Also the headline overstates the content of the article by two orders of magnitude - article suggests 10x change to safe level while the headline stipulates 1000x.
This is a hard problem; in general you don't want to shut off all new technological development, and presumably the worse something is for you, the faster the harm will become apparent (e.g. thalidomide). But I'd be interested to see a full-system cost/benefit analysis of e.g. PFAS. If the cost is "with X probability, cause Y QUALYs of harm to the population over 30 years", and the benefit is "improve convenience of cooking by making pans non-stick", what are the maximum values of X and Y that we should be happy to agree to?
It doesn't seem to me that society is currently well equipped to make decisions in this way.
10 million or more fetuses exposed over 30 years with results ranging from fatal aggressive cancers in young children to birth defects. DES still shows effects two full generations later - in the grandchildren.
During the time DES was in use it was often defended using the “But women have estrogen already and this is exactly the same so obviously it’s fine” sorts of dismissals.
And now, here and again I encounter people dismissing concerns about BPA or PFOA and other endocrine disrupters with hand waving about how if there was really a problem we would have seen it and reacted to it by now so - the reasoning goes - obviously there is not a problem or, if there is one, it’s minor. And then I think of DES.
PLA can compost in industrial sites, but (edit: add a not here) in normal environments, perhaps that is the reason for your quote marks.
So at least the bulk of the material in the bioware is pretty safe, especially when compared against PFA/PFOAs. That's not to say that it's impossible to mix PLA with some other, unsafe chemicals.
Traditional polymers: Oil in, power in, cheap product out, correct disposal and recycling required or planet suffers.
Biostarch polymers: Industrial waste in, huge amount of power in, comparable but more expensive product out (but can be relied on to biodegrade eventually if incorrectly disposed of).
The real solution is better food distribution systems with more efficient and re-usable packaging and cutlery, so that disposal is not required.
It used to be common to collect used glass bottles and re-use them. That practice still happens in countries like Thailand and Vietnam.
The more people realize the FDA does not care about us and learn to take personal action the better.
We generally call these things government agencies, but any other body with the same function - private or public - will be susceptible to the same kinds of forces that government agencies are. All we can do is try and build institutions good processes, adversarial audits that ensure processes are followed, and mechanisms to adjust processes when they're found to be lacking.
We generally call the latter mechanisms democracy. It's not great, but it's the best we've come up with.
Citizen's levying large class-actions suits and making documentaries like "The Devil We Know" are perhaps the best tools we have to stop fascist corruption.
Better living through chemistry!
Avoiding those compounds likely accounts for at least some of the increased trendiness of cast iron in the past decade or two, including the increase in new "artisanal" cast iron makers like Stargazer, Finex, Butter Pat, Smithey, Field Co and probably a few others (for reviews of a bunch of those, check out Kent Rollins on Youtube). There's also quite a bit of information on improving/smoothing less expensive cast iron.
Cast iron, seasoned, is supposed to be slicker than non stick. You should be able to fry an egg in it.
With lodge you have to build up that non stick over the sand casting “bumpies” that are left over from the iron casting process.
They used to machine those out, especially on the cook surface. Until this latest crop of modern cast iron manufacturers, one would typically have to retreat to vintage or perhaps machine your own.
I think most people just look at the sorry state of “lodge” then grab a pfa laden non stick and go home.
>All non-stick coatings contain PTFE, the abbreviation for polytetrafluorethylene, a plastic polymer. It is a slippery ingredient, made up of molecules of tetra fluoro ethylene that only contain carbon and fluorine.
Tefal/T-fal have been one of the main proponents and suppliers of teflon cookware (hence their name), switching formulas every so often, once the toxicity of the various generations of coating have become an issue.
If you want to go bare-metal and have an oven with a self-cleaning cycle, that's probably the simplest way to go - put the cast iron in there open-side down and run that cycle. I'm not sure just how much smoke this will release, but you might not want to do it on a day when you can't open windows. I've also seen notes that this can sometimes cause warping, so buyer beware.
To build up the seasoning, it's basically going to be multiple repetitions of putting on a thin layer of a high-smoke-point food-safe oil, heating and repeating. Darker color generally just indicates more layers.
In some ways it's almost like you're varnishing the cookware with an oil-based varnish, but without some of the other components of varnish. A lot of guides will recommend flaxseed oil for seasoning, it's also known as linseed oil and used to be pretty common in varnishes and wood finishes. For a contrary (and easier and cheaper) view, see https://www.reddit.com/r/castiron/comments/5owtnm/why_i_dont...
