Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think the wrong assumption here is that we humans are completely fine with teflon overheating on the other hand. PFAS chemicals released really do mess with just about everything and anything in our body, the results just aren't seen on short time scales.

We really should be taking steps towards a worldwide ban of this yet another asbestos-ass miracle material which sounds too good to be true because well, it is.




Some ovens are teflon coated, and some of those have cleaning modes that effectively kill of pet birds.

I don't get how that can even be allowed ad a regular household appliance.


Alcohol kills humans in relatively small quantities as well, and it would certainly kill a bird with significantly less. Chocolate makes dogs incredibly sick as well, while not having the same effect on humans.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't ban PFAS. They're proven to be dangerous to humans, and we should absolutely be concerned about long-term effects. It's just that "it kills a bird" isn't a justification for banning something. I'm under the impression that burned food and smoke isn't great for you either; it's possible that the trade-off between a dirty oven and increased PFAS exposure is acceptable.

Ultimately it depends on the magnitude of the danger, and I don't know enough about airborne PFAS to know if it warrants a blanket ban on any products with Teflon.


> It's just that "it kills a bird" isn't a justification for banning something.

I don't know, it killing lots of things with lungs seems like a red flag to me.

Perhaps it warrants switching the assumption "Teflon good (until proved harmful)" to "Teflon bad (until proven safe)".


I'd be open to that viewpoint. Assuming something to be bad based on an animal trial is generally how we approve medicines, so there's precedent for it.

I will say that we should be wary of banning products based on potential long-term effects with unknown magnitude. Knowing where to draw that line is tough.


It's already proven not to be safe. If you overheat a pan and breath it in you'll come down with flu like symptoms and nausea.


>Chocolate makes dogs incredibly sick as well, while not having the same effect on humans.

Few people know this, but the thing in chocolate that kills dogs, theobromine, acts as a caffeine-like stimulant in human beings but with a much longer half-life. Although human livers are much more able to deal with it than dogs, this could conceivably be causing human problems in people who often eat a lot of chocolate less than seven hours before bed.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthine [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine

>I don't know enough about airborne PFAS to know if it warrants a blanket ban on any products with Teflon.

If you look at the CDC website, PFAS has a rap sheet a mile long. You should probably just clean your pans. If you can afford it, get a reverse osmosis system [3], they are very good at removing PFAS.

[2] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html [3] https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/reducing-pfas-drinking-wa...


The rap sheet you've posted seems to suport my general idea. It states that PFAS has been dangerous in lab animal trials using levels of PFAS that are much higher than environmental levels.

It seems there have been some investigations in humans, but to be honest the effects seem largely similar to a lot of other legal substances. Alcohol is dangerous to pregnant women and infants, a fatty burger can raise cholesterol, etc.

That is a cause for concern, and I've conceded this in my original comment. However, it's not the strongest evidence for a blanket ban.

Or, alternatively, we could treat this as strong enough evidence of an effect and ban many other substances that we use every single day. I can think of plenty of foods that raise cholesterol, and I can certainly think of plenty that pregnant women aren't allowed to eat because of low birth weight fears or other complications.


It's not a question of whether to ban it - none of us could if we wanted to - but of whether to buy it.


> this could conceivably be causing human problems in people who often eat a lot of chocolate less than seven hours before bed

Well so will the actual caffeine.

Still, "not having the same effect on humans" is pretty misleading. It's maybe 4x more potent in a dog. Body weight is a much bigger factor. Not many people are going to eat "one ounce of milk chocolate per pound of body weight" or the equivalent dose of darker chocolate.


This of course varies by person.

I am more or less immune to caffeine (in human concentrations), drinking all kind of coffees before going to bed (espresso, filtered, turkish, ...).

I noticed several times that it had the opposite effect (putting me to sleep). My brother has the same.


Only because it's too expensive


1 oz/lb is about 5kg for an adult male. The price isn’t the only reason you’re not going to eat that much.


Xylitol the artificial sweetener is another thing that is harmless in people but very bad for dogs.

https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/xylitol-toxicity-in-d...


except: "Excessive consumption may induce laxative effects"

I wonder about this. Is this a benign side effect, or the body's way of moving a troublesome substance out of the digestive system?


> Alcohol kills humans in relatively small quantities as well

In absolute quantities it's less toxic than fructose, paracetamol or THC. It's among least toxic substances found in nature. Almost no one dies from acute toxicity of alcohol - almost all alcohol-related deaths are due to accidents and chronic toxicity (long term exposure to toxicant).


I don't know of any household appliances that as part of their regular functioning doses you with alcohol.

Or many household appliances that can reliably kill of your pets at all.

So I don't really get this nitpick.


The point is that quantities of alcohol that hurt/kill birds aren't illegal, because those quantities aren't dangerous enough to humans to warrant legal action. It's similar to how we don't accept animal trials as all the evidence required to approve a new drug.

Some things kill animals and not humans. Some quantities of substances kill animals and not humans. Knowing that a product kills your bird is cause for investigation or concern, but not a reason for a blanket ban.


Also, they use warfarin to treat stroke victims and rat poison. Because it is poisonous isn't reason to not use it in humans.


> Some ovens are teflon coated, and some of those have cleaning modes that effectively kill of pet birds.

it seems unlikely that they have both teflon coat it and a self-cleaning mode (800+F) that burns it off?


Dihydrogen monoxide kills 3.9k in the US every year and can kill pretty much every living thing if consumed in large enough quantities. It's crazy that we consume the stuff on a daily basis.



I see wet you did there...


To me, this indicates that FDA testing / validation needs to be heavily modified.

Teflon is 100%, perfectly safe, as long as it never overheats. It is completely inert, causes no problems, can be eaten, etc.

As you say, when it overheats? It becomes toxic. I read some of the FDA docs referenced during approval, and it was along the lines of "As long as overheating does not occur".

They knew.

But then ran with the premise of "Citizens won't accidentally overheat their pan!". It really only takes a second! A pan on the stove, a distraction (kids, phone, a loud noise outside, whatever), a simple mistake, and BAM pan is overheated.

I'd say every teflon pan in use is toxic, essentially.

I don't know if the approval process has changed or not, but it seems like depending upon people to have 100% perfect adherence to pan heat levels is a bit much...

What other substances are approved this way? Frankly, I think any non-stick substance is suspicious, and use stainless steel.

The trick? Never use soap to wash it. Just use water, soak if needed, and if you can't get it all off? The next cooking will just be all the tastier. :P

Let the grease soak in, let the oils soak in, it does season a bit.


> It really only takes a second!

> BAM

You don't have to exaggerate that much.

> I'd say every teflon pan in use is toxic, essentially.

Do you find that oil in your pans keeps catching on fire?

Even if you do, a little bit of oil can give you a nice warning to prevent teflon-damaging levels of heat.


Once gasses have been released, the chemical structure of telfon has changed. Literally, this is how it becomes toxic.

It takes very little time, just one little mistake, and that pan is now no longer inert teflon, but instead toxic teflon. Some have suggested that teflon should literally be banned, as a result of this.

Some even regularly cook at temperatures which are dangerous for teflon, eg > 600F, when searing a steak for example.

But I guess my whole point is, we 100% know it can become toxic. We also know that mistakes during cooking, or people not being aware, can cause this transformation. And it's a thing we put our food in, for crying out loud!

I don't think one can overstate how ... wrong it is, to use any non-stick coated pans. It's just not worth it.


Another one is storing pans in the oven, then forgetting the pans are there and preheating it.

whoops.


Well, sorry, but PAHs are toxic and cause cancer - there are lots of toxins involved in the process of cooking. The food itself is ridden with AGEs, which are toxic and impossible to get rid - "thank" them for diabetes, dark spots, macular degeneration, aging in general, and all kinds of chronic disease.


So you contend that there are other dangers, so why not just add more?

What bizarre logic.


Not really - all these have the same solution, and it is better ventilation; much better, indeed.


The actual teflon, the coating becomes toxic. Permanently.

It is an inert, non-organic reactive substance prior to being damaged. After, its molecular structure changes, it is bio-reactive and toxic.

So no, the solution isn't better ventilation, even for some of the questionable things you mentioned. And yes, you attitude before was "meh, gonna happen anyway".


Oh, it surely is. And cooking methods are source of toxins, too! Most cooked food is rich in exogenous AGEs, and do accumulate just like the endogenous do, and there's no known way to clean them up. Pancreatic cancer is blamed on burnt red meat, but people just like eating toxic food. Cooking in pans, teflon-coated or ceramic-coated is toxic anyway, but, I agree, to different degrees. Stainless steel cookware loads you with iron, which also has an upper limit beyond, which it becomes toxic and generates ROS.


Canary in the coal mine...?


Last week, on Last Week Tonight, John Oliver talks about PFAS, which was very interesting. Not only teflon, but all kind of repellent fabrics like Gore-tex:

https://youtu.be/9W74aeuqsiU


I’m not saying he’s wrong — I have neither the education nor the experience nor the time to do so — but as a word of caution: One single atom in a different place, or a chiral flip of the molecule as a whole, can radically change the biological response of a chemical.

H2O is good; remove one atom, get explosive H2; add one atom get the bleach H2O2.

For chirality: S-penicillamine is an anti-arthritic, R-penicillamine is highly toxic[0] (I was going to use thalidomide as my example, but that turns out to be something which changes between both chiralities inside your own body).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillamine)


If you're worried about goretex, switch to Columbia outdry, it doesn't use or rely on dwr so I'm guessing whatever plastics its using is pretty stable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: