58
Which is wild because if you knew how to properly use oil/butter and a cast iron pan... they won't stick to your pan.
We literally created a world of idiots that don't know how to do anything.
you are so much smarter than everyone else
Look it's not my fault people didn't get an opportunity to learn these skills because they were instead sold cheap, poisonous bullshit. Why would anyone learn if they didn't have to because there was an easier, cheaper way? It's not really the fault of individuals who don't know any better when society isn't going out it's way to teach them such skills. Hell, I didn't learn this until I was in my early thirties, because my parents had used teflon cookware all while I was growing up.
But, please, read it more as me thinking I'm better than everyone else rather than someone who got lucky enough to learn these skills eventually who is disappointed that we were sold poison as an 'easy' solution.
While I agree and have switched to cast iron and stainless steel, itâs not enough. No pfas were used in the manufacturing of my cookware, plus I expect to save money by never having to replace it. However the documentary starts showing how ubiquitous the chemicals are and for how many uses. While we all absolutely need better cookware choices, itâs only a drop in the bucket of so many consumer and industrial products.
Our part includes increased awareness and better choices for many things we come into contact with every day. However itâs critical to better regulate, to hold companies accountable for the damage theyâve done, bring them to justice for impact on public health and coverups, etc âŠ. And thatâs not just unlikely but really impossible
I'm so happy that my parents taught me to always use cast iron pans, or at least nonstick with a ceramic layer instead of PFAS
Just to be fair though: ingesting Teflon residue from the pan isn't the problem, it's the chemicals needed in the production process to get the Teflon onto the pan, leaching out from the factories into the environment.
It's not the idiots fault for being uneducated and being lied to
Funny how some commenters immediately assume that you are excluding yourself from that.
Because what you say goes for so many things, it affects us all invariably. And it reaches very far into time. I mean who still knows how to make their own tools from sticks and stones.
But OP said that this is not what this video is about!
Teflon residue from the pan isnât the problem, itâs the chemicals needed in the production process to get the Teflon onto the pan, leaching out from the factories into the environment.
Cast iron is generally safe but not entirely without risk. Old pans are sometimes made with lead and some newer cheap pans from sketchy sources are made with cadmium and/or lead
Generally if you get like a lodge or whatever youâre fine though. Biggest risk there is that it leeches iron into your food, which is usually beneficial unless you have some uncommon health concerns
A stainless steel pan are also generally safe but have similar issues: low quality pans and excessively scratched pans can leech nickel and chromium. 304 and 316 stainless ($$$) are more resilient against this issue. Stainless takes a bit more technique than cast iron for stuff like eggs and fish but itâs not that tricky (preheat pan, add fat/oil when hot, basically). It is also far more responsive to changing temperature (rather than retaining it) and much lighter so itâs easier to use for sautĂ©ing and such. Cast iron is superior when heat retention is needed: stews, soups, curries, roasts, etc
Ceramic coated cookware is a mess. Some did use PFAS/PFOA and still does, some ceramics have lead and cadmium, and some coatings just suck. I got one pan to experiment with that was lead/cadmium/pfoa/pfas free but the nonstick properties dulled after 2-3 months of daily use. It was not scratched or chipped; I took care to not use metal implements or wash it with abrasives. I did use high heat at times though which potentially degraded it. It was like $50 too. Researching online after I see there are âgoodâ ones for $80, fuck spending that on a single pan.
Iâll stick with cast iron and stainless steel. Can use metal utensils, covers basically every scenario, and cheaper. To be clear, âwell sourcedâ doesnât mean expensive. A 10â lodge cast iron skillet is $20 online. A tramontina 12â 304 stainless frying pan is $35.
Of course if you ever eat at restaurants none of this matters as theyâre generally using the cheapest aluminum and steel pans they can get that are beat to utter shit
For anyone who can't be bothered to watch the entire 1 hour episode: It's not really about frying pans.
The PFAs are everywhere by now. Butter on a pan will do jack shit to save you. It's really fucked up. You should watch the video.
