[HN Gopher] Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cook...
___________________________________________________________________
Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver
cancer
Author : pseudolus
Score : 238 points
Date : 2022-08-12 13:32 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.insider.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.insider.com)
| k8si wrote:
| How do people feel about the GreenPan products?
| PeterStuer wrote:
| I only use pure lard for cooking in (high end
| https://www.zwilling.com/us/demeyere/cookware/atlantis/ )
| stainless steel pans. No sticking problems wathsoever. Heat the
| lard enough before starting the frying.
| ars wrote:
| This title is editorialized, it does not say "cookware".
|
| This study is about PFAS, NOT cookware.
| dataangel wrote:
| Not sure that counts as editorializing, isn't cookware where
| most people would get PFAS exposure?
| blablabla123 wrote:
| Most yes, although the far higher intensity was near chemical
| plants through the water supply I think especially in the
| past.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| I don't think so, since it's found everywhere like in your
| water and meat. In fact, focusing on cookware seems to
| understate the issue and leads people to just argue about
| which pan is the best while missing the point.
|
| I'm sure it was editorialized by TFA because cookware is more
| concrete for readers to latch onto than "PFAS", an initialism
| people are only learning about this week.
| ars wrote:
| No, there's basically no PFAS in cookware. "Studies show that
| this coating contains a negligible amount of PFAS capable of
| migrating to food." https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-
| contaminants-food/question...
|
| You get PFAS from things like paper straws, and other paper
| dishes (always ask for plastic dishes, not paper). PFAS is
| also in waterproof coatings, and things like oil for the
| bottom of skis.
|
| Cookware is the last thing you should worry about as far as
| PFAS.
| daveyjonezz wrote:
| Cast iron pans are cheap, will outlive you, and work nearly as
| well with enough seasoning / butter :)
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The issue is that I want to cook with far less fats, not enough
| for cast iron to be viable. On top of that, it's easy to get
| cast iron to leach with acids and in some cases the seasoning
| can also be toxic.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I love cast iron for certain things but keep in mind you can't
| cook acidic foods in them. They also don't allow for much
| finesse.
| [deleted]
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Yup. Chefs rarely use nonstick cookware outside of baking or
| specifically making omelettes. For the majority of their uses,
| it's either stainless, cast iron, or enameled cast iron.
|
| Non-stick got its foothold when the feds went on their "fat is
| bad for you" kick. They took all the fat out and added sugar to
| products to fix the texture.
|
| Proteins stick to steel when the steel isn't sufficiently hot
| before food is placed on it. If you toss a bead of water into a
| pan and it doesn't dance along the surface in the Leidenfrost
| effect, your pan isn't hot enough.
| Aachen wrote:
| > Chefs rarely use nonstick cookware outside of baking or
| specifically making omelette.
|
| Citation needed? It sounds implausible to me that a majority
| of professional cooks seek to make their own job harder when
| they've got seven other dishes to make by tending a
| nonnonstick pan.
| ip26 wrote:
| As a college student with no idea what I was doing, I tried
| to stir-fry everything at maximum heat and would quickly
| burn food to a regular pan.
|
| After I learned to be a halfway competent cook, I
| discovered most cooking methods don't stick at all!
| Caramelizing, braising, roux, simmering, on and on- mankind
| learned to cook with ordinary cookware, and all the classic
| recipes and techniques reflect it.
|
| It's not a matter of being a great cook - you simply don't
| need nonstick to braise or simmer, for example. So I'd
| phrase the exercise of learning to cook with steel pans as
| simply "learning to cook".
| surfpel wrote:
| These pans are only not nonstick if used incorrectly.
| Carbon steel is often used in professional kitchens which
| develops a nonstick coating called "seasoning". And if
| stainless is hot enough, it's also not very prone to
| sticking.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| The main reason I know of is that a nonstick coated pan
| will not survive long with the bulk way they wash their
| dishes. You'd also have to keep a separate set of non-metal
| spatulas and such.
| dsr_ wrote:
| If you spend the time sanding them down to glass-smoothness
| before seasoning them, you won't need that much fat -- although
| fat is tasty.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Have you checked the your cast iron pan's seasoning for
| potential carcinogenic chemicals?
|
| Organic chemicals when exposed to heat can turn into bad things
| (see nitrates, acrylamide).
| jbotdev wrote:
| Cast iron is also very heavy, and hard to clean if you get
| anything stuck to it. You can't really soak or wash it with
| soap/water without re-seasoning it or it'll rust.
|
| It has its upsides if you put in the work. I've given up and
| opted for mid-range non-stick (coated steel and/or copper, not
| anodized aluminum) or high end stainless.
| dymk wrote:
| Not being able to use soap is a myth, and re-seasoning a pan
| hardly ever needs to be done unless you're seeing bare metal.
|
| After a hard scrubbing, put it on the stovetop, drizzle a
| small amount of oil in there, and high heat for a minute.
| Push the oil around with a paper towel. Your pan won't rust.
|
| Use a metal scrubber and you probably don't need to use soap
| in the first place.
| purpleblue wrote:
| The idea of maintaining a seasoning on cast iron frying
| pans is too much of a pain in the ass. I wash it with soap
| and water and use olive oil or butter whenever I need to.
| The cognitive load is minimal and I don't have any
| usability issues.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I frequently soak and wash my cast iron. It retains seasoning
| and won't rust so long as I dry it after. I also will
| typically coat them with a very thin layer of oil, but
| haven't found it to be strictly necessary.
|
| That said, I have mostly transitioned to stainless.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| I barely have to clean mine anymore. When something does get
| a bit stuck, I just boil a bit of water in it and it comes
| right out with a light swipe of some chainmail.
| pier25 wrote:
| > _if you get anything stuck to it_
|
| We bought these Lodge scrappers and they remove anything
| stuck to it.
|
| https://www.lodgecastiron.com/product/pan-
| scrapers?sku=SCRAP...
|
| Hot water and this kind of brush is all you need to clean
| cast iron:
|
| https://www.lodgecastiron.com/product/scrub-
| brush?sku=SCRBRS...
| xeromal wrote:
| Those scrapers are made of plastic. I wonder if that has
| some forever chemicals. lol
| greedo wrote:
| I use water and soap every day cleaning mine. If you get
| something really stuck you can heat the pan up, then add hot
| water to it. It basically boils the stuck stuff off. You just
| need to be careful not to crack the pan.
| surfpel wrote:
| Carbon steel builds the same coating but isn't all that
| heavy.
|
| > hard to clean if you get anything stuck to it
|
| Easy fix, just don't get anything stuck to it. If you learn
| how to use these correctly, this becomes essentially a non
| issue.
| guelo wrote:
| The burnt oil coating of a seasoned pan is also cancerous. Is
| it more or less cancerous than PFAS? We'll probably know in 20
| years.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Cast iron pans are such a pain in the ass to maintain and use
| that I'll rather take the cancer instead.
| dymk wrote:
| Cast iron pans are less effort to maintain than nonstick pans
| and last longer, if you know how to maintain them.
| postalrat wrote:
| Have you tried maintaining nonstick pans?
| callmeal wrote:
| Yeah - all you need is to accidentally use the wrong side
| of the scrubber and it's "hello scratch".
| dymk wrote:
| I made a comparison between the two, so hopefully you can
| infer that.
| jadams5 wrote:
| For folks having issues with food sticking to cast iron or carbon
| steel, try learning to cook on stainless. It's much more prone to
| sticking, but if you can get the technique down well enough to
| not have eggs stick on stainless then switch to cast it's a walk
| in the park.
| novaRom wrote:
| Tomatoes+Onions+Eggs, anything watery or sour = stainless with
| some drops of olive oil
|
| Meat, Potatoes = cast iron with sunflower oil
|
| anything else (crepes, pan cakes) = carbon steel with either
| canola or sunflower oil
|
| To prevent eggs to stick putting some onion rings or slices of
| ginger helps.
|
| The most difficult is to get good non-oily crepes.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I saw "Dark Waters" [1] years ago and found that whole thing
| really horrific but I kept cooking with a Teflon pan until this
| week because I figured the process and result are distinct things
| (honestly how many industrial processes today don't have
| nightmarish byproducts...). Just this week though my pan totally
| died though and I happened to have this really beautiful cast
| iron pan with a ceramic handle of exactly the same size, so I
| switched. It takes a little bit of learning but so far I love it.
| It retains and transfers heat way better than whatever the Teflon
| pans I've been buying are made out of. Also I think the weight
| helps it make better contact with the plate (electric stove.)
| This YouTube playlist [2] pretty much sorted me out, combined
| with Adam Ragusea's video [3] I just happened to see a while ago
| (If you're a nerd you should watch his channel anyway.)
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)
|
| 2.
