Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

attheu.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 352 posts

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#211

Post by munificent »

lysace wrote: post #167

During the past year I have discovered that almost all retailers here in Sweden have voluntarily replaced their usual Teflon/polytetrafluoroethylene/PTFE frying pan coatings with something called 'ceramic'. (This includes IKEA globally, I assume.) The thing is - it's simply not as good. The worst case is probably frying frozen gyoza. They will get stuck when they get gelatinous on that 'ceramic' surface. I ended up l…

Humans were able to successfully fry food for hundreds of years before Teflon was invented.

I still like non-stick pans for eggs, but for almost everything else, I prefer stainless steel, cast iron, or enameled cast iron. You do have to pay a little more attention to technique (knowing what temperature to heat the pan to before you put food on, etc.), but the end result is just about as good as a non-stick pan with many advantages:

* You don't have to be obsessive about never letting a metal utensil scratch the pan. (I hope you aren't using a metal spatula or fork with your non-stick!)

* You can scrape the hell out of the pan while you cook and get all that delicious crispy fond into what you're making. If I'm doing a pan sauce, it's always in the Dutch oven so I can get that fond into the gravy.

* They last a lot longer. Even if you are careful, a non-stick pan will lose its coating and need to be replaced after a handful of years. I got my cast iron skillet for $15 at an antique store. It's older than me and will outlive me.

* You're not, you know, eating forever chemicals.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#212

Post by lysace »

munificent wrote: post #211
lysace wrote: post #167

During the past year I have discovered that almost all retailers here in Sweden have voluntarily replaced their usual Teflon/polytetrafluoroethylene/PTFE frying pan coatings with something called 'ceramic'. (This includes IKEA globally, I assume.) The thing is - it's simply not as good. The worst case is probably frying frozen gyoza. They will get stuck when they get gelatinous on that 'ceramic' surface. I ended up l…

Humans were able to successfully fry food for hundreds of years before Teflon was invented. I still like non-stick pans for eggs, but for almost everything else, I prefer stainless steel, cast iron, or enameled cast iron. You do have to pay a little more attention to technique (knowing what temperature to heat the pan to before you put food on, etc.), but the end result is just about as good as a non-stick pan with m…

I remember seeing a bunch of research showing that any teflon you ate was just pooped out, so to speak.

This ceramic pan I bought from IKEA lasted like 3-5 months until I was unhappy with it. Historically, the teflon pans I have bought from there have lasted 12-18 months easily.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#213

Post by amanaplanacanal »

jkubicek wrote: post #47
dyauspitr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish we had more “propaganda” like this.

Sesame Street is still putting out new episodes. Turns out the "learn to count" and "be nice to your neighbors" industry wields a lot more power than anyone thought.

That's good to hear. I was somehow under the impression that the show was cancelled.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#214

Post by patmorgan23 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #172
breakyerself wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl design was never in use in the US, but nuclear went through a long period of near universal public opposition to its expansion because of the high profile disasters that it caused. Now the cost of solar and storage are dropping at a rate I doubt nuclear is ever going to make a significant comeback. I'm not opposed to it, but I wonder if the economics will ever be favorable even with regulatory reform.

Chernobyl may have done a lot to inflame cultural imagination of what could happen in the worst cases, but the US still had its own high profile disasters like Three Mile Island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

I would hesitate to call Three Mile Island a disaster, it was certainly a nuclear accident. A reactor was damaged, but no one was injured and an absolutely miniscule amount of radiation was released. The other units at the plant continued to operate until quite recently (and might actually be starting up again).

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#215

Post by Braxton1980 »

lowdownbutter wrote: post #154
Braxton1980 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For each instance did it help more than it hurt? Not to simplify but if you have to make a decision shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?

> shouldn't you always decide to help the most people? no.

Why?

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#216

Post by cfiggers »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #104
cfiggers wrote: post #28

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…

>Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected. I'm aware of political parties and politicians who make statements similar to "We have too many regulations" or "stop big government" I'm not aware of opposite.

You've never heard a politician say, "When I'm Mayor/Governor/President, we're going to make [x] [stop/start] doing [y]"?

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#217

Post by nayuki »

cfiggers wrote: post #28

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…

> some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated

You're right. Off the top of my head, the stupidest environmental regulation I can think of right now is the banning of plastic straws. It's such a minuscule amount of plastic used compared to the mountains of bags and packaging used in general commerce and industry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting our environment. I just believe in evidence-based policy and setting priorities correctly. After all, money, labor, and attention are finite resources.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#219

Post by pixl97 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #189
breakyerself wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

CEQA is pretty universally considered a disaster. The alternative is not to have no environmental regulation. California could copy the regulations of any of the 49 other states and be much better off.

>California could copy the regulations of any of the 49 other states and be much better off.

Says whom?

California has a huge population. California has a massive water shortage problem. California has wide areas vulnerable to wildfires. California has piles of small ecosystems that are fragile and can be easily wiped out.

Saying California could copy some states like Iowas regulations makes negative sense.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#220

Post by mfkp »

moffkalast wrote: post #210
ck2 wrote: post #34

unless you live next to an airport or even remotely close to it then lead is being sprayed all over you, your car and home, daily for THREE DECADES NOW no rush, not like it's poison or does permanent damage to your health/IQ https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

Yeah it's absurd how aviation is somehow exempt from these rules, especially since piston engine aircraft carry virtually no vital role in anything except people flying them for fun. There have been viable alternatives for a long long time now. I guess people who have money for personal airplanes also have the money to lobby when it matters for their interests. Pricks, I hope they die of dementia.

Wow, very angry and uninformed comment. No airplane owners are lobbying for lead. As a pilot with a personal airplane that runs on avgas, we all want lead to go away too. But it's a problem with FAA regulations, and an infrastructure problem where every airport nationwide needs to have separate fuel tanks/trucks with leaded fuel and the newer lead-free alternatives simultaneously, which is a massive expense. Plus, there is no consensus on which lead-free alternative is safest for old engines, so we're still waiting on data.

California has a few airports that are stocking the lead-free alternatives, but that's about it.

But yes, blame the small aircraft owners if it makes you feel better.

> "piston engine aircraft carry virtually no vital role in anything except people flying them for fun"

I guess we just shouldn't train new pilots then.

Post reply on HN