(see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drying_oil about oil-based varnishes)
Alternatively you can put it into oven and bake it at that temperature.
Goal is to keep it below smoking point.
It works to reseason the pan after minor damage (not yet rusted, but lacking non-sticky surface). I use the pan almost every day, so I don't have experience with fixing heavier damage.
If the pan gets sticky to the finger afterwards (it shouldn't if you avoid poodles of oil), don't worry. It will resolve itself after a few cooking cycles.
The key things I'm going to highly highly highly recommend are a good filter mask, good ventilation (or excellent ventilation and a big shop fan blowing past if you have a beard) and a way to securely hold the piece you're working on. I don't have a link, but I like what one guy put together with a heavy duty board - a hook at one end through a hole, and a hook at the other through a slot that could be adjusted to fit the piece. Don't tighten down hard at all unless you want to risk breaking things, just enough to keep what you're working on from shifting around as you sand.
They're also all machined to a smooth finish after molding, where the Lodges are cleaned, possibly sanded a bit to get rid of any lingering material from the mold, then seasoned. Part of the reasoning I've heard for the rougher finish on Lodge pans is that it makes that initial factory seasoning much easier to get on there. If you look around in the cast iron arena you'll come across a fair amount of information on how to do your own machining at home with drills, abrasive pads, hand sanders, etc.
Beyond that, some of them have different configurations of spouts, secondary handles, etc. - they're all somewhat different.
An informal survey as to why you would use a cast iron is "it make meat taste better" and it "heats more evenly".
I do hear the weight complaint - I'm a big guy so it's not too bad but my girlfriend needs two hands.
If you want to use cast iron for soups, stews, braises, chilis, etc. that you're going to be cooking a long time, get an enameled cast iron pan - that'll get you a lot of the heat retention but with a more durable (but not nonstick) finish.
It's also easy to clean, if you get over the impulse to use detergent. Just clean it in hot water and then a towel or paper towel. If one uses detergent, it needs to be oil coated and heated again, which is annoying.
I'll never use anything but cast iron again. It is heavy though.
I have 5 cast iron pots and pans and use a little soap on all and have no issues with removing coating.
More generally - if they don't sell it at a restaurant supply store (or a store catering toward the restaurant business), you are going to be overpaying for it. This is true for almost everything you really need in the kitchen.
Deeper carbon steel pans are great for stir frying, but I have yet to find another use for very shallow carbon steel skillets.
Note that Lodge makes skillets that it calls "carbon steel" which are actually just especially thin cast iron, and I love these. They are thick enough to perform like cast iron, but much lighter. I have 10 and 12 inch skillets (Lodge model numbers CRS10 and CRS12), and they're my go-to skillets for almost everything: pancakes, omelets and fried eggs, sauteing, and shallow frying. The only thing I don't use cast iron for is scrambled eggs.
Nope, nevermind, I'm wrong. I just checked my pans, and my Lodge thin cast iron skillets are the same thickness as those Mineral B pans -- 2.5mm. My crepe pan is thinner. So you're right, those De Buyer pans probably are excellent replacements for cast iron -- lighter, cheaper, similar performance.
Damn you batbomb, now I have to go shopping for pans. Restaurant supply store you say? Maybe ebay?
This only really matters for searing and shallow frying, where temperatures need to stay high and stable. For lower temperature activities like sauteing, evenness of heat is more important. Delicate things like crepes and egg dishes are sort of special cases, requiring both evenness and a surface that releases the food without sticking.
It's important to note that birds can easily be injured or killed by all kinds of cooking smoke and fumes, regardless of origin, and all cooking smoke is known to be carcinogenic. But normal cooking fumes are nowhere near as dangerous as the shit that comes out of overheated PTFE.
This is unfortunate, because the ceramic process doesn't use PFAs like PFOA, and they don't use PTFEs. Some people claim you can preserve ceramics' non-stickiness by not using oil, but I have my doubts. The short lifespan of ceramics is a pretty common complaint. From what I can tell, there's no way to get the non-stick back -- scrubbing the coating only makes it worse.
Wish I had a source but I'm on mobile.
For example, premium PTFE coatings such as GMM's Duramax and Whitford's Eclipse are internally reinforced with hard materials of some sort. However these are not marketed as PTFE-free, because obviously they aren't. On the other hand, a ceramic coating that's advertised as PTFE-free, such as Thermolon (which is used in GreenPan) is completely free of fluorinated chemicals.
