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

The case for induction cooking

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#251

Post by oxplot »

The archive.ph / archive.is links never load for me. I just learned that it's blocked in Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#Australia

Interestingly, only my landline broadband connection blocks them (Aussie Broadband), not my mobile provider (Telstra, Optus)!

EDIT: contacted Aussie since it looks like they've forgotten to unblock it.

EDIT: Not related to blocking - turns out archive.today returns invalid IP when queries by Cloudflare DNS resolvers (which I use): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDNS_Client_Subnet#Controversy...

Re: The case for induction cooking

#253

Post by mikeyouse »

formerly_proven wrote: post #179
phtrivier wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another commenter said, it was electric but "vitro ceramic", so terrible performance and pretty dangerous. This actually gave gas a "better rap". Now I honestly only use gas at the moment because I moved in recently enough that I haven't bother to change - but it's getting higher on n my list every day...

> it was electric but "vitro ceramic", so terrible performance and pretty dangerous How exactly is that dangerous?

As one anecdote, since there’s no flame (vs gas stove) and the surface is happy to heat whatever is on it (vs induction which needs a magnetic metal) — my cousin burned down their family home by setting her book bag on the stove after school one day. It’s unclear how it got turned on but the end result was pretty terrible for them and likely wouldn’t have happened with a different stove.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#254

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

amluto wrote: post #203
js2 wrote: post #142

Top reader comment seems apt w/r/t the pollution aspect anyway: As a scientist (an immunologist) who leads a research lab on lung inflammation including asthma, the cavalier attitude Times columnists have toward scientific references in their articles is appalling. RMI is a thinktank with an agenda. Not a research institution. And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD. She has an MBA and has never work…

Citation needed please for the health effects being bogus. NOx emissions from gas stoves seem to be consistently reported as quite high indeed. For example: https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/publication/methane-and-nox-...

Pretty easily mitigated with a vent hood which all these tests don't have running.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#255

Post by colechristensen »

ptomato wrote: post #42

Let me know when you can buy one of decent quality in the US with actual physical controls instead of some insane touch system designed by somebody who has apparently never actually been in a kitchen and marketed to people who won't use it but just want a thing that looks cool.

NuWave Pro or PolyScience Control Freak. The second is 5-10x as expensive as the first. Both discrete appliances.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#256

Post by ksec »

js2 wrote: post #142

Top reader comment seems apt w/r/t the pollution aspect anyway: As a scientist (an immunologist) who leads a research lab on lung inflammation including asthma, the cavalier attitude Times columnists have toward scientific references in their articles is appalling. RMI is a thinktank with an agenda. Not a research institution. And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD. She has an MBA and has never work…

So they are lying, again? ( Edit: Apparently not, refers to the context here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30658022 )

What are normal people suppose to do without expertise on any subject.

Not against induction cooking but It is very common for these type of reporting that for induction cooking to succeed they must get rid of every single gas stove. And make gas stove cooking as evil. Start a movement, conjure a trend, make hype.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#257

Post by ummonk »

js2 wrote: post #142

Top reader comment seems apt w/r/t the pollution aspect anyway: As a scientist (an immunologist) who leads a research lab on lung inflammation including asthma, the cavalier attitude Times columnists have toward scientific references in their articles is appalling. RMI is a thinktank with an agenda. Not a research institution. And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD. She has an MBA and has never work…

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from searing food itself… especially since natural gas has odors added to it to ensure we smell it.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#258

Post by elhudy »

> “For children who live in a home with a gas stove, the increased risk of asthma is on par with living in a home with a smoker,” she said.

We’re never going to get anywhere in the case against global warming with BS statements like this…

Re: The case for induction cooking

#259

Post by dirtyid »

naiwenwt wrote: post #88

The problem with induction stovetops in my experience is that they really don't play nicely with Asian (particularly Chinese) cooking. Trying to stir-fry on one is maddening. Usually any discussion about induction stoves seems to wholly revolve around European-centric cuisines, which is why I'm surprised to see this article quote a positive experience from a self-described "Kind of Chinese" restaurant. I genuinely wo…

Induction wok burners with concave cooking surface are pretty common for home/commercial use.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#260

Post by colechristensen »

I have a pretty strong doubt that the emissions from gas + cooking are significantly worse than the fine particulate put off from cooking methods like pan frying or burning anything even slightly.

There is also probably a statistics abuse here with the "emissions while not in use" is more likely large rare leakage incidents rather than median kinds of events. Keeping in mind that the amount of methane lost to the atmosphere from petroleum production is absolutely enormous, undercounted, and would certainly dwarf any gas leaks from your kitchen.

But this is the kind of "bad for you" thing which appeals to many people that want to do good and are easily sold ideas by others who don't know what they're really talking about but are good at getting attention.

Post reply on HN