6 ms·
Actually, Teflon on pans and cooking. Where is quite bad. It flakes off quite easily and you just ingest it. Go with ceramic, it’s much better for you. This is
by Overtonwindow 4y ago
Actually, Teflon on pans and cooking. Where is quite bad. It flakes off quite easily and you just ingest it. Go with ceramic, it’s much better for you.
This is just one search result, there are many This is just one search result, there are many: https://www.foxnews.com/health/non-stick-pans-could-release-millions-microplastic-particles-possible-health-concern-study-says https://www.foxnews.com/health/non-stick-pans-could-release-...
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y agoYour links would probably be taken more seriously here if they weren't to foxnews.com. Personally I didn't even click on it just because of that, which is a shame because you made me interested up until then.
- jiggawatts 4y agoTeflon is harmless if ingested. The whole point of it is that it is chemically inert.
- IsTom 4y agoNot saying that teflon is bad when ingested, but asbestos and glass are also chemically inert and it doesn't make them ok to ingest.
- pitaj 4y agoSilicates like glass and asbestos are hard and cause physical damage, but PTFE is a soft polymer.
- labawi 4y agoSmall chemically inert substances can gunk up your cells and tissues even if they are soft.
- jiggawatts 4y agoThe don't make into your cells and tissues, because they're not digestible. Anything bigger than a "small molecule" doesn't make it through the membranes into your bloodstream. Even individual proteins are too big, let alone a chunk of your frying pan big enough to see.
- labawi 4y agoWhen talking about a small polymer, I was mainly commenting on microscopic flakes and lakes laced with "chemically inert" molecules that have devastating physiological effects. Either way, what you claim is simply not true by any reasoning [1], though I do agree eating teflon flakes in moderate amounts should not pose much concern. [1] https://phys.org/news/2020-08-micro-nanoplastics-human-tissues.html https://phys.org/news/2020-08-micro-nanoplastics-human-tissu...
- refurb 4y agoAsbestos is not chemically inert. That's why it causes cancer.
- ComputerGuru 4y agoThat’s not how it causes cancer. Its physical properties are incompatible with human biology.
- refurb 4y agoYes it is. Asbestos has chelated iron in it that catalyzes free radicals that result in DNA damage. Saying "Its physical properties are incompatible with human biology." is not an actual answer. What physical properties?
- mint2 4y agoThey are referring to the way any google search on the health effects of asbestos fibers will show that mechanical irritation causes scarring.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Biological_interactions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_impact_of_asbestos#Bi... Fibers so small they tangle up with your chromosomes are the physical properties that can cause cancer
- refurb 4y agoPlease don't quote wikipedia. That's a theory from the 70's.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y agoI rather believe Wikipedia than random strangers on the internet
- refurb 4y agoI mean, we use PTFE as medical implants, which have undergone FDA testing. It's an incredibly inert substance. I'm thinking if it's OK to implant a piece of PFTE in your body for decades, it's probably not a big issue to ingest a flake that is eventually pooped out.