Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Teflon Toxin

firstlook.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 263 posts

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#91

Post by ceejayoz »

VLM wrote: post #84
randallsquared wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teflon pans are cheap, and you don't have to care for them at all. Just throw it in the dishwasher and after a year or so get a new one. Having said that, I'm really liking the two nonstick ceramic pans I bought a few months ago, and I'm not sure if I'll need to toss them next year, yet.

"Teflon pans are cheap ... after a year or so get a new one." Really? "Real" nonstick pans (not walmart) sell for something like $40 to $100+ a piece, but cast iron (Lodge Inc, etc) sells for something like $20. So CI works better, last forever, is cheaper, and its less toxic. Its true that you can buy a pan shaped object from walmart for $5 that doesn't really work, but in all fairness the CI equivalent is the "free…

I've had two of the Lodge cast iron pans crack completely, and being able to dishwash the nonstick pans saves me a lot of time.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#92

Post by leni536 »

thezilch wrote: post #9

I've never understood the gravity of Teflon pans. I can never seem to keep them non-stick, whether it be because of using too high of heat or somehow scratch the damn thing. So, I got cast irons. It's trivial to keep them seasoned and thus non-stick, and they can take the beating of very high heat -- searing meats -- and any metal utensils or rough substances.

I have a 7 year old Tefal pan, I mostly used it in a dorm. I often lent it to my dormmates and even they couldn't destroy the coating.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#93

Post by ceejayoz »

netrus wrote: post #66
ectoplasm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason the government can't level the playing field by subsidizing the fixed overhead portion of meeting the regulations. They don't, and it's stupid - ever tried to buy or sell farm fresh eggs? - but there's no reason they can't.

Funny enough, eggs are the example used to discuss the impact of TTIP. In the US eggs at the supermarket are very clean. In Europe, it's forbidden to clean the eggs in any way. Often enough, you will have feathers and feces on eggs bought in the supermarket.

> In the US eggs at the supermarket are very clean. In Europe, it's forbidden to clean the eggs in any way. Often enough, you will have feathers and feces on eggs bought in the supermarket.

Cleaning them removes a natural antibacterial layer that protects the eggs, which is why the US has to refridgerate theirs and Europe leaves them out at room temp. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/11/336330502/why...

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#94

Post by MoOmer »

baseballmerpeak wrote: post #86
suprgeek wrote: post #17

Take the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of- court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X...If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. What applies to the Car Industry (via Dialogue from Fight Club) applies to the Chemical Industry in Spades. DuPont Knew (or strongly suspected) that C8 & (Teflon)…

Ford Motor Company Management 101

Actually, if we go by recent claims, GM is the winner (loser) here

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#95

Post by Schwoisser »

VMG wrote: post #53
azinman2 wrote: post #3

Horrible. This is what's so scary about the free market and our current chemical regulations of innocent until proved guilty. People cover up, even the biggest most "professional" here (DuPont), and the public gets decades of abuse. Why is it that medication requires FDA approval with lots of animal/human tests before you can sell it, but chemicals do not? Here the tests internally done showed prove of issue year aft…

> This is what's so scary about the free market and our current chemical regulations of innocent until proved guilty. I get your point, but the situation is not much better in non-free markets as well. Regulators have a price for which they can be captured.

It is worse. Look at the Soviet Union or China.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#96

Post by e12e »

hodwik wrote: post #87
tired_man wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd bet the issue is that you did not season the teflon pans (yeah, just about the same way as a cast iron pan...) and that you regularly use the pans at a very high heat which isn't exactly a teflon pan's forte. Teflon doesn't like high heat or rapid temp changes. Here's a really good article on use and care from Fine Foods Mag: http://www.finecooking.com/articles/the-science-of-nonstick-...

Off topic, but did you know the word "forte" in that context is pronounced "fort" not "for-tay"? I just learned that recently.

I think you have that backwards -- it would appear it's pronounced ˈfȯrt when used as a technical term of the the strong part of a sword hilt -- but not here, as it is used as a reference to a certain tools strong use-case?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forte

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#97

Post by fluidcruft »

robbiep wrote: post #83
torrent-of-ions wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use it. I only use saturated fats in mine (mostly lard and butter) and I use metal utensiles which helps to keep it smooth. I avoid vegetable oils because I find that they go sticky (they're also not as good for you to cook with as animal fat).

Why do metal utensils not scratch it?

I think what was meant (and that I can anecdotally confirm) is that metal utensils do a much better job of stopping what I will call "gunk film overgrowth" during cooking.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#98

Post by dekhn »

LukeB_UK wrote: post #49
acd wrote: post #48

You can make superhydrophobic surfaces with laser etching that affects the nano structure of the metal. Thus if you take a strong metal and laser etch it there is no need for potentially dangerous Teflon coating. https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/superhydrophobic-metals...

Except doing that on a large scale would be super expensive.

Why? Typically, whenever you do something in the large scale, you can amortize the capital cost of the equipment to zero (economy of scale) and if the product is popular, inventors will come up with cheaper ways to run the manufacturing facility.

That said, lasers do use lots of power so it will probably be marginally more expensive.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#99

Post by rayiner »

lumberjack wrote: post #36

And the settlement reached was around 0.0086 DuPont's yearly revenue to be provided for education, water treatment facilities and medical expenses of the class action members. Is that really going to deter them from doing it again? Where is the real penalty? http://www.hpcbd.com/Personal-Injury/DuPont-C8/C8-Class-Acti...

It's a settlement, not a fine. The value is a function of damages, discounted by litigation risk and time. Revenues has nothing to do with it. If I negligently burn down your shed, what I owe you in a tort action has nothing to do with how much money I make.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#100

Post by allencoin »

smoyer wrote: post #56

What struck me most about this article is how much rationalization occurred. I'm amazed that a (presumably licensed) doctor can in one breath say they have a moral responsibility to safeguard the public, their workers and the environment, then in the next breath describe why the results of their own study didn't apply. But looking inward, I wonder if our industry doesn't do the same thing in many cases - what about:…

>- Eye strain caused by lack of contrast due to our favorite color palette.

An anecdote: A couple of years ago during a stressful time at work I was fitted for prescription lenses. While being indecisive about choosing frames, I installed f.lux and reduced brightness of my monitors. Never ended up buying glasses, and in a couple of weeks my vision was back to normal. It was just eye strain, and I saved about $300.

Edit: changed "Flux" to "f.lux"

Post reply on HN