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

261–270 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#261

Post by oh_sigh »

firecall wrote: post #201
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…

Thank you! I'd previously seen reports on the studies about gas stoves being harmful even when off, and wondered about the credibility.

I guess stoves have electric pilots these days, but many installed gas stoves/cooktops have a constantly burning pilot light.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#262

Post by modeless »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #254
amluto wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting. Maybe good ones make a difference but how many people actually have good ones? And how many people actually use them every time the stove is on?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#263

Post by chimeracoder »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #254
amluto wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment.

Older buildings don't have a hood at all, and new buildings have hoods which circulate air within the apartment, which doesn't really address concerns about accumulation of environmental pollutants.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#264

Post by galangalalgol »

netsharc wrote: post #207
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…

The article gets weird a few paragraphs in: people like cooking with gas because it's primal and sensual? Really? Is that the best you can come up with, in an NYT article?

I like cooking with gas because when my power goes out I can use a match to boil water when the boil water orders go into effect because mains keep bursting.

Also I can make smores when I don't feel like getting a fire going.

I do have an induction plug in hot plate and for actually cooking its really quite good. It boils water faster than all but my 21k btu burner on just 110v, dumps no heat into the room, cools down when I lower the temp as fast as gas, and did I mention it dumps no heat into the room?

As far as air quality taking anything above boiling temperatures inside is super bad for your lungs no matter how you do it. The NO isn't nearly as bad as the particulates created by searing or frying.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#265

Post by ksec »

chimeracoder wrote: post #263
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Pretty easily mitigated with a vent hood which all these tests don't have running. Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment. Older buildings don't have a hood at all, and new buildings have hoods which circulate air within the apartment, which doesn't really address concerns about accumulation of environmental pollutants.

>Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment.

Thanks. If this bit of context was clear from the get go it would have been a lot easier for those from EUR where we would expect vents outside the apartment to be the norm. ( Not speaking for all EUR, so there may be places this is not the norm )

As a matter of fact this is the first time I hear about vent circulating within the apartment, and to be honest this sounds quite scary.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#266

Post by pteraspidomorph »

moistly wrote: post #85

Have a Samsung induction. Induction kicks ass: incredibly fast to heat up, incredibly fast to reduce heat, good temperature control, dead easy to clean, surfaces stay relatively cool, etc. Flat(ish)-bottom wok works well. I highly recommend upgrading to induction stovetops. Had a cast-iron pan on “hi” or “powerboost”. It heated up so fast it cracked. It was like a gunshot, scared the bejeezsus outta me. Surprisingly,…

I've had a Samsung fridge for years and it works really well. Don't know about anything else though. Here in the EU I tend to prefer Electrolux/Frigidaire and Bosch.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#267

Post by nkurz »

ouid wrote: post #168
ink_13 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electric ovens are garbage It's curious to me that you would say that, since electric ovens are generally preferred for their more even and consistent heating. For a gas stove to maintain a certain heat, it has to be continuously cycling a gas element that necessarily only burns at one temperature. Also, electric ovens don't impart extra moisture to the cooking cavity.

Electric ovens are essentially incapable of broiling, which is one of the most important things that an oven does. All other functions are close to parity, but why would I buy an oven that is functionally without a broiler?

I've used lots of electric broilers, and a fair number of gas broilers, and have never found one better or worse. I would have said that the main difference is that it's hard to get a dry heat with gas, and hard to get a moist heat with electric. But this is more of an issue for breads and meringues, neither of which gets broiled.

Could you explain more about how you find it "incapable of broiling"? I'm wondering if you might be using it wrong. You may have to preheat for a couple minutes, and may have to leave the door slightly open to prevent the thermostat from cycling. Or maybe I've never fully utilized a gas broiler and don't realize what I'm missing.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#268

Post by worik »

modeless wrote: post #262
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting. Maybe good ones make a difference but how many people actually have good ones? And how many people actually use them every time the stove is on?

>All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting

A consumer organisation here studied "rangehoods" and (if memory serves) they found them all to close to useless.

consumer.org.nz - the reports are paywalled and I no longer subscribe, so mēh!

Re: The case for induction cooking

#269

Post by dillondoyle »

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-...

Also doesn't take into account greenhouse gas/global warming affects on human and global health. (this assumes using more green energy in future to power induction electricity).

Re: The case for induction cooking

#270

Post by worik »

ksec wrote: post #256
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, conjur…

Induction cooking has been around a very long time, competing with gas.

What has changed?

I am getting one when I get a new stove, but then again I do not have reticulated gas here.

My mother had one and it was great

Post reply on HN