4 ms·

>They have their uses. I wouldn't try frying eggs in a cast iron, for instance (technically you can, but it requires an absurd amount of oil). Also, claiming th

>They have their uses. I wouldn't try frying eggs in a cast iron, for instance (technically you can, but it requires an absurd amount of oil). Also, claiming that they "seem to be poisonous" without any qualifiers is a little misleading. To my knowledge they're only poisonous during manufacturing (ie. the precursor chemicals) and when they get too hot. Nonstick pans contain hormone disrupting chemicals. Just google it and there are numerous resources. Nonstick chemicals are also released into our rivers and waterways and basically impossible to remove (lots of resources for this as well). >From nonstick pans to food packaging to make-up, hundreds of everyday products are made with PFAS chemicals that have been linked to adverse health effects, including cancer, weakened immunity and low birth weight. >They are also a persistent pollutant in the environment, with high levels found in many public water systems. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/toxic-forever-chemicals-are-found-everywhere-what-you-need-to-know-about-pfas/2653672/ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/to... If you don't like cast iron then carbon steel is a similar but easier to maintain alternative. If those don't work, then enameled cast iron (i.e. Le Creuset) works.

gruez 4y ago
>Nonstick pans contain hormone disrupting chemicals Again, is this during manufacture or in the finished product? In my comment I specifically said it was poisonous during manufacture. >Just google it and there are numerous resources I checked on wikipedia and I found no mentions of that in the finished product.
- diogenescynic 4y ago
  >I checked on wikipedia and I found no mentions of that in the finished product. It's both/ Read the article I linked above "most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their bloodstream" so these chemicals are toxic in the finished product (which they then digest when using) and during manufacture. >While contamination of drinking water around military bases and factories gets most of the attention, the EPA says 80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >It's both/ Read the article I linked above "most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their bloodstream" so these chemicals are toxic in the finished product (which they then digest when using) and during manufacture. The "product" in this case being "non-stick pans", or various other consumer products? The wikipedia article seems to suggest the latter. >they are still produced internationally and are imported into the United States in consumer goods such as carpet, leather and apparel, textiles, paper and packaging, coatings, rubber and plastics >In 2020, manufacturers and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced an agreement to phase out some types of PFAS which are used in food packaging by 2024 >PFAS are also used by major companies of the cosmetics industry in a wide range of cosmetics, including lipstick, eye liner, mascara, foundation, concealer, lip balm, blush, nail polish and other such products Based on that, I'm inclined to believe that there's a bunch of ways for PFAS to get into people's bloodstreams, but cookware isn't one of them (I did a quick search and they're not mentioned in the article, aside from a reference to a california legislation requiring them to be labeled). That's perfectly consistent with my prior claim that "finished non-stick pans are safe" and your claim that "most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their bloodstream".
    - diogenescynic 4y ago
      >I'm inclined to believe that there's a bunch of ways for PFAS to get into people's bloodstreams, but cookware isn't one of them You have the burden of proof to prove your claim/belief. I already provided a source that says "80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home." which you're making the illogical leap that that must not include pans coated in these chemicals that we use to cook on... That seems illogical. Yes there are other sources of PFAs, but you're trying to exclude one of the most obvious sources. >That's perfectly consistent with my prior claim that "finished non-stick pans are safe" You have literally cited zero evidence for your claim--so no it's not consistent. You're pulling this out of your ass. I strongly suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/03/07/pfas-guide-chemicals/6652847001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/03/07/pfas-guide-ch... Regardless, I'll keep using my cast iron, carbon steel, and enameled cast iron pans--you can keep eating weird chemicals.

gruez 4y ago

>Nonstick pans contain hormone disrupting chemicals Again, is this during manufacture or in the finished product? In my comment I specifically said it was poisonous during manufacture. >Just google it and there are numerous resources I checked on wikipedia and I found no mentions of that in the finished product.

diogenescynic 4y ago
>I checked on wikipedia and I found no mentions of that in the finished product. It's both/ Read the article I linked above "most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their bloodstream" so these chemicals are toxic in the finished product (which they then digest when using) and during manufacture. >While contamination of drinking water around military bases and factories gets most of the attention, the EPA says 80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home.
- gruez 4y ago
  >It's both/ Read the article I linked above "most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their bloodstream" so these chemicals are toxic in the finished product (which they then digest when using) and during manufacture. The "product" in this case being "non-stick pans", or various other consumer products? The wikipedia article seems to suggest the latter. >they are still produced internationally and are imported into the United States in consumer goods such as carpet, leather and apparel, textiles, paper and packaging, coatings, rubber and plastics >In 2020, manufacturers and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced an agreement to phase out some types of PFAS which are used in food packaging by 2024 >PFAS are also used by major companies of the cosmetics industry in a wide range of cosmetics, including lipstick, eye liner, mascara, foundation, concealer, lip balm, blush, nail polish and other such products Based on that, I'm inclined to believe that there's a bunch of ways for PFAS to get into people's bloodstreams, but cookware isn't one of them (I did a quick search and they're not mentioned in the article, aside from a reference to a california legislation requiring them to be labeled). That's perfectly consistent with my prior claim that "finished non-stick pans are safe" and your claim that "most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their bloodstream".
  - diogenescynic 4y ago
    >I'm inclined to believe that there's a bunch of ways for PFAS to get into people's bloodstreams, but cookware isn't one of them You have the burden of proof to prove your claim/belief. I already provided a source that says "80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home." which you're making the illogical leap that that must not include pans coated in these chemicals that we use to cook on... That seems illogical. Yes there are other sources of PFAs, but you're trying to exclude one of the most obvious sources. >That's perfectly consistent with my prior claim that "finished non-stick pans are safe" You have literally cited zero evidence for your claim--so no it's not consistent. You're pulling this out of your ass. I strongly suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/03/07/pfas-guide-chemicals/6652847001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/03/07/pfas-guide-ch... Regardless, I'll keep using my cast iron, carbon steel, and enameled cast iron pans--you can keep eating weird chemicals.