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-Q53k5K1cN5HKCwhCsUV...
|
| 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGR-pyLHz1s
| Ancalagon wrote:
| I read about PFAS years ago (didn't have teflon cookware then).
| Eventually a friend of mine gave me their old non-stick pan
| set. I had forgotten about PFAS, then re-learned about them and
| heard about their effects and pretty much instantly threw all
| the pans away. I bought three ceramic/cast-iron pans and
| haven't looked back.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Not to create further panic but you should know that the
| bright coloured paints in the enamel of those ceramic/cast
| iron pans will often contain lead and/or cadmium, which are
| both carginogenics. The whole thing is obviously sealed but
| who knows what happens when they chip.
|
| As far as I see it with my paranoia hat on, there are only
| three safe options:
|
| 1. Cast iron unseasoned (and you do the seasoning)
|
| 2. Stainless steel (w/ no coatings)
|
| 3. Borosilicate glass (with no painting or markings)
| guerrilla wrote:
| If you google cast iron you will see no colors.
|
| > 1. Cast iron unseasoned (and you do the seasoning)
|
| It's usually just grapeseed oil and you have to season
| further anyway...
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Grandparent's comment mentions enameled cast iron
| ("ceramic/cast iron pans") which are nothing but
| colourful.
|
| If I have to season it anyway I might as well not have an
| unknown oil that might 'usually' be grapeseed.
| [deleted]
| mdavis6890 wrote:
| I think there is very little meat on the bone here. Possible?
| Sure! Certain? Hardly.
|
| Of course we're going to start turning up chemicals in our bodies
| that weren't there before we started using them. And the
| increased prevalence guarantees that they will be there more
| often when you look for them in people with e.g. liver cancer.
| But so what?
|
| And taking about a rate of a disease is easily confounded by more
| frequent and more sensitive testing.
|
| Likely this is just in the very large bucket of studies that pick
| up spurious correlations. But like all of them - maybe it's not
| spurious!
| diogenescynic wrote:
| Just don't buy nonstick. It's not necessary and there are better
| alternatives. Use cast iron (vintage/used pans are cheap and
| great!), carbon steel (Blanc Creatives), enameled cast iron (Le
| Creuset), or stainless steel (All-Clad or Viking) . I cook eggs
| in all of these and it's not difficult. You don't need nonstick
| for anything... it's not more convenient at all.
| smm11 wrote:
| Where do you think that non-stickiness has gone when it stops
| working as well as it did when new?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Washes off in the dishwasher, clearly /s
| royaltjames wrote:
| I just learned so much from this post's comments. Thank you all
| for sharing in this.
| jongjong wrote:
| My mother always told me that coatings on non-stick cookware were
| carcinogenic. She also told me the following (which I follow but
| never actually fact-checked):
|
| - When doing dishes by hand, make sure to always rinse the soap
| off completely.
|
| - Do not consume hot water straight out of the tap; always take
| it out cold and boil it as a separate step (because hot water
| carries more lead and other metals from the inside of the pipes?)
|
| - Do not eat burnt (or partially burnt) food (carcinogenic).
|
| - Avoid induction kitchen appliances (radiation).
|
| - Avoid chewing plastic (pthalates/endocrine disruptors).
|
| - Avoid cooking with seed oils or other polyunsaturated oils -
| These are good raw, but not heated as it breaks the bonds in the
| oil and turns bad. For cooking, use saturated fats (but mono-
| saturated fats like olive oil are OK too).
|
| - Avoid processed foods as much as possible (and chemicals such
| as coloring agents and preservatives).
|
| - Avoid eating too much instant noodles (due to coating on
| noodles).
|
| - Avoid soaps and shampoos which produce a lot of foam (avoid
| sodium lauryl sulfate and cocamidopropyl-betaine).
|
| - Avoid any medication which affects the brain.
|
| - Make sure that bedroom gets plenty of sunlight during the day
| to prevent dust mites.
|
| - Don't over-sanitize your environment; lack of exposure to germs
| can lead to allergies?
|
| - Rinse your mouth out well after brushing teeth (don't consume
| too much fluoride).
|
| - After taking antibiotics, eat yogurt and/or probiotic
| supplements to rebuild gut bacteria. I was told this long before
| research about gut microbes was mainstream.
|
| - Avoid eating too much predatory fish like Tuna (mercury).
|
| - Swimming in the sea is good for you. It has healing properties?
|
| Anyway, kind of random but I've always wanted to share these in
| case it helps anyone. I do think it helps to be cautious even
| when the science is limited or has gaps. Our modern society tends
| to err on the side of reckless consumption instead of cautious
| consumption. Remember, the financial incentive of all companies
| in a capitalist system is to deny all downsides because it
| mitigates legal liabilities. Think of Big Tobacco 'doctors
| recommend smoking' campaigns in the 1930s to 1950s; it makes
| sense to assume that every industry we have today is similar. So
| the science (which is funded by these companies) will always be
| biased towards neglect ("don't worry, it's totally safe and
| effective") rather than caution ("It's probably safe in small
| quantities but you may want to avoid it anyway just in case").
| The media will never promote the second approach.
| rvbissell wrote:
| Seems like a lot of good advice, with one notable exception
| being induction kitchen appliances.
| jongjong wrote:
| I think electromagnetic radiation is the area where I'm most
| reckless because of smartphone, laptop, WiFi Router... It's
| hard to avoid. But on the plus side this is probably one of
| the most well-researched areas with fewest gaps. The only
| uncertainty for me concerns what amount of electromagnetic
| radiation is safe but I guess quite a lot.
| VectorLock wrote:
| I've heard people advocate for _not_ rinsing toothpaste out of
| your mouth after brushing and while the premise seems sound
| (gives flouride more time to work) it just sounds nasty.
| benevol wrote:
| Flouride is good for teeth, but bad for the rest of the body.
|
| The problem is: While brushing, you absorb it through the
| thin "skin" inside the mouth.
| scrumbledober wrote:
| I've heard this as well, but it seems unnecessary with a
| fluoridated water supply.
| gxt wrote:
| Not drinking hot water is mainly about Legionnaires disease. To
| reduce exposure to lead from contaminated piping, you must wait
| until the sitting water is flushed out before using it for
| consumption, however this does nothing if the entire piping is
| lead, you have to replace it.
| tylerFowler wrote:
| The usual line that I've heard on nonstick pans is that the
| leaking process happens at very high temperatures. In general one
| shouldn't use very high heat on a non-stick pan & certainly not
| an _empty_ non-stick pan.
|
| David Chang's podcast has an interesting episode on this specific
| topic, though he brings on a domain expert who definitely has a
| lot of bias (but expertise nonetheless).
|
| https://open.spotify.com/episode/7joCX2xx4GU50myfbtVm44?si=4...
| samstave wrote:
| It set us up the DOCUMENTARY for great justice
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7689910/
|
| Teflon is the most biologically sinister chemical.
|
| We need to hold the entire petrol-chemical industry to account.
|
| A dear friend of mine is the niece of one of the most successful
| board members of Shell. Shell is likely the most corrupt-
| environmentally-speaking companies on the globe. (history of
|
| When we went to dinner, they were sharing all their big-game
| hunting trophy pics from Africa where they were able to kill
| endangered species and had no qualms about sharing their exploits
| (think the EDIT -- it was Don Trump jr. (I totally dyslexia-'d
| the presidents sons, I did not do that on purpose. Sorry Hunter.
| (Crack is whack) Hunter Biden pic with the tail of a
| rhino/elephant? type pics. and it wasnt just one... NUMEROUS
| animals.)
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=don+trump+jr+elephant+tail+...
|
| Petro-chems are boon and bane.
|
| This industry needs a reckoning.
| throwhn98624 wrote:
| A relative of mine also made a career in the petro-chemical
| industry. He never denied climate change but the idea of
| environmental protection is completely alien to him
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Humanity probably needs plastics, I can't see how we go back.
|
| Also, it's interesting to consider whether >50% sugar induced
| obesity rates are having a larger effect on quality of life...
| samstave wrote:
| OMG - I was on a flight with one of the biggest lobbyists in
| DC for the sugar industry.
|
| This lady opened up to me about just how evil that industry
| is, and how the family emmigrated to the US via cuba by
| falsley claiming they were religious refugees and needed to
| establish a foot-hold in miami (but they werent cubans, they
| were criminals, and she spoke about how she helped set this
| family up and how she manages their accounts)
|
| Y'all may not think there is money laundering on every level
| - but there is.
|
| The sugar industry run by this family is unpluss-good.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanjul_brothers
|
| These motherfuckers posed as religious refugees. They are the
| biggest drug dealers you have ever not known.
|
| She was their personal lobbyist. And for whatever reason came
| clean to me on a flight to DC....
|
| Reduce your sugar.
| kldavis4 wrote:
| perhaps ironically, it may be the chemicals in our
| environment and not dietary choices which are driving high
| obesity rates:
| https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/07/07/a-chemical-
| hunger-p...
