Recently replaced our teflon skillet with a ceramic one, Paris Hilton branded ๐
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
424 points (100.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
12157 readers
816 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
Oh we did?
yeah what's this WE business, I didn't do ANYTHING
Wrong use of PTFE. There are applications... Not consumer products where PTFE is one of only a few things that can work.
I've not watched the video, but the wording/tone/language of the title stinks of sensationalism and pseudo-science.
If I were to click it, which I won't, I imagine it'd be clickbait and/or nothing to do with eggs or pans.
EDIT: Based on feedback. I did click. The actual video title is "How one company secretly poisoned the planet" and despite sounding a bit clickbaity, it's actually on-topic.
I guess my BS detector has been on overdrive recently.
EDIT 2: I watched the whole video and now I feel sad.
I don't know what the video is about but here is my opinion on what it's about
Ffs, are you trolling?
I've updated the post with a short TL;DW section to address your concerns
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's a veritasium video, titled how one company poisoned the world.
Still click bait but it's youtube and they have the mighty algorithm to answer too.
Good video well produced and worth the watch
I mean, it's clickbaty, sure. But also, it's not wrong
I've not clicked and I know it's almost certainly talking about Teflon
So very much to do with pans, and likely anything cooked in those pans (e.g. eggs)
Edit: okay it's PFAS in general, Teflon is just a common type people are familiar with
Teflon is not a type of PFAS and is actually safe
Sorry yes, you're correct, it's a PTFE. Which is touted as a safe alternative until you find out burning it (about 250 degrees) produces PFAS.
Now if someone perfectly uses the pan and never leaves it on high heat without anything in it, they're probably gonna be fine. But I've lived in the same house as an idiot who has done exactly that, so I'm inclined to think that it's not an entirely uncommon thing.
Then you've also got the post-use phase of the pan's life where it could easily end up in a waste incinerator, and we already know we have a problem with PFAS hanging around in the environment.
"This one trick pans don't want you to know"
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
"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"
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
... No? I consider myself pretty well read.
If you have any conclusive peer reviewed papers that prove PFAS are poisonous if ingested at such microscopic scales, please by all means... link them
I have been keeping an eye on the progression of study on PFAS for nearly 6 years now since they started finding it all over the world. Im not gonna claim it isnt poisonous, but I certainly am gonna say despite all the studying, no actual issues have been found with them yet that have been repeatable in peer reviewed studies.
Everything seems to still be quite a bit inconclusive so far. Albeit I also chalk a lot of that up to a pretty heavy amount of muzzling on actually researching the impact of PFAS. If you have anything that proves otherwise though, by all means share it with the rest of the class.
Now, if you wanna talk about inhaling vapors from burnt PFAS, now we are talking about potential poisons that can really fuck you up.
But the quantity of PFAS in things like drinking water seems to be so incredibly low and some studies have shown that boiling water actually helps remove many different types of microplastics, including PFAS, due to interesting effects of sodium deposits in the water forming that bind to them sorta Katamari Damacy style.
But other than that, no, I havent seen anything else, just a loooot of "inconclusive, needs further study" stuff published time and time again.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)