3 ms·

>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

>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
    >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. If you really want to talk about "burden of proof" and whether something "seems illogical", I'm going to take the easy way out and point out that PFAS is a set of substances which include PTFE ("teflon") as well as PFOA (used in the manufacture of PTFE). We have been conflating the two, which means many of the sources you provided for PFAS are actually invalid, at least in the context of discussing whether non-stick pans are "poisonous".
    - diogenescynic 4y ago
      That's right... move the goalposts and don't provide any evidence again. You're arguing in bad faith so this is a waste of both our time.
      - gruez 4y ago
        >That's right... move the goalposts Technically the original discussion was about PTFE (ie. the stuff used on pans), not PFAS (which is what your sources reference since your first reply). If anything, you're the one who moved it my subtly moving the discussion to be about PFAS. I suppose it's "moving the goalposts" to bring the discussion back to PTFEs, so I do apologize if you think that me replying to your comments constitutes acceptance of moving the discussion to be about PFAS. >don't provide any evidence again Here's my "evidence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety >PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures

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
  >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. If you really want to talk about "burden of proof" and whether something "seems illogical", I'm going to take the easy way out and point out that PFAS is a set of substances which include PTFE ("teflon") as well as PFOA (used in the manufacture of PTFE). We have been conflating the two, which means many of the sources you provided for PFAS are actually invalid, at least in the context of discussing whether non-stick pans are "poisonous".
  - diogenescynic 4y ago
    That's right... move the goalposts and don't provide any evidence again. You're arguing in bad faith so this is a waste of both our time.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >That's right... move the goalposts Technically the original discussion was about PTFE (ie. the stuff used on pans), not PFAS (which is what your sources reference since your first reply). If anything, you're the one who moved it my subtly moving the discussion to be about PFAS. I suppose it's "moving the goalposts" to bring the discussion back to PTFEs, so I do apologize if you think that me replying to your comments constitutes acceptance of moving the discussion to be about PFAS. >don't provide any evidence again Here's my "evidence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety >PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures