The "soap and solvent" is sodium hydroxide (lye) and DMSO at 120 degC. Those are... fairly... well behaved chemicals, but lye is stout stuff and DMSO attacks nitrile gloves.
You could imagine a remediation process that uses this process but the combo ain't exactly Dawn dish soap. I'd almost prefer pyroprocessing over it.
About 40 years ago I boarded my horse with an old cowboy who used DMSO as a horse liniment. He had been using it for years any time one of his mounts was worked pretty hard or when someone brought a lame horse to him. He would rub the joints, calves, and thighs of the horse down good with DMSO for a few days and then they were good to go again.
He also used it on his wife. He told me that she had type I diabetes and neuropathy as a result. Her feet were always cold from poor circulation. That was true until he happened to rub her feet one day after treating a horse. Her feet warmed up in minutes and became normal pink again. After that, he used it on her feet and legs since it improved circulation.
You can say what you will about it being reactive and possibly not good for you but she was able to dance again and get back on her horse so it definitely does have some benefit. They did this for at least 30 years and both of them were past 75 years old when they passed away.
Like another poster said, it is used as a carrier for some medications since it pulls them straight into the bloodstream. I don't think it's magic but I also don't think you'll suffer much using it even with bare hands.
As far as lye is concerned, the sodium hydroxide in this paper, you can easily make that yourself with wood ash and water. It is pretty handy if you are tanning hides since the treatment of a raw hide with lye causes the hair to slip right off leaving a smooth skin ready for the next step.
DMSO is not well-behaved. It easily penetrates human skin, and carries solutes with it. Don't touch!
"DMSO can cause contaminants, toxins, and medicines to be absorbed through the skin, which may cause unexpected effects.
"Because DMSO easily penetrates the skin, substances dissolved in DMSO may be quickly absorbed. Glove selection is important when working with DMSO. Butyl rubber, fluoroelastomer, neoprene, or thick (15 mil / 0.4 mm) latex gloves are recommended. Nitrile gloves, which are very commonly used in chemical laboratories, may protect from brief contact but have been found to degrade rapidly with exposure to DMSO."
DMSO is used in pain relief in other countries (eg Mexico). It's also excellent for burns as it allows the body to repair a tiny amount of nerve damage or prevents it. Hard to say. This is demonstrable by burning yourself, I guess. My family and I have used it for burns for over 20 years. Granted, we don't get burned/encounter people who have been burned at home that often. I had a close friend with a rare disease (McCune Albright's Syndrome) who used it for pain relief, after I treated a burn she received.
It has been reported that it use has repaired massive nerve damage, which is probably coincidental. It is sold in healthfood stores in the US, but you want to dilute it 1/100 parts water. While it is primarily used as an industrial lubricant, on contact, it immediately travels through the skin to the nervous system. Most people get the strange reaction of the taste of oysters, when it's absorbed. There is a small percentage of people with various allergic reactions, like with many chemicals.
I would never mix it with soap, for any reason. It's like mixing shoe polish or granola with soap, you just end up with a mess of concerns.
> Computer calculations by colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles, revealed DMSO knocks off the carboxylic acid group. “Once that happens it causes the entire molecule to fall apart in a cascade of reactions,” Dichtel says.
Big if true. I'm slightly skeptical that just decarboxylating PFAS causes the rest of the backbone to "fall apart" - I would expect it to form CF3[CF2]· (carbon radical) which would readily react with water to form -H or -OH, which is basically back to square one. But maybe it can eliminate HF in the presence of UV, forming CF3[CH2]CF=CFOH, which gets hydrolyzed, oxidized, then cleaved, but boy is that an unfavorable process.