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's no surprise that extreme excess of food due to low
| cost results in massive obesity.
|
| This is replicated in essentially every mammal study where
| one provides an unlimited amount of food and comfort to an
| environment.
|
| If sugar were taxed 1000% percent we would see a massive
| change in global health.
| samstave wrote:
| "The chemicals are turing the plebs fat!"
|
| --
|
| Seriously, While travelling SE Asia, every single rice
| field from Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines,
| Indonesia, Japan.... etc.
|
| It was REALLY common to see the petro-chem signs in the
| fields advertising the petro-chemical compound's name
| brands. (I couldnt read local languages and the 'English'
| name brands were not what we have here, so they didnt form
| a stark imprint... But the root OEM was mostly Monsanto et
| al ptrochems.
|
| The point being, and this will be controversial, but its
| true:
|
| There are a much higher % of trans/gay folks in these rural
| communities whereby the entire water table is permeated
| with petrochems. and their water, while treated, is still
| victim to contaminants of the petro chems in the water.
| (Its all about the Endocrines)
|
| SOURCE: My FIL was the civil-hydro engineer for the largest
| water plant in Mindanao Philippines. His son was on the
| board of the "rice consortium" (I cant recall what it was
| called -- the governmental agency concerned with ensuring
| that everyone in the PH has access to rice as the main
| staple foodsource, and more about pesticides. Think of
| NASCAR branding of vehicles. (like Shell Oil) - but now
| imagine PESTICIDE branding of rice farms... with label
| signs for the pesticides being used.
|
| Recall when Indian farmers were committing suicide over GMO
| seeds that produced no yield and they killed themselves
| before they could starve to death?
|
| So I got rice production and water production information
| from these two engineers... And the dots were compelling.
|
| Its the same type of contamination the fish are receiving
| from SunScreen.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Hopefully high purity water becomes more available as the
| technology gets deployed to these areas.
| hackernudes wrote:
| Big game hunting probably helps conservation. The nature
| preserve picks the animals to be killed and hunters pay a lot
| of money.
| ars wrote:
| > Teflon is the most biologically sinister chemical.
|
| Teflon is pretty much the most non-toxic chemical you can find.
| There is no PFAS in the final product.
|
| Yes, we should regulate manufacturing to make sure there is no
| PFAS released when making Teflon, but there is zero issue with
| using it.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| This is actually very poor statistics.
|
| Take a look at the actual study: https://www.jhep-
| reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(22)00122-7/fu...
|
| And look at table 3.
|
| They are testing 6 different types of PFAS, and only 1 is
| statistically significant.
|
| They need to be using the Bonferroni Correction because they are
| checking multiple hypothesis. To do that, you divide the required
| p-value (0.05) by the number of tests (6). If you do the
| Bonferroni Correction, none of the PFAS is statistically
| significant.
|
| Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/882/
|
| Thus the real conclusion is that the study did not find any
| statistically significant link between 'forever chemicals' and
| liver cancer.
| dataangel wrote:
| Whether they need a correction depends on how they calculated
| the p-value. If they only ask one question, "Is the total of
| these 6 chemicals correlated with liver cancer?" then they only
| did one test and don't need to correct. The fact that 6
| chemicals go into the total doesn't mean they asked more
| questions, it just means there results only speak to the total
| amount of that whole class of chemicals in the blood rather
| than any one of them.
| 2020aj wrote:
| Each of the 6 have unique p-values, they did 6 tests. The GP
| is correct.
| rendang wrote:
| How does a mistake so basic get past peer review?
| flutetornado wrote:
| I have been using oil infused Ceramic cookware from Calphalon
| (Classic). The handles are made of stainless steel which stays
| cool despite all the cooking. Quite convenient. Works very well
| as a replacement for Teflon based non stick cookware I used to
| use earlier. It's not perfect but using a bit of butter or oil
| when cooking gives good results.
|
| More details about various varieties here:
| https://www.calphalon.com/supportShow?cfid=cookware-use-and-...
| [deleted]
| Zigurd wrote:
| Teflon will prove to be one of those planetary scale "Oops, we
| poisoned everything, everywhere, to sell cheap pans" mistakes,
| like tetraethyl lead in gasoline.
| rblion wrote:
| Cast iron skillet is the way to go. Don't use too much oil, when
| heated high enough it creates carcinogens.
| cassepipe wrote:
| It does not look cool but vapor cooking is a miracle. It is fast,
| it is clean, it preserves nutriments. People who like to "cook"
| don't like it because they can't perform their magic rituals.
| Cooking has always seemed something very religious to me...
| Cooking some stuff for a long time, adding secret ingredients
| supposedly to give "extra" taste... Putting stuff on the pan,
| then turning on the oven jsut to melt a layer of cheese.. Seems
| to be so much work, so little efficient. Most of my cooking
| talents consist in adding salt and pepper, spices, olive oils,
| seeds, lemon juice to good produce with delicious bread. You can
| taste the things you are eating, it takes less time and it's
| healthier. It's even healthier for your indoor air. Come to the
| bright side.
| jcul wrote:
| Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat
| oldstrangers wrote:
| They're finding PFAS in everything now.
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/pfas-in-bottle...
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gban/rainwater-everywhere-...
|
| https://www.dcourier.com/news/2022/aug/11/prescott-valley-sh...
| hammock wrote:
| Notably, PFAS are in the food supply chain to a significant and
| non transparent degree.
|
| Those compostable fiber salad bowls are up to 25% PFAS.
|
| The extruders that make your dried pasta and other machine
| parts that make other processed foods are coated with PFAS.
|
| The paper that your sandwich is packed in is coated with PFAS.
|
| The paper straw that replaced your plastic one, to save the
| turtles...is coated with PFAS. Did you really think a cardboard
| straw could hold up for more than a few seconds in a cup of
| liquid without some type of coating??
|
| That's the food supply. Don't get me started on everything
| else. The device you are touching right now, your cell phone
| screen, is coated with PFAS.
| bergenty wrote:
| The question is does all of that _have_ to be coated with
| PFAS? This is a solved problem, people have been using wax
| two centuries ago.
| m_a_g wrote:
| I guess the question is, does this coating contaminate and
| stick to the food? If so at which temperature? Does the
| content of the food matters? (for example acidity)
| dacohenii wrote:
| 25%? Like, one-quarter of the mass of the salad bowl? Not
| parts-per-million?
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| yes, PFAS based chemicals are the replacement for wax in
| 'waxed paper' style products.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Why not just stick to wax?
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| -\\_(tsu)_/- it wasn't actually my decision
| pengaru wrote:
| > Did you really think a cardboard straw could hold up for
| more than a few seconds in a cup of liquid without some type
| of coating??
|
| Maybe everyone just assumes it's a relatively harmless wax
| coating like ye old Dixie cups and not some "forever
| chemical?"
| hammock wrote:
| Yes. And coated cups like the kind you get for coffee don't
| use wax anymore (and if they do it's petroleum derived
| paraffin). They are more likely to use a high-temp polymer
| bergenty wrote:
| Petroleum derived wax isn't really a problem is it?
| cfraenkel wrote:
| Says you. Doesn't explain why drinking coffee from them
| triggers a corn allergy, while the exact same coffee from
| the same store/barrista in a ceramic cup is fine.
| hammock wrote:
| Not sure what you're referring to, but many of the cups
| use PLA liners which is corn plastic ("plant-based
| alternative"). So that stuff is not from petroleum. You
| ought to be able to identify, it's usually labeled on the
| cup, or the packaging
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| Paraffin is what most people are thinking of when someone
| uses the term "wax". I don't think there's an inherent
| problem there.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| I just read that rainwater around the world is unsafe to drink
| because of PFAS contamination.
|
| https://phys.org/news/2022-08-rainwater-unsafe-due-chemicals...
| bilsbie wrote:
| Rainwater pretty much distills itself as it evaporates. I
| didn't read the article but it seems like they'd new some new
| physics to get it into rain.
| [deleted]
| philipkglass wrote:
| The PFAS that show up in rain get there by also having a
| vapor pressure sufficient for atmospheric transport. They
| evaporate and condense with the rain. These chemicals
| aren't Teflon itself but other polyfluorinated molecules,
| used as intermediates in Teflon product production or for
| other purposes.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| I just googled it. PFAS are simply emitted into the
| atmosphere and then brought back, rain precipitation being
| one method of "atmospheric deposition" (something to
| google). i.e. water doesn't need to evaporate with
| something in aerosol suspension for that thing to be found
| in precipitation.
| drewcoo wrote:
| Made me wonder how much of it we're breathing. Especially in
| the fog if it's waterborne.
| randycupertino wrote:
| Bay Area coastal fog has been found to contain high levels
| of mercury: https://news.ucsc.edu/2019/11/wilmers-
| mercury.html
|
| > Mercury, a naturally occurring element, is released into
| the environment through a variety of natural processes and
| human activities, including mining and coal-fired power
| plants. "Mercury is a global pollutant," said Weiss-
| Penzias. "What's emitted in China can affect the United
| States just as much as what's emitted in the United
| States."
|
| > As atmospheric mercury rains down on oceans, it is
| converted by anaerobic bacteria in deep waters to
| methylmercury, the most toxic form of mercury. Upwelling
| brings some methylmercury to the surface, where it is
| released back into the atmosphere and carried by fog. At
| high concentrations, methylmercury can cause neurological
| damage, including memory loss and reduced motor
| coordination, and it can decrease the viability of
| offspring.
|
| > "Fog is a stabilizing medium for methylmercury," said
| Weiss-Penzias. "Fog drifts inland and rains down in
| microdroplets, collecting on vegetation and dripping to the
| ground, where the slow process of bioaccumulation begins."
| IshKebab wrote:
| > However, Cousins noted that PFAS levels in people have
| actually dropped "quite significantly in the last 20 years"
| and "ambient levels (of PFAS in the environment) have been
| the same for the past 20 years".
|
| > "What's changed is the guidelines. They've gone down
| millions of times since the early 2000s, because we've
| learned more about the toxicity of these substances."
| majormajor wrote:
| Is there universal treatment for this in most countries or
| does this also imply that municipal water everywhere is
| equally "unsafe" _? Some quick Googling suggests common
| britta filters don 't remove it either, for instance.
|
| _unsafe in scare quotes because the article says
| environmental levels have been steady for the past 20 years
| and we aren't all dead yet... and lots of animals of course
| drink rainwater more directly out of bodies of water.
|
| It's obviously not a good thing but I don't this means "we're
| doomed"... the article here cites a professor saying we just
| have to live with it, but it would be also interesting to see
| if anyone had leads on removal or any sort of
| mitigation/protection/neutralization schemes.
| Victerius wrote:
| .
| TylerE wrote:
| Life is unsafe. I suspect you would be at a much much much
| higher risk from not having ready access to medicine and
| doctors than PFAS.
