5 ms·

>>*Also, claiming that they "seem to be poisonous" without any qualifiers is a little misleading. To my knowledge they're only poisonous during manufacturing (i

>>*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.* Watch this documentary, "The Devil We Know" (About the history and toxicity of teflon. tl;dw - its a cancer causing birth defect, testosterone/endocrine system atomic bmb and there isnt a single person alive today who can be found (according to the doc) who does not have measurable amounts of teflon in their blood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_We_Know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_We_Know

gruez 5y ago
>Watch this documentary, "The Devil We Know" (About the history and toxicity of teflon. Sorry, but I'm not going to watch a 95 minute documentary on a whim. Based on the wikipedia summary, it doesn't seem to contradict what I said, specifically >regarding allegations of health hazards from perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8), a key ingredient used in manufacturing Teflon I specifically mentioned in my last comment that they were "poisonous during manufacturing ".
- sinsterizme 5y ago
  But the ingredient still obviously makes it way to the final product, hence the documentary.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >But the ingredient still obviously makes it way to the final product Plastic is made from oil. Do you think there's literally oil in your plastic water bottle?
    - sinsterizme 5y ago
      Sorry I didn’t mean it like a logical conclusion. Here’s a study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17593716/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17593716/
      - gruez 5y ago
        The linked study reported 7-337 ng of PFOA emitted per pan, over the span of 20 minutes. According to [1], the concentration of PFOA in the average american's blood is 2.1 μg/L, which is orders of magnitude more. I concede that there's technically some PFOAs left over in pans, but I stand by my claims that the pans themselves are a non-issue. [1] https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/12/PFOA_blood_test_result_Qs%26As_07_20_2016.pdf https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/...
        sinsterizme 5y ago
        A pan would conceivably be used thousands of times over its lifetime, so I still see these amounts as pertinent
        gruez 5y ago
        I don't dispute that the amounts are "pertinent", whatever that means, but going back to the original claim of the pans being "poisonous", I'm not sure the concentration is high enough to warrant that. The first result for maximum allowed concentration for PFAS is drinking water says it's 0.3 ug/L[1]. It's hard to compare drinking water standards to atmospheric standards, but at least intuitively it seems to be several of orders of magnitude higher than what's being emitted from pans during normal use. Given that, it seems a bit irresponsible to call pans "poisonous" when they're meeting all safety standards. I mean, arsenic is poisonous, a detectable amount can be found in most rice, and people eat a lot of rice, but it still seems a bit irresponsible to call rice "poisonous". [1] https://emergingcontaminants.eu/application/files/9514/5260/6219/67_PFOS_-_HPA_DWS_2007.pdf https://emergingcontaminants.eu/application/files/9514/5260/...
        sinsterizme 5y ago
        According to this [1] the limit for PFAS in the states ranges from 13 ng/L - 1000 ng/L. So it’s on the same order of magnitude. I also would guess that the limits are conservative, just because it’s so wide-spread already. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0099-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0099-9
zuminator 5y ago
You seem to be conflating the effects of chemicals previously used in the manufacture of Teflon, such as PFOA which is indeed very dangerous and toxic, and has been banned in the US, with Teflon itself, which appears to be safe. I mean, if Teflon is so toxic, and there isn't a single person alive today who doesn't have Teflon in their blood, then why aren't there tons of documented cases of Teflon poisoning?

gruez 5y ago

>Watch this documentary, "The Devil We Know" (About the history and toxicity of teflon. Sorry, but I'm not going to watch a 95 minute documentary on a whim. Based on the wikipedia summary, it doesn't seem to contradict what I said, specifically >regarding allegations of health hazards from perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8), a key ingredient used in manufacturing Teflon I specifically mentioned in my last comment that they were "poisonous during manufacturing ".

sinsterizme 5y ago
But the ingredient still obviously makes it way to the final product, hence the documentary.
- gruez 5y ago
  >But the ingredient still obviously makes it way to the final product Plastic is made from oil. Do you think there's literally oil in your plastic water bottle?
  - sinsterizme 5y ago
    Sorry I didn’t mean it like a logical conclusion. Here’s a study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17593716/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17593716/
    - gruez 5y ago
      The linked study reported 7-337 ng of PFOA emitted per pan, over the span of 20 minutes. According to [1], the concentration of PFOA in the average american's blood is 2.1 μg/L, which is orders of magnitude more. I concede that there's technically some PFOAs left over in pans, but I stand by my claims that the pans themselves are a non-issue. [1] https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/12/PFOA_blood_test_result_Qs%26As_07_20_2016.pdf https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/...
      - sinsterizme 5y ago
        A pan would conceivably be used thousands of times over its lifetime, so I still see these amounts as pertinent
        gruez 5y ago
        I don't dispute that the amounts are "pertinent", whatever that means, but going back to the original claim of the pans being "poisonous", I'm not sure the concentration is high enough to warrant that. The first result for maximum allowed concentration for PFAS is drinking water says it's 0.3 ug/L[1]. It's hard to compare drinking water standards to atmospheric standards, but at least intuitively it seems to be several of orders of magnitude higher than what's being emitted from pans during normal use. Given that, it seems a bit irresponsible to call pans "poisonous" when they're meeting all safety standards. I mean, arsenic is poisonous, a detectable amount can be found in most rice, and people eat a lot of rice, but it still seems a bit irresponsible to call rice "poisonous". [1] https://emergingcontaminants.eu/application/files/9514/5260/6219/67_PFOS_-_HPA_DWS_2007.pdf https://emergingcontaminants.eu/application/files/9514/5260/...
        sinsterizme 5y ago
        According to this [1] the limit for PFAS in the states ranges from 13 ng/L - 1000 ng/L. So it’s on the same order of magnitude. I also would guess that the limits are conservative, just because it’s so wide-spread already. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0099-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0099-9

zuminator 5y ago

You seem to be conflating the effects of chemicals previously used in the manufacture of Teflon, such as PFOA which is indeed very dangerous and toxic, and has been banned in the US, with Teflon itself, which appears to be safe. I mean, if Teflon is so toxic, and there isn't a single person alive today who doesn't have Teflon in their blood, then why aren't there tons of documented cases of Teflon poisoning?