(edit: skimmed the paper, I was pretty close. Forms CF3[CF2]- which goes to CF3[CH2]CF=CF2 which then gets hydrolyzed, but...DMSO/NaOH at 80-120°C ...yikes. This is the ochem equivalent of "nuke the site from orbit", very few compounds survive these conditions)
I've been out of the chemistry game for a few years now so I'm a bit rusty but gut instinct is that this is far from a slam dunk. But anything to reduce FC's is a boon to the world, so I'm hopeful this is a breakthrough.
Edit2:
> This high fluoride recovery indicates that most of the perfluoroalkyl fluorines were defluorinated and mineralized rather than being transformed to smaller-chain PFAS or being lost as volatile fluorocarbons.
So the surprising thing isn't the decarboxylation, it's that NaOH encourages the perflourylalkenes to cleave at sites away from the alpha (splitting, rather than carbon-by-carbon), which is neat. Still doesn't touch PFOS, unfortunately.
Headline is a lie: as we finally find out halfway through the article, it's not soap but lye, sodium hydroxide. The solvent is the fairly nontoxic dimethyl sulfoxide, so both of these are safe to release into the environment. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32515659 sbierwagen reports that the reaction requires 120-degree temperatures so this isn't suitable for in-situ remediation.
The reaction doesn't "require" 120C, that was simply the first experiment they described. They began by confirming that this reaction actually takes place and discovering which PFAs were neutralized by it. To that end they boiled a mixture of the stuff for 24 hours.
The reaction can occur at more moderate temperatures. There is more analysis (with experimental results) further down in the paper:
> Substantial defluorination still occurred when the isolated PFOA degradation product (perfluoro-1H-heptane 2) was subjected to degradation conditions but heated to only 40°C (table S3).
Ummm... What?
120C NaOH does *not* sound safe "to release". I've worked with similar solutions. That stuff eats through so much and it's a pretty scary solution, if at high concentration.
As with everything, It very much depends on the concentration.
That's honestly one of the things I wish we could get a handle on.
Company gets sued for using and hiding the danger of a compound they learned fairly quickly was toxic. Goes and invents another compound and switches to it without having to prove its safety. After it becoming public that they were intentionally hiding dangers for a half century, I feel we should take away their ability to be given the benefit of the doubt.
All I think they learn from these lawsuits is that they need to get better at identifying and removing people who will call them out on their bullshit.
Edit - I know the whole thing with DuPont was using PFOAs in the manufacturing process and leaking (intentionally dumping) them into the environment, but it's not like the final product (Teflon) is safe to ingest either, which as a cooking surface, you most definitely will in some quantity.
The new chemical is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenX and while I'm not a chemist as best I can tell, it also contains a carboxylic acid group, so this method would work on it.
KOH is not soap, it is used in the production of soap and KOH will make your skin to soap. Destroying anything organic by cooking it in strong lye at 120 °C with quite polar solvent is not something unexpected. It might be optimised with crown ethers or other phase-transfer catalysts, but I cannot see how this is a milder treatment than simple heating it until decomposition. To make this reaction affordable one has to extract/purify these forever-chemicals first. Otherwise, mostly other stuff will be destroyed. Lime (Ca(OH)₂) is somewhat cheaper in this quantities, maybe this reaction can be done with it. This will also bind any fluoride ions, which would make this way less toxic.
I was excited for a moment but PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, a PFAS) doesn't have a carboxyl group so I guess Minnesota's (US state) 3M polluted waters won't get any respite.
Same 3M contamination of groundwater happened in Belgium (Zwijndrecht plant) and the Netherlands (Dordrecht plant), with very little international coverage.
The fact that they refuse to get certified / conduct any independent rigorous testing (like in NSF/ANSI certification) should have clued you in.
"We also cut open a pair of Black Berkey filters to see how they are constructed and to look for evidence that, as Berkey marketing claims, they contain “at least” six different filtering elements. We found that though the Berkey filters are larger and denser than filters from Brita and 3M Filtrete, they appear to share their filtration mechanisms: activated charcoal impregnated with an ion-exchange resin.
"
I wouldn't count on any of this to filter chemicals, much less PFAS.