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| Or at higher risk from having access to medicine and
| doctors. The overuse of medicine as the solution to
| everything is causing a lot of harm. A pill for every
| ill. In the US, it's not uncommon for people to be taking
| 7 different pills at once! I don't think people lived
| like this 100 years ago.
| TylerE wrote:
| People died young from totally treatable Illnesses 100
| years ago. Being diabetic was basically a death sentence
| qzw wrote:
| 100 years ago people sat in rotting whale carcasses to
| cure their ailments[0]. People have actually always taken
| weird crap for whatever ailed them because we're pretty
| fragile creatures with many afflictions. I'll gladly
| trade dying of simple cuts and strep throat for modern
| medicine, even if I have to take 7 different pills at
| once.
|
| [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-
| news/prescription-rheum...
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Throwaway accounts are a thing ...
| hammock wrote:
| Can be purified. Activated charcoal filters are not the
| most efficient solution, but work reasonably well and can
| be easily built in an off-grid environment
| johnchristopher wrote:
| > In order to make activated charcoal with all its nooks
| and crannies, regular carbon sources are transformed in
| one of two ways: either physically or chemically.
|
| > In physical activation, wood, coal, or any regular
| carbon source is first heated up to 600 to 900 degrees
| Celsius (1000 to 1600 degrees Fahrenheit) in a chamber
| filled with inert gas. The inert gas ensures that the
| carbon doesn't burn. Instead, as the carbon is heated,
| any impurities left on it are vaporized and removed,
| leaving nothing but pure carbon.
|
| > Next, the pure carbon is exposed to oxygen or steam
| baths at even higher temperatures. This causes the carbon
| to fracture and form the fractal shapes with their
| extremely large total surface area.
|
| > In chemical activation, raw carbon sources are mixed
| with an acid, base, or a salt. The mixture is then
| heated. Chemical activation takes less heat and less time
| to achieve the end result, which makes it the method of
| choice for large scale activation.
|
| Doesn't look "easily" to me but that's the first link
| google showed me
| (https://www.thinkcrucial.com/blogs/blog/how-activated-
| charco...)
|
| What bothers me though is that our environment is
| changing so much and so fast that homo sapiens could not
| emerge tomorrow like they did first. No way a primate
| without culture or science is going to regularly scramble
| a charcoal filter to drink water.
| hammock wrote:
| Basic Steps
|
| Burn hardwood to make charcoal. Cool overnight.
|
| Powder the charcoal using a hammer or mortar and pestle.
|
| Add calcium chloride solution.
|
| Spread on a clean sheet or cheesecloth.
|
| Bake at 250 F for 30 minutes or until all moisture is
| entirely gone.
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| why is this comment downvoted?
|
| I think it's a legitimate complaint about rainwater not
| being safe from PFAS.
| chinathrow wrote:
| > I would be banned if I laid out the remainder of my
| thinking.
|
| Go ahead.
| Aachen wrote:
| I don't know what a bannable offense on HN would be,
| inciting violence perhaps? Wishing harm upon certain
| groups? Either way, I'm not sure we need to invite it if
| they already say it's over the line and not suitable. If
| we can have a civil discussion then obviously I'm with
| you that everyone should have their say... but that
| wouldn't elicit a ban.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Irritating dang is enough.
| benevol wrote:
| Distill your water, it's the only way to have clean, safe
| water.
| elil17 wrote:
| The study didn't actually find anything related to cookware.
| Modern Teflon in the US doesn't expose people to PFOA/PFOS like
| old version did due to new regulations. The chemicals could also
| be entering peoples body's through drinking water or
| bioaccumulation in meat or plants.
|
| You should throw away nonstick cookware from before 2013, but new
| nonstick cookware sold in the US does not have PFOA. I believe
| the EU followed suite recently.
|
| Edit: After doing more research based on many comments here, I
| realized I was wrong. The brand Teflon replaced PFOA with GenX, a
| different fluorosurfactant that's probably worse than PFOA. From
| what I can tell, fluorosurfactants are more or less required to
| make PTFE and it seems quite likely that all fluorosurfactants
| are toxic. Personally I choose to use Teflon for eggs and
| stainless or cast iron for everything else. That feels like a
| decent trade off to me comparing years of life lost from liver
| cancer to time spent scraping scrambled eggs off of pans.
|
| I want to add that a lot of cool startups are working on PFAS
| remediation. One I know of is Cyclopure, they make a Brita filter
| replacement that filters out PFAS (it's very expensive at the
| moment, though). Probably worth it if you live near a chemical
| plant, airport, or US military facility (airports and military
| bases both use PFAS fire-extinguishing foams which they typically
| fail to contain).
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I pointed this out on reddit and got downvote all to hell lol.
| Thanks for taking one for the team. I love my hexclad set.
| gilrain wrote:
| I assume they switched to a less studied but very similar
| analog, like happened with BPA?
|
| Edit: Yep, of course they did.
|
| > Another potential concern is that other PFAS are now in use.
| For example, hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO, also known as a
| 'GenX' chemical) is often used to replace PFOA in manufacturing
| processes, while perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) is used
| as a replacement for PFOS. New PFAS also continue to be
| developed. These chemicals haven't been around long enough for
| researchers to fully understand if they might have the same (or
| even different) health effects.
|
| https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/chemicals/teflo...
| amluto wrote:
| I think the end goal is to not use a similar analogue. The
| problematic chemicals are fluorosurfactants used in
| production, and they are not actually useful in the final
| pan. Manufacturers are working on getting rid of them:
|
| https://www.solvay.com/en/article/eliminating-pfas
|
| As far as I know, PTFE itself is also a "forever chemical",
| but it's an extremely inert polymer and is unlikely to be
| particularly dangerous as long as it doesn't get too hot.
| (PFOA and PFOS are water soluble. PTFE is not.)
| gilrain wrote:
| > Manufacturers are working on getting rid of them.
|
| It might be more ethical to stop selling the dangerous
| product until a replacement can be found, but I'm not a
| huge chemical manufacturer.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Many stopped selling a generation ago, but the chemicals
| last longer than a generation...
| arcticbull wrote:
| > ... but it's an extremely inert polymer and is unlikely
| to be particularly dangerous as long as it doesn't get too
| hot.
|
| You mean like on a stovetop?
| 124816 wrote:
| Usually beyond the range you normally cook at, but
| definitely achievable if you leave a pan unattended for a
| minute, or use it with insufficient coverage. Pet birds
| are extremely vulnerable, and there's plenty of stories
| of them dying due to nonstick cookware. I get little
| benefit from nonstick cookware, so for me the "canary in
| the kitchen" aspect was enough reason to eliminate it
| from the house.
| [deleted]
| oblib wrote:
| My wife and I tossed out all the Teflon cookware we had about
| 25 years ago and replaced it with cast iron and stainless
| steel. We've not missed it at all.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| The thing I dislike about cast iron cookware is that it is
| extremely heavy. I sprained my elbow last year and couldn't
| use any of my cast iron pans for three months. My mom hates
| them too, and avoids using them whenever she visits.
| oblib wrote:
| Some of ours are pretty heavy too. We also have some
| stainless steel pots and pans we use a lot and they're
| quite a bit lighter. But I should also mention we stopped
| using aluminum cookware back then too.
| dd36 wrote:
| Use carbon steel.
| julianlam wrote:
| I don't what to be _that hipster guy needlessly advocating for
| cast iron_ , but why don't you use that pan for eggs?
|
| I don't properly season my pan, and while my eggs don't slide
| off like they would on nonstick, they usually come off in one
| piece, albumen and all.
|
| I clean my pan with a stiff bristled brush, no soap.
| alfor wrote:
| What is replacing PFOA?
|
| Is it something already present in what we eat or is it a 'new'
| molecule that living organisms have never seen before?
| californical wrote:
| I am far from an expert, but there are hundreds of extremely
| similar but slightly modified versions of PFOA that haven't
| been proven unsafe, so are still allowed, but they're all so
| similar it's hard to believe that they'll have different
| affects.
