7 ms·
From gidmkhealthnerd, a scientific fact-checker: Counterpoint: this seems to be the crusade of a single researcher - I don't find the data personally convincin
by dfxm12 2y ago
From gidmkhealthnerd, a scientific fact-checker:
Counterpoint: this seems to be the crusade of a single researcher - I don't find the data personally convincing and am still using my black spatula for cooking.
https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl=en https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- snowwrestler 2y agoIt’s kind of funny to watch the following conversations both recur regularly here on HN: - The replication crisis means most science is bad and we should be extremely skeptical of scientific consensus. - This one single scientific paper changes everything and you are negligent if you don’t immediately change your life based on it.
- wnevets 2y ago> This one single scientific paper changes everything and you are negligent if you don’t immediately change your life based on it but it confirms my current bias so it must be true!
- 6510 2y agoThat is not how it works. You should ask if being for or against is more socially accepted. If everyone cooks in teflon it must be double plus good for your health.
- potato3732842 2y agoSurely by "everyone" you mean "demographics I identify with".
- timeon 2y agoIt would be funny if it was done by same people but are we sure it is the case? Is 'HN' homogeneous crowd?
- potato3732842 2y agoAt some point a behavior or pattern becomes so reliable or so frequent that it's a valid criticism of the community as a whole.
- reducesuffering 2y ago" - This one single scientific paper changes everything and you are negligent if you don’t immediately change your life based on it." Is not a reliable, frequent, pattern that is in any way a valid criticism of the community as a whole. Incredible
- potato3732842 2y agoWhat you're quoting is satire of serious commentary. Few people unironically take it to such an extreme. But the undertone it's mocking is absolutely real and persistent. Not everyone on 4chan is a flaming bigot but yet the community as a while gets (rightfully) judged for allowing it in their midst. Why are lesser forms of poor behavior not also reflective of the community?
- reducesuffering 2y agoAh the ol' satire defense. Even a watered-down version of that isn't reflective of a large majority of the people here, so your statement still doesn't stand. Everywhere else, HN has a reputation for being hyper-critical and dismissive of almost everything. So much so, that this article which is essentially "don't burn plastic" has many, many comments discussing caveats, the single study, and vagueness...
- sickofparadox 2y agoTo be fair to people, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to cope with the fact that a plurality or even most papers that come out may be found to be completely un-reproducible. For low stakes things like getting rid of a plastic spatula or cutting board, there is a sub-$20 cost to get rid of them and believe it is right (even if it ends up being wrong), while the cost of not believing and the paper being right is a massively increased chance of cancer. Science will likely never have its reckoning with reality, people will just believe in it less and less until it becomes background noise like everything else.
- marcosdumay 2y ago> there is a sub-$20 cost Plus the risk of the alternative you pick being much worse than the original option.
- svachalek 2y agoFor some things maybe, but usually there's an option where the risk is pretty negligible. I feel pretty confident we're not going to declare wooden spatulas to be a massive health concern.
- gjhan 2y agoWhy?
- gav 2y agoThere's a risk for wooden ones that are glued, specifically bamboo, or finished with something toxic. You should probably stick to ones made from a single piece of hardwood and are unfinished. There's also a risk that any cracks will fill with bacteria.
- 6510 2y agoI think you've unknowingly debunked non-stick layers. Should make it from RVS.
- 2y ago
- hilux 2y agoGell-Man amnesia effect! (Or very similar ...)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- liveoneggs 2y agoit's a weird hill to die on when you can get an almost-exact item made from silicone instead of that gross plastic
- hamhock666 2y agoBut why take the chance? Just buy a metal spatula next time and there’s nothing to worry about if it turns out to be true
- lxgr 2y agoOnly if you don't care about not ruining your non-stick pans (or don't use any).
- bell-cot 2y agoThe non-stick pans that release all sorts of concerning-at-even-1ppb fluorine compounds?
- afh1 2y agoWhat do you cook on?
- lxgr 2y agoYep, these, because anything else completely ruins the fun in cooking for me, as I really don't enjoy cleaning dishes longer than I've spent cooking.
- mtalantikite 2y agoTry out carbon steel if you haven't. Season it once and it's essentially non-stick -- all I do is give mine a light rinse for a few seconds and then towel dry.
- mossTechnician 2y ago"I don't find the data personally convincing" is a poor retort. And that's all he says, without any further information. Is his post supposed to be taken seriously? If this person is a fact checker, he's probably run into plenty of people who would say "I don't find the data personally convincing" to explain why they don't trust vaccines.
- timr 2y agoThat's true of nearly everything in this space. You'll find lots and lots of comments below about PFAS and Teflon pans, for example, ranging from factual-but-misleading (e.g. "Teflon pans can emit harmful gases when overheated") to bald assertions (multiple variations on "Teflon pans are harmful to your health") with no context or specificity to the claim. Setting aside the fact that the purported harms (if specified at all!) are nearly always based on confounded observational studies and/or animal models at doses that may not bear any relationship to the doses you're being exposed to in real life, the claims for any particular item are usually presented out of context. For example, is exposure at X<10 parts per billion compound Y meaningful, as a human who lives in the real world? Typically, nobody knows, but you can nearly always find an "expert" who will confidently claim that any exposure is "dangerous." Skepticism and awareness of risk magnitude is essential when reading stuff like this. Academics who specialize in obscure areas love to get their name in the press, and the easiest way to do that is to go to a reporter and make vague and irresponsible claims about risks to human health, even if those risks are very, very small. [1] For what it's worth, I have a Teflon pan, I've used black plastic spatulas in the past, and I'm not worried about it. Compared to the reasons I already know that I'm likely to die, these things are irrelevant. [1] Case in point: I knew a tenured professor at a prestigious university who was absolutely convinced that if we all continued to eat beef, we'd be looking at an epidemic of vCJK (aka Mad Cow Disease). Saw a lecture from this person on the subject over a decade ago now, where the risks were presented as looming and absolute. We're still eating beef. Guess what hasn't happened since then?
- bayindirh 2y agoIt's important to understand that coloring plastics change their characteristics, though (I'll add the link if I can find it again). Also, plastics have quality grades from "that's good stuff" to "this thing smells funny in a bad way". We have some IKEA food tweezers which use black plastic molded on steel prongs. It's stamped with "+150 degrees C" and the black is hazy, like it's colored with a dye or pigment, and plastic is hard like bakelite. OTOH, I have used other "black" spatulas which are uniform in color, but neither as sturdy, nor smell neutral. We have silicone counterparts to these items too. They're more rubbery, but they have hard plastic spines inside so, they don't flex.
- carapace 2y agoStupidity has always bothered me. Strident pseudo-intellectual stupidity bothers me almost more than cruel ignorant stupidity. At least now I'm angry in a constructive way.
- mmooss 2y agoHow do you know which person is the pseudo-intellectual. At least one gained professional expertise in chemistry and did an actual scientific experiment. The other posted their 'opinion' on Threads saying it is all wrong.
- carapace 2y agoYes, that's my point. I'm complaining about the one idiot pointing to the other idiot crapping on science and boasting about eating toxins being top comment on this fractally appalling story. Happy Halloween
- mmooss 2y agoWhy do you trust gidmkhealthnerd, a psuedonym who likely knows nothing about it and offers nothing but a personal opinion, over the post of someone who studied it and gathered actual experimental evidence?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]