Live data from Hacker News

Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

insider.com

371–380 of 412 posts

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how behavior changes when someone sticks to stainless. Because if they use more oil, they introduce other risks. Cooking oil is bad for you.

Is this true of all oils? I thought some (e.g. olive) are much better than others (cheap seed oils). I also thought risk increases with temperature, so unless you're smoking it on medium-high heat and consuming large amounts regularly it's probably not worth worrying about given that alternatives to cooking for yourself are mostly much worse. Could be wrong.

Avocado oil has highest smoking point, about 270 celsius, so i think it's among safest

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#372
post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there's hundreds if not thousands of different kinds of plastics. Some are amazing and more expensive than gold...I think there's some like that, they're just currently very difficult to manufacture and highly miraculous, like they resist really high temperatures and...endless virtue. Reading Plastics I think makes specialty plastics. Clinical trials...you know I've lost absolutely all respect for any number tha…

So if I understand you correctly, you just throw out all the science that says it’s safe (and had a long track record of being right) and instead go with “plastics are dangerous” despite having little evidence to back the claim up? I mean, if science is corrupt it’s corrupt, if you just pick and choose what you believe all the while ignoring how rigorous the analysis was, you’re not following science at all. You're j…

I like science as a concept I think it's a cool technique. I liked science courses I took, and I got very high grades, partly because I understood it's dark side, its secret double life as a whore, and knew when an experiment in class would just never produce the results the teacher could buy into for the grade I needed for the college admission results I wanted. The teachers were good, but usually didn't have the deep knowledge of physics to see when there were fucky things at work in the experiments.

Feynman talks about this in one of his books, he was going to Brazil to help them out with efforts to educate their students in science. So they had a test--I believe a standardized test, multiple choice, or there was a rubric with a right answer and a protocol for demerits for other answers--and it was about a cylinder filled with water rolling down a ramp and onto a table. The right answer was a wrong answer. Feynman told them, clearly you did not actually perform this experiment, the inertia of the water--some turbulence thing--makes it roll...from memory I think it was a seventh longer roughly. Feynman knew. I believe the Brazilians actually then carried out the experiment and saw it knew its master, Feynman was right theoretically. Hey first the teacher must learn, then the teacher can teach the student. So for teachers like that, who didn't have that Feynman scientific depth--but were honest and dedicated and helped us learn--for them you had to massage the numbers. And that massage always had to lead to a happy ending. Or no elite college admission.

So well I was a great student, perhaps the best mathematician in the grade, while also very into science very early on--loved it, loved studying insects, loved carrying out experiments, loved my chemistry kit, my electronics kits, loved soldering to the point I made a sculpture by soldering (wire and lead, the electric hound from Fahrenheit 451), plus I fixed all kinds of stuff around the house, and understood the material, so when it came to pulling numbers out of my ass, a strict necessity in that context, I pulled out some pretty good believable numbers consistent with theory but with maybe a little noise, not to the level of making up systematic error for credibility, but yeah a little noise fudging. And that's what's on the curriculum, get real, a friend actually performed tons of experiments verifying Newtonian physics, only he had to pull numbers every time, Newton did not check out experimentally, my friend had to massage the numbers heavily according to the theory. And they all had happy endings.

Like science is good but it depends on the honesty of scientists, the academic environment, and even then, needs to be taken with a little sodium chloride.

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#373
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they polymerized into the metal, though? I don't think they come off that easily, barring steel wool or something extremely abrasive.

I don't think chemicals in Teflon come off any easier, but they still do.

Doesn't Teflon degrade due to the high Temps? I really don't know that much about it, but it's just the opposite with cast iron seasoning: heat hardens.

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#374
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How tf do I do stainless sunny-side up without them sticking all over the bottom of the pan? I can do scrambled perfectly with no sticking at all[0], but sunny side up is a mystery. Can't get the whites cooked through without cooking most of the yolk/overcooking bottoms of whites. I cook eggs every morning. [0] the trick is getting the pan hot enough for a water flick to jump and dance before putting oil or butter in…

Here's what I do to avoid sticking: 1) Put drop of vegetable oil in stainless steel pan 2) heat until oil begins to smoke 3) quickly spread oil with paper towel or silicone brush, or by tilting the pan, then remove pan from heat The pan now has a thin non-stick film, but it is too hot for butter or eggs, so... 4) let the pan cool down a bit 5) add butter 6) add egg If I do that the stainless steel pan works almost as…

Interesting. Do you add heat back before or after step 6?

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#375
post #2

The study didn’t actually find anything related to cookware. Modern Teflon in the US doesn’t expose people to PFOA/PFOS like old version did due to new regulations. The chemicals could also be entering peoples body’s through drinking water or bioaccumulation in meat or plants. You should throw away nonstick cookware from before 2013, but new nonstick cookware sold in the US does not have PFOA. I believe the EU follow…

This comment and the subsequent edit is the usual result when looking deeply into the actual chemicals we consume and knowing whether or not they’re safe. The various ways toxins are in our food supplies and things we interact on a day to day basis is almost unavoidable at this point. Hopefully there will be a major shift at some point.

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#376
post #2

The study didn’t actually find anything related to cookware. Modern Teflon in the US doesn’t expose people to PFOA/PFOS like old version did due to new regulations. The chemicals could also be entering peoples body’s through drinking water or bioaccumulation in meat or plants. You should throw away nonstick cookware from before 2013, but new nonstick cookware sold in the US does not have PFOA. I believe the EU follow…

> scraping scrambled eggs off of pans

Use a dollop of butter to cook the eggs and a lower temperature.

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how behavior changes when someone sticks to stainless. Because if they use more oil, they introduce other risks. Cooking oil is bad for you.

cooking oil is not bad for you if you use canola or olive oil, just stop cranking your burner up to high and you'll be fine.

Oils are bad for your arteries even if you don't burn them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4WD8Bm7s_I

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how behavior changes when someone sticks to stainless. Because if they use more oil, they introduce other risks. Cooking oil is bad for you.

Is this true of all oils? I thought some (e.g. olive) are much better than others (cheap seed oils). I also thought risk increases with temperature, so unless you're smoking it on medium-high heat and consuming large amounts regularly it's probably not worth worrying about given that alternatives to cooking for yourself are mostly much worse. Could be wrong.

Even extra virgin olive oil is at best neutral or likely still bad for arterial function. You don't have to burn oils for them to have negative effects on your body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4WD8Bm7s_I

Re: Study finds link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer

#380
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think chemicals in Teflon come off any easier, but they still do.

Doesn't Teflon degrade due to the high Temps? I really don't know that much about it, but it's just the opposite with cast iron seasoning: heat hardens.

We were talking about scrubbing. For heating, lots of carcinogenic compounds are released during the process of seasoning, and I don't see why the same wouldn't continue to happen at high heats afterwards(happy to be corrected). Hardening and releasing dangerous compounds aren't mutually exclusive.
Post reply on HN