|
| We'll see though in another 30-50 years how much they've hurt
| us again!
|
| Some info & includes links to other sources:
| https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-
| substances/p...
| pier25 wrote:
| > I want to add that a lot of cool startups are working on PFAS
| remediation
|
| Just use cast iron stuff. Done.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| This is about removing PFAS from your tap water. Using cast
| iron does not fix this. Reading the rest of the paragraph
| would have made that very clear.
| elil17 wrote:
| Or from ground water. Or from all the leachate once
| everyone throws out their Teflon pans.
| [deleted]
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| > The chemicals could also be entering peoples body's through
| drinking water or bioaccumulation in meat or plants.
|
| I was curious about bioaccumulation in plants vs meat and
| chanced upon a study that looks at PFXX presence in vegans vs
| omnivores:
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846392...
|
| Meat, fish, and water showed the highest correlations, though
| eggs and fruit seemed to have lowest.
| nerdawson wrote:
| Why take the risk for a minor convenience?
|
| Get stainless steel cookware and you'll quickly learn how to
| avoid sticking by controlling temperature.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I wonder how behavior changes when someone sticks to
| stainless. Because if they use more oil, they introduce other
| risks. Cooking oil is bad for you.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| I agree - I wonder what the relative risk is between
| getting liver cancer from PFAS exposure in teflon vs
| carcinogenic risk in the seasoning layers on cast iron pans
| or smoking oil in stainless pans?
|
| Any time there is incomplete combustion of carbon compounds
| like cooking oil, carcinogenic molecules like benzo-a-
| pyrene are formed, which appears to cause or contribute to
| skin, lung, and bladder cancer.
| [deleted]
| walleeee wrote:
| Is this true of all oils? I thought some (e.g. olive) are
| much better than others (cheap seed oils). I also thought
| risk increases with temperature, so unless you're smoking
| it on medium-high heat and consuming large amounts
| regularly it's probably not worth worrying about given that
| alternatives to cooking for yourself are mostly much worse.
|
| Could be wrong.
| kipchak wrote:
| My understanding of the "seed oils are bad" angle is that
| Olive oil is high in Monounsaturated fat which breaks
| down/oxidizes under heat but is low in polyunsaturated
| fat/linoleic acid unlike vegetable oils, which oxidizes
| more easily during digestion, while heated and resting.
| Coconut oil/ghee/lard are high in saturated fat which
| don't oxidize under heat as easily as their chemical
| bonds are stronger which was previously considered to
| raise cholesterol and be unhealthy. So Olive oil would be
| alright as long as it wasn't being exposed to high heat
| like frying, but would be fine on a salad.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Not really. And I say this as someone who owns and frequently
| cooks with stainless steel, cast iron, and non-stick, I have
| for decades and also worked in a professional kitchen at one
| point.
|
| _Some_ things are always better in stainless or cast iron...
| I tend towards meats in cast iron and veggies in stainless,
| though it really depends.
|
| _Other_ things are easiest in nonstick, but _can_ be learned
| in stainless, like eggs sunny-side up. Eggs overeasy without
| breaking the yolk is _really_ hard though. You can do it, but
| it 's not something you're gonna learn quick.
|
| But there are still _other_ things that you 're basically
| insane to try in anything but nonstick, like thin light fish
| for example. Hence why professional kitchens still use lots
| of nonstick, even cooks who have all the technique you can
| have.
|
| (And as wonderful as your cast iron patina may be, the idea
| that it's somehow equivalent to "nonstick" is utter nonsense.
| Obviously a patina is necessary, but it's not like frying
| eggs is ever any easier in cast iron than it is in stainless.
| As with stainless, any and all non-sticking is due to using
| lots of oil on top of a flat surface.)
| nerdawson wrote:
| I think that's a fair point.
|
| I don't cook anything that causes me a problem using
| stainless steel but I accept there may be cases where non-
| stick is essential.
|
| My earlier point could be expanded to:
|
| Make stainless steel your primary cookware and only fall
| back to a non-stick option when absolutely necessary. In
| doing so, you're risking far less exposure than someone who
| uses that stuff for everything they cook.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Nonstick is never absolutely necessary. It's a minor
| convenience over learning to control heat or washing a
| pan if you don't.
| [deleted]
| captainredbeard wrote:
| > it's not like frying eggs is ever any easier in cast iron
| than it is in stainles
|
| It's significantly easier to fry eggs on seasoned cast iron
| vs stainless. I routinely use both.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| > Eggs overeasy without breaking the yolk is really hard
| though.
|
| This is strange to hear from a professional chef. I cook
| eggs overeasy on my cast iron all the time. What works for
| me is preheating the pan on moderate heat for a minute or
| two, putting in a bit of butter, and using a metal spatula.
| Haven't had a broken egg in forever.
|
| I've certainly found you need less oil to prevent sticking
| on a well-seasoned cast iron compared to others. It really
| is a semi-nonstick layer. I've made eggs on mine with no
| butter just to test it out and with the right heat they
| didn't stick.
|
| But I guess if you have other tools that are easier for the
| same result, there's not much reason to learn the harder
| one. Personally I like having a small collection of cast
| iron I can do anything with, one part saving space and one
| part just having a thing for cast iron.
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| i guess it matters how much oil and butter you're adding.
| krono wrote:
| With a well-seasoned pan it mostly comes down to
| temperature control
| refactor_master wrote:
| I add heaps of oil, and never have trouble cleaning my
| stainless steel pans.
|
| But the whole "clean eating" thing seems to vilify any
| kind of cooking fat, and guests often give me the "guess
| we're not on a diet today". But from what I recall,
| cooking oil is not the thing driving the obesity
| pandemic, and the innocent muffin they had at work would
| easily be several multiples of the cooking oil, calorie-
| wise.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _cook eggs overeasy on my cast iron all the time_
|
| Cast iron is great in a professional kitchen. It wears
| well. And it benefits from frequent use. Most home cooks
| won't use their cast iron cookware daily, let alone
| multiple times a day. That affects the seasoning.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| I use my main pan daily, but I've also never had an issue
| pulling out my other pan after it's sat for a month or
| two and just using it. A really good seasoning helps with
| long term storage too.
| ubercore wrote:
| This is FUD. Cast iron seasoning has been mythologized,
| it's not that hard to maintain good seasoning. Even if
| you wash with some soap.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| To be fair, the vast majority of people I've lived with
| or know-well-enough-to-know-this-about-them (we need a
| word for this concept in English) can't be arsed to clean
| their pans immediately. Especially those who rely on a
| dishwasher.
|
| Cast iron isn't compatible with that approach.
|
| You have to be the type of person who can appreciate and
| capitalize on the fact that cleaning off eggs immediately
| after cooking takes 1 second while chiseling them off
| tomorrow can take 5 minutes.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Yeah, I don't consider a meal done being prepared until
| the counters are wiped down, everything is put away, pans
| are cleaned, and it's plated for everyone.
|
| Part of why I do this is because I have 3 kids. They are
| off playing while I cook, and I take the extra few
| minutes to get the kitchen in a decent state before
| calling them to the table. Otherwise I'm never gonna get
| it done because once they have my attention it's
| difficult for them to let go of it.
| chefandy wrote:
| You _can_ get a nice carbon steel or cast iron pan nonstick
| enough to do things like classical omelets through
| seasoning alone. (Though the shape of cast iron generally
| makes it impractical in that particular example.) All the
| French old timers did. But they need to _only_ be used for
| that and most home cooks aren 't willing to have a pan they
| only use for one thing. Also, most home cooks-- even the
| ones that really think they do-- just don't have the kind
| of pan/utensil handling and heat management experience to
| make that happen because it's super fussy. Even thin light
| fishes can be totally fine with enough fat. I wouldn't
| consider making a sole meuniere in a nonstick pan because
| you can't build a fond... but most home cooks won't use
| that much fat either. I never worked in a professional
| kitchen that used nonstick for anything other than eggs,
| and they were ONLY used for eggs, and most of the cooks
| brought their own egg pans when they needed them. All the
| fish went into regular aluminum skillets or carbon steel
| pans. At the temperatures required to cook eggs, there's
| like zero danger using a modern teflon coated pan. It's the
| people cranking those pans up to smoking temperatures that
| you have to worry about. That shit is nasty.
| lolinder wrote:
| > But they need to only be used for that and most home
| cooks aren't willing to have a pan they only use for one
| thing.
|
| I have a cheap 10" Lodge skillet that we use for
| _everything_. It pretty much lives on the stovetop. We
| make omelets every morning, wash it off, and put back on
| the stove to dry. Quesadillas at lunch. Red sauce for
| dinner. Potato gratin. Pineapple upside-down cake. You
| name it, it goes in the skillet, often without any oil.
|
| The only time I ever have trouble with stuff sticking is
| after several days in a row of tomatoes or similar.
| Acidic stuff like that does damage the seasoning, and if
| you let it sit it will stick. Other than that, stuff
| comes right off even after hours of sitting around.
|
| So many people seem to think you have to baby these
| skillets, and that's just not been my experience at all.
