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

241–250 of 263 posts

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#241

Post by ars »

codexjourneys wrote: post #240
ars wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't look very hard. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0002889738506828 Exposure of Japanese Quail and Parakeets to the Pyrolysis Products of Fry Pans Coated with Teflon® and Common Cooking Oils Lethal temperature: butter: 260°C/500°F Teflon: 330°C/626°F plastic handle: 370°C/698°F

All three authors work for DuPont. What do you expect they will find? "FRANKLIN D. GRIFFITHa, SUSAN S. STEPHENSa & FIGEN O. TAYFUNa" "Author affiliations" Footnote a: "a Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19898"

> What do you expect they will find?

I expect them to tell the truth. Do you accuse them of lying?

Because this is a very straightforward piece of research, it's not one of those cases where you can fudge the numbers with statistics, to cherry pick results out of nothing.

I'm willing to believe that if this study had bad results they might not have published it (which is why affiliated-type studies usually have "good" results). But since they did publish it, I am not willing to believe they lied.

Plus it's well known birds will die from smoke, it's also quite well known at what point butter or oil will smoke. This isn't very complicated research, and it fits perfectly with other known information.

If you still have doubts after this then that is simply your bias, not logic.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#242

Post by azinman2 »

ectoplasm wrote: post #155
azinman2 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crack? Like fall apart? What are you doing man?! It's freaking iron!!!! I'm using my great-great grandmothers pan all the time and it's amazing despite being from the 1800's

There are many reasons why a cast iron skillet inexplicably cracks. Poor quality control in manufacturing, natural crystalline formation defects, excessive impacts in handling, extreme thermal stresses, etc. Cast iron, being a non-ductile material, in the daily thermal cycling of cooking, any minute microscopic fissure will start to propagate through a process known as metal fatigue, and eventually fail catastrophica…

Can it really anneal at normal oven temperatures? Cast iron has a melting point of 2200F -- so how can 500F oven do anything?

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#243

Post by azinman2 »

ars wrote: post #232
gruez wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I'm doubting you, but can I have the source for your claim? I want to present it to my chemophobic friends.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0002889738506828 Exposure of Japanese Quail and Parakeets to the Pyrolysis Products of Fry Pans Coated with Teflon® and Common Cooking Oils Lethal temperature: butter: 260°C/500°F Teflon: 330°C/626°F plastic handle: 370°C/698°F

Fascinating. Luckily butter almost never gets to those temperatures. We're obviously different animals, and it seems that birds can eat butter, so I wonder what it is about oils specifically that kills them. Likely the mechanism will be different from PTFE and PFOA and maybe incompatible with humans who also suffer from large-scale inhalation (see article). We don't know much about long term PTFE/PFOA inhalation in small quantities.

So it seems to be that cast iron itself, heated, doesn't cause the bird to die. Cast iron + butter kills the bird, but so does teflon + butter. So in butter-less dry pan to dry pan scenarios, cast iron is non-toxic yet teflon is toxic.

As you can see here [1] if you leave your pan on the stove heated it can hit these toxic temperatures within minutes. So the exposure to the gas isn't hypothetical. Dry pan toxicity is a real concern which is unique to Teflon.

Then there's digesting it since it will slowly wear off into your food. We don't have science specifically looking at long-term slow exposure to PTFE/PFOA. So you're taking your chances... but we do know that PFOA is much less inert than PFTE when digested.

Non-stick pans won't last as long as cast iron or stainless steel, and cast iron can perform like non-stick while also adding flavor and necessary iron. Oh and cast iron can be often as cheap or cheaper than non-stick (except for the super crazy low end, but talk about most likely to be toxic...), and most certainly is cheaper in the long run (I'll have my great-grandmother's pan for the rest of my life which I do 90% of my cooking in... try that with your teflon).

So if you don't need non-stick pans, so why voluntarily expose yourself to the risk?

[1] http://buffalobirdnerd.com/clients/8963/documents/Teflon.pdf

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#244

Post by codexjourneys »

ars wrote: post #241
codexjourneys wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All three authors work for DuPont. What do you expect they will find? "FRANKLIN D. GRIFFITHa, SUSAN S. STEPHENSa & FIGEN O. TAYFUNa" "Author affiliations" Footnote a: "a Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19898"

> What do you expect they will find? I expect them to tell the truth. Do you accuse them of lying? Because this is a very straightforward piece of research, it's not one of those cases where you can fudge the numbers with statistics, to cherry pick results out of nothing. I'm willing to believe that if this study had bad results they might not have published it (which is why affiliated-type studies usually have "good…

Let’s be clear: You’re telling me that because I don’t simply accept the results of a clearly biased study at face value, I am biased.