That being said, the EFSA is looking into the topic:
PFA/PFOS="poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances"
As an article seeking to get this message out about the PFA court case, perhaps you are justified, however this should have been your starting point:
"The chemicals used as criteria in the suit are called PFASs (pronounced “pee-fass”), and are unregulated at the federal level. [The suit asserts that these chemicals are found in 98% of Americans today].
In June, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an updated draft toxicological profile for PFASs.
For drinking water, [the report recommends an] acceptable concentration of 7 parts per trillion of PFOS and 11 parts per trillion for PFOA, according to Laurel Schaider, a research scientist at the Silent Spring Institute. Right now, the EPA’s 2016 guidelines set an acceptable drinking water concentration for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion, about ten times higher than the draft report’s thresholds.
... by the standards in the ATSDR report, a PFASs exposure greater than approximately two thousandth (0.002) of a drop [of water] in the average yearly water intake of an American adult could be considered potentially unsafe"
EPA limits (which are usually the federal action limit, not a recommended consumption limit):
Even Patagonia still uses chemicals in this class (or did as of 2015):
More reading here:
I was just reading about fluorides in ski wax, and all the problems associated with it and the upcoming EU ban, then I browsed HN and found this story on top.
However, if you're interested, PFA stands for perfluoroalkoxy polymer. Wikipedia has information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluoroalkoxy_alkane
There are major swaths of the country where PFAS and PFOS doesn't need to be defined: it's common knowledge and the terms see daily use among the general population as they drink filtered water to avoid ingesting it. But spelling out the name doesn't tell you the story, so if you're discounting the information because the name isn't spelled out, you're missing a major disaster slow-rolling the industrial Midwest right now. The long form of the name is the least interesting part of the article.
Here's a 2018 ATSDR study : https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1117&tid=237
Effects of Perfluorinated alkylate substances in children (2017) : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1547691X.2017.13...
Last year I read about pm2.5 in our air and have gotten some sensors and air purifier to combat this particular problem.
Quick note: the headline is from a Massive Lab Note (https://massivesci.com/notes/scientists-just-cut-the-tolerab...), while the link above is pulling from an Oct 2018 article related to an ongoing US health study about safe limits of several PFASs.
I skimmed comments below briefly--PFASs are used as processing components to create non-stick cookware. They can be emitted directly from the cookware as Teflon breaks down, becomes scratched, or is overheated. The "legacy" PFASs have been largely phased out, with replacements like GenX taking their place. These replacements offer similar toxicological consequences compared to "original" PFASs.
I suspect that this one is identical for all practical purposes.
A carbon filter would get rid of the organics and low-boiling point things.
So optimal water purification would first use a carbon filter, and then distill the output of that. Make sure to add minerals to the final product though. Pure water is a vicious solvent and will slowly melt your teeth away. It will also become quite acidic after sucking CO2 out of the air, so consider adding some pH balancing salts too.
Got a source for "really bad"? Because that would conflict with the above link. I stand by my comment above: distilled water, passed through a carbon-filter post-distilation, seems like a better bet than drinking water the city pumps out of the ground in Sili Valley.
Those are not the only two options. There is a third option that exists, it's called purified water and it leaves the important minerals and salts in the water. Water can be purified without being distilled, and even your own source says distilled water will leach chemicals from the plastic container into the water. Distilled water is what you put into a car's radiator or a home humidifier, not into your body.
There are plenty of sources from actual medical journals and the WHO (not random Internet blogs) on the negative health impacts of distilled water here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_water#Health_effects
"Magnesium deficiency in tap water in Israel: The desalination era"
So, yes, make sure that you're supplementing magnesium or getting plenty from foods if you switch from plain tap water to RO or distilled water.
The wikipedia page has some information.
Part of a 21-part series at https://theintercept.com/series/the-teflon-toxin/
Maybe because PFCs have such a terrible reputation?
GenX and PFOA are notionally different chemicals used in the manufacturing of PFTE. They are both used to accelerate the polymerization reaction. It is nominally possible to have finished PTFE products which do not contain relevant (choose your definition) amounts of either family of chemicals. GenX and PFOA are both toxic in themselves, regardless of use - unlike teflon.
There's a great documentary about this that came out last year called, The Devil We Know. The TL;DR is that Dupont (seller of Teflon) and 3M (the inventor) knew early on that Telfon caused birth defects and cancer.
They knew it would poison the water supply and could never be remediated. And they went ahead and sold it, again and again, into thousands of products because Dupont was earning about $1B in profits (on their $23B in revenue) just from Teflon alone.
