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

201–210 of 263 posts

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#201

Post by toufka »

ars wrote: post #196
toufka wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'not toxic' - until you heat it above its suggested operating temperature - which as I recall is about the temp of a 'high' setting on a stove.

If you heated it that high you would have smoke in your kitchen from the oil catching fire. The operating temperature of teflon (approx 600f) is higher than the operating temperature of the oil (approx 400f) you cook with.

You keep saying this. You've said it many times in this thread. 1) there are lots of different kinds of oils each with their own distinct flash points and toxicities. Olive oil has one of the lowest flashpoints and has very little toxicity when burned. 2) Not all cooking is done with oils. 3) even if oil is toxic, it seems to be something that is a required part of cooking - we assume the risk. Teflon, not so much. 3) Teflon does get that hot in the course of regular cooking. And it releases toxic fumes under those conditions. Saying oil is bad too does not negate what teflon is doing. Especially when there are choices for pans/cookware that do NOT release fluorocarbons at high temperatures.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#202

Post by superuser2 »

Floegipoky wrote: post #191
lfowles wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Active noise cancelling still adds to the absolute volume, doesn't it? I use some headphones intended for muffling yardwork at the lowest setting to have music drown out frequent background noises (carts moving by, nearby keyboards) but not necessarily uncommon things like people chattering.

>> Active noise cancelling still adds to the absolute volume, doesn't it? Noise canceling works by playing back the exact environmental frequencies through the headphones, 180 degrees out of phase. So from the perspective of your ears, noise canceling does lower the absolute volume.

The phase-shifted signal from active noise canceling electronics only actually achieves physical cancellation if the signal it's attempting to cancel hasn't changed. By the time the phase-shifted response to a dynamic signal like speech comes out of the speaker, the signal it's trying to cancel is gone, and there is in fact more sound coming to your ears.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#203

Post by ars »

toufka wrote: post #201
ars wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you heated it that high you would have smoke in your kitchen from the oil catching fire. The operating temperature of teflon (approx 600f) is higher than the operating temperature of the oil (approx 400f) you cook with.

You keep saying this. You've said it many times in this thread. 1) there are lots of different kinds of oils each with their own distinct flash points and toxicities. Olive oil has one of the lowest flashpoints and has very little toxicity when burned. 2) Not all cooking is done with oils. 3) even if oil is toxic, it seems to be something that is a required part of cooking - we assume the risk. Teflon, not so much. 3…

> and has very little toxicity when burned

When burned with a wick, no. But if just heated till is smokes? Just as toxic as any oil.

> even if oil is toxic, it seems to be something that is a required part of cooking - we assume the risk. Teflon, not so much.

Oil does not have to be toxic. Just don't exceed the smoke point. And like oil, in normal cooking Teflon is not toxic either. It's completely inert.

> Teflon does get that hot in the course of regular cooking. And it releases toxic fumes under those conditions.

No it does not. No one cooks at over 660f. (OK, maybe some specialized stuff, but not with regular cooking where you would use a pan.)

> Especially when there are choices for pans/cookware that do NOT release fluorocarbons at high temperatures.

Like Teflon? Which does not release them either?

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#204

Post by mikeash »

nickles wrote: post #185
mikeash wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I was just trying to reinforce and generalize that, not try to argue anything.

Gotcha

And, sorry, I probably could have made that a little more clear! Like it or not, the default on the internet is often to assume argument.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#205

Post by qiqing »

eevilspock wrote: post #102
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…

> Advertising is our C8.

This. Not to mention the malware that hitches rides on ad networks. Adblockers being the new condoms and all that.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#206

Post by lingben »

mtgx wrote: post #58
InclinedPlane wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For casual home cooks I'd recommend hard anodized aluminum. It's an excellent non-stick surface, easily hand washable, non-toxic, fairly durable, and low cost. Really as long as you aren't constantly gouging it with metal things then it'll hold up for years and years. Cast iron is great too though, don't get me wrong.

What about ceramic pans?

ceramic is a great option, as long as you take care of it (don't scrub with abrasive, etc.) I switched recently to ceramic pans and I love the look and feel, silky smooth and glossy white surface!

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#207

Post by jjw1414 »

It may seem nit-picky, but the word "toxin" refers to a harmful substance produced by a living organism (e.g. snake venom). For a synthesized or manufactured chemical that is harmful, "toxicant" or simply toxic chemical is the correct term.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#208

Post by Ollinson »

Retric wrote: post #122
mtviewdave wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can use noise canceling headphones/ear buds to avoid the chatter and lower the volume. At ~300$ there not cheap, but not only do they help save your hearing they are also less distracting for those around you.

I find that nice pair of in-ear etymotics with their biggest foam tips is the best way to block out noise.

The noise isolation is so strong that I can't even listen to music at higher than half volume without discomfort.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#209

Post by 13years »

makomk wrote: post #69
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…

I think this article demonstrates why that doesn't actually work in practice. DuPont contaminated several counties with a toxic chemical over the course of a decade, affecting many people's property, yet because the owners didn't even know to test for it and weren't in a position to prove that it was dangerous, let alone prove that it had harmed them specifically, DuPont got away with this.

Possibly, but it would seem to nonetheless also demonstrate why regulation also doesn't work in practice.

From the article. "...THE FEDERAL TOXIC SUBSTANCES Control Act requires companies that work with chemicals to report to the Environmental Protection Agency any evidence they find that shows or even suggests that they are harmful..."

What many people don't realize, is that EPA and FDA rely on the trust of the private industry to submit accurate test data. This was the same issue with Vioxx.

People don't know to test also because they assume these agencies are protecting them. If property rights had more of a role, then there would be a greater call for testing and likely there would be more testing services available due to demand.

From article. "... If these polluters were ever forced to clean up the chemical, which has been detected by the EPA 716 times across water systems in 29 states, and in some areas may be present at dangerous levels, the costs could be astronomical..."

I doubt this will happen, since the regulatory agencies attempt to prevent harm to the industry. A proponent of property rights would have no issue with the companies paying for every bit of damages and cleanup no matter how much damage is done to the business even if it must be shutdown.

Another example of EPA being aware of a problem and siding with industry against the individual http://www.ewg.org/research/free-pass-oil-and-gas/oil-and-ga...

An example case in Canada where property rights did work http://environment.probeinternational.org/1993/07/17/how-the...

This is a good reference on the history of environmental policy. In an interesting section here, the book states how property rights in the US were purposely weakened to allow for pollution. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZqRjI6JcgrMC&lpg=PA127&pg=...

What I would like to see is a return to stronger enforcement of property rights by default and supplemented as necessary by agency regulation.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#210

Post by acqq »

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)…

For all uninitiated in Fight Club (like I am) here's the quote that explains the reference:

"Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply 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.

Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?

Narrator: You wouldn't believe.

Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?

Narrator: A major one."

Post reply on HN