| It's not as nonstick as a brand-new teflon pan, but it's
| better than that same pan will be after 6 months, and if
| I damage the seasoning on my cast iron it really does
| repair itself through normal cooking (with a bit of extra
| oil in the meantime).
| doctorhandshake wrote:
| >> At the temperatures required to cook eggs, there's
| like zero danger using a modern teflon coated pan. It's
| the people cranking those pans up to smoking temperatures
| that you have to worry about.
|
| Citation?
| runnerup wrote:
| I discovered a trick to use a sanding attachment for a
| drill to progressively polish my stainless steel frying
| pans to a mirror finish.
|
| If you then put fish / eggs in it after heating up a
| generous amount of oil to >boiling, it effectively acts
| nearly as good as a brand new nonstick pan.
|
| Mirrored finish is worse for some things (browning
| vegetables) but great for delicate tasks like French
| omelettes.
| Grazester wrote:
| I can't do the temperature control thing so I use ceramic
| cookware for things like eggs mostly.
| rendang wrote:
| I bought some of those too, but I can't help but wonder if
| they have their own untested harmful chemicals
| sparker72678 wrote:
| I got one recently that says it's coated with this:
| https://www.coatresa.com/en/whitford-fusion-coating/
|
| "a coating system based on sol-gel technology, made
| without PFOA and PTFE"
|
| but I haven't yet found out with any more detail what it
| actually _is_.
| koksik202 wrote:
| Can you recommend a brand?
| doctorhandshake wrote:
| Scanpan
| jamroom wrote:
| They're not cheap but I can recommend:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09SS34H3K?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_
| dt_...
| o_____________o wrote:
| https://www.fakespot.com/product/caraway-nonstick-
| ceramic-fr...
| WithinReason wrote:
| https://reviewmeta.com/amazon/B09SS34H3K
| Cerpicio wrote:
| Red Copper Cookware. I got one recently to make omelets
| and I think it is awesome.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Because it's a really minor risk.
| daniel-s wrote:
| I know nothing about this, please explain.
| trebbble wrote:
| Pans that aren't non-stick can be made far less sticky by
| not adding anything (except maybe some fat--oil, grease,
| lard, butter [ghee especially], et c.) until after they're
| hot. I think it causes phase-changing water in whatever you
| added to kind of _push_ the food off the pan. You can see
| this in action by dripping water onto the pan--when it 's
| hot enough, the water will ball up and kinda dance on the
| pan, while lightly sizzling (that's the lowest point at
| which it's OK to add food and it _probably_ won 't stick
| much--hotter and the water will sizzle _aggressively_ and
| may evaporate too fast to really evaluate its behavior, of
| course, and for most purposes this is too hot to add food
| anyway, as it 'll instantly burn the parts that touch
| first)
|
| This makes very low-temp or delicate cooking in non-teflon
| pans a lot tougher, of course. Or anything for which
| starting from a low temp and slowly increasing is a nice
| thing to be able to do (tempering chocolate, for example)
|
| [EDIT] Basically the value prop of teflon pans is that they
| can do just about everything _at least_ well-enough (if not
| always being the _best possible_ option) with just one type
| of pan, and that they are much more forgiving of lazy
| /untrained use or mistakes than stainless or cast iron.
| They can't do much that's _impossible_ elsewhere, but it
| may require better technique and closer attention, and
| maybe having multiple types of pan, if you don 't have a
| teflon option available. The above is one of the ways in
| which you have to apply some extra care and technique to
| avoid bad results, which can be all but totally ignored if
| you're using (undamaged) teflon.
|
| Their main down-side (any health concerns aside) is that
| they are easily damaged by hard tools. With stainless and
| cast iron you can scramble your eggs with a metal fork, in
| a pinch, and it'll probably be entirely fine. Do that in
| teflon and you'll ruin the finish before long.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| nyc restauranteur frank prisinzano explains it well on his
| instagram highlights (a kind of mini, continuous cooking
| course). start with learning his crispy egg technique
| Panino wrote:
| I cook with stainless steel, including eggs (probably the
| most challenging food here, IMO). For an over-easy egg,
| it's sufficient to simply pre-heat the skillet until butter
| will sizzle and quickly melt (but not brown) when added.
| For scrambled eggs I do the same, but also continuously
| rotate the eggs off/on heat. This not only cooks the eggs
| to a beautiful custard type texture, but also mostly if not
| entirely prevents sticking.
|
| Almost everything else doesn't require particular
| consideration on stainless steel IMO. Potatoes can be more
| difficult than others though. Hash browns are easy, but
| little stir-fried potato cubes tend to stick.
|
| With meat, generally, the food will unstick when it's
| sufficiently cooked, which is a handy coincidence if you
| ask me.
|
| I'd love to get any pointers, too.
| avisser wrote:
| Give carbon steel a try. It's cheap. Once seasoned, they
| are wonderful. Being a little lighter and a little
| quicker to heat, compared to cast iron, makes a real
| difference.
| Lio wrote:
| This is great advice.
|
| Carbon steel is a really good deal. In Europe it's pretty
| much the professional standard for all the reasons you
| mentioned.
|
| When we switched to an induction hob we replaced all our
| frying pans with Samuel Groves carbon steel.
|
| It was just a much better vault all round compared to the
| alternatives.
|
| We still have tri-ply stainless steel sauce pans (things
| like tomato based sauces are too acidic for carbon steel
| or cast iron).
| nerdawson wrote:
| Interesting, I'll have to look into that.
| hypersoar wrote:
| I treasure my stainless-clad aluminum (stainless by itself
| has very poor thermal performance) pans above almost all my
| other possessions, but I wouldn't call them nonstick.
| Sometimes it's a feature. You can use the fond (the browned
| bits stuck to the pan) to make a pan sauce. If you want a
| plastic-free nonstick pan, better options are cast iron,
| carbon steel, and ceramic. All have their own downsides, but
| well-seasoned cast iron and carbon steel are incredibly
| nonstick with just a little bit of fat when hot.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Or a cast iron skillet. Once you develop a good seasoning on
| it, it's just as nonstick as any pan I've owned.
| trebbble wrote:
| I've seen well-seasoned cast iron that was nonstick if you
| treat it the same way as stainless: get it hot before
| adding anything, and put quite a bit of fat (oil, butter,
| grease, whatever) in first.
|
| I've not seen any that were nonstick at low temp and with
| no fat in it, as teflon pans are. I can cold-start eggs in
| a bare teflon pan with no butter or bacon fat whatsoever,
| and make totally fine scrambled eggs while keeping the temp
| very low the entire time. I've seen some extremely well-
| seasoned cast iron pans (and they are _damn_ nice, and
| quite nonstick, compared to steel or new cast iron) but
| they couldn 't do _that_. Not without leaving a mess to
| clean up after and losing half your eggs to sticking. You
| could cook eggs in them and nothing would stick, but you
| had to start fairly hot and add a layer of fat first.
|
| They also leach flavors into everything, which really comes
| through if you cook anything delicately-flavored in them,
| and even well-seasoned ones are vulnerable to anything
| acidic and will leach a _ton_ of unwanted flavors if you
| cook with e.g. tomato sauce.
|
| I still like them for lots of things, but they're not
| magic. Teflon... kinda is magic.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| unhygienic cast iron isn't necessary, stainless steel and
| heat control and steel wool are enough
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| Cast iron is perfectly hygienic
| thfuran wrote:
| Cast iron pans are no less hygienic than other pans.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Indeed this is a persistent myth. [1]
|
| [1] https://campfiresandcastiron.com/are-cast-iron-pans-
| sanitary...
| koolba wrote:
| Cast iron pans are great but no matter the level of
| seasoning it will it never be as good as a _new_ nonstick.
| craftkiller wrote:
| Don't forget that with stainless steel you can also put it in
| the dishwasher (unlike teflon and aluminum), use sharp
| utensils on it (unlike teflon), and use it on induction
| cooktops (unlike aluminum and some teflon depending on their
| base material). Its such a wonderful "takes abuse and keeps
| working without giving you cancer" material. Cleanup is easy
| too because if my stainless steel pots/pans accumulate a
| layer of baked-on grease or really any sort of dirtiness, I
| just quickly clean it with barkeeper's friend and then it
| looks like the day I got it.
| derekp7 wrote:
| One thing I've noticed with stainless steel is that if you
| have hard water, you get some calcium buildup and things
| stick like crazy. Anytime my stainless steel pans start
| having problems I soak a bit of vinegar on them for a bit,
| scrub them, then they are good again.
|
| However my preference is typically cast iron. A good seasoned
| coating (and a couple decades of use that results in a
| polished surface) is typically much better than any non-stick
| I've ever used, but again depending on temperature (get it
| hot enough but not too hot), and having a lightly wiped on
| fresh oil coating too.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| > if you have hard water, you get some calcium buildup and
| things stick like crazy.
|
| Anyone using stainless cookware should be using Bar Keepers
| Friend, it's like magic on stainless steel.
|
| The oxalic acid in it removes calcium buildup and helps
| passivate the stainless steel, the surfactant in it somehow
| dissolves browned oil stains (even the nasty burned in ones
| on the bottom of the pot) and the feldspar dust in it
| provides a bit of abrasive action. Smells funny though. And
| wear gloves.
