[HN Gopher] A simple math error sparked a panic about black plas...
___________________________________________________________________
A simple math error sparked a panic about black plastic kitchen
utensils
Author : IndrekR
Score : 108 points
Date : 2024-12-12 15:34 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nationalpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nationalpost.com)
| stevenhubertron wrote:
| Glad I held on to my kitchen utensils. Given how broad the hype
| cycle was and how I was getting push notifications on my phone
| about it from multiple "news" sources it felt like hysteria.
| Likely helped black friday sales at Sur la Table though.
| minton wrote:
| > "However, it is important to note that this does not impact
| our results," Liu told National Post. "The levels of flame
| retardants that we found in black plastic household items are
| still of high concern, and our recommendations remain the
| same."
| sib wrote:
| Right - and this is why people don't trust these sources.
|
| Previous numbers, incorrectly stated at 10x true values: "of
| high concern because they are 80% of daily value"
|
| New numbers: "still of high concern even though they are only
| 8% of daily value"
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| And the person who found the error nevertheless agrees with the
| original conclusion, FTA:
|
| "As Schwarcz points out, it appears the study's hypothesis is
| correct, that black plastic recycled out of electronic devices,
| mostly in Asia, is getting back into the American supply chain
| for household kitchen items, including spatulas."
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| This is the perfect article for HN because the problem is still
| real and the recommendation to avoid black plastic around food
| is still good. But because there was an error that affects but
| does not undermine the conclusion, the entire premise is
| rejected.
|
| I think of this as "too technical to be correct." It's a really
| good example of how when writing for HN as an audience, it's
| best to use as few concrete details as possible. They will be
| scrutinized endlessly, and any flaw or inconsistency in them no
| matter how trivial or spurious will be taken as refutation of
| the entire statement.
| zelon88 wrote:
| It's not hype. The FDA regularly issues guidance on "how much
| plastic" they allow in our food. I know someone who works in a
| lab that measures the chemicals transferred in such conditions.
| The results from his lab are used to certify food processing
| equipment.
|
| Basically, all plastic has chemicals that, given enough time,
| will leech into your food and cause contamination. The question
| is; how much do we tolerate as a society while still enjoying
| the cost and convenience of plastic?
|
| For me, I try to minimize plastic contact as much as possible.
| I only use metal utensils. I also use cast iron or stainless
| steel cookware with no coatings (other than seasoning the cast
| iron).
|
| 1)
| https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=does+pl...
|
| 2) https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-
| packaging/packagin...
| bityard wrote:
| I wonder how big is the risk of having a dishwasher with
| plastic components? Or a silverware drawer with plastic bins?
| Or meat and vegetables that come in plastic bags?
| zelon88 wrote:
| Dishwasher; Will contaminate each dish a predictable
| amount, consistently. A tiny amount on each dish that
| correlates to about 3% of the surface area of each dish
| sitting in the rack for a couple of hours. So the max
| contaminant is n% of [surface area of each dish] per wash
| cycle.
|
| Silverware Bin; Will contaminate each utensil a predictable
| amount per unit of time, consistently, up until a
| saturation point where the utensile cannot contain any more
| contamination. So the max amount of contaminant is
| 1x[surface area of utensil].
|
| Meat and veggies; Will be contaminated based on the amount
| of surface area in contact with plastic, and the amount of
| time time they spend in contact with plastic. So the max
| amount of contaminant is [surface area of food touching
| plastic]x[duration of exposure]. An important note, the
| food is usually refrigerated. Heat is what releases many of
| the chemicals from the plastic.
|
| A cooking utensile will contaminate food a highly variable
| amount based on; The amount of surface area that touches
| the food, how long the utensile touches the food, the
| temperature of the food, the fat content of the food, the
| temperature of the cookware/utensile, the age and quality
| of the utensile, and a slew of other factors.
|
| Additionally, we both have to deal with the three things
| you brought up. We all have dishwashers, and plastic bins,
| and plastic packaging. But you are ALSO using plastic
| utensils. So you invariably will have more chemicals from
| plastic than me, despite any other factors.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Even so, I think there should be a broad push against plastic
| involvement in most aspects of the food supply. From microplastic
| pollution to endocrine-disruptive leeches, too much is too much.
