[HN Gopher] PFAS can suppress white blood cells' ability to dest...
___________________________________________________________________
PFAS can suppress white blood cells' ability to destroy invaders
Author : clouddrover
Score : 164 points
Date : 2023-02-23 11:04 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.ncsu.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.ncsu.edu)
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Non-stick cookware can kill pet birds even in other rooms of a
| house, at normal cooking temperatures. That _should_ have been
| the canary in the coal mine that they aren 't safe, but everyone
| except bird owners kept using non-stick cookware.
| nanidin wrote:
| Anecdata, but I've owned a pet cockatiel for just over 20
| years. He lives in a cage about 10-15 feet from the kitchen
| where we have never ceased using nonstick cookware. We're just
| careful not to let pans overheat, and careful to take the bird
| to another room when we are using a new pan for the first time.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I mean chocolate kills various pets too but that doesn't mean
| it's bad for humans.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| It's the 'sugar-free' chocolates with xylitol that are
| incredibly poisonous to dogs. But harmless to humans,
| supposedly due to a quirk of biology.
| cwkoss wrote:
| All chocolate contains PEA which is toxic to dogs
| proportional to % cocoa.
|
| Xylitol is an additional possible risk.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I never implied regular chocolates were harmless to dogs?
| myth_drannon wrote:
| WTF, first time I read about it! I had no idea that's an issue.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| The first thing any responsible bird owner will do is get rid
| of all teflon pans. Even a self cleaning oven will kill them.
| This has been well known in the bird community for _years_.
| It 's the very first thing we'll tell a new/prospective bird
| owner. It's really as bad as "Cook a meal, all the birds in
| the house die."
| htamas wrote:
| Is there any source on this? There's an other commenter saying
| non-stick cookware is actually safe unless you use metal on it
| or use it on high temperature. I don't know what to believe
| anymore.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| https://birdvibes.com/what-kind-of-cookware-is-safe-for-
| bird...
|
| https://www.thespruceeats.com/is-nonstick-cookware-
| safe-2246...
|
| https://pets.stackexchange.com/questions/20434/how-why-is-
| no...
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276392/
|
| https://www.liquidimageco.com/is-any-non-stick-cookware-
| safe...
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/cynthia-verloor-vogels-door-
| pan...
| codeisawesome wrote:
| Jumping on this thread! Does Cordura fabric contain PFAS? It's
| the stuff a lot of tech backpacks are made of!
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Cordura is a brand name for a way of texturing nylon thread.
| Nylon is not made from PFAS.
|
| Cordura often has a coating on the back to make it waterproof,
| usually polyurethane that is sprayed on--also not PFAS.
|
| It may have a DWR treatment on the outside, which makes water
| bead up and run off. Many DWR treatments are made from, or
| break down into, PFAS. DWR coatings are far more common on
| clothes than backpacks, though.
|
| You can test by spraying water on the fabric. If it immediately
| forms round little drops that roll off, like it can't "touch"
| the fabric, you've got a DWR treatment. If the water sits flat
| or starts to soak in a bit, you don't.
| mint2 wrote:
| If it has a water repellent coating, probably.
|
| If it's part of a gortex thing, yes.
| zackmorris wrote:
| Since there's nothing we can do at the moment to stop money-
| grubbing companies from profiting from microplastics at our
| expense, it looks like donating plasma may reduce PFAS levels in
| blood by 30% per year:
|
| https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-shows-blood-or-plas...
|
| It also lowers bad cholesterol levels (no affiliation):
|
| https://www.joinparachute.com/blog/benefits-of-donating-plas...
|
| The local plasma center in my city pays $800/mo ($9600/yr) for
| donating twice per week.
| oramit wrote:
| Health benefits and it pays pretty well. This is the sort of
| side hustle that used to be popular on this site :)
| frontman1988 wrote:
| Blood transfusions from younger people in remote countries
| where seafood consumption is low can also be a good option.
| Nepal seems to be a viable choice for anyone considering it.
| joxel wrote:
| [dead]
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Stop eating microwave popcorn immediately.
| TZVdosOWs3kZHus wrote:
| Interestingly today there was the PFAS pollution project [0]
| present in nationwide news [1] in Germany trying to give an
| extensive map of polluted spots. Many municipalities, and thus
| also the population, are unaware of the extent of pollution and
| its consequences.
|
| [0] https://pfasproject.com/
|
| [1] https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr-wdr/pfas-
| chemikal...
| tristor wrote:
| Caution aside, speculatively this could mean that the serious
| issue of PFAS contamination in American water supplies made the
| pandemic worse than it would have been otherwise. Obviously, even
| if the effect size is relatively large, this would be smaller
| than more obvious and direct contributors, but it's not nothing
| at population scale. It's really disconcerting to me that we
| spent decades using chemicals in everyday household products that
| are extremely unsafe in a myriad of ways, without even a warning,
| and we've effectively semi-permanently poisoned all of the major
| city water supplies in the US.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Caution aside, speculatively this could mean that the serious
| issue of PFAS contamination in American water supplies made the
| pandemic worse than it would have been otherwise.
|
| There's no evidence to support that link - what _is_ provable
| though is the fierce opposition of the GQP, the far-right and
| conspiracy preachers to mask mandates and even stuff as basic
| as vaccines.
| tristor wrote:
| The article, cautiously, provides some of that evidence.
| Anything that suppresses the capabilities of the immune
| system can be deductively reasoned to make pandemics worse.
|
| If you read what I wrote though, you'd realize I'm
| acknowledging very clearly that other factors played a larger
| part, without trying to make this a pointlessly political
| conversation. So, please don't do that, it does not improve
| the discourse on HN.
| alex_duf wrote:
| We seem to have the same attitude with all technologies. Be it
| a social network, a new type of AI, chemicals, fossil fuels or
| anything else really.
|
| First we release the product because we can make money, then
| problems appear as adoption ramps up. I find it wonderful we're
| still around to be honest.
|
| Now balancing progress with safety is something we're going to
| be debating for a few more centuries because no company can
| afford a thirty year study on a product to understand its long
| term effects on a population before production. So we're all
| the experiment.
| korroziya wrote:
| Fossil fuels provide us with cheap energy and the drawback
| (C02 emmissions) can be dealt with via carbon sequestration.
|
| Social media is alcohol for narcissists. It provides very
| little utility or value, and the drawbacks (depression, FOMO,
| etc) far outweigh any "benefit".
|
| Don't compare apples and oranges.
| neuronic wrote:
| Ah yes, the famous carbon sequestration technologies we are
| efficiently applying all over the world right now which
| have entirely prevented any effects of climate change.
| Amazing job everyone! /s
| korroziya wrote:
| I love how as soon as a technology appears which will
| allow us to keep using a cheap, dense, portable, reliable
| form of energy, the left-wing zealots come out of the
| woodwork to bitch and moan because it goes against their
| narrative and special interests.
| prottog wrote:
| Literally billions of lives have been lifted out of
| poverty due to fossil fuels providing cheap energy. As
| long as we continue to have an abundance of energy, the
| effects of climate change will be successfully mitigated.
|
| People love to harp on fossil fuels but don't seem to
| want to admit that without it, everyone on the planet
| would still be suffering pre-industrial living standards
| and there would be vastly fewer of us.