You’re right: I already said my default position is suspicion when dealing with companies that have lied profusely in the past.

I’m going to sign off and stop thinking about why you are pushing your point in multiple places in this thread. Maybe I’ll cook some steak in a stainless steel pan. Subversive, I know :-)

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#245

Post by ars »

codexjourneys wrote: post #244
ars wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you expect they will find? I expect them to tell the truth. Do you accuse them of lying? Because this is a very straightforward piece of research, it's not one of those cases where you can fudge the numbers with statistics, to cherry pick results out of nothing. I'm willing to believe that if this study had bad results they might not have published it (which is why affiliated-type studies usually have "good…

Let’s be clear: You’re telling me that because I don’t simply accept the results of a clearly biased study at face value, I am biased. You’re right: I already said my default position is suspicion when dealing with companies that have lied profusely in the past. I’m going to sign off and stop thinking about why you are pushing your point in multiple places in this thread. Maybe I’ll cook some steak in a stainless ste…

> You’re telling me that because I don’t simply accept the results of a clearly biased study at face value, I am biased.

No. I am telling you your reasons are illogical.

> and stop thinking about why you are pushing your point in multiple places in this thread

It's not complicated. I happen to know something, so I am telling people.

If you are starting to think I have other motives then that's clearly a pattern in your mind and you will have to decide for yourself why you do that.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#246

Post by ars »

azinman2 wrote: post #243
ars wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0002889738506828 Exposure of Japanese Quail and Parakeets to the Pyrolysis Products of Fry Pans Coated with Teflon® and Common Cooking Oils Lethal temperature: butter: 260°C/500°F Teflon: 330°C/626°F plastic handle: 370°C/698°F

Fascinating. Luckily butter almost never gets to those temperatures. We're obviously different animals, and it seems that birds can eat butter, so I wonder what it is about oils specifically that kills them. Likely the mechanism will be different from PTFE and PFOA and maybe incompatible with humans who also suffer from large-scale inhalation (see article). We don't know much about long term PTFE/PFOA inhalation in s…

> so I wonder what it is about oils specifically that kills them

I think it's just the smoke, nothing special about oil or teflon. I wonder if smokers have a problem with bird health?

Cast iron has oil on it when seasoned. I suspect the study used "clean" cast iron.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#247

Post by bradgessler »

morsch wrote: post #40
bradgessler wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy a chainmail cleaner: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ringer-Cleaner-Stainless-Chainmail... For $18 it will change your cast iron life. The idea is that after you cook, you scrub all the stuff that gets stuck to the bottom with the chainmail and some water, then wipe it off with a paper towel. You'll never have to use soap again.

Is this that much different from a brillo pad (aka metal sponge)? That's what I use on my steel and iron cookware. They're like 2 EUR for a 4-pack; each sponge lasts for a very long time.

Yep! Very different. Chainmail is stainless steel, so it doesn't rust. Its also much more coarse than steel wool.

Brillo pads have soap, which you don't want because it takes the grease (read: seasoning) off the pan. They also rust quickly when you leave them out, which can discolor things.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#248

Post by hussong »

fluidcruft wrote: post #85
hussong wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd recommend the following: 1. Scrub thoroughly using only hot water and a stainless steel pot cleaner -- this should give you a clean start 2. Make fried potatoes using lots of oil, fry potatos until black (throw them away, obviously) -- this should help soak the somewhat porous surface with oil 3. Apply a thin coating of oil and bring to immense heat -- this will create a solid surface 4. After every use, clean ge…

Yikes. What makes you think this results in fewer carcinogens on your pan's surface than teflon?

What makes you think the pan's surface is more carcinogenic than the steak crust?

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#249

Post by fluidcruft »

hussong wrote: post #248
fluidcruft wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes. What makes you think this results in fewer carcinogens on your pan's surface than teflon?

What makes you think the pan's surface is more carcinogenic than the steak crust?

I don't, but I'm not sure that's relevant to the hypothesis that cast iron pans are less toxic than teflon pans.

Re: The Teflon Toxin

#250

Post by simoncion »

fluidcruft wrote: post #236
simoncion wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Seasoning leaves a baked-on coating of oil/fat. That doesn't mean that the coating is carcinogenic. IIRC (and I might not RC, I'm no food chemist) the coating is polymerized oil/fat and completely harmless.

At smoking point, carcinogens are created both in the gas and what's left behind.

How sure are you that the non-stick coating left on the pan is more carcinogenic than browned hash browns?
Post reply on HN