Slightly off topic, I’m keen to dispose of our Teflon frying pan. Does anyone have a good recommendation for an alternative, ideally one that doesn’t take too much “maintenance”?
We also have a Teflon milk pan but that is never used at a high tempriture so I’m less concerned about that.
Nothing beats cast iron. They aren't hard to take care of.(In spite of the rhetoric.) Actually easier, once you get a good surface on them. Pots, frying pans, woks, etc. They work very well. The most important thing is to give them time to heat up. Once they are, they hold the heat very well, so can cook at any temperature.
It depends on what you're worried about and what you want out of a pan. If you use wooden cooking utensils (spatula, chopsticks etc.), then just keep using the Teflon pan. It's fine as is and you won't scratch the coating.
If you want to use metal cookware, go for cast iron (heavy) or carbon steel (light). There's a lot online about how to season or maintain them -- you can safely ignore all of this advice. These are pans you can abuse. They're not as nonstick as Teflon so you still want to use some cooking oil, but that's about it. Both kinds may rust if there's humidity, but that's fine -- just wash before (instead of after) cooking and a bit of leftover rust is just a tad extra iron in your diet ;)
I bought a couple of SolidTeknics[1] wrought iron pans, and I love them.
You have to season them first, which essentially involves blackening them by burning good cooking oils onto them. I used rice bran oil for that. It's a bit of a mission, but you only do it once.
They are great because you can get them really hot and they have excellent heat inertia. You can put them in the oven if needed. And cleanup is simple: just hot water & a brush. No chemicals. I've often got the pan clean and back in the cupboard while my protein is resting.
But if it's not protein that your cooking on your pan, but instead perhaps its an acidic sauce, then I would recommend a stainless steel pan for that.
For pots I would go with stainless also. Or copper if you can afford it.
Cast iron really doesn't require much maintenance. You can season it and never wash it and be delicate with it like a fancy chef, or you can abuse the hell out of it and it doesn't matter because it's basically indestructible. The only thing you can't do is let it sit in water or run it through the dishwasher. I mean, you can, but it rusts… which also isn't that difficult to clean if it happens.
Cast iron and a green scotchbrite pad or a stainless steel scouring pad and you are good. You can use hot water and soap to clean it. It will deteriorate any "seasoning" but so what. Clean after use, dry and store away. Takes maybe two minutes. If you want to get it seasoned so it has some non-stick to it you can, but you don't have to.
Demeyere brand skillets are fantastic. They're fairly nonstick - I can scramble eggs with only a little sticking, hamburgers or sausages will leave residue, but it's easily cleanable. They aren't super cheap, but they won't break the bank and they're a lot of value for the money.
An aluminum skillet from a restaurant supply store is cheap and low-maintenance. I use this one [0] for omelets and scrambled eggs, and it's probably my favorite pan. The thickness means that the heat is incredibly even, and there's enough mass that it won't cool down much when adding food to a preheated pan.
Depends on what worries you. Stainless steel is the least reactive, but higher maintenance. Cast iron, carbon steel and aluminum are all reactive with acidic foods and will leech metals -- plus the acidic food will strip all the seasoning off. I cook with lots of tomatoes, so that rules out all of these for me. Cast iron and carbon steel (to a lesser extent) need to be seasoned to not stick like crazy and to not rust, which involves polymerizing cooking oil onto the surface. The health effects of this polymerized oil is unknown and the oil smoke is not great for indoor air quality. Digesting regular amounts of rust is also another unknown health effect, though iron can accumulate in people with certain genetic disorders.
I think the safest option is stainless steel, and funny enough, Teflon. They are both inert and Teflon is only toxic if you cook on high heat. I keep a Teflon around solely for scrambled eggs and fish on low heat, but they are very doable in a well oiled stainless fry pan as well.
I switched to stainless steel, it is more to maintain, but it's not horrible. I also use a ceramic pan on very low temperatures to cook really stick stuff like scrambled eggs.
I bought a cast iron thinking it would be a pain. its really not. they have came a long way. you can treat it like any other pan (besides being heavy) - you can use soap to clean it. - Dont get me wrong. treating it correctly will make it last a life time. i just store mine in the oven when ive finished washing it.
High temperatures do not bother Teflon, there's no reason to dispose of it because of that.
According to the EPA Teflon frying pans do not leech any PFOA into food, that's not where people are exposed.
I've noticed that for some reason a ton of people think they get exposure to PFOA from cookware, and that's simply not true. PFOA exposure mainly comes from waterproofing coatings, slippery coatings (like the bottom of skis), and firefighting foam.
Paper dishes (plates, straws, etc) are a big source of exposure because they need to make them waterproof. Make sure to ask for plastic.
Cast iron is low maintenance, just don't over think the seasoning thing and don't cook overly acidic things. Cook with oil, clean with soap and hot water (use a plastic scraper if you need to...), dry on the stove and once dry wipe with a paper towel you put a little drop of oil on. Wait until the oil just smokes and turn it off. Done. Takes 1min tops. You can use steel utensils, just don't go scratching at it when cleaning with a wire brush.
Just get used to the imperfect surface, its not going to be perfect, it may get to be smooth and black one day, but even my nearly hundred year old skillet I've gotten through my family sometimes gets a scratch or a flake off. Its self correcting the more you use it.
If that's still too much "maintenance" try a nice enameled cast iron skillet or pot from le creuset. Don't cheap out. These are fantastic, aren't bothered by acidic foods, and still have the same nice heat holding properties of seasoned iron. Really love these. Don't use steel utensils or bang them around the edges with sticks and they last forever, or at least long enough you feel the cost was well worth it. My mother in law had hers, used, for nearly 25 years before the enamel flaked, and she didn't bother treating it nice (scrubbed, used metal utensils, etc).
I finally made the switch to triple clad stainless and i couldn't be happier. Kinda like a cast iron but a little less heavy for the larger pans (still much heavier than a cheapo set of steel pots), fast to heat up too and cooks really evenly with the thickened walls. They only get things stuck to them if you screw up your technique. Just a sponge and dish soap is all it needs most of the time.
Cast iron is fine once you get the hang of it, but I find myself just using my stainless steel pans exclusively. I also wonder how healthy the polymerized surface really is (would love to hear from anyone who knows).
You can effectively make stainless steel non-stick with correct use of a neutral oil and either cooking at a slightly lower heat and/or keeping the contents moving. Have to be ok with some oil though, for most foods it shouldn't be a problem.
It's not teflon, but I haven't come across anything that sticks to the pan in a consequential manner. Scrub with stainless steel scrubber to clean, done.
They're "forever" because they persist in the environment. You're not likely to find this specific combination of temperature and solvents in the wild. It's something you might be able to use in water treatment plants in areas where the supply has been contaminated.
As the article notes, we already had ways of breaking them down, just with difficultly: "current PFAS-destruction techniques, such as incineration, can require vast amounts of energy, superhigh temperatures, and millions of dollars".
> What’s left behind, Trang says, is mostly easily captured fluorine ions, and a mixture of harmless, naturally occurring carbon and oxygen containing byproducts, her team reports today in Science.
> Roughly 40% of PFAS compounds contain carboxylic acid groups, and thus could potentially be degraded by the new approach, Trang says. Though it has yet to be tested in the field, she adds that the most likely strategy would be to use conventional means to filter PFAS chemicals from, say drinking water, and then treat them off-site.
> The method doesn’t work on all types of PFAS, however. Compounds used in flame retardants and batteries, for example, contain a sulfonate group instead of a carboxylic acid group and won’t break down with this approach.
[+] [-] sbierwagen|3 years ago|reply
The "soap and solvent" is sodium hydroxide (lye) and DMSO