| brigandish wrote:
| That seems self contradictory as you're telling us this via
| a social network. If there really is very little utility or
| value that would suggest your comment to be of the same
| nature, which should then prompt a question as to why you
| posted it. Ironically, narcissism could explain that, but
| the alternative explanation is that there is value there,
| we just need to be more careful with it than we have been.
| korroziya wrote:
| >That seems self contradictory as you're telling us this
| via a social network
|
| HN does not equal TikTok. You don't have an actual
| argument, you're just buttmad because you don't like the
| fact that I'm correct.
| alex_duf wrote:
| Both were produced because there was money to be made, both
| have at least some negative effect on society.
|
| Granted, the scale of the problems are different, and the
| axis onto which they act is also different. But I stand by
| my comparison.
| ericd wrote:
| If you study sequestration at all, you'll find that it's
| not going to be a silver bullet. It'll be a small
| contributor, but reduction to zero is going to have to do
| most of the heavy lifting.
| goalieca wrote:
| Everyone wanted a pill to take but the proven answers to
| reducing adverse outcomes is to reduce air pollution, lose
| weight, do everything you can to get your heart into shape by
| sleeping well, eating well, reducing stress, and exercising.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Diet and exercise do not produce sustained long term weight
| loss for basically anyone. They fail anywhere from 80-99% of
| the time. That part is unfortunately bad advice. The only
| thing that's been shown to do that is fasting, surgery or
| GLP-1 drugs.
| jagraff wrote:
| Is fasting not a type of diet?
| arcticbull wrote:
| Diet generally implies caloric restriction whereas
| fasting is complete abstention.
|
| There are significant biological differences - for
| instance, when you restrict calories your metabolism
| slows down as much as 15-25% over the first three weeks
| (hence the plateau many dieters experience). Fasting on
| the other hand raises your metabolic rate up to ~15% for
| the first 5 days of a water fast. Further, production of
| HGH is inhibited by consuming any food and while fasting
| it can increase 3-12X. Autophagy is inhibited by the
| consumption of any protein (via mTOR).
|
| If you want to treat fasting as the special case diet
| where input=0, I guess so, but the physiological
| processes of caloric restriction are quite different than
| total abstention.
| brodouevencode wrote:
| *wants
| terminal_d wrote:
| "The best nootropic is getting up in the morning and getting
| sunlight. Then you sleep at a reasonable hour and wake up
| fully rested."
| mo_42 wrote:
| > The researchers caution that while the results of this
| preliminary study are interesting, they raise more questions than
| they answer.
|
| This is true for many studies I see here. So always read
| carefully.
| melling wrote:
| Well, we do have this:
|
| "It's pretty well-established that PFAS are toxic to the
| adaptive immune system"
|
| Certainly the idea of "forever chemicals" seems like a bad
| idea.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/forever-chemica...
| brodouevencode wrote:
| This is a good site cataloging companies and products that have
| PFAS-free policies: https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/
| tristor wrote:
| Unfortunately, some of the candidate replacement chemicals are
| very likely to be as bad or worse, but because they haven't yet
| existed long enough for us to see population effects, we seem
| to be treating them as better until proven otherwise. PFBS and
| GenX were touted as being better than PFAS and PFOAS, and in
| fact now have been proven to be as toxic or worse, and the next
| generation of replacements now being touted are likely as bad
| (but yet to be studied sufficiently to state this
| conclusively).
|
| Instead of looking for products that have certain modern
| conveniences that require these types of chemicals to
| manufacturer, I think a better path for people who want to
| avoid exposure is avoiding these types of unnecessary modern
| conveniences. There's nearly no reason to use a non-stick pan
| when cooking, there are many techniques to get nearly as
| effective cleaning and release from pans which are made from
| cast iron, carbon steel, and stainless steel without the health
| risks. There's nearly no reason to use spray waterproof
| coatings on clothing, when you can instead use inherently
| waterproof layers or buy clothing from natural fibers with
| tight weaves, or use traditional methods of waterproofing like
| wax treatments. There's nearly no reason to use almost any
| product you find in a cosmetic store because you can choose to
| simply wash your face regularly, use simple moisturizers and
| sunscreens (although sunscreen is its own chemical minefield),
| and go through the necessary mental conditioning to accept
| yourself as you are (which is generally healthy anyway).
|
| I appreciate the link, but I wish people would do a better
| cost/benefit analysis when weighing modern conveniences that
| are enabled by disastrous population level and environmental
| consequences.
| lumb63 wrote:
| If you've not read it, you might be interested in The
| Technological Society. The author says, we ought not ask only
| "what's the benefit?", but also "at what cost?"
|
| In the past three years or so, I've been making more and more
| conscious decisions to avoid conveniences and do things a
| more traditional way, because they work, and with more known
| side effects.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| I wonder if there's a more formalised system of thought
| that amounts to 'only use what technology you actually need
| to achieve a goal' or 'use the lowest-tech solution that
| reasonably meets your needs'? Not exactly outright Luddism
| but a general reduction in eagerness to adopt new stuff
| unless you absolutely need to. I guess HN of all places
| isn't really the natural home for such a philosophy!
| germinalphrase wrote:
| A lot of caveats on that list.
| matt123456789 wrote:
| PFAS is nasty, nasty, nasty stuff. There is no safe level in the
| human body. It is toxic in the single-digit parts per _trillion_.
| And yet, we allow them to be added in massive quantities to our
| cookware, dental floss, and clothing. EPA is currently in the
| process of collecting feedback for its PFAS regulation. Attend a
| meeting and tell them to ban this nasty toxic garbage.
|
| https://www.epa.gov/pfas
|
| "Oh boo hoo I have to scrub my stainless steel pan a little
| harder cause I don't have a Teflon pan any more." You know what,
| when you don't die of cancer at 60 due to lifelong PFAS exposure,
| you'll thank me.
|
| PFAS is the tobacco of our time, with deep-pocketed industry
| interests lobbying hard and spreading FUD about the risks. Let me
| be extremely clear on this point: It is toxic as hell and it will
| kill you dead in horrible, horrible ways.
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| What's it's mechanism of action? Does it bind to something or
| just floats around f*cking everything up unhindered
| Arete314159 wrote:
| Note that even very expensive places can have this. e.g. Dublin
| / San Ramon in the Bay Area:
| https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/system.php?pws=CA0110009
|
| Whenever I consider a town to live in, I google {town name} +
| {ewg}. The Environmental Working Group has water analysis for
| pretty much the entire country. Eye opening and terrifying.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Overall it does look like this class of chemicals should be
| entirely phased out, although finding materials with similar
| capabilities might be a bit of a challenge. Carbon fiber
| perhaps?
|
| https://greensciencepolicy.org/our-work/science-policy/madri...
|
| https://www.nrdc.org/experts/anna-reade/epa-finds-replacemen...
|
| > "The EPA report confirmed that GenX is associated with
| harmful effects on the kidney, blood, immune system, liver and
| development. The EPA also linked it to an elevated risk of
| cancer (suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential). EPA's
| proposed health threshold, called a reference dose, for GenX is
| in the same range as EPA's reference dose for PFOA (0.00008
| mg/kg/day for GenX versus 0.00002 mg/kg/day for PFOA)."
|
| The plastics industry is producing dishonest PR material on
| this issue - this one is from a site run by "The Plastics
| Industry Association", claiming that GenX and other
| 'alternatives' don't have the same health issues:
|
| > "After the removal of PFOA and PFOS, companies developed
| alternatives to these long-chain fluorinated substances that
| perform the same tasks without the same environmental or public
| health risks. All of these replacements are safe to use
| according to governmental agencies like the Food and Drug
| Administration (FDA) and the EPA."
| bioemerl wrote:
| > Oh boo hoo I have to scrub my stainless steel pan a little
| harder cause I don't have a Teflon pan any more
|
| Please, everyone, try cast iron. It's amazing.
| alex_duf wrote:
| I heard carbon steel was good middle ground, anyone tried?
| yesimahuman wrote:
| I'd recommend stainless for the average cook. Carbon steel
| requires more maintenance and clearly the general public
| doesn't want to do that. Stainless is awesome except
| perfectly slidey eggs require a bit more effort and that's
| the trump card a lot of people use, unfortunately.
| filoeleven wrote:
| I'm looking for a new pan and leaning towards stainless.
| I cook a lot of eggs. Friends of mine who also cook a lot
| of eggs use them with no problem.
|
| From what they say and what I've read, including in this
| thread, the "bit more effort" needed is simply to make
| sure that the pan is at the right temperature before
| adding oil/butter and eggs. This is testable using
| Leidenfrost effect on a water droplet. The eggs should
| also be taken out from the fridge 10 minutes before
| cooking.
|
| If that's all there is to it, I'm sold.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Watch Julia Child's videos on cooking omelettes. The
| technique works in every kind of pan and the eggs are
| always super slidey. That's what I love about learning
| more about cooking... there's always some alternate
| method to get what you want. (Julia's stuff is always
| great because she would spend weeks just to figure out
| the best way for the _home cook_ to cook something)
| yesimahuman wrote:
| I don't bother with the eggs out of the fridge bit but
| yea, just get it to the right temp and use enough oil and
| they come out great
| amluto wrote:
| I want a multilayered pan: magnetic stainless steel on the
| bottom, then aluminum, then carbon steel. Basically a
| modern high quality stainless steel pan but with the top
| layer being carbon steel instead.
|
| This ought to combine the lower weight and superior heat
| distribution of a multilayered pan with a seasonable
| cooking surface.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Most of the benefits, much lighter weight. Highly recommend
| having one or two in your inventory. Serious Eats has a
| good review of options: https://www.seriouseats.com/best-
| carbon-steel-pans-7093873 (as well as seasoning guides and
| an overview)
| dylan604 wrote:
| >Highly recommend having one or two in your inventory
|
| I love how this comment implies that the average
| household will have more than 2 pans/skillets in their
| inventory let alone one or two of a specific type.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| If you're a chef with a bunch of pans, one or two of them
| probably should be carbon steel.
|
| If you're someone with one or two pans total, you should
| probably replace the one or two of those that's likely
| Teflon with one or two carbon steel ones.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Carbon steel will rust quicker, it's still susceptible to
| seasoning breakdown from acidic foods, and it's more
| expensive, but it's lighter so it's easier to sautee with.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Unlike a lot of other materials there's not that much
| difference between high and low quality carbon steel
| pans. Even the good ones don't hold much heat and tend to
| warp, it's just part of how they are.
|
| They're pricey because they're out of mainstream favor
| and are kind of an online cooking fad niche thing right
| now. The main producers are venerable european ones with
| their own particular markets.
|
| But if you have a local dollar store type thing catering
| to an immigrant community from like west africa,
| southeast asia, south america, you can probably snag a
| carbon steel pan for like $12. It may be a wok or comal
| or some other slightly unfamiliar format but it'll work
| fine.
| com2kid wrote:
| > Even the good ones don't hold much heat and tend to
| warp,
|
| They hold more heat than non-stick coated aluminum pans!
|
| But yeah do they warp, I have an induction stovetop and
| my fancy carbon steel wok got warped after just a couple
| uses.
| LazyMans wrote:
| You reminded me I need to buy one. I cook on cast and
| stainless. My friend swears by carbon steel.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I'm never, ever, ever going to be able to convince my wife
| cast iron is any good. This is because we have cast iron
| pans, and she's tried to use them, and finds them entirely
| terrible. Yes, we've done all the fiddly seasoning and such.
| _I 'll_ cook in them, but she hates the things.
|
| Tiny chance I'll be able to convert her to stainless for most
| things, but we're never not going to have one teflon pan for
| eggs and crepes and such.
| bioemerl wrote:
| I got a pre seasoned one and beyond the care to make sure
| it doesn't rust it seems identical to Teflon to me. Lodge,
| got it from Walmart.
| aosmond wrote:
| How about ceramic pans?
| yamtaddle wrote:
| You mean enameled cast iron? We've got a big pot like
| that, great for things that need to go in the oven, not
| just on the stovetop, but it's damned heavy so I don't
| tend to use it unless I have to.
|
| [EDIT] Oh, googling, yes, we do also have a ceramic-
| coated steel(?) fry pan still kicking around, though I
| almost never use it because the non-stick was never great
| and got worse fast. Teflon better if I need non-stick,
| stainless better if I don't and also don't want to have
| to baby the pan.
| earthling8118 wrote:
| Stainless steel just really isn't the same thing or used
| for the same purpose. It is an important type to have
| available but I wouldn't cook eggs in them for example.
| Better to use a carbon steel or cast iron so I can just
| cook in it and not worry about stickage.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I use both, I have a cast iron, a carbon steel, and a non-
| stick.
|
| The truth is that the non-stick is the most non-stick of
| the bunch when compared across all things you could cook in
| a pan. Sometimes I just want to reheat my pasta quickly and
| uses a quick splash of water and a paper towel to totally
| clean the pan.
|
| I am a total nazi though about making sure metal never
| touches the non-stick. It always gets cleaned and put away
| in its special spot immediately after using it.
| insanitybit wrote:
| Could I ask why she has an issue? I've heard some people
| have had problems with them but as someone who was born and
| raised on cast iron I've never really understood.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| More care & technique required while cooking to keep
| things from sticking or burning, the seasoning and iron
| itself flavors acidic foods so the pans aren't as nearly-
| universally-useful as teflon, can't put them in the dish
| washer, cleaning in general becomes a kind of balancing
| act between leaving soon-to-be-rancid fat on the pan
| (which will flavor your next dish) and stripping the
| seasoning (you can't just clean _everything_ off,
| completely, like you can with teflon or stainless).
| arcticbull wrote:
| It's really not nearly as bad as you've made it out. Put
| some salt in the pan, rub it down, apply a thin layer of
| oil and good to go. Is not some occult ritual.
| bioemerl wrote:
| You don't even need that. Soap and water work fine.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Yeah soap is fine, I like the salt for abrasion.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| My pans and experience disagree, but OK. Sometimes that's
| true, sure, but getting a stuck-on mess off them is worse
| and more fiddly than other pans.
|
| Recall, I _do_ use cast iron, my wife 's the one who
| finds it to be too much.
| acdha wrote:
| If it comes off easily in cleaning, it's not seasoning.
| It's much easier to clean or cook on cast iron than
| Teflon for that reason -- nothing short of power tools or
| an axe will render it unusable the way you can do with
| Teflon.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| If this were as true as cast iron fans claim, teflon
| wouldn't have dominated home kitchens for decades, I
| expect.
|
| I do cook on cast iron, but even the absolute very best
| cast iron pan I've ever cooked on (not mine--I get the
| cheap stuff, this was one of those perfectly-smooth
| beautiful hundred-plus-year-old pieces that'd been cared
| for quite well and was seasoned better than I've ever
| managed to get any of mine, despite trying every method
| that can be found online) wasn't as easy to cook on or to
| clean as teflon.
|
| They beat teflon at searing and toasting (e.g. nuts or
| whole spices), mostly because teflon can't safely be
| heated to temps needed for those, but anything else? Very
| best case I've ever experienced, _almost_ as easy to cook
| with and clean as teflon, worst case, way, way worse.
| Plus you 've gotta keep acid away from the cast iron if
| you don't want your food to taste of iron and/or old
| polymerized fat, which really limits its utility.
|
| [EDIT] It occurs to me--maybe people who find cast iron
| about as easy as teflon just cook extremely-different
| cuisine from what I do? I tend to do a lot of one-pan and
| sauce-and-starch-in-skillet stuff that's often hell in
| cast iron, if not just wholly inappropriate for it due to
| the acid levels. If way more of my cooking were steak-
| and-hard-vegetables dishes, say, I might wonder why
| people bother with teflon.
| acdha wrote:
| There's also a cost factor: a Teflon pan will be
| considerably cheaper, and most people don't factor in the
| service life. Once you're used to something you usually
| replace it with the same thing.
|
| The other trend was Nixon pushing low fat diets. By the
| time actual scientific results debunked that, a
| generation of Americans had adjusted recipes to avoid
| using as much fat as you need to cook optimally in cast
| iron and it's still common to find people using
| techniques which pretty much require non-stick.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Cast iron is actually pretty cheap.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Cast iron has three fatal flaws.
|
| It's heavy.
|
| It rusts.
|
| No dishwasher.
| siftrics wrote:
| If you cook eggs correctly, they stick _less_ to a cast
| iron pan than to a teflon pan, and they hold together
| better.
| lumb63 wrote:
| How's that? Got any additional info?
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Seriously, the single time I've made eggs work without
| having a layer of stuck egg at the end, in cast iron, was
| on this immaculately-maintained ancient cast iron pan in
| an AiBnB on a Mennonite farm, and even that only worked
| because I cooked them in a bunch of sausage grease,
| probably amounting to 10x the fat I use in teflon
| (butter, in that case).
|
| But, I usually make scrambled, and you need tight, lowish
| temp control for those, which is one thing teflon really
| excels at (cast iron and stainless need higher temps to
| prevent sticking)
| lukevp wrote:
| Try carbon steel, it's much less sticky
| dahfizz wrote:
| Anytime your solution to a problem is "Just exert more
| effort and skill and do it correctly", there is a 100%
| chance the general public will not adopt your solution.
| testTED wrote:
| This explains the state of the general public very well.
| xeromal wrote:
| This should be codified as a law of the internet.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Dahfizz's Law
| halfnormalform wrote:
| I've heard something similar phrased as "Discipline
| doesn't scale."
| klodolph wrote:
| The worst is when I see this advice used for backup
| policies.
|
| Like, the backup is there to save your ass when you
| _don't_ do things correctly. If the backup needs you to
| exert more effort and do things correctly, then it's most
| likely to be broken when you need it the most.
| siftrics wrote:
| I agree, but I think it's less effort to cook eggs in a
| cast iron.
|
| Just add a dash of oil and cook on medium low-heat with a
| lid.
|
| I never spend more than five seconds cleaning because the
| eggs never stick.
| insanitybit wrote:
| I think I'm legitimately an egg cooking expert at this
| point. I've cooked eggs in 1000 different ways on
| different pans. There's no comparison - a non-stick pan
| is going to _trivially_ handle eggs, regardless of how
| your pan is oiled, the heat, etc, whereas a cast iron is
| only going to do a decent job if you 're cooking eggs in
| a few specific ways and you take care to control
| temperature and oil.
| earthling8118 wrote:
| It's also pretty trivial to get right. I'd use carbon
| steel just because it can heat faster. I can have my pan
| ready to go in 2 minutes of heating. Use a bit of oil
| (sometimes I mix in a tiny bit of butter to help
| nonstick, but it isn't required) and it's good to go. The
| difficulty is extremely exaggerated. I've not had a need
| for nonstick
| acdha wrote:
| If the non-stick pan is brand new, yes. The problem is
| that you need to replace them every couple of years as
| the coating become degraded or they perform worse - even
| if you religiously use only soft utensils, simple use and
| cleaning will break it down.
|
| Unless you're trying to avoid using oil for some reason,
| there is no time savings.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| what is the correct way to cook eggs?
| siftrics wrote:
| I see what you're saying.
|
| For me: dash of oil, medium-low heat, and a lid.
|
| You don't even have to clean the cast iron because the
| eggs don't stick.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I'm still struggling with conveying, "you have to get the
| stainless pan _hot_ and lay down some fat before you add
| the food, or it will stick ". Add the tendency of cast
| iron to unpleasantly flavor acidic foods (which is _lots
| of foods_ ) and it's hopeless, as far as convincing goes.
| At least stainless doesn't do that. I might win her over
| for stainless, _mostly_ , but cast iron's going to remain
| only for me.
|
| No denying that it's a lot easier to make eggs or
| pancakes or whatever on teflon, while distracted by also
| trying to get the kids dressed and such, without ruining
| the food or making a mess, than it is on other materials.
| Even if you know _what_ to do with other pans, you still
| have to _do it_ , and that takes more attention and care
| than teflon.
|
| If it comes out that teflon pans are, in fact, a major
| source of ingested or inhaled PFAS, I'll probably kick up
| my efforts to convert her. In the meantime I suspect a
| lot more of it comes from other household materials
| (clothes, carpet, furniture--plus stuff in cars) that've
| been treated for fire and stain resistance, so I'm not
| _super_ worried about the pans.
| buu700 wrote:
| _I 'm still struggling with conveying, "you have to get
| the stainless pan hot and lay down some fat before you
| add the food, or it will stick"._
|
| Would she be willing to use a timer? She can just set it
| for 10 - 15 minutes after turning the burner on, and
| avoid putting anything in the pan until after the timer
| is done.
|
| I've certainly ruined my fair share of eggs by rushing,
| but having the patience to let it get up to temperature
| is pretty much the only "hard" part of using cast iron.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Maybe, I dunno, but it only took a couple fucked-up
| dishes before she was like "why the hell am I doing this
| when there's a teflon pan _right there_? "
| hgomersall wrote:
| You need stainless for acidic foods. We have both types
| of frying pans. The problem with Teflon as I understand
| it is that it breaks down to PFAS at temperatures that
| are easy to reach in a frying pan. It might be that
| Teflon other things are better (like a stand-alone grill
| thing), but I just try to avoid it.
| mtalantikite wrote:
| I have a de Buyer carbon steel omelette pan and it is
| completely non-stick once seasoned. Way nicer for eggs than
| a cast iron, maybe she'd be open to trying that. I also
| have one of their crepe pans that we use for tortillas and
| dosas, check those out too.
