Re: On “Protein or "Funny Protein"(NPN)--Killing "US"”

In addition your reference to melemine only is not true... cyanuric acid is now also associated with the melenine along with 2 other nitrogen (NPN) based products in some cases. The synergistic effect that they have is overloading the body with nitrogen and causing renal failure.
You are wrong on this.  The toxic effects are not due to nitrogen overload, though the research is still not clear on the mechanisms, the simplistic view of nitrogen overload is wrong.  It seems to be more closely associated with the formation of crystal shards in the kidney, something which would require massively higher dosages of other types of NPN than was associated with melamine.  Just because these compounds have nitrogen, the conclusion that it is the nitrogen that is the problem is unfounded – as unfounded as blaming the nitrogen in cyanide.   The appearance of cyanuric acid is not entirely unexpected, as anyone with experience with organic chemistry could tell you, when making a compound you always get several other reactions occurring alongside the one you want.  In fact, I am surprised we are not hearing about the other compounds that are formed as part of melamine production.   Other studies with urea indicate that lab animals can take high dosages without experiencing long term effects.   In fact the recent article (yesterday as I write this) from Nature explores the use of urine as supplement for fish farms.    So again, the view that ML expounds is more than simplistic, it is woefully wrong.

I apologize; I could not find the links with the other 2 chemicals (I had them up last night but lost them) found in the food products. The point remains that food manufacturers can test for melemine and/or cyanuric acid, and will miss a whole host of other waste products/chemicals that can do exactly the same thing.
That is not entirely true, due in part to the nature of organic chemistry.  As I explained above, nearly all organic reactions create a number of other side reactions along with the desired one.  We could test for an easily detectable by product, and the results would be presumptive for our target chemical.   There are also a variety of methods that will only test for proteins and nothing else; my choice being biosensor testing.  This would render the practice of spiking useless since they contaminants would not show up as protein and thus it could not be sold at higher prices nor could it be used to meet protein quotas.  It would make spiking a money losing proposition.

However, how is the common man without any science supposed to understand it? How would you describe it?
I would call it spiking the samples, sometimes it is called dosing.  In the mining industry it is called salting (a la Bre-X), ultimately I call it contamination.

Not sure on dosing, however it is true that if the kidneys are overloaded with nitrogen, it can result in kidney failure.

Is it usually the other way around.  Kidney failure results in elevated BUN levels and other tell-tale signs.

As far as your reference to chlorophyll, we all know that nitrogen is essential to life. In this case too much of a good thing, "nitrogen" also can take life away. Minimizing or dismissing the "melemine" issue as it relates to health with a reference to Chlorophyll is misleading IMO.
I think you may have misread me.  I was dismissing the simplistic NPN explanation which ML uses to suggest that melamine is dangerous because it is registers as NPN.  I used the example of chlorophyll to illustrate how such simplistic view could include perfectly benign or essential compounds can also fall under the NPN category, things like chlorophyll, creatine, nucleotides and other naturally organic compounds.  Can you begin to understand why this notion of “NPN is bad” is wrong, misleading and potentially dangerous? 

... however as it relates to the health of the consumer it is about NPN containing substances in our foods.
I disagree; it is about melamine/ cyanuric acid contamination.  For the reasons I state above.  

This is again IMO misleading. Metabolism of nitrogen through respiration is very different than metabolism of nitrogen through digestion. I believe you would agree with that.
‘Tis true, it is misleading, but it was written in mockery.  Free nitrogen (ie. nitrogen gas)  is pretty damn stable, whether you ingest it or breathe it in, those triple bonds are a tough to break apart.  Off hand I can’t recall a single pathway in which we could break it down and have it interact.

From Wikipedia
Nitrogen is a nonmetal, with an electronegativity of 3.0. It has five electrons in its outer shell and is therefore trivalent in most compounds. The triple bond in molecular nitrogen (N₂) is one of the strongest in nature. The resulting difficulty of converting (N₂) into other compounds, and the ease (and associated high energy release) of converting nitrogen compounds into elemental N₂, have dominated the role of nitrogen in both nature and human economic activities.