5 ms·

> but it's not like the final product (Teflon) is safe to ingest either Sure it is. I don't think a less toxic material than Teflon even exists. It's toxicity

by ars 4y ago

> but it's not like the final product (Teflon) is safe to ingest either Sure it is. I don't think a less toxic material than Teflon even exists. It's toxicity is comparable to water. The LD50 of Teflon is > 11,280 mg/kg. Water by comparison is 90,000 mg/kg. They were not able to measure the exact toxicity because it's impossible to eat so much.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Dan_- 4y ago
Bullshit. There is “toxic” and there is “causes cancer, even outside California, reduces fertility, and negatively affects fetal development.” Just because something doesn’t kill you immediately does not mean it isn’t harmful.
- ars 4y ago
  Teflon is not harmful. Period. It doesn't cause ANYTHING in the body. It's about the most inert material that you can possibly ingest.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Please cite the long term studies on ingested PTFE coatings that assert they are safe. I'll wait...
    - ars 4y ago
      Here you go: https://goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/fear-teflon-flakes-found-frying-pan/ https://goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/fear-tefl... PTFE goes out unchanged from how it was when it went in. It's completely inert. It's even used in implants, so has plenty of long term studies: https://dermnetnz.org/topics/polytetrafluoroethylene-implant https://dermnetnz.org/topics/polytetrafluoroethylene-implant https://www.facialplasticsurgerycharlotte.com/content/uploads/2021/11/jarchow-safetyand-efficacyptfeimplants.pdf https://www.facialplasticsurgerycharlotte.com/content/upload... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26110468/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26110468/ How many studies are you looking for?
      - kragen 4y ago
        I really appreciate you making the effort to debunk the witch-burners; have you thought about doing it in a less ephemeral medium? Your comment will probably be here for a decade or more but nobody will read it after this month.
        quickthrower2 4y ago
        That said people here are engaged and interested in the topic and will remember. Whereas a blogpost may not get that traction. A Netflix movie maybe.
        blix 4y ago
        If asking for scientific research to support claims is witch-burning, truly science literacy is in a sad state. And I'm not sure I would really consider a "Go Ask Alice" column as peer-reviewed research.
        kragen 4y ago
        But the claim in question is one of the best-known and most thoroughly established claims in all of toxicology. Asking for scientific research supporting the biocompatibility of PTFE is akin to asking for scientific research supporting biological evolution or the claim that people have landed on the moon: it's a sure sign that the person making the demand has a pre-existing flimsy pretext for rejecting literally all the research in the relevant field, which did indeed turn out to be the case; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32517203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32517203.
        blix 4y ago
        If it's truly such a well established claim it should be trivial to find and link a study actually demonstrating its safety when ingesting small amounts over a large period of time. No such study was linked. Probably because longitudinal studies are extremely rare. It's not a rejection of all research to say that some questions remain unanswered. In fact, I'd say it is the foundation of good science to understand which claims are supported by evidence, and which claims are not.
  - freemint 4y ago
    Even inert materials can do stuff, such as prevent other reactions or act catalytically or have physical impacts (collision which defold molecules, make certain things heavier by being enclosed or enclosing ... ). Furthermore PTFE is know to interact with Gallic Acid [1] somewhat. The body contains gallic acid [1] https://www.calpaclab.com/teflon-ptfe-compatibility/ https://www.calpaclab.com/teflon-ptfe-compatibility/
  - acrobatsunfish 4y ago
    It will kill birds in your house though, be warned!
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Sugar does those things.
klabb3 4y ago
Is LD50 a meaningful measurement for biopersistent and accumulated compounds? It seems like it would be quite useless, or worse, misleading. I recall that large blobs of mercury was used as a homemade remedy for stomach issues which turned out to not be a great idea for obvious reasons, although it's LD50 would probably have been similarly high.
- ars 4y ago
  Teflon is not a biopersistent or accumulated compounds. Teflon goes out exactly as it went in, undigested, unabsorbed, utterly ignored by the body.
Teknoman117 4y ago
Teflon in isolation may be fine, but your average cookware still contains enough PFOA left over from the synthesis process to cause harm. The replacement to PFOA (GenX?) has also been found in modern Teflon cookware as well. Also, Teflon out-gasses at temperatures well below your average stovetop flame. Toxic enough that you can't use Teflon cookware if you own birds. It'll kill them.
- userbinator 4y ago
  but your average cookware still contains enough PFOA left over from the synthesis process to cause harm. Citation needed. The fumes are quite toxic. Toxic enough that you can't use Teflon cookware if you own birds. The dose makes the poison.
- ars 4y ago
  > but your average cookware still contains enough PFOA left over from the synthesis process to cause harm That isn't true. "Studies show that this coating contains a negligible amount of PFAS capable of migrating to food." https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-food/questions-and-answers-pfas-food https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-food/question... > Toxic enough that you can't use Teflon cookware if you own birds. It'll kill them. This also isn't true. You can't heat your cookware above 500F / 260C, that's it. Which obviously no one does since everything would be burned black. Oil is much more dangerous to birds than Teflon, since it will kill them at temperatures actually reached during cooking.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Even negligible amounts of something that never goes away and builds up in your blood is a problem.
    - ars 4y ago
      It does not build up in your body, it builds up in the environment. The amount in your body is basically exactly the same as whatever environment you are in. On top of that, how much PFOA would you imagine is even in a frying pan? It's already so little it's considered negligible, so unless you are buying new ones every day, even the negligible amount is not "building up".
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
LD50 only tells you acute lethal toxicity. LD50 can be astronomically high and a compound might still have long term, non-lethal toxic effects like injuring specific tissues. No one is even suggesting lethal toxicity is the issue here, so how is it relevant?