| croes wrote:
| Ok it's not 80% of EPA limit but only 8%
|
| But I don't want 8% exposure either if it's avoidable
| trehalose wrote:
| It's not 8% of some hypothetical dose dose that would be known
| to be harmless to humans. It's 8% of a dose that seemed
| harmless to mice, when administered for no longer than a
| mouse's lifespan, as far as the EPA looked.
| soco wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong but the study wouldn't gain much
| value if the chemicals were given after the mice lifespan?
| ben_w wrote:
| While true, I believe the point is that mice don't live
| very long, so long term effects may not be visible.
|
| (I don't know how true that actually is, perhaps mice show
| effects faster, but this is one of the reasons I'm dubious
| about the value of animal testing even if we don't have
| much better methods available yet).
| mentalgear wrote:
| Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical
| exposure. Also EPA limits can often, due to industry pressure, be
| set way too high. So better be save and throw away that spatula,
| which actually this article also reiterates.
|
| ==== From the article:
|
| "However, it is important to note that this does not impact our
| results," Liu told National Post. "The levels of flame retardants
| that we found in black plastic household items are still of high
| concern, and our recommendations remain the same."
|
| So if you're keen on eliminating these chemicals in any amount,
| chucking the black plastic kitchenware is a start, even if not as
| effective as the erroneous calculation suggests.
| gruez wrote:
| >Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much
| chemical exposure.
|
| What's the basis for this conclusion, aside from taking the
| original study's author statements at face value? Someone else
| replied to the study[1] and characterized it as
|
| >Based on a worst-case scenario, you may be getting nanograms
| (billionths of a gram) of bromine or lead from your spatula,
| which is lower than the amount that you get from eating fresh
| fruit
|
| I did a quick skim of the atlantic article[2] and noticed that
| mentions of exposure thresholds were strangely absent, despite
| the pains they took to mention how those toxic substances were
| in the plastics, and how they caused harm.
|
| [1]
| https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl...
|
| [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-
| pla...
| patrickhogan1 wrote:
| That's if you limit the comparison to just Bromine. You are
| ingesting recycled plastic from TVs and Tires, which also
| contains; Phthalates, Bisphenols, Polyvinyl Chloride,
| Styrene, PFAS, and several other chemicals shown to cause
| cancer or have an unlinked but possible cause of cancer (we
| don't know yet but there are alternative utensils not made of
| black plastic that we do know that don't have the big ?)
| gruez wrote:
| >which also contains; Phthalates, Bisphenols, Polyvinyl
| Chloride, Styrene, PFAS, and several other chemicals shown
| to cause cancer or have an unlinked but possible cause of
| cancer (we don't know yet but there are alternative
| utensils not made of black plastic that we do know that
| don't have the big ?)
|
| You're probably ingesting all of that on a daily basis
| already, even without black utensils. Without a sense of
| scale, it's impossible to make a rational determination on
| what to do next. PFAS is in tap water as well. Should you
| stop drinking water?
| burnte wrote:
| > Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much
| chemical exposure.
|
| Source, please. Drinking one gallon of water a day is perfectly
| safe. Drinking 10 is not. 500 mg of acetaminophen is fine, 5
| grams is not. 2 beers is reasonable, 20 is not. Factors of ten
| are pretty large safety margins.
| margalabargala wrote:
| The thing off by a factor of 10 here was not the level of the
| chemical, it was the calculation of the recommended safety
| level.
|
| Also, different substances follow different safety curves. A
| 10x difference in acetaminophen takes you from very safe to
| very dangerous. A 10x difference in lead takes you from less
| dangerous to more dangerous; there isn't a "safe" dosage of
| lead.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How do we know for certain that acetamminophen in even a
| tiny dosage is 'very safe'?
|
| e.g. There could be some effect via a delayed chain
| reaction process that takes decade to accumulate to be
| noticeable...
| margalabargala wrote:
| Compared to lead? Decades and decades of extensive, high
| quality research.
|
| Low quantities of lead have exactly the long term low-
| dose exposure effects you describe. They have been
| identified.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Yes, so how is the same for acetamminophen known to be
| roughly zero?
| margalabargala wrote:
| Via extensive research and double-blind studies.
|
| There are thousands of articles showing levels of
| acetaminophen that do, and do not, cause hepatotoxicity.
| Here are all of them:
|
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=
| ace...
|
| This isn't new, here's an article from a half century ago
| discussing exactly this:
| https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry-
| Rumack/publicatio...
| dTal wrote:
| Indeed, 100% of people who take acetaminophen eventually
| die.
| citrin_ru wrote:
| I'm pretty sure take one lead molecule per day would not
| cause any detectable harm, even 1 additional nanogram
| likely too. So there a safe dosage of lead it is just hard
| to determine where the line between safe and unsafe is.
| margalabargala wrote:
| "You're pretty sure" isn't unfortunately scientifically
| admissible evidence.
|
| There is no known safe dosage of lead.
|
| If you are able to detect lead intake in a person, and
| are unable to detect harm in that person attributable to
| that lead, that would be news to the scientific community
| and you should publish it.
| causi wrote:
| "The fuckup in the paper doesn't mean the paper is wrong,
| according to the person who fucked up the paper."
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Agree. Why take on Decabromodiphenyl ether at all? If a black
| spatula puts me at 12% of the EPA's reference dose I'd rather
| not.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| Unfortunately this story will probably be far less viral than the
| previous story, so people will never find out that black utensils
| are fine
| Suppafly wrote:
| Pretty sure the article is saying that they still aren't fine,
| they are just slightly less not fine than they originally
| thought.
| jbellis wrote:
| an order of magnitude less*
| warkdarrior wrote:
| This research was probably sponsored by the kitchen utensil-
| manufacturing industry.
| Jailbird wrote:
| Probably not by Black Plastic Kitchen Utensil Co., though...
| creaturemachine wrote:
| This could only come from the National Post, cheerleaders of
| any conservative cause in Canada. They're pretty big boosters
| of the oil & gas industry, and supportive of every spin-off you
| can imagine. Their paper straw reportage is second to none.
| sinuhe69 wrote:
| Damn, even my kid learned from the danger of black plastic
| kitchenware from school and advised me to drop all of them!
| tqi wrote:
| > The study, by researchers at the advocacy group Toxic-Free
| Future...
|
| It's interesting that we routinely dismiss studies funded by
| corporations as "biased" and "junk science", but never seem to
| scrutinize studies from other such advocacy groups. With a name
| like "Toxic-Free Future" it seems pretty obvious to me what their
| conclusions were going to be even before the study was done. Not
| because of nefarious reasons, but because confirmation bias is a
| difficult thing to overcome.
| dylan604 wrote:
| it's human nature. anything that confirms the direction you're
| already leaning will just be accepted without further scrutiny.
| tqi wrote:
| Seeing the authors double down on their paper
| (characterizating it as a mere typo, saying it doesn't affect
| their conclusions) does not inspire confidence.
| dylan604 wrote:
| it's still >0, so it's just less bad not that it's not bad.
|
| At least they corrected it instead of just letting it
| linger out there
| semiquaver wrote:
| I imagine it's difficult emotionally to let go of the
| prestige conferred by a paper that got such wide
| recognition in the media for the mere fact that its
| conclusions are wrong.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| Very often these are actually astroturfing competitors. There's
| certainly no shortage of plastic free "eco," "organic" or
| "green" kitchen utensil manufacturers.
|
| The only real approach here is to scrutinize _everything_ and
| always be especially critical when someone comes up with
| something that sounds drastic.
| Rastonbury wrote:
| It is a nice theory when you look at it like that but it
| doesn't have to be so nefarious. First, we have a history of
| letting that through, leaded gas, insecticide etc but we
| learnt. Any research is going to suffer from the effect of
| wanting to confirm and publish, but I'm glad people looking
| at this stuff. I'd be so much more skeptical of anyone saying
| X is not toxic so some corporation can keep doing whatever.
|
| Next is that any utensil manufacturers easily has the ability
| to change the colour and slap on that eco marketing. There is
| barely any financial incentive for Big White Utensil Co to go
| and pay scientists to slag off black plastic.
|
| The typo is really unfortunate. But wouldn't anyone be glad
| to know that black plastics have more of a toxic chemical
| than white ones? Even if both are below a threshold, I'd like
| to keep my toxin consumption as low as conveniently possible,
| maybe nothing will happen to me either way but spatulas are
| like 10 bucks
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Well, that's why we should judge methodology and compare the
| results to other lines of evidence instead of dismissing
| research based on mind-reading.
| saulpw wrote:
| This error would have been much easier to catch if they had used
| mag notation[0].
|
| [0] https://saul.pw/mag
| FredPret wrote:
| Why not just type 3.1E7 instead of the weird up arrow?
|
| Every software calculator I could think of to try understands
| this notation, it's easy to say and copy-paste, and the unit is
| clear from the context the original number is in.
| saulpw wrote:
| Because that's still 2 numbers, complicating comparisons and
| arithmetic, and the more important number is at the end. If
| you could use e7.5 then that would alleviate the problems,
| but no software/language/calculator accepts this notation,
| and using a caret like ^7.5 is more evocative than the
| already very-overloaded "e".
| adrian_b wrote:
| While I agree that logarithms are better for expressing most
| physical quantities, when those values are used by humans, the
| "common logarithms" a.k.a. base-10 logarithms, which are used
| at your link, are completely obsolete.
|
| Binary logarithms are much more useful. Even when you are not
| using any automatic computer, but you are only doing
| computations in your head, binary logarithms are more
| convenient. Moreover, the inter-conversion between binary
| logarithms and decimal logarithms is very easy to do mentally,
| by the approximate rule that 10 units of binary logarithms
| match 3 units of decimal logarithms.
| saulpw wrote:
| Cute idea! But I hardly think base-10 logarithms are
| "completely" obsolete. We write numbers in base-10 and so the
| length of the number is its magnitude. Your statement is like
| saying that strlen() is obsolete and we should be using
| strlen2() which reports the number of bits in the string
| instead.
| oidar wrote:
| Scientific results, when presented to the general public, often
| lose their nuance and context, even when news organizations
| strive for accuracy. Translating complex data into digestible
| news sacrifices precision, leading to widespread
| misunderstandings about science and the value of correction
| within the scientific community.And when there's a genuine
| mistake in a study, like this one, the entire study is
| unfortunately dismissed.
| simgt wrote:
| Use carbon steel pans and stainless steel utensils anyway. Better
| for everyone, extremely durable and, shockingly, they don't
| stick. Bonus point your fried eggs get a delicious wok hei.
|
| Somehow we all got convinced that teflon and complex polymers
| were solving a problem... It's simply not true.
| silisili wrote:
| While I agree with the advice, and all I use are steel and cast
| iron, I think you need a big disclaimer on "they don't stick."
| To a new user coming from Teflon, they absolutely stick.
|
| It takes a combination of seasoning and temp setting to get
| something approaching nonstick, but if we're being honest, it's
| still not quite as slippery as Teflon. For most people though,
| I think it gets good enough.
| simgt wrote:
| > To a new user coming from Teflon, they absolutely stick.
|
| That's exactly what I read everywhere before buying the pans
| a couple years ago, I was fully expecting things to stick a
| lot but somehow never had issues...
| tidbits wrote:
| I have found seasoning doesn't affect the stickiness of the
| pan. My MIL left my carbon steel pan sitting in water, so I
| had to grind it to the bone to remove the rust. But even with
| no seasoning, I was able to cook eggs no problem. The key is
| temperature control. However, the pan started getting rusty
| from just sitting out, so I ended up re-seasoning it anyway.
| bityard wrote:
| > and, shockingly, they don't stick.
|
| I have stainless steel pans and have never experienced this.
| jmcclell wrote:
| Carbon steel pans are seasoned and generally will be stored
| with a light coat of oil. You'll add oil while cooking, as
| well. My carbon steel pans don't stick - an egg will happily
| glide on the surface.
|
| Stainless steel pans are not seasoned, but can still be
| relatively non-stick as long as they are heated properly
| prior to use. Heating them closes the pores in the pan's
| surface, making the surface smoother. Add oil after the pan
| is properly heated. This youtube video explains the process:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB-SCA1reqE&t=1s
| cenamus wrote:
| Stainless steel doesn't have any pores, and they certainly
| don't "close" with a 200 degree difference (how even? It's
| steel).
|
| The video just shows a nice hot pan with oil in it, no
| matter the pan's made of, under those conditions of course
| stuff isn't gonna stick.
| radicality wrote:
| This reminded me of this funny skit video I saw recently
| about cast iron seasoning [0].
|
| I also mostly use stainless steel, carbon steel and
| enameled cast iron pans, but do still occasionally reach
| for the non-stick for more sensitive things like an
| omelettes.
|
| [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=47Wv44OwAzw
| williamdclt wrote:
| You might not preheat it enough? It takes a few minutes,
| check for the leidenfrost effect for a visual indicator that
| it's hot enough
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| stainless sticks like crazy.
|
| It's only carbon steel and cast iron that can be seasoned and
| then don't stick much. It's still not as magic as teflon but
| it's pretty good with a level of care/practice that isn't too
| high.
|
| Stainless is totally different and is really only good for
| sauces not frying, because it sticks worse than anything
| else.
|
| "sauces" does also sometimes mean frying and sticking, but
| only as a first step and then liquid is added which takes up
| and uses the stuck carmelized bits. And that ends up making
| the pan easier to clean later as the stuck bits are loosened
| and dissolved by the following sauce.
|
| Those same sorts of things, especially anything tomato or
| lemon, would actually not be so great in cast iron because it
| eats away the seasoning. So different pans for different
| jobs.
| tidbits wrote:
| Seasoning doesnt matter. In all 3 cases, the key factor is
| temperature control. I can make eggs in all three types of
| pans with no sticking and no seasoning. Seasoning is only
| to protect the metal from rust.
| maccard wrote:
| I would say stainless steel is non- stick with some fat and a
| hot pan. I would say my Teflon pan is _slippery_ even when
| cold.
| FredPret wrote:
| I find with this and many other things, the answer is "butter".
|
| Even 2.5ml of oil and 2.5ml of butter mixed together will
| result in eggs that flip perfectly and taste 100x better than
| teflon eggs.
| cenamus wrote:
| The whole point of non-stick pans is not to need any fat/oil,
| not even a little bit, though. No matter how often people
| tell me, stainless steel, carbon steel or cast iron, none are
| as good and low effort as a simple non-stick pan.
| ozim wrote:
| I'm find it troublesome to fry without oil or butter on any
| pan and I only had Teflon ones.
| williamdclt wrote:
| I don't think it's really lower effort if you account for
| the care with which you need to cook with teflon (no metal
| utensil), wash it (no dishwasher) and store it (no
| stacking). Unless you replace it every ~year I suppose.
|
| There's plenty of things you can cook without fat in a
| stainless steel, too (pretty much all meats).
|
| And fat isn't just for nonstickiness properties, it's a
| part of making food taste good. If you want/need to avoid
| fat for health reasons, that's fair.
|
| You also just can't sear in a teflon, as you're not
| supposed to preheat the pan.
|
| I almost never reach for my teflon for the opposite reason
| as you: I find it more effort. The one thing I really use
| it for is fried eggs, or when I really can't be bothered to
| wait a few mins for the stainless to preheat
| cenamus wrote:
| I mostly use wooden cookware, and I throw that and non-
| stick pans in the dishwasher, teflon is so chemically
| stable that it shouldn't matter. But yes, I just buy a
| new pan every ~2 years, sometimes 3.
| aphantastic wrote:
| Why do you feel a need to buy a new pan? If something
| about the coating has degraded, where do you think the
| offed material has ended up?
| gruez wrote:
| Unless you're using a very small pan, there's no way 5ml of
| oil is going to provide enough coating for "eggs" (plural)
| "that flip perfectly". Also, the "taste 100x better" claim is
| so hyperbolic that I have to internally downgrade it to "I
| like it more".
| FredPret wrote:
| I maintain that "100x better" is an understatement for
| teflon eggs vs eggs fried in butter.
|
| Also, there's almost never a good reason to be so extremely
| strict about fat consumption that 5ml or 10ml or 15ml is a
| problem, especially if you're eating eggs in the first
| place. If your diet is that strict, boil the egg. The old
| studies linking fat to heart disease are complete bunk.
| gruez wrote:
| >I maintain that "100x better" is an understatement for
| teflon eggs vs eggs fried in butter.
|
| I can't imagine this being true for any holistic metric
| "taste". The only way is if you used some contrived
| measure like "amount of caramelized particles from frying
| pan" (in which there's 0 from teflon pan and non-zero
| from butter eggs, so it's infinitely better), or you use
| a non-linear scale (eg. slightly better = 10x, slightly
| better than that = 100x, etc.)
|
| >The old studies linking fat to heart disease are
| complete bunk.
|
| Fats are at the very least, calorific. And studies
| showing weight gain to all cause mortality are robust.
| According to the USDA a tablespoon of butter is 100
| calories. An egg on the other hand is 155. Even if you
| use some optimistic estimates (eg. 3 eggs, half the
| butter remains on the pan), that's still 10% extra
| calories. I'd rather spend my calorie budget on other
| delicious things than slightly more buttery fried eggs.
| FredPret wrote:
| How did you get to a tablespoon of butter?
|
| Also, calories is why you're eating in the first place.
| The butter is part of the breakfast. If you're getting
| fat, that's not the fault of the butter per se, but of
| all the calories put together, and plain chicken breasts
| are a better option.
| gruez wrote:
| >How did you get to a tablespoon of butter?
|
| Your last comment: >there's almost never a good reason to
| be so extremely strict about fat consumption that 5ml or
| 10ml or 15ml is a problem
|
| Which one is it? Is butter/fat usage something you need
| to watch out for, or does it not matter so you don't have
| to watch it?
|
| >If you're getting fat, that's not the fault of the
| butter per se, but of all the calories put together
|
| That might be true, but it's still fair game to single
| out cooking oils for something that needs to be reduced.
| A can of coke (140 calories) is only 7% of your daily
| recommended intake, but it'd be absurd to recommend
| leaving it in someone's diet, or claim "it's almost never
| a good reason to be so extremely strict about your diet
| that 1 can of coke a day is a problem". If anything, you
| should be prioritizing the can of coke vs cooking oils. A
| can (or even half) provides a distinct experience in your
| diet, whereas adding butter only makes your eggs taste
| slightly more buttery.
|
| > and plain chicken breasts are a better option.
|
| so... boiled chicken breasts? I'll stick with my teflon
| pan, thanks.
| trallnag wrote:
| There are other reasons for reducing the intake of fat.
| Some people can only digest very small amounts of fat
| (excluding MCTs)
| maccard wrote:
| > Also there's never a good reason to be extremely strict
| about fat consumption that 5 or 10 or 15ml is a problem
|
| A tablespoon of butter (or olive oil) is roughly 100
| calories, which is about 15% of a meal. It's _roughly_
| equivalent to 10 minutes of moderate exercise running.
|
| If you have one fried egg in a tbsp of oil and a slice of
| toast, the oil is half the calories of the snack.
|
| > The old studies linking fat to heart disease are
| complete bunk
|
| I'm going to need a source in that wild claim. We
| definitely know that it was overblown, and the cure
| (let's put sugar in instead of fat) might have been worse
| than what it prevented, but I don't think there's any
| doubt of the consensus that saturated fats in particular
| (one tbsp of butter is _about_ 40% of your guideline
| saturated fat in a balanced diet).
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| > The old studies linking fat to heart disease are
| complete bunk.
|
| You're mischaracterizing those studies. The role of
| _saturated_ fat in heart disease is not bunk. Eat
| unsaturated fat.
| jancsika wrote:
| > Bonus point your fried eggs get a delicious wok hei.
|
| Ok, convert me:
|
| What is "wok hei," and why can't you get it in a Teflon pan?
| Baeocystin wrote:
| It's just a somewhat poetic way to describe the flavors you
| get when cooking with really high heat really fast. You can't
| get it on teflon because you're using temps 100+ degrees
| above what teflon can handle without decomposing.
| jancsika wrote:
| Can you safely get those temps on an electric oven?
| Baeocystin wrote:
| To clarify, you can't use any teflon or ceramic nonstick
| coating at the temps required, regardless of heating
| method. The coatings will degrade, and possibly poison
| you.
|
| That being said, you don't need to be using gas. It is
| possible to get good wok hei on an induction wok, despite
| what the foodie peanut gallery says. Not on a 120V unit,
| though. You need to use a commercial multi-kilowatt
| setup.
| jancsika wrote:
| So now I have to ask-- what's the health risk of eating
| singed pieces of egg with each breakfast?
| dole wrote:
| Depends relative on the singeing and carbonization and
| other chemical reactions
| havblue wrote:
| What exactly are you saying the problem with ceramic is?
| Could you be more specific?
| Baeocystin wrote:
| The risks of teflon are well known:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
| stick_surface#Health_conce...
|
| The risks of ceramic coatings less so, but still
| concerning:
| https://foodpackagingforum.org/news/nanoparticles-
| released-b...
|
| Either way, neither is safe for higher heat cooking. At
| the very least, ceramics will rapidly degrade if used for
| such.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| Teflon breaks down into toxic fumes at high temperatures,
| regardless of what the source of the heat is.
|
| In fact if you have birds, it's best to not have teflon
| at all, because they are so sensitive to teflon fume
| poisoning: https://beaknwings.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/07/Teflon-Tox...