| hgomersall wrote:
| I'll echo this. One thing I learnt is that metal
| scourers, used judiciously, are perfect for cleaning a
| well seasoned carbon steel pan. Basically, the scourer
| pulls off the few bits that catch on the pan and if you
| don't really scrub (which you should never need to) the
| seasoning is robust enough. Just remember to not cook
| anything acidic (for which we use stainless) and try not
| to leave things in the pan for ages.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| We're about due for some new pans (the worst non-health-
| related thing about teflon is that they're much more a
| _consumable_ item than other pan types) so I 'll see
| about snagging one or two of those, thanks for the tip.
| earthling8118 wrote:
| This is the main reason I ditched them. Carbon steel is
| my primary pan type now. When you're breaking in a new
| pan use just a little bit of butter for stuff like eggs.
| I use more oil than butter but just having a little
| amount present helps.
| voldacar wrote:
| How do you season it? How do you clean the pan, and does
| it need to be seasoned again after cleaning?
| mtalantikite wrote:
| Serious Eats has a good post on it [1].
|
| Basically, remove the beeswax layer, then rub a layer of
| oil on the pan and heat it until it fully smokes off. You
| can do it on a burner or in the oven at 450F. You'll do
| that a maybe 3-5 times on a new pan, up to you. They tell
| you not to do carbon steel in the oven because of the
| material of the handle, but I've done it before and it
| worked out fine. I generally just use the stove top
| because it's easier.
|
| You clean the pan with soap and water as you would any
| other pan, and then towel dry since you don't want rust
| forming on the metal. You'll need to re-season it every
| so often depending on how much use the pan gets, but
| that's usually only every couple years.
|
| [1] https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-season-carbon-
| steel-pans
| altgeek wrote:
| If you're an older adult with high ferritin levels (genetic
| or oterhwise), you should avoid cast iron. High ferritin has
| been linked with hepatic injury, cancer, and a other
| endocrine disorders. See https://irondisorders.org/too-much-
| iron/
| ridgeguy wrote:
| Thanks for this.
|
| I'm heterozygous for a hemochromatosis gene and my ferritin
| is elevated (although not nearly as much as if I were
| homozygous). I give blood every month to maintain normal
| ferritin levels.
|
| I'd never thought about my cast iron fry pans as a source
| of dietary iron. Obvious in retrospect.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Or high carbon steel. Nonstick pans really aren't a necessity
| for cooking.
| TecoAndJix wrote:
| If you're accustomed to non-stick pans like i was, there
| may be a learning curve using carbon steel (at least there
| was for me). I bought a nice set several years ago and they
| ended up in a box in the basement after i failed to season
| and wash them properly. My father in law recently dug them
| out, revived them, and gave us some tips. We have been
| successfully using them ever since! While I still enjoy
| using the non-stick, I found i was missing out on proper
| fond all these years.
| mtalantikite wrote:
| After using cast iron for years, I bought a few de Buyer
| carbon steel pans and I love them. They're thinner and
| lighter than cast iron. They're more responsive to
| temperature. They season better than cast iron and are
| incredibly non-stick. They might be a bit more sensitive
| when it comes to care than cast iron though, and are
| certainly a lot more expensive.
|
| I still use my cast iron cookware for times it is
| appropriate, but highly recommend carbon steel as well.
| npstr wrote:
| Cast iron is heavy and some people hate that. Try forged
| iron.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Too much of a PITA honestly. Very heavy, and I can't just
| throw it in a dishwasher when it's dirty.
| exabrial wrote:
| Yet we're all still here. Incredible we haven't exploded yet.
| nicholasjarnold wrote:
| > "Oh boo hoo I have to scrub my stainless steel pan a little
| harder cause I don't have a Teflon pan any more."
|
| Stainless steel, while typically being derided by many home
| cooks for being "hard to clean", is actually quite pleasant to
| work with if used properly. What does that mean? Well, I've
| discovered that it means you should start with high quality pan
| (I use All-Clad BD5 and Copper Core, though there are many
| other good options too), heat it up fully before adding
| anything to it, throw in some fat and wait a few seconds for it
| to heat sufficiently, then add your food. Keep the heat up
| while cooking (good pans help with this part a lot).
|
| Try it and thank me later. It changed my life. :)
| [deleted]
| tristor wrote:
| If anyone is curious about the science behind this and why
| you should add the fat/oil to the pan when the pan is hot,
| rather than when it's cold, it is primarily around creating
| conditions for the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect
|
| If you do this correctly, even eggs can be prevented from
| sticking on stainless steel pans. The extra advantage for
| stainless steel is it can be cleaned back to like-new
| condition relatively easily and without significant concerns
| over /how/ you clean it. You can even use acids to clean
| stainless steel to polish it to a shine like vinegar or lemon
| juice, without damaging the metal in any significant way.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| When you add the oil doesn't matter for cooking as long as
| you let the total pan-oil system get up to temp before you
| add the food. Leidenfrost is used as a quick indicator that
| the empty pan is the right temp, but oil doesn't do a
| leidenfrost effect.
|
| The advice to pre-heat the pan first is because if you
| forget an empty pan on the stove you get a hot pan, if you
| forget an oiled pan on the stove you get a grease fire.
|
| Also try out carbon steel for a more nonstick type
| situation. Stainless is best when you _want_ some sticking,
| like for building a fond for a pan sauce. Carbon naturally
| seasons similarly to cast iron, but much lower maintenance
| because you can wash it however you want and essentially
| rebuild the seasoning from scratch for each use.
| tristor wrote:
| > When you add the oil doesn't matter for cooking as long
| as you let the total pan-oil system get up to temp before
| you add the food. Leidenfrost is used as a quick
| indicator that the empty pan is the right temp, but oil
| doesn't do a leidenfrost effect.
|
| 1. It matters because oils oxidize rapidly (and can begin
| breaking down) in the presence of high heat. You want the
| oil to be relatively fresh while using it to cook. This
| is less of an issue with highly refined oils, but a
| problem with most natural oils.
|
| 2. Oil isn't affected by leidenfrost, but the food you
| are cooking is. This effect prevents the food from
| falling below the oil layer and sticking/burning to the
| pan when the oil is moving due to water boiling off. When
| water molecules in the food come in contact with the
| surface of the pan below the oil, leidenfrost forces them
| to float back above with the food and allow oil to flow
| back into the space.
|
| Moving food as you cook it helps with this as well. If
| you cook at the wrong temperature without this effect,
| oil gets displaced from below the food and it sticks.
| This is especially difficult with very wet foods with
| minimal structure like eggs.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Sure leidenfrost is a fine model to use when thinking
| about food sticking to your pan and preventing it etc. It
| still has nothing to do with when you add the oil though.
|
| No cooking oil is going to appreciably oxidize in the 70
| seconds it takes to heat a pan. I cooked at very high
| levels for many years, I have seen a cook get fired on
| the spot for handling a pan incorrectly, no one cares
| about whatever oxidation is happening during preheating.
| The advice to add oil to the hot pan is so you don't
| forget and overheat the oil, or start a fire.
| L_Rahman wrote:
| It takes much longer than 70 seconds to heat up a 12 inch
| stainless steel or carbon steel skillet on a home burner
| to a point where it can be used to fry an egg or sear a
| chicken thigh, both of which are things a home cook may
| do with some frequency.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| ok
| ianai wrote:
| Am I missing something? Putting oil into a hot pan causes
| it to spit and that is how to get an oil fire.
