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

101–110 of 263 posts

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#101

Post by gjm11 »

e12e wrote: post #96
hodwik wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The OED gives the bisyllabic pronunciation for all meanings, with a note saying that the monosyllabic pronunciation used to be used.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#102

Post by eevilspock »

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:…

> - Failure to protect a user's privacy.

Advertising is our C8. It pollutes nearly every corner of the web with deception and manipulation. It is the cause of the cancer called click-bait. It is so profitable it has given rise to factories that pump out cheap junk "content", overwhelming anything of merit on the web[1][2]. Then, to extract even more from the devil in this Faustian bargain, we invade our very customer's privacy, selling our soul twice over.

Most of us avert our eyes from this moral abdication because it funds our high salaries and our get-rich-quick startup schemes[3]. Everyone seems happy with their "free" non-stick pans and waterproof boots, so why spoil the party?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

If you agree with me, send me an email. I'm starting a project to whistle blow, to raise awareness, to inspire change.

[1] Most people will miss this article about C8 because it doesn't stand a chance against all the ad-supported garbage. The Intercept doesn't do click-bait. Journalism, a cornerstone of democracy, is dying. This toxin analogy is sadly too accurate.

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961761

-

> I realize this is a far cry from polluting the environment with toxins, but shouldn't we at least think about these factors more often?

Yes, demand a better work environment, but please don't compare "eye strain caused by lack of contrast due to our favorite color palette" and "Stress induced by unintelligible workflows" with an environmental toxin that never existed until we created it, is now "in the blood of 99.7 percent of Americans", causes cancer and birth defects, and may outlive humanity. Many jobs have some stress on the body or mind or risks to life and limb (manual labor, fire fighting). It is called "work" after all. The fire department is not being evil. Dupont and 3M are. I hope you can see the difference.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#103

Post by taivare »

randallsquared wrote: post #75
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.

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.

Ceramic pans and when they get older still use them , prefer extra virgin coconut oil , Iam thinking at least somewhat safer then the Teflon pans.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#104

Post by rayiner »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #80
13years wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free markets when supported by strong property rights can have strong protections to prevent harm or pollution. Non free markets, although regulated, don't necessarily perform better and can even perform worse in this regard. The FDA is a great example of an agency which often can be seen to work harder to protect the industry than the individual. For example, look up the story of Vioxx. A drug which killed 50k peopl…

> Free markets when supported by strong property rights can have strong protections to prevent harm or pollution. Can someone explain how this is supposed to work? I don't mean to sound rude/biased but this sounds like one of those cases where the theory is sound but when it meets with reality we get unpredictable(and sometimes disastrous) results.

People who have no money are supposed to sue DuPont and pony up the money to pay lawyers and experts to prove that DuPont's emissions were harmful and caused their injuries. Then if they lose, because that's hard to prove, they're supposed to pay DuPont's legal fees and costs.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#105

Post by reedlaw »

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:…

The most serious is ignoring the effects of sitting all day. Employers tout their big monitors and new laptops but I've never seen one advertise treadmill workstations.

Another rationalization is that longer work hours are somehow mutually beneficial but I find the opposite to be true.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#106

Post by LBarret »

allencoin wrote: post #100
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. Ed…

that and the "hacker vision" extension on chrome.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#107

Post by smoyer »

allencoin wrote: post #100
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. Ed…

+1 for f.Lux!

Unfortunately, 35 years of typing in front of a screen has led to trifocals for me (or maybe I would have needed them anyway?).

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#108

Post by knodi123 »

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?

It's not that metal can't scratch it; it's that NON-stick surfaces are highly vulnerable to being scratched by metal, whereas cast iron is much, much less so, and scratches can heal as long as you cook with more oil.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#109

Post by mtviewdave »

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:…

In the various recent threads about open office plans, some people have pointed out that extended use of headphones, at the volume required to shut out conversation, causes permanent hearing loss over the long term. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a tech company that takes that concern seriously.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#110

Post by gambiting »

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…

You can buy an original Tefal pan for like $15-20, if it lasts a year that's ok with me. I wouldn't trust the no-brand $5 stuff either, but I would think that Tefal pans should be ok?
Post reply on HN