I was wondering if alcohol could be used as a substitute for pressure canning to prevent botulism in low-acid foods. I've done a lot more pressure than water-bath canning, and I don't really like that vegetables are cooked nearly to oblivion in a pressure canner. The first time I canned tomatoes (for example) I found when I started using them that the tomatoes would disintegrate in the saucepan. Apart from aesthetics I can't imagine any nutrients being retained when produce is cooked to this extent. I did read that the alcohol level must be 6% or greater to control botulism, but if I use water bath canning I wonder if more of the alcohol would be retained. Plus I've also read that alcohol does not cook off as easily as most people think. Has anyone tried this type of experimental canning or have any insights?

Thanks so much for all of your replies! DH didn't have an opinion on which layout and I was leaning towards the second layout but wasn't sure, so I'm glad everyone confirmed that the second layout is the way to go. blfenton - good point about having more countertop room for wine bottles and glasses (& even other bar items) with the second layout. I wasn't even thinking of more countertop room! natschultz - and I agree the second layout will make it less claustrophobic, which is what I was afraid of with the first layout. For the 42" glass front upper, the dealer is actually ordering the cabinet "pieces" in the peppercorn color and then a local cabinetmaker will be putting the 42" cabinet together (Kraftmaid does not make a 42" wide by 42" tall cabinet) with reinforcement for stability. I hadn't thought about doing wine cubbies - that's an idea b/c I think the 9" pullouts are what's really driving up the price for this second layout. I do also like breezgirl's suggestion of replacing the 2 9" pullouts w/ 18" cab & drawer. breezygirl - I think with the second layout the dealer is trying to get the symmetry with the uc fridge centered between the 2 9" pullouts. I have no idea why I didn't think/ask about an 18" cab - I'm definitely not opposed to asymmetry as I have that in the first layout! And I definitely like that the 18" cab can fit more liquor than the pullouts;-) ellaf - no, I don't think the symmetry will come into play esp b/c we will be replacing the table, chairs and lighting but with what yet I don't know! I'm not opposed to the asymmetry in the bar area like breezygirl suggested with replacing the pullouts with 18" cab. I think an 18" cab would give us more storage space than the pullouts (& I'm not totally sold on functionality/practicality of the pull-outs). The dealer will be out at our house tomorrow afternoon, so I will ask him about replacing the 2 9" pullouts with the the 18" cab and the difference in price. And I will also ask him about wine cubbies, although I'm leaning more towards the 18" cab since I think the wine cubbies would provide less liquor storage than the pullouts. Many thanks for your help in this decision!!!

Sherri1058-the stiffness is absolutely adjustable. The Karbon comes with a little plastic doohicky that fits into each joint of the Karbon and you twist it to make it stiffer or looser. We played around with ours a few time before finding how we liked it. My husband first suggested it, but I did not like the Karbon until I saw it in person and was able to play with it. I was sold. We have had ours for 2 years now and love it sooooo much. We especially like the functionality of putting it where you want it and then be hands off. I have a super single with offset drain and put the faucet offset too. This way I can put pots on the counter and fill them up easily instead of putting them in the sink. I also like the laminar stream. It's so pretty. To use the spray you just hit the button on the end of the faucet. You do have to turn off the faucet to turn off the spray which some people don't like, but it doesn't really bother me. I'm not sure we could go back to a regular faucet after this.

except increased risk of COPD, allergies, etc. Those are risks to health. Especially that "etc."!! :-)" The point is this was not from incidental exposure, it was from prolonged exposure to a spouse who lived with a smoker for many decades, but this is not what people have been led to believe about passive smoking. "According to the 2014 Surgeon General’s Report, there have been more than 20 million smoking-related deaths in the United States since 1964; 2.5 million of those deaths were among non-smokers who died from exposure to secondhand smoke. " this is just based on flawed logic though.When you blame someone's death on something just because they were exposed to it during their life, then the results are obviously going to be biased and unreliable. (There is no known test to determine if someone died from secondhand smoke.) So when someone gets lung cancer and they have never smoked, it must be passive smoking all of a sudden. From memory it was a surgeon general back in the 50s or 60s who originally fabricated the notion of passive smoking in the first place and put the concept to the anti smoking lobby at a conference as a way to change public attitudes against smoking. It did what it was supposed to do, create social pressure against smoking which made the anti smoking lobby's job a whole lot easier but it wasn't based on science. It was easy when a significant part of the population smoked to put the blame on a persons smoking for certain diseases, but since smoking rates have dropped significantly over the years they need to find a new way to explain these so now we are expected to believe that exposure to some past passive smoking is the cause. Why is passive exhaust fume inhalation never mentioned as the cause? You are probably inhaling more toxins in one traffic jam than a life time of passive smoking, yet we are supposed to believe passive smoking is killing lots of people and other risk factors are just never mentioned? It would certainly explain the discrepancy in why many long time smokers never get lung cancer and why some non smokers do, the real cause may be independent of smoking altogether, or smoking could be a secondary risk factor. What about those of us who grew up when leaded petrol was standard? How many of these active or passive smoking deaths were really caused by inhaling that really dirty fuel exhaust we were breathing in from old cars that didn't have emission controls? The real issue isn't about smoking, it is about the amount of flawed "science" out there, researchers are likely designing flawed studies, or collecting information and interpreting it in a flawed way to a predetermined outcome or cherrypicking results, since they don't want to jeopardise their funding. How many times has one study told us one thing, only to be contradicted a few years later by another study? Even in recent years we've been led to believe that genetic testing is going to tell us if we are at risk of certain diseases or not, but if you read the story in the op, even that is flawed and perhaps as pointless as some other science being palmed off as something definitive. Roninsouthga is right, we need to do our research and not just passively accept being spoon fed the nonsensical garbage we often get fed, especially when "research" can be used by business to really increase profits when the results are favourable for them, and when they are directly or indirectly funding research, the results will likely get skewed in their favour (or buried if there is no way to make that happen). "but there are too many variables in life for medical science to ever make the concrete determinations that you seem to want, trancegemini " But graywings, if science can't give me concrete determinations what good does it do for me, or anyone? I can guess or make assumptions on my own observations, I don't need medical science to do that and if they can't give the public solid irrefutable evidence of their findings rather than guesswork or agenda driven information then what they are doing is pretty pointless IMO and why I think much of the information we get is dubious.