| tristor wrote:
| It depends on what temperature you mean by "hot" and
| which oil you're referring to. If you're in the band of
| temperatures in which water produces the leidenfrost
| effect you are at a good temperature to add oil, if it's
| too hot you'll know and if it's too cool you'll know if
| you test your pan with a drop of water before you add the
| oil and begin cooking.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Oil by itself won't spatter, that's caused by water
| cooking off. Butter will spit because it's got water in
| it. Reused fry oil and things like that can also, because
| they tend to have some fried food bits holding moisture
| still in there. But just pure oil no.
| hammock wrote:
| Hot as in 212-350F, not 450F+
|
| Side note, many people cook with way too much heat.
| rhacker wrote:
| I have tried every method to prevent eggs from sticking to
| my SS pots. Nothing worked so I have PFAS free non-stick
| pans for eggs.
| nicholasjarnold wrote:
| Ah! Yes. Thank you. One thing I didn't mention is that I've
| seen this described by pro cooks like "you know when the
| pan is hot enough when water droplets don't merely boil off
| quickly, but instead dance around rapidly in the pan".
| Leidenfrost! TIL
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| I own a set of cheaper, but decent stainless steel pans.
|
| However, I've never gotten scrambled eggs to work without
| just coating the entire pan in egg.
|
| Scrambled eggs don't play nice with high heat, and too high
| heat and the butter will brown or just burn. I can absolutely
| coat the pan with butter, and the eggs still stick.
|
| Not sure what the solution is here.
| sam345 wrote:
| I'd he interested in some facts ? And cost/ benefit discussion?
| I know nothing about PFAS but the above comment reads like a
| lobbying screed. It sounds like PFAS has been in use for a long
| time. The above makes it sound like people are dropping like
| flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on
| the market and used widely.
| hammock wrote:
| >a lobbying screed
|
| Who do you suggest is doing the lobbying and for what cause?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > The above makes it sound like people are dropping like
| flies left and right.
|
| That's the problem with carcinogens - it's hard AF to link
| cancers to pollutants, but e.g. airport firefighters have
| succeeded with these claims [1].
|
| > There must be a reason why it's still on the market and
| used widely.
|
| On the part of consumers, similarly to our use of plastics,
| it's convenience.
|
| On the part of producers, the usual: money, bribery ehhh
| campaign donations and, in some cases, a lack of
| alternatives.
|
| [1] https://phys.org/news/2023-02-seattle-airport-legacy-
| pfas-ch...
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| PFAS is a huge family of long lasting fluorinated chemicals.
| The ones that are bio-absorbed typically are liquid at normal
| temperatures. Gasoline and plastic are both hydrocarbons, but
| gasoline is toxic and long chain polyethylene is not. So we
| are sort of in this state where some Hacker News savior is
| shouting "hydrocarbons dangerous!!!", when the story is more
| like liquid PFAS is a problem, but Teflon is safe like
| polyethylene is safe. Don't drink hexane, but the 200-ane
| found in polyethylene won't be absorbed even when you eat it.
|
| Bottom line is that all the liquid PFAS has been pulled from
| the market. The last thing I have seen was some ski racing
| wax had these liquid PFAS compounds, and they got fined
| pretty heavily.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Definitely emotional, but overall right I think. A good place
| to start is the documentary "The devil we know". I think
| you'll come to the conclusion that what has happened here has
| been inexcusable.
| baliex wrote:
| This is the article [0] that inspired the (brilliant) film
| [1].
|
| [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-
| lawyer-who-b...
|
| [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/
| ecmascript wrote:
| Since it seems many of these chemicals takes hundreds if not
| thousands of years to break down, I think it's safe to say
| that the benefits of making them illegal outweighs the costs.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| > I know nothing about PFAS but the above comment reads like
| a lobbying screed.
|
| If you knew nothing about smoking and read a long rant on
| smoking's health effects, would you dismiss it as easily as
| you dismissed this one? Probably yes -- but you would be
| deadly wrong.
|
| It's interesting to me how people, although saying they know
| nothing about a subject, they still have opinions about
| what's true or false on that subject. What can one say about
| something they know nothing about except: I don't know.
| Maybe: "this opinion (GP's) seems aggressive, is it
| warranted? I don't know". Just say: I don't know.
|
| > The above makes it sound like people are dropping like
| flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still
| on the market and used widely.
|
| Smoking was dropping people like flies left and right. And
| indeed there was a reason why it was still on the market and
| used widely.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > Probably yes -- but you would be deadly wrong.
|
| Sort of. Smoking was initially only modestly dangerous, but
| became vastly more dangerous over time. So the situation
| isn't entirely analogous.
| arcticbull wrote:
| No? Putting tobacco smoke in your lungs was always
| dangerous, it didn't suddenly become that way.
| raman325 wrote:
| I don't think this comment is in conflict with its
| parent. Danger isn't binary.
| majkinetor wrote:
| But suddently you started to inhale smoke of numerious
| other additivies they put into it in the meantime.
| [deleted]
| sam345 wrote:
| You must have misread my comment.I gave no opinion because
| as I said I know nothing about PFAS. I certainly didn't say
| my mind was made up and I wasn't going to do any further
| research. To the contrary I was asking for facts and cost
| benefit analysis. For instance what are the alternatives
| and what are their environmental and health costs? OG did
| not address any of that.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| >the above comment reads like a lobbying screed
|
| This is an opinion. "screed" and "lobbying" are not
| neutral words, they have negative connotations.
|
| >The above makes it sound like people are dropping like
| flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's
| still on the market and used widely.
|
| This is also an opinion. It uses hyperbole to cast shade
| on GP's original words, to imply a dreadful scenario that
| should be happening if those words are true; you then
| say, paraphrasing: this scenario is not happening, so
| then it follows GP's assertions are not true (to be
| clear: this is your inference, implied, not mine).
|
| This is how I read your comment; I admit, I might've
| gotten wrong and I apologize if that's the case.
| hammock wrote:
| PFAS are used in so many different applications it would
| be difficult to list the alternatives comprehensively.
| But it can be confidently said that, health and
| environmental costs aside, there are no better
| alternatives for their current use. Which is a huge part
| of the problem (similar to the BPA/BPS issue).
|
| PFAS in DWR / water resistant applications is being
| replaced with silicone-based tech and some other
| novelties.
|
| PFAS in coated paper goods can be replaced with
| silicones, sulfuric acid baths, etc.
|
| PFAS in machinery could be replaced with food-grade
| lubricants like mineral oil, etc. (or just more frequent
| cleaning)
|
| Give me some other common applications and I'll help
| think about the alternatives
| cawest11 wrote:
| * _scrub my cast iron skillet a little harder*_
| shadowgovt wrote:
| If PFAS caused people to die of cancer at 60 in general,
| wouldn't life expectancy be somewhere below the 77 it's at?
| refurb wrote:
| This is fud.
|
| Teflon is not toxic, its used in medical implants. Its made
| from a gas - tetrafluoroethylene. It has nothing to do with
| PFAS.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| PFAS is used as an adherent for teflon on cookware. I have no
| idea if it has alternatives, but "it has nothing to do with
| PFAS" is not correct.
| nulld3v wrote:
| Do you have a source on this? Trying to do more research
| but couldn't find much mention of this.
| refurb wrote:
| Why would you use a non-stick substance to adhere teflon?
| matt123456789 wrote:
| Teflon (PTFE) breaks down and releases PFOA (which is a PFAS
| chemical) at high temperatures.
| gruez wrote:
| 1. Are the chemicals of heat breakdown the same as what's
| being described in the article? I find it strange that
| everything teflon related is lumped under "PFAS/PFOA", from
| precursor chemicals[1], the coating itself, its combustion
| products, to various other applications (eg. firefighting
| foams or paper takeout containers)
|
| 2. The "high temperatures" in this context is above the
| smoke point of most cooking oils. As long as you're not
| using it for high temperature applications (eg. searing
| meat), you're fine.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Fear_River#Suspended
| _soli...
| arcticbull wrote:
| Starts to break down at 500F which is below the smoke
| point of avocado oil (520F). It's objectively easy to hit
| these numbers on a pan, especially if you leave it for a
| few minutes one time.
| matt123456789 wrote:
| Also I'm not a chemist but Wikipedia directly names it as a
| PFAS.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Wikipedia [1] says: "Non-stick coated cookware has not been
| manufactured using PFOA since 2013."
|
| The source they reference [2] says:
|
| > So is teflon safe now?
|
| > Absolutely. PTFE is inert in its solid form and will most
| likely pass through your digestive system with no issue. In
| addition, the temperatures used for cooking aren't
| typically hot enough to release PTFE fumes into the air -
| though toxicologists are quick to remind people that
| overheating Teflon coated cookware is a bad idea.
|
| The source _they_ reference, a dead-but-archived page on
| the University of North Carolina 's website [3], says:
|
| > Assuming you use your cookware appropriately, i.e. not
| heating it excessively and unattended, always heating the
| pan with something in it, not scratching off the Teflon and
| consuming it for dinner, using non-stick pans is relatively
| safe for humans. Risk of "Teflon flu" due to inhalation of
| fumes during typical kitchen use is minimal. Ingestion of
| PTFE is not reported to be toxic and residual PFOA in PTFE-
| coated pans is minimally transferred to food. However,
| long-term exposure studies to PTFE-fumes and PFOA have not
| been conducted so we can't say that it is completely safe.
| Regardless, you should keep Larry the bird away from the
| kitchen.
|
| > If you wish to avoid the Teflon risk altogether,
| stainless steel and cast-iron pans are recommended
| alternative, albeit not necessarily non-stick, cooking
| options.
|
| So it seems to me that it should be fine, though as a
| layman, I can't determine the veracity of the sources.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#S
| afety
|
| [2] https://www.bhg.com.au/the-truth-about-teflon-are-non-
| stick-...
|
| [3] http://web.archive.org/web/20180523015658/http://tibbs.
| unc.e...
| mahogany wrote:
| Honestly, none of the language you're quoting is
| reassuring. There are qualifiers like "most likely" and
| "relatively safe", and the not-at-all-reassuring
| "Ingestion of PTFE is not reported to be toxic". This is
| very different from "known to be non-toxic". So many
| industries (in the US at least) operate in a way similar
| to "shoot first, ask questions later". When it comes to
| health, it should be the reverse.
|
| Clearly they sold the original formulation as safe, until
| it wasn't, so why trust the new formulation? To me, it's
| not worth the gamble when we're discussing a new chemical
| that's being transferred into all of my food. There are
| plenty of alternatives with a slight decrease in comfort
| but the benefit of having been tested for hundreds (or
| thousands) of years.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| What temperature? A quick Googling suggests 536 Farenheit.
|
| So don't leave your teflon cookware in the oven on self-
| clean cycle and you should be fine, right?
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Teflon is bound to many pans using PFAS-family chemicals.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > Oh boo hoo I have to scrub my stainless steel pan a little
| harder cause I don't have a Teflon pan any more.
|
| Just throw the stainless steel pan in the dishwasher.
|
| It won't be nice and shiny anymore but neither was the teflon
| pan.
| lumb63 wrote:
| I don't much care if others give themselves cancer via PFAS by
| lifestyle choices, as long as they're aware. To that extent, I
| try to raise awareness by telling people, since a lot are not
| aware yet.
|
| The fact that others using PFAS impacts us all, since it is
| distributed into our environment and stays there an incredibly
| long time, is what makes this issue worth regulating. Similar
| goes for many other ecological issues (e.g. microplastics).
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| but how do you avoid it completely? "Hazardous PFAS chemicals
| contaminate the drinking water of up to 110 million Americans
| and the blood of nearly every American."
|
| How on earth can I find bottled water that doesn't contain PFAS
| in it? and chances are it's aleady in my body.
| xwdv wrote:
| It's nasty stuff sure, but you're not consuming PFAS every time
| you cook with Teflon pans. Your pans are fine. In fact, it is
| actually very difficult to consume PFAS consistently in a way
| that will actually do long term harm. In the end you're more
| likely to die of cardiac arrest from the fatty foods you cook
| than from PFAS cancer. Saturated fats used for non-stick
| cooking will clog your arteries with plaque and kill you off
| eventually, guaranteed.
|
| My advice, don't worry about it and live your life.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > It's nasty stuff sure, but you're not consuming PFAS every
| time you cook with Teflon pans. Your pans are fine.
|
| If you're not damaging them by using metal tools, which many
| people do.
| hgomersall wrote:
| Or overheating the pan, which is basically unavoidable.
| xwdv wrote:
| No you would have to overheat it deliberately for a long
| period of time.
| hgomersall wrote:
| PTFE breaks down above 250 centigrade. That's pretty
| normal for frying pans.
| xwdv wrote:
| Let me put it this way, you can break flakes off of PTFE
| pans and swallow them and nothing will happen to you.
| They will just pass through your digestive system. You
| will not get some kind of cancer just from this alone.
| Don't listen to the lobbyists.
| [deleted]
| cinntaile wrote:
| Teflon has been used in pans for 70 years now, we should have
| seen all these horrible deaths by now.
| aintgonnatakeit wrote:
| Think about all the couches and carpets sprayed with
| scotchguard some people have spent their entire lives exposed
| to. It's terrible.
| amluto wrote:
| I'd be more concerned about exposure while applying the
| scotchgard.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| 80 micromolar is a ridiculously high level to test at. I'm really
| tired of studies doing this. The public doesn't understand
| molarity and that the concentration of almost anything is toxic
| at 80 uM.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846392...
|
| The highest concentration of PFOS type substances we could expect
| in blood is 6 ng/mL.
|
| The molecular weight of PFOS is 538 g/mol. Use the molarity
| calculator at https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/molarityform/
| to see that that is 11 nanomolar.
|
| The 80 uM amount used in this study is 7272x higher than the
| highest amount we would expect in the blood.
|
| This isn't to say that PFOS isn't bad, it is bad but this looks
| like the standard university PR department nonsense and
| researchers using ultra high concentrations looking for a
| positive result. Honestly this looks like something I would
| expect an undergrad to do that doesn't understand concentration.
| merrywhether wrote:
| Not exactly the same, but reminds me of the saccharin rat
| studies. Massive dosing (the human equivalent of ~800 diet
| sodas per day!) plus a physiology that highly concentrates
| urine led to bladder cancer in rats. Turned out to be
| completely irrelevant to humans (and now ironically saccharin
| may be somewhat cancer fighting?).