by ars 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Dan_- 4y ago

Bullshit. There is “toxic” and there is “causes cancer, even outside California, reduces fertility, and negatively affects fetal development.” Just because something doesn’t kill you immediately does not mean it isn’t harmful.

ars 4y ago
Teflon is not harmful. Period. It doesn't cause ANYTHING in the body. It's about the most inert material that you can possibly ingest.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Please cite the long term studies on ingested PTFE coatings that assert they are safe. I'll wait...
  - ars 4y ago
    Here you go: https://goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/fear-teflon-flakes-found-frying-pan/ https://goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/fear-tefl... PTFE goes out unchanged from how it was when it went in. It's completely inert. It's even used in implants, so has plenty of long term studies: https://dermnetnz.org/topics/polytetrafluoroethylene-implant https://dermnetnz.org/topics/polytetrafluoroethylene-implant https://www.facialplasticsurgerycharlotte.com/content/uploads/2021/11/jarchow-safetyand-efficacyptfeimplants.pdf https://www.facialplasticsurgerycharlotte.com/content/upload... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26110468/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26110468/ How many studies are you looking for?
    - kragen 4y ago
      I really appreciate you making the effort to debunk the witch-burners; have you thought about doing it in a less ephemeral medium? Your comment will probably be here for a decade or more but nobody will read it after this month.
      - quickthrower2 4y ago
        That said people here are engaged and interested in the topic and will remember. Whereas a blogpost may not get that traction. A Netflix movie maybe.
      - blix 4y ago
        If asking for scientific research to support claims is witch-burning, truly science literacy is in a sad state. And I'm not sure I would really consider a "Go Ask Alice" column as peer-reviewed research.
        kragen 4y ago
        But the claim in question is one of the best-known and most thoroughly established claims in all of toxicology. Asking for scientific research supporting the biocompatibility of PTFE is akin to asking for scientific research supporting biological evolution or the claim that people have landed on the moon: it's a sure sign that the person making the demand has a pre-existing flimsy pretext for rejecting literally all the research in the relevant field, which did indeed turn out to be the case; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32517203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32517203.
        blix 4y ago
        If it's truly such a well established claim it should be trivial to find and link a study actually demonstrating its safety when ingesting small amounts over a large period of time. No such study was linked. Probably because longitudinal studies are extremely rare. It's not a rejection of all research to say that some questions remain unanswered. In fact, I'd say it is the foundation of good science to understand which claims are supported by evidence, and which claims are not.
- freemint 4y ago
  Even inert materials can do stuff, such as prevent other reactions or act catalytically or have physical impacts (collision which defold molecules, make certain things heavier by being enclosed or enclosing ... ). Furthermore PTFE is know to interact with Gallic Acid [1] somewhat. The body contains gallic acid [1] https://www.calpaclab.com/teflon-ptfe-compatibility/ https://www.calpaclab.com/teflon-ptfe-compatibility/
- acrobatsunfish 4y ago
  It will kill birds in your house though, be warned!
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Sugar does those things.

klabb3 4y ago

Is LD50 a meaningful measurement for biopersistent and accumulated compounds? It seems like it would be quite useless, or worse, misleading. I recall that large blobs of mercury was used as a homemade remedy for stomach issues which turned out to not be a great idea for obvious reasons, although it's LD50 would probably have been similarly high.

ars 4y ago
Teflon is not a biopersistent or accumulated compounds. Teflon goes out exactly as it went in, undigested, unabsorbed, utterly ignored by the body.

Teknoman117 4y ago

Teflon in isolation may be fine, but your average cookware still contains enough PFOA left over from the synthesis process to cause harm. The replacement to PFOA (GenX?) has also been found in modern Teflon cookware as well. Also, Teflon out-gasses at temperatures well below your average stovetop flame. Toxic enough that you can't use Teflon cookware if you own birds. It'll kill them.

userbinator 4y ago
but your average cookware still contains enough PFOA left over from the synthesis process to cause harm. Citation needed. The fumes are quite toxic. Toxic enough that you can't use Teflon cookware if you own birds. The dose makes the poison.
ars 4y ago
> but your average cookware still contains enough PFOA left over from the synthesis process to cause harm That isn't true. "Studies show that this coating contains a negligible amount of PFAS capable of migrating to food." https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-food/questions-and-answers-pfas-food https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-food/question... > Toxic enough that you can't use Teflon cookware if you own birds. It'll kill them. This also isn't true. You can't heat your cookware above 500F / 260C, that's it. Which obviously no one does since everything would be burned black. Oil is much more dangerous to birds than Teflon, since it will kill them at temperatures actually reached during cooking.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Even negligible amounts of something that never goes away and builds up in your blood is a problem.
  - ars 4y ago
    It does not build up in your body, it builds up in the environment. The amount in your body is basically exactly the same as whatever environment you are in. On top of that, how much PFOA would you imagine is even in a frying pan? It's already so little it's considered negligible, so unless you are buying new ones every day, even the negligible amount is not "building up".

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

LD50 only tells you acute lethal toxicity. LD50 can be astronomically high and a compound might still have long term, non-lethal toxic effects like injuring specific tissues. No one is even suggesting lethal toxicity is the issue here, so how is it relevant?