Yup your most likely sources are stuff like:
- your water supply
- any coated paper materials coming into contact with (hot) food and beverages, eg. Burger wrappers, coated paper coffee cups, microwave popcorn, pizza boxes, etc.
Firefighting foam used at airports. Every airport, every military base with an airstrip practices routinely with PFAS. They are still doing it.
It is everywhere. Water, soil, rain and you.
I lost a coworker to brain cancer this year that was caused by his exposure to PFAs when he was a firefighter. This shit is fucked.
We didn't poison the whole planet so our eggs wont stick. A small number of people poisoned the planet to get rich
We did not do anything. A very small group of people indeed knowingly and willingly poisoned the earth for a bunch of monies.
You'd think they'd be jailed for that, but here we are
This means that now that everyone knows what is required to produce non-stick pans, they will vanish from stores because 99% of humans are well meaning and will not buy destructive products.
Just kidding. My parents (>70yo) told me as achild not to use teflon pans, because they are 'unhealthy'. We all knew. We just don't care.
Not "we". You. Many of us actively campaign against it.
Given the ratio of people who actively campaign against it to people who don't care, I think it's pretty safe to say "we don't care".
I'm more inclined to think that they weren't willing, but rather that they just didn't work on the implications. Occam's razor. Don't assume evil when stupidity, or laziness, or simple plain cost cutring can explain things.
Teflon found out and yet did nothing. That is willingly.
May have started innocently but there was a point they knew and didn't care. That is the point where execs should be getting harsh sentences from
"We poisoned the planet"
Fuck off! Unscrupulous greed industrialists poisoned the planet knowingly and tried to hide or minimize the fact from the public.
Recently replaced our teflon skillet with a ceramic one, Paris Hilton branded đ
Ffs watch the video or read the post; Teflon is inert and completely safe, the issue is that to boost the speed of production they used PFAS which are very much dangerous at extremely low quantities, and yet it's everywhere including rainwater
Sure, but if you're gonna replace a pan anyway, it'd still make sense to buy something else than Teflon because they're usually manufactured irresponsibly.
It's good to remind people that if they have a durable good that works fine, but its original manufacture was problematic, then it's generally better to keep it as long as it's doing its job. Even if the replacement is less problematic, it's impossible to make anything without some kind of impact. Keeping durable goods going is better.
Important for this thread is that cast iron, at least right now, is usually made in coal fired furnaces. It's an incredibly dirty industry. Now, if I need a pan I will tend to prefer cast iron and then use it forever. But don't throw stuff away that's perfectly functional.
They can make Teflon without the forever chemicals. They choose to make it the way they do because it is cheap and easy to scale. Rather than develop better solutions that don't poison us they choose easy money and are rewarded for it.
To be fair only like 0.1% (yes I made this number up) of all Fluoropolymers end up in frying pans.
Most of it is used in industry, building, medicine...
I haven't actually yet seen any conclusive proof that PFAS are poisonous to ingest, however
Sure, it's present everywhere, and I wouldn't be shocked if we found out it's bad for us.
But it has to actually be a poison to call it poison.
Pollutant? For sure. Poison? No proof of that yet. Just very annoying but the very principle that makes it hard to scrub out of water (very non reactive and tiny) is also what makes it seem to, so far, show no negative side effects on stuff.
It's there but kinda just, doing nothing as far as we can see... so far
We need more funding into studies on it.
PFAS are endocrine disruptors. It's incorrect to say that they do nothing to us. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7926449/
"To poison" just means to make people ill by ingesting it. PFOAs are quite well studied and are known carcinogens, and definitely toxic according to multiple studies, this is trivial to find on Wikipedia, etc so.. I dunno - seems like a contrarian take?
PFOA studies linking exposure to a number of health conditions, including thyroid disorders, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, testicular cancer, infertility and low birth weight. The list goes on, those are just some.
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33780327/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32944748/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32950793/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33916482/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25567616/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Toxicology
it states that the indirect genotoxic (and thus carcinogenic) potential of PFOA cannot be dismissed
Its important to understand that "cannot be dismissed" is not the same as "we think it does do this"
It's a double negative, its "we dont not think it causes it", but waaaaay more study is needed.
Serum Concentrations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma Actually is a new one for me, I havent seen this one, and it does look much more compelling than the other smaller studies, this one is more concerning than the others.
The Panel determined in 2012 there was a 'probable link' (i.e., more probable than not based on the weight of the available scientific evidence)
Fourth link is a lot of nothing, why did you bother linking it? It just discusses other studies but doesnt add anything new of substance.
Fifth link is pretty sketchy, theres many other variables that also associate, and they didnt even find a link between specifically PFOS anyways
while no significant association was observed for PFOS (OR = 1.14; 95% CI 0.98-1.34; P = 0.09)
Its important to note that every single one of these studies is empirical post exposure which means many other associated variables can also contribute.
People with low PFAS vs high PFAS exposure almost undoubtedly are also exposed to many other things... like pollution in general
It's borderline impossible to actually separate out PFAS levels from these other entangled variables, people who are heavily exposed to 1 type of pollution will also be exposed to many others, and theres a heavy association between living situation and PFAS exposure.
That is why its so damn hard to get any conclusive proof on this, the only way to truly figure it out would be to purposefully administer PFAS to people intentionally in a controlled environment, to try and separate out variables.
The relationships that do show up are all very tenuous, and could easily be also explained by the dozens of other variables, so thats why you keep seeing the wording of "may contribute" or "requires further study" or "associated with"
Your comment cherry picks the weakest language of the Wikipedia article and studies and ignores the rest. You'll struggle to find any reputable study anywhere that says "our study proves that X does Y" like you're asking, because thats not how studies language is conveyed and would be incorrect language to use in a medical study. When 20 studies all say "we have shown a strong correlation between cigarette consumption and cancer of the throat, mouth, and lungs" then you will hear scientists say "the link between cancer and cigarettes is known, and well studied" and news articles will say "cigarettes cause cancer".
Your suggestion that the only way we'd know for sure is human trials of intentional PFOA exposure is.. I'm gonna be generous and say.. naieve. Scientists are perfectly fine with using lab, mouse, and emprical cross-sectional studies - that's all valid scientific evidence. They don't actually need to take the final Dr Mengele step of subjecting people directly to suspected toxins before they can draw highly accurate conclusions, especially for something like PFOA that has large sections of the population with high dosages that they can compare against those with low dosages already.
It's borderline impossible to actually separate out PFAS levels from these other entangled variables, people who are heavily exposed to 1 type of pollution will also be exposed to many others, and theres a heavy association between living situation and PFAS exposure.
Not true. Just one example, we have many population groups that live in areas where groundwater is used for drinking that also live near a firefighting training base/station that has released huge amounts of PFOAs into the aquifers. These populations are otherwise quite normally distributed for age/weight/health/occupation and exposure to other chemicals and perfect for study of PFOAs and have been shown in studies to have much higher levels in their blood serum.
It's fine though - if you wanna sprikle PFOA on your cereal or something until 100 more studies are done, I can't stop you. But just know that your tendency to cherry pick data and your unconventional assessment methods of studies is giving you a very poorly informed choice.
load more comments
(2 replies)
There is (according to the video) concrete evidence for both acute toxicity as well as causal carcinogenic effects when it comes to PFOA.
The distinction here is between long-chained Fluoropolymers like Teflon, which are completely benign as far as evidence suggests; and fluoroalkyl acids (like PFOA), that are short-chained, can enter the bloodstream, and mimic the structure of fatty acids thus being able to bond to stuff in our body.
No, there's a very minor causational link that has been classified as "needs further study"
Its extremely far away from "concrete evidence", that's what Im talking about when saying this video was hypebole.
Many places are classifying it as potentially hazardous to be safe, because:
- Theres safer alternatives anyways
- Better safe than sorry, its not a missions critical option
Even watching a video is too hard for you, poor baby
No, I watched it, and the end result is a lot of hyperbole.
I haven't actually yet seen any conclusive proof that PFAS are poisonous to ingest
That happens when you bury your head in the sand and refuse to learn anything.
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next âș
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
58 points (95.3% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
12290 readers
83 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS