives.

-----

cut her some slack -- this is NOT the way to welcome a new member to CC.

----

I am glad to have gpenguin here. soooooo

W E L C O M E gpenguin! << the welcome you should have gotten in the first place!

I'm sorry, I know Im not on here much these days but I was on every hour basically of everyday when this technique was brought forth so all I have to say is............


"VIVA LA MELVIRA!!!!!!!!!!"

All,

I HATE to pull out the "Piled higher and deeper" card....but here goes.

I am a PhD Biochemist with a bachelors degree in synthetic organic chemistry. I currently work in a government lab, one that does a lot of chemical toxicology.

Yes, isocyanates are a concern, but I sincerely doubt the LEVELS given from a 60-second rolling are sufficient to cause any ills at all. They do exhibit some topical toxicology in relatively high concnetrations (like drops of the neat chemical on your skin), and the link to cancer at the minscule levels given off a roller that has been washed after manufacture have not, to my knowledge, been demonstrated. As stated elsewhere on this thread, moderate dermal exposure and occasional oral ingestion of the solid materials is not a big deal.

Thank you for posting, but my overall feeling here is whith the group that is not too worried about trace chemicals of any type. I absolutely guarnatee that all of us ingest measurable amounts of the following every day

- acrylamides
- cyanides (YES, I MEAN CYANIDES!)
- Plutonium (no kidding, not much but enough to detect)
- Radium
- Mercury
- Cadmium
- Chromium
- Insects
- Lots of other nasty things

We live in the real world...foam in not generally considered a contact hazard for people of food.

My two cents...not bashing but giving an informed decision.

E

Why are we supposed to think this post was originally only between Doug and gpenguin? Are we not entitled to our opinions. I'm happy the two of you have kissed and made up and are now defending eachother, very cute however some of us still have our own opinions because believe it or not we do have brains even though were not all scientists or teachers!
I too take offense to the "dumb down" statement no matter how it's explained. We teach our kids not to say the word dumb, call anybody dumb, to not imply somebody is dumb, but it's perfectly okay for teachers to use that term about students and scientists to use that term to the rest of us "average" folk....I do pefer the term "simplify" terms, I think that is pretty standard and not offensive to anyone.

Gpenguin and Doug, please, please don't resort to PM'ing - I'm having a ball here! Talk about ROFLMAO!
Thank you to both of you, for an informative as well as entertaining post.

I will now retire with a chunk of cheese and a bar of chocolate (oh, all right, and a glass of red wine) and contemplate my choices.

P.S. to CC'ers who took offence to the phrase "dumb down" - I personally am grateful. While I consider myself to be reasonably well educated, I am NOT any form of scientist, so Yes, dumbing down was required and appreciated

In my opinion, we have read enough here to make a
Personal, Informed Decision

My daughter, at age 11, was behaving badly at school, and her grades were slipping. (This is with a formally tested IQ of 155).

In the words of the child psychiatrist who talked with her, "She is dumbing it down, to be more like her class-mates"

An unfortunate choice of words? Yes. But it is commonly used.

Let's move on.

Karen

I don't know how I missed this post but it's definitely kept me entertained for the last half hour. I also couldn't resist not posting since I am also a chemist with my master's from the best school ever and definitely find the analysis done by gpenguin interesting. I for one wouldn't use a paint roller on cakes just because it's a paint roller. I find it sort of disturbing, but I also agree that due to the short contact it probably doesn't cause any significant damage to the icing. Only months of thorough testing would allow a reasonable conclusion for this topic.

However, I don't see why alternates (like a normal kitchen roller or parchment under the foam roller) can't be used. Will that really ruin this method? I've never actually tried this method so I can't really state that it would prevent smoothing. I was just wondering.

I really feel for gpenguin because her topic has been picked apart. It's really sad that people can take such offense to how people say things when no harm was meant. I, for one, would probably feel a little offended by the "dumb it down" comment but also realize the other person probably doesn't mean anything by it and brush it off. Is it really this big of a deal to cause such turmoil in what should be an accepting discussion forum for all?

Just wondering.

I'm a little "afraid" to add a reply...lol!

I originally was pretty "yeah, ok, whatever!" about this subject until the other day I noticed that even though I thoroughly wash my rollers after every use, they are turning yellow and now have a greasy film on the outside. So with a sad sigh, I'm tossing the rollers and looking for an alternative.

In a previous post, Sirius showed that a wooden roller is a good alternative. So I am putting dh to work making me some 4in wooden rollers. Also, Pampered Chef carries a two ended plastic pastry roller. Another CCer that does PC is trying that out, so maybe the pastic rollers will be a go as well?