|
| The only extra work is it really needs to thoroughly rinsed
| off or the feldspar dust leaves white residue when it
| dries.
|
| But seriously it makes stainless look like new.
| convolvatron wrote:
| I use 600 wet/dry sandpaper with canola oil when things
| start to get nasty. sometimes I have to use 2 or 3 pieces
| if there is enough gunk. comes out pretty damn polished.
| Arrath wrote:
| +1 for Bar Keeper's Friend. It really is the best.
| rajeshp1986 wrote:
| There are tons of cheap chinese cookware on amazon that
| probably still uses older Teflon. There is no way this can be
| regulated. I'll stick with iron skillet.
| pmulard wrote:
| I cook eggs on cast iron without them sticking, but it requires
| maintenance on the seasoning. The trick is to use some butter
| when cooking with eggs, and they slide right off. A quick wipe
| with a paper towel and the pan is clean (leaving butter residue
| helps keep it oiled for next time).
|
| Cast iron is a pain to clean if you burn food and the burnt
| pieces stick, but the investment into learning how to cook with
| it is worth the reward imo.
| acomjean wrote:
| We've been using carbon steel pan. Its like cast iron but
| much lighter (not light though). They look kinda narly, but
| you get used to it.
|
| You "season" from time to time (oil high heat) but we haven't
| in at least 6 months and use that thing at least 6 times a
| week. Easy to clean too.
|
| This article kinda give the details. (you have to dodge a
| modal and click "read more"...sorry)
|
| https://www.cooksillustrated.com/equipment_reviews/1623-12-i.
| ..
| Robotbeat wrote:
| What toxic chemicals are produced by heating oils at high
| heat for seasoning?
| SnowHill9902 wrote:
| Epoxides and aldehydes mainly.
| ska wrote:
| You don't really have to do much of anything to maintain a
| cast iron seasoning either, unless you are cooking in it in
| ways that strip what's there.
|
| I probably don't do anything at all 29 out of 30 uses or
| more. The other 1 gets a thin swipe of oil while drying
| under heat and that's it.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Carbon steel works great! The first time I used it I was
| kind of shocked that such a simple solution isn't the
| standard way it's done. Cast iron can be a little bit
| inconvenient due to the weight but carbon steel is
| literally no different from cooking in a teflon pan, you
| just clean it different.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| cast iron is better at searing in my experience. I mostly
| use my hexclad for stuff that requires up to medium heat,
| but for searing and blackening stuff, nothing works like
| my cast iron skillet that I preheat in the oven to 450
| for the sear.
| shadowtamperer wrote:
| Totally unrelated, but a Firefox extension called bypass
| paywalls clean is great for avoiding this
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I actually wonder if the charred food contains just as toxic
| of chemicals? Heating edible oils above 200C and/or for
| prolonged periods produces transfats, for instance, and there
| is extremely complex chemistry going on in the burnt portion
| of foods (or really any substance containing a kind of
| organic molecule).
| cassepipe wrote:
| Yes but you can always avoid them unlike "forever"
| chemicals leaked by your non-sticky pan. They're called
| forever chemicals because they never break down. I don't
| think charred food can contaminate your food and drinking
| water.
| CrHn3 wrote:
| It is my understanding that heating edible oils will not
| produce trans fats unless there is a catalyst to donate
| hydrogen, a vacuum and a prolonged period of time longer
| than average cooking times. It is unlikely that a person
| cooking at home will create trans fats.
|
| Different oils have different smoke points, and heating an
| oil beyond that smoke point can polymerize the oil and
| produce free radicals.
|
| Charring foods can create heterocyclic amines, which are
| associated with cancers.
| kampsduac wrote:
| Look into Oeufs Brouilles (French Scrambled Eggs) for cooking
| on stainless steel. Low heat and constant whisking - the eggs
| are so fluffy and delicious! And cleanup is easy.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Learning to "proof" steel is something worth spending time
| on.
|
| I was taught by a Chinese room-mate at college who showed me
| how to prepare a wok.
|
| - 1. Heat the thing up as HIGH as it will go, till parts of
| the base glow red if you can. Gas is better than electric
| heat.
|
| - 2. splash a little vegetable oil in and swill it around to
| cover all the surface. It may ignite, ignore the short lived
| flames, but brush it around with a paper towel so that the
| carbonised film covers the surface with a black layer.
|
| - 3. Add some fine salt. Use the paper towel to rub it around
| until a shiny and slightly bluish and rainbow colour carbon
| later coats the surface.
|
| This will be as good as any teflon for a few cookings.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Heating edible oils to very high heats does tend to produce
| harmful chemicals as well.
|
| EDIT: For example:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4029104/
| buildbot wrote:
| Right, but unlike fluorinated compounds those toxins can
| be broken down by your body and flushed out (I could be
| wrong?). For example, alcohol is pretty toxic to us.
| christkv wrote:
| I find boiling the pan helps unstick stuff
| krono wrote:
| Just scrub with a bit of salt and a paper towel when it's
| still warm and rinse with a bit of cold water.
| BenFrantzDale wrote:
| Also: chainmail scrubbers are amazing. I can't recommend
| them enough.
| 14 wrote:
| The thing you need to be careful with using a cast iron pan
| is to not go too high heat. Since they can withstand a higher
| heat from other pans there is a risk when doing so as it
| creates a carcinogenic compound.
|
| There's some concern that because cast-iron pans can sustain
| high heat, they may produce chemicals known as heterocyclic
| amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
| which are linked to an increased risk of cancer. These
| chemicals form when meat, including beef, pork, fish and
| chicken, are cooked using high-temperature cooking
| techniques, like pan-frying and grilling over an open flame,
| according to the National Cancer Institute.
|
| Not sure how much the increased risk is but just something to
| consider.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Indeed. Any kind of burning or charring of food is causing
| really complex chemistry, and with organic molecules will
| likely produce aromatics, etc. (benzene is the prototypical
| aromatic and is present in cooking oil fumes:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4029104/ ). I
| think about this a lot when we're cautioned about the
| presence of extremely minuscule amounts of industrial
| chemicals, some of the same that are present in charred
| food.
| harikb wrote:
| Do you use a gas powered stove? My friends won't stop sending
| me links to articles detailing the cancer causing bad stuff
| in the natural gas stoves :o
|
| If not, are there good electric stoves that work with hard
| cast iron pans?
|
| I have seen the mess heavy cookware creates on those glass
| top cooktops - old style coils seems to be best for those.
| dmix wrote:
| I used a big cast iron pan on an electric stove for years.
| It takes a while to heat up but not to the point where it's
| a large burden.
|
| I just love cooking everything with it, including eggs.
| squeebie23 wrote:
| The weight of the cast iron also helps even out cooking
| on electric stovetops since they cycle the heat on and
| off.
| munk-a wrote:
| We've got a glass top electric stove and regularly use cast
| iron pans with no real noticeable damage - I'm not certain
| where you got that impression.
| scythe wrote:
| >I have seen the mess heavy cookware creates on those glass
| top cooktops - old style coils seems to be best for those.
|
| I have successfully removed the cast-iron crud from a
| glass-ceramic cooktop using a paste of 91% rubbing alcohol
| and baking soda. You can speed up the process by scraping
| with the back of a knife a few times first. Overall, it's
| not slower than cleaning the grease traps on a coil stove.
| bckygldstn wrote:
| By mess do you mean scratching the glass surface? My ~$15
| lodge cast iron has been fine on the electric stovetops in
| my last 3 apartments. They weren't super high quality
| cooktops either: the last nonstick pan I owned scratched
| the crap out of one of them in a matter of days.
|
| I don't move the cast iron pan around a lot when I cook,
| but they're too heavy to do that anyway really, and unlike
| some thin stainless pans they don't warp so won't "walk"
| around the surface.
| elil17 wrote:
| I have never had an issue using caste iron on my glass
| cooktop.
| Jach wrote:
| I've been experimenting with a plug-in induction cooktop
| with my cast iron pan, overall I like it quite a lot and I
| can picture a dream house for me having both induction and
| gas. I still prefer gas (and have been using a butane
| camping stove rather than my rental's crappy electric,
| which is relegated to long-cooking things like boiling or
| steaming) but induction is easier to keep clean. I've been
| keeping the glass from scratching by putting a layer of
| baking/parchment paper between it and the pan, and that
| makes things even easier to clean since I can just toss the
| paper when it has too many grease splatters. I also tried
| one of those silicone pads but I think the weight+heat of
| the cast iron caused it to start melting, so far my
| friend's use of non-cast iron pans with the silicone pad
| hasn't been a problem.
| pmlnr wrote:
| Induction works exceptionally well with cast iron, but not
| with carbon steel.
| ubercore wrote:
| Why do you say it doesn't work well with carbon steel?
| rayiner wrote:
| I do the same except I use ghee. My grandparents all lived to
| their 80s in Bangladesh and at this point I'm just trying to
| do what they did instead of trusting western science. (Aside
| from vaccines put the pitchforks away.)