| pingohits wrote:
| "wok hei" is the charred, smoky taste from Chinese stir-fry
| dishes, which you can only get at very high temperatures,
| usually with an open flame.
|
| You do not want to expose Teflon pans to high temperatures
| because it can degrade the non-stick coating. This is why
| most woks are made of carbon steel, which work fine over a
| large flame.
|
| Note: if you're stuck with an induction stove (like I am)
| you're not going to get wok hei even at the highest setting.
| It's possible to cheat with a butane torch, or by taking it
| outside with an outdoor wok burner.
| michaelt wrote:
| Previously on HN: "Cooking with black plastic is particularly
| crucial to avoid"
|
| 475 points, 845 comments, 42 days ago
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41996156
| FredPret wrote:
| I read an article about "crunchy moms"
| https://www.wsj.com/style/rfk-jr-health-initiatives-crunchy-...
|
| They like steel and glass kitchenware only. I guess that makes me
| a crunchy dad (at least when it comes to the kitchen): with any
| type of plastic, we don't really know what it's really going to
| do to you long term. Might be nothing at all, but it might be
| lots of really bad things. But with steel and lead-free glass? It
| just sits there doing its job for decades on end, no leaching, no
| reacting, no bits of microplastic in the cooking.
|
| If I saved up the money I spent on non-stick pans, I could've
| bought several sets of good steel ones, each of which will
| outlast me. Same goes for steel spatulas.
| darknavi wrote:
| Mostly unrelated, but glass in the kitchen:
|
| I was in a restaurant the other day and a friend pointed out a
| small chip on a pint glass. They mentioned that many people
| take their glass cups and scoop ice out of an ice drawer which
| can result in small glass shards to be ejected into the ice
| drawer (and thus ice) which would be very, very bad to ingest.
|
| It might be obvious, but probably best to avoid ice scooping
| with glass cups!
| juujian wrote:
| Big difference between glass and plastics. Glass is chemical
| inert while plastics degrades and leaks into everything. See
| the flavor of a plastic bottle that has been in your car for
| a while. Some plastics may even resemble stuff that is in
| your body. It's all processed dinosaur juice after all
| (actually trees, but whatever).
| onewheeltom wrote:
| Glass shards can also be very sharp.
| FredPret wrote:
| True but glass is very much "outside the body only". Don't
| want shards in your gut.
| pfdietz wrote:
| > Glass is chemical inert
|
| Well, except for leaded glass.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_glass
|
| "Several studies have demonstrated that serving food or
| drink in glassware containing lead oxide can cause lead to
| leach into the contents, even when the glassware has not
| been used for storage."
| ascorbic wrote:
| Eating a small shard of glass will kill you far more
| quickly than any amount of chemicals from your spatula
| semiquaver wrote:
| Glass is not so harmless when you consume shards of it.
| Chemically inert things can damage the body by mechanical
| means (I'm a little surprised that this has to be said!)
| dole wrote:
| My spouse worked as a server in a restaurant, was told not to
| do this and learned the hard way and it's common sense:
| someone has to empty the machine, clean it completely out,
| and wait for it to fill back up again which takes hours.
| r00fus wrote:
| Do people still use ice drawers anymore? I only see
| dispensers everywhere.
|
| As someone who lived in Europe for a while, I am completely
| mystified about this obsession with ice in every drink.
|
| When I was young and didn't have disposable income and
| consequently cheap, I skipped the ice because it simply
| reduced your available drink quantity and it watered down
| your soda.
| teddyh wrote:
| <https://archive.is/SmGgT>
| MisterTea wrote:
| What about wood?
| proee wrote:
| Wood is safe, but since it's organic has the potential to
| fuel the growth of molds, bacteria, and other microorganisms.
| I'm not sure the best way to sanitize wood from these
| elements? You could light the wood on fire, but then you
| wouldn't have any wood leftover.
| indrora wrote:
| You can seal woods (polyurethane, linseed oil, etc) and
| they take well to disinfectants (UV, povidone iodine, etc)
| and can be submerged in common commercial disinfectant
| washes.
|
| It's just uncommon in a commercial kitchen because it costs
| 4-5x the price, depending on how many you want and how many
| you'll destroy from use over time. A cheap steel implement
| in a commercial kitchen will last 4-5x the lifetime of a
| wood one but that same wood implement will last just fine
| in a home kitchen.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| > polyurethane
|
| If you are using wood to avoid plastic but coat your wood
| in polyurethane or any other fossil fuel based compound,
| I kind of feel like you've gone full circle back to
| consuming plastic.
| gsk22 wrote:
| Microbial growth on wood is really only an issue when
| conditions are right -- namely, when the wood is wet for an
| extended period of time.
|
| Washing wood utensils immediately after use, with some soap
| if needed, and drying quickly and completely, should
| eliminate 99%+ of the risk.
| causi wrote:
| I don't know where this "unless the surface is sterile it
| is significantly dangerous" thing comes from. How many
| people have died from bacteria that grew on wooden utensils
| that were regularly washed? Is it anything other than zero?
| pavon wrote:
| I've heard the opposite, that wood has anti-microbial
| properties that results in less cross contamination than
| plastic, even though it is harder to sterilize. For
| example, here is one study on cutting boards[1].
|
| [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31113021/
| ascorbic wrote:
| Wooden spoons go in the dishwasher and then they're
| perfectly safe. Wooden chopping boards have been shown to
| be safer than plastuc, because they don't get the cuts that
| plastic boards do, which harbour microorganisms. Cuts in
| wooden boards close themselves up.
| nelsoch wrote:
| I've unintentionally melted enough plastic cookware- that I
| should probably move to metal anyways.
| leptons wrote:
| "crunchy" is such a cynical designation.
|
| I just prefer no plastic in my food, or in my body. This
| shouldn't be "crunchy", _it should be common sense_.
|
| The black plastic spatula entered the trash bin a while ago. I
| was not sorry to see it go at all.
|
| We also replaced our plastic tooth brushes, and have been using
| bamboo/natural fiber tooth brushes. They work great. I did this
| before microplastics started making the news, it was just
| common sense to me. Just think about the abrasiveness of
| brushing teeth, and tiny micro-sized pieces of plastic from the
| brushes shearing off as they grind on your teeth.
| mjevans wrote:
| Silicon kitchenware? Can be extended baked or boiled to
| sterilize.
| sholladay wrote:
| Credit where it is due, if Joe Schwarcz discovered the error "a
| few days ago" or even within the last week, then he wasn't the
| first.
|
| The earliest I know of is Adam Ragusea.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58HUM40gDPU
| nayuki wrote:
| I happened to watch that episode. He talks about the math error
| at around timestamp https://youtu.be/58HUM40gDPU?t=720
| MPSimmons wrote:
| Came here to say this
| chias wrote:
| > [...] calculates this into a limit for a 60-kilogram adult
| [...]
|
| Are we assuming that children also weigh 60 kilograms, that they
| don't eat, or that we never liked them anyway?
| mhardcastle wrote:
| "However, it is important to note that this does not impact our
| results," [lead study author] Liu told National Post."
|
| So an order-of-magnitude difference has no impacts on the result?
| How can that be?
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Maybe they're just saving face or don't want to take
| responsibility for people having unnecessarily thrown away
| their utensils.
| arboles wrote:
| Toxic chemicals aside, does anyone else have trouble accepting
| how little effort entities whose job is to recycle put into
| recycling? The article explains that recycling facilities throw
| out black plastic utensils just because the infrared light in
| sorting machines can't sort it. I've also heard that unscrewed
| bottle-caps, or other small plastics also fall in the common
| waste dump at the facility.
|
| Perhaps these are the only exceptions. For some of us that have
| grown up being taught the importance of sorting your trash for
| the bins by school and TV, it might feel like a betrayal. I would
| actually like to know the average percentage of the content of
| domestic recycling bins that the entities on the other side
| bother to see recycled.
| bjxrn wrote:
| The problem is that plastic recycling in general just doesn't
| work that well. If you want to make any sort of difference then
| reducing the amount of plastic you use & throw away is
| essential.
| wruza wrote:
| So glad I didn't throw out my utensils after the last thread here
| on HN. Saved nature a little and confronted fears induced by
| media. Although I must admit that I was scraping the pan with the
| constant realization that I might die, for more than a month.
|
| A reminder to not believe everything you hear about on the
| internet, even if you feel smart and scientific about an article
| having a link to some paper or something. Didn't read tfa back
| then.
|
| Edit: now I read this thread, ugh.
| marssaxman wrote:
| We did throw our black plastic utensils out, but I have no
| regrets; even if the risk was not as bad as we believed at the
| time, the scare gave us a great excuse to replace old cheap
| stuff with nicer wood & silicone implements.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-12 23:01 UTC)