Teflon is non-reactive and does not have these health issues. However PFAs can be byproducts of the manufacture of teflon, and they can be used in similar ways to teflon (they allow high temperature molding of corrosion resistant materials). The primary contamination issue is with this byproduct, particularly when it was manufactured, sold and used as a fire suppressing foam.
The people who dumped that crap and covered it up deserve jail time, but uninformed fear mongering doesn't serve the public either.
Perhaps you mean the coordinating Oxygen in PFA or the Sulfur in PFOA, PFOS (ScotchGuard)? Those chemicals are known to be toxic and contaminated many marine animals and watersheds... some are regulated, some are not, and some companies have ignored the regulation, or the regulators have ignored the pollution. It's bad, but not relevant to teflon PTFE per se.
All of them are much safer than driving, but that frankly isn't very safe... since it's way up there on the list of things likely to kill you.
Oh, but be careful with very high temperatures (500F+) frying, or dry boiling water pans. The teflon can break down and react with oxygen creating some of the same compounds. It has been known to kill birds!
It sort of doesn't matter what the specifics of the toxicity are, which people will litigate here endlessly. So for once, consider that talking about the specifics of the toxicity is, fundamentally, co-opted by the antagonists of this scenario, because it sows confusion. Making it a science problem is attractive, but that line of problem solving is certainly perceived by the public to have long been hijacked by moneyed interests.
Because if PFAs really caused cancer, or vaccines really caused autism, or pornography really caused massive amounts of violence against women or whatever--if it was really a hair on fire problem, we'd know. Air pollution really causes lung cancer, and it's seemingly invisible, but the hair on fire problem does exist there: visit Delhi. There, it's visible.
In the United States, a lot of low hanging fruit has been addressed. So the kind of faucets-on-fire urgency that we saw with fracking is actually very rare nowadays. Yet we have a legacy environmental movement oriented too strongly around finding issues like that, that are capable of communicating only about issues like that. Ecoterrorism, class action lawsuits, big urban protests, reactionary political campaigns--it's great for getting rid of air pollution and visible disasters like that, but it's ineffective for stuff that's just a bunch of boring science.
We'll eventually figure out how to litigate environmental problems. It won't at all resemble this preposterous adversarial trial and torts system. Goodnight to environmental lawyers, on both sides, despite their intentions. To keep this on topic for this forum, the person who figures out how to save the environment will definitely not be some grad student or $500k/year 50 y.o. industry MEng trying to make patentable inventions to get funded by VCs. People chasing the dollars are the environmental problem, after all.
The people caught up in details of economics, law and scientific toxicity will just go away (i.e. technocrats) from this problem. We kind of already know that DuPont and 3M are guilty parties in something here. It won't be important to normal people what precisely corporate polluters are guilty of, because a normal person will never be on the wrong side of that justice equation.
If someone uses a hammer to kill their spouse, the hammer manufacturer definitely is not on the wrong side of the justice equation and the person is.
It's precisely because of some law needing to be fair to hammer manufacturers, who literally no one cares about, that gun manufacturers, which pretty much everyone does care about, can do shitty things in this country. You're thinking in terms of law, and I'm talking about a court of public opinion.
And even if you litter (pretty much the worst a normal person can do in the court of public opinion re: pollution), we don't need years to litigate that in a court of law.
And yet, it took five years to litigate the BP Horizon spill, even though there's camera footage showing oil coming out of their derrick in real time. What was there to litigate there? Who really cares whether it's $18.7 billion, or $187 billion, or $1.8 billion, other than the BP chairman? Who really cares what they think, in the court of public opinion?
No normal person is ever going to have $18.7 billion to lose, nor will ever have the capability of doing the kind of environmental damage BP's bad oil platform did. So why allow environmental law to even adjudicate the matter, over years, which has never once, ever, delivered maximum justice to the public?
Why compromise on our values and the environment, constantly, to protect some essentially unproven economic logic that BP, or DuPoint, or whoever, generate more value for some community somewhere in "jobs" or whatever than the damage they did by polluting?
The primary normative question in that case: Should we just shut down BP? We didn't need 5 years of negotiations to resolve that, we didn't need any more evidence or calculations. Someone in the justice department, in an afternoon, made the determination that BP won't be closed, and then a complex legal strategy was pursued, by both sides, for five years, to generate the illusion of justice to execute on that determination.
Pollution cases act like criminal cases, and they shouldn't be! The whole problem is reductive, slow, storied, legalistic reasoning, and reductive, unproven economic aphorisms.
By what legal process? What happens to the assets, the investors and staff? Does it matter that the British Petroleum is, in fact, a British company?