Live data from Hacker News

3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

bloomberg.com

151–160 of 260 posts

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cast-iron is a huge pain to maintain in my experience, but ceramic pans are a good non-carcinogenic alternative.

Cast iron skillets just take a bit of getting used and are then zero maintenance and last for ever. The problems people have with them are usually due to trying to season them and doing it so badly (due to abundant online misinformation) they'd have been better off not doing it at all.

How would you suggest seasoning and maintaining cast iron?

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#153
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've worked to reduce plastics & chemicals in our house. Some things we do: * We use silk dental floss (we use Radius) * We use glass storage containers instead of Tupperware * For cooking, we use All-Clad. * If a recipe calls for non-stick (e.g., pancakes) I use a braiser from Le Creuset, which works reasonably well. (Edited: formatting)

They're not cheap, but Scanpan makes great non-stick pans. PFAS-free, dishwashable, metal utensil safe. https://www.scanpan.com/haptiq-8-inch-fry-pan-40141-configur...

I don't think Scanpan is PFA free: https://www.scanpan.com/chemical-components.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#154
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking about buying one. Would I be wrong in assuming it was just a matter of the order: (really) heat the pan, add the oil, and then whatever you need to cook?

Consider butter instead of oil for pancakes. The water content of the butter boils between the pancake and the pan. The escaping water vapor pushes them apart, which helps prevent the pancake from sticking.

Butter also adds awesome taste to them :)

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving plasma is actually better if you want to remove PFAS. And giving either is a good thing, so if this can mean people will give 2 or 3 times a year, everybody wins.

Suppose I give plasma or blood, and it removes PFAS from my body. Does it give those PFAS to the recipient of my plasma/blood?

[deleted]

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#157
post #84
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are used in all kinds of products that I personaly use everyday from pans to dental floss. And the replacements are not better, they just dont have studies yet that prove they are toxic...

We've worked to reduce plastics & chemicals in our house. Some things we do: * We use silk dental floss (we use Radius) * We use glass storage containers instead of Tupperware * For cooking, we use All-Clad. * If a recipe calls for non-stick (e.g., pancakes) I use a braiser from Le Creuset, which works reasonably well. (Edited: formatting)

[deleted]

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#159

I can't believe people do this just to make money. And it's not just this case, for example, our food supply is filled with stuff that is really bad for us, barely passes as edible, and is even sold as a healthy alternative in a lot of cases. For example, vegetable oils and cooking with vegetable oils and the growing evidence behind how bad they are, they extremely highly processed and in some cases not even an edibl…

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.

Blaise Pascal

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#160
post #117

Strange that we sue companies for selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet. The idea that 3M "knew the whole time" is kooky when we aren't even sure now, 15 years after people started looking into this, whether we should ban them. Scientists, regulators and legislatures should decide what the rules are and then hold companies accountable for actually breaking the rules.

If the other commenter saying "The problem is 3M scientists have know toxicity to human and have withheld the information to the public and regulators" is accurate, your point is invalid. How could we ban a product that we were misled on.
Post reply on HN