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| butter, good tallow (non hydrogenated) and ghee are all
| fine. Neither is better than the other.
| keester wrote:
| I have no trouble at all cleaning cast iron skillets as long
| as I put it under some water while it's still hot and give it
| a little wipe. Doesn't seem to affect the seasoning either ..
| munk-a wrote:
| Putting a bit of water (or other liquid) in hot pans is a
| generally good idea to turn your fond into a sauce anyways
| - it's a technique called de-glazing[1].
|
| You should avoid putting _some_ cookwear directly into cool
| water though - the temperature shock can cause cracking and
| other damage if it 's coated. I don't have a great rule of
| thumb for this, you should just double check any advice you
| can find specific to your cookwear.
|
| 1. https://www.bonappetit.com/story/what-does-deglaze-mean
| [deleted]
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| This is like "BPA is bad, here is a new kind of BPA..."
| Zigurd wrote:
| The risk from burning a Teflon pan is enough reason to avoid
| it. I first heard about this from a person who kept rescued
| birds. Apparently birds are especially susceptible to toxic
| fumes. People overheat pans all the time. It seems crazy to not
| take that failure mode into account in evaluating Teflon's
| safety. I also do not FW fluorinated ski wax.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I personally use a temperature-control induction stovetop to
| make sure it can never overheat.
| DevX101 wrote:
| I appreciate you updating your comment with an informed update
| that contradicted your initial argument. When a consumer
| chemical is discovered to be harmful, there's a tendency from
| companies to ask their research chemists to come up with a new
| chemical that shares the same beneficial properties but without
| the baggage of the provably dangerous chemical. There's a VERY
| good chance that the new chemical simply hasn't been studied
| enough and that long term study will show comparable biological
| properties (harm).
|
| I personally don't trust 'BPA-free' plastics for this reason.
| And try as much as I can to use steel/glass containers for
| liquids. At this point, I'm assuming anything 'teflon-like'
| will have negative impact on humans, until it has been proven
| safe in long term studies. You don't want to be an early
| adopter for industrial chemicals.
| elil17 wrote:
| I do not trust BPA-free plastics either. I have switched from
| cans to tetrapaks where possible. My confusion came from some
| misleading industry documents I read which suggested that
| PFOA/PFOS/C8 had been replaced with a process that did not
| require fluorosurfactants. I feel like the information about
| these chemicals is so confusing, it's hard for a non-chemist
| like me to understand.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| Would it not be better to switch to glass? Isn't tetrapak
| lined with plastic too?
| elil17 wrote:
| Glass packaged tuna and tomatoes are very expensive
| compared to tetrapaks. They are lined with plastic but it
| doesn't use hardening agents as I understand.
| cassepipe wrote:
| Can you elaborate ? What's wrong with cans ? If they're
| aren't just aliminum what are they coated with on the
| inside ? How would tetrapak fare better ?
| elil17 wrote:
| They have an epoxy coating with on the inside which
| contains BPA or BPA substitutes like BPB. Tetrapaks have
| a polyethylene liner and polyethylene and typically
| doesn't have plasticizers added.
| [deleted]
| exhilaration wrote:
| It has changed now but, "For decades, most canned food
| manufacturers used can linings made of epoxy resin based
| on bisphenol A, or BPA, making food the primary route of
| our exposure to this toxic chemical." From here:
| https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/bpa-update-
| tracking-c...
| elil17 wrote:
| BPA is still used widely. BPB is sometimes used as a
| substitute but it's probably just as bad.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| For people who care: thermopaper receipts are absolutely
| loaded with BPA. Cashiers have measurably higher serum
| BPA levels, because they touch them all day long.
|
| I generally don't take or touch receipts if I can avoid
| it, but I don't treat them like they're radioactive. The
| dose makes the poison, and I haven't figured out how to
| completely eliminate them and still function in society.
| [deleted]
| infinite8s wrote:
| Most of the replacements are probably no better than BPA -
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X
| 1...
|
| Due to our permission-first society, manufacturers can just
| replace BPA with a similar analogue, claim that it's BPA-
| free (which is technically true, but doesn't mention that
| the replacement is probably similarly problematic), and
| likely charge a premium for it.
| CrHn3 wrote:
| IMO, the biggest risk is infant exposure. Infants are exposed
| to more micro plastics than adults [1]. Bottle fed babies may
| be exposed to over 1.5 million particles of microplastics per
| day on average [2].
|
| We avoid plastic in our kitchen (especially heating it in the
| dishwasher and microwave) but plastic is difficult to get
| away from when pumping breast milk. All pumps on the market,
| aside from silicone hand pumps, have plastic parts that
| require sanitization after every use.
|
| 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-00171-y#article
| -i...
|
| 2. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559
| purpleblue wrote:
| I use stainless steel pans, which are great. They are pretty
| much indestructible and not as expensive as I imagined. I think
| it's less than $100 for a stainless steel frying pan and I just
| use butter or olive oil to oil the pans and it's great.
| Sometimes things get burnt but an SOS pad a little elbow grease
| and it's back to normal.
| nrjames wrote:
| GenX contamination in the Cape Fear river (from Chemours) has
| been a problem for years. There's more info on this page:
|
| https://deq.nc.gov/news/key-issues/genx-investigation
| jahewson wrote:
| > scraping scrambled eggs off of pans.
|
| Wait, what are you doing to your eggs to get them stuck to the
| pan? Welding them?
| retcore wrote:
| >That feels like a decent trade off to me comparing years of
| life lost from liver cancer to time spent scraping scrambled
| eggs off of pans.
|
| Are you sure you meant that just how it reads like? I mean your
| life isn't something I want you trading for a while scraping
| your frying pan. Please forgive my impertinence, but if you're
| so down on your own value I can't help but stop and ask.[edit]
| ask if you're ok?
| yuan43 wrote:
| There isn't a human alive today whose blood is free from PFOA
| and/or PFOS. The question to answer is what are the major routes
| by which this is happening.
|
| There is a lot of discussion in this thread about cookware. The
| problem is that these chemicals are now found throughout the
| environment and used in countless products. The stuff is found
| increasingly in drinking water and foods. Maybe cookware is a
| major contributor, but the truth is nobody knows yet.
|
| Nor does this effect appear limited to liver cancer. The paper
| notes:
|
| > Studies examining associations of PFAS exposure with risk of
| other cancers, such as kidney cancer, in the general population
| have found similar associations to those reported here. For
| example, in the only existing nested case-control study examining
| the prospective association between PFAS levels and risk of renal
| cell carcinoma, PFOS levels >50 mg/L were associated with more
| than two-fold increased risk of developing renal cell carcinoma
| (OR=2.51; 95% CI: 1.28-4.92), and similar associations were
| reported for PFOA and PFHxS [[52]]. These findings are notable
| due to the similarity in PFOS concentrations associated with risk
| of HCC in our study. ...
|
| https://www.jhep-reports.eu/article/S2589-5559(22)00122-7/fu...
|
| For its part, the paper never mentions the word "cookware" and is
| instead focused on the link between blood concentrations and
| cancer.
|
| Edit: Wikipedia has the following paragraph on the topic of
| cookware:
|
| > Despite DuPont's asserting that "cookware coated with DuPont
| Teflon non-stick coatings does not contain PFOA",[91] residual
| PFOA was also detected in finished PTFE products including PTFE
| cookware (4-75 parts per billion).[87] However, PFOA levels
| ranged from undetectable (<1.5) to 4.3 parts per billion in a
| more recent study.[48] Also, non-stick cookware is heated--which
| should volatilize PFOA; PTFE products that are not heated, such
| as PTFE sealant tape, had higher (1800 parts per billion) levels
| detected.[92] Overall, PTFE cookware is considered an
| insignificant exposure pathway to PFOA.[93][94]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| doseage makes the poison, no? has there been an explosion of
| liver cancer?
| codysoyland wrote:
| For those looking for an alternative, carbon steel pans are
| stamped or spun from steel sheets and are seasoned like cast
| iron, but are typically thinner and have longer handles. These
| have been a game changer for my home cooking and I never heard of
| them until recently. I highly recommend getting a small one for
| your morning eggs. De Buyer is a popular high quality brand.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The seasoning of pans is also a cancer risk in some cases. The
| seasoning is basically a polymer you're bodging together from
| random organic chemicals in your food.
| surfpel wrote:
| Health issues aside, speaking as someone who uses only carbon
| steel and stainless steel cookware, I still wouldn't recommend
| it for most people. It's a lot of work just to maintain and
| learn how to work with these pans.
|
| That being said, I love how much more forgiving, durable, and
| long lasting these pans are compared to Teflon coated pans and
| I'll never go back.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I think in the future people will view all the pollution and
| toxins in our environment as crazy (and avoidable) as we view
| people working directly with mercury or lead in the past. It's
| just nuts that we can't find the will to say that it's not ok to
| pollute.
| cassepipe wrote:
| There's a fiction movie about it :
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)
| lend000 wrote:
| So, what's the solution nowadays? Is the cookware really the
| greatest source of these chemicals in the human body when
| properly used? It seems like lower hanging fruit is avoiding
| Teflon dental floss, "compostable" straws/bowls, cosmetics, using
| an activated carbon water filter, etc.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-12 23:00 UTC)