|
| For expedience many of these studies are done at the Maximum
| Tolerated Dose, which is the amount that does not otherwise
| outright kill the subjects. It's understandable that this is
| useful for magnifying sensitivity but it also leaves them with
| a tinge of doubt. That compounds with the career benefit for
| publishing sensational results to generate some bad science
| (especially frustrating when there are tinfoilers looking to
| distrust science as it is).
| refurb wrote:
| Glad to see this comment here.
|
| You see that a lot in studies - models that bear no resemblance
| to actual exposure.
|
| All you can say is "at levels that will never occur in the
| human body, X happens"
|
| Ok?
| Midfit wrote:
| I believe that the concentration of the solution they were
| suspended in was 80 uM, but the concentration in their blood
| isn't mentioned (and probably wasn't measured) in their work.
| I'm not a zebrafish expert so I have no idea how much PFAS
| would a zebrafish absorb from its surrounding solution into its
| bloodstream.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| It says the embryos and cells were put in 80 uM.
|
| >The embryos and cells were exposed to 80 micromolar
| solutions of each chemical:
| Midfit wrote:
| Yes, but your original comment talks about a concentration
| of 6 ng/mL in human blood, while the researchers only point
| out the concentration of the surrounding medium. Perhaps
| I'm missing something, but you can't compare these two
| values since you didn't measure the actual concentration of
| PFAS in the blood stream of the larvae. For all we know it
| could be lower than 6 ng/mL, right?
| Mistletoe wrote:
| They are also doing studies on human neutrophil cells
| etc. at 80 uM. The fluid above the cells at 80 uM is a
| model for cells in blood.
|
| You can see in Figure 5 here that the effects are really
| only seen at the highest non physiological doses. Even
| their lowest dose of GenX is 2.6 uM which is 2600 nM. I
| don't have data for blood levels of GenX but if it is
| like PFOA that would be 260x higher than any
| concentration we would expect a neutrophil to ever see.
| And there is no effect on respiratory burst.
|
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1547691X.202
| 3.2...
| canadiantim wrote:
| The fact that PFAS is in floss is so messed up.
| arcticgeek wrote:
| I loved ,,Glide" floss for years because it worked so well. Was
| totally dismayed when I finally put together why it did. I've
| switched to Dr. Tung's now which is made of natural plant-based
| materials and works even better than traditional flosses.
| siftrics wrote:
| When are you gonna take the blinders off and stop flossing
| altogether?
| esaym wrote:
| From https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-
| floss-to...
|
| "Dr Tungs Smart Floss: 48 parts per million (ppm) organic
| fluorine"
| amluto wrote:
| I would like to see regulation that continues to allow more
| beneficial uses of PFAS while restricting the high-exposure, low-
| benefit uses.
|
| For example, your phone screen is likely coated in a very very
| thin, factory applied coating of large molecules that are
| perfluorinated at one end and covalently bonded to the glass at
| the other end. It might even be applied by a CVD or similar
| machine without the use of solvents. It makes the screen easy to
| swipe and much less smudge-prone. And there is very little of it,
| and only the tiniest amount is likely to come off in your
| fingers.
|
| Compare to essentially any anti-fog goggle spray. You _spray_ it
| and probably inhale it. And it is made out of soluble PFAS [0]
| that don't stick very well to your goggles, and you put those
| goggles on your face, and probably get some of the chemicals in
| your eye and nose, and then you do it again and again.
| (Seriously, what's wrong with gel toothpaste for this
| application? Good old sodium lauryl sulfate is an excellent
| defogger, and any gelled version sticks to glass or plastic well
| enough for a long swim, and the entire formulation is extremely
| non-toxic. And in the tiny amounts needed for goggles, it doesn't
| even irritate eyes.)
|
| PFAS are everywhere, and it's uses really do vary widely in how
| problematic they are and how useful they are!
|
| [0] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c06990
| amluto wrote:
| There's a problematic trend of picking a chemical or two to
| complain about and having the industry make an effort to avoid
| that particular chemical, even if there is no reason to expect
| that its replacement is better.
|
| For example, BPA in polycarbonate is being replaced with very
| closely related compounds that could be worse. And companies are
| apparently replacing PFOA and PFOS with "GenX", the compound
| found to be problematic here.
|
| Every time I see something "BPA-free" or "PFOS-free" I shudder a
| bit. It's a worse-than-useless statement.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The full text of the study is available here:
|
| https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1547691X.2023.21...
| pfdietz wrote:
| Exposure in the experiment was at the 80 micromolar level, which
| is about 2 grams of GenX in a typical person. That's a lot.
| boringg wrote:
| Whats the word on PFAS in Pizza Boxs and Microwave popcorn? Is
| that still a concern / presence or has that been resolved?
| yamtaddle wrote:
| If it's like similar cases recently (e.g. BPA) they're either
| still there, or have been replaced with some other less-studied
| product that may well be worse--not trading known-bad for
| known-good, but known-bad for... who knows.
|
| [EDIT] Incidentally, there's nothing at all magic about
| microwave popcorn bags. You can just put popcorn kernels and a
| little oil in a paper bag, fold it closed tightly, and put it
| in the microwave. Stick a plate under it if you're worried
| about the oil getting on your microwave. Obviously don't fill
| it _too_ full or it 'll unfold and popcorn will get everywhere.
| Or use a wok with some oil (I like coconut oil--doesn't make it
| taste like coconut, mostly imparts a slightly buttery flavor)
| and cook it on the stovetop. You can use a regular pan but the
| wok is way better because it tends to keep the popped corn away
| from the heat while letting the unpopped kernels settle down
| where it's oily and hot.
| m463 wrote:
| It is SO hard to figure out if these "forever chemicals" are in
| your cookware, because companies _actively_ hide information
| about their cookware.
|
| (It's especially troublesome if you have parrots, because one
| overheated pan will kill any and all parrots in the house - and
| it's non-toxic for humans?? lol)
|
| As one example, I bought some hexclad pans. They had very strong
| wording about their use of teflon:
|
| https://hexclad.com/blogs/posts/pfoa-free
|
| when you try to figure out what their coating is, you are told:
|
| "We've used a high-grade non-toxic Japanese coating infused with
| diamond dust for extra toughness."
| (https://hexclad.com/pages/hexclad-science)
|
| and... well keep digging.
|
| Finally you can find this:
|
| _Q: Are your pans free of PTFE?_
|
| _A: Our pans are PFOA free but contain some PTFE. PTFE is in
| over 95% of all nonstick cookware including our ceramic-based
| nonstick. PTFE is safe and inert. In fact, it is used in surgical
| matches meshes, dental implants and heart stents which are all
| implanted in the body. We do not use PFOA chemicals and other
| chemicals that gave many other nonstick pans a bad name. Why do
| we use some PTFE? Sadly, non-PTFE nonstick cookware does not work
| well for long periods of time. In fact, in our tests, the largest
| non-PTFE nonstick in the world only held up for 45 minutes of
| consecutive use._
|
| https://hexcladcommercial.com/pages/frequently-asked-questio...
|
| What's especially ridiculous is that the "good" hexclad sets you
| can get at costco also put this coating on the BOTTOM of the pan,
| against the flame or burner! High temperature is the achilles
| heel for these chemicals.
|
| took them back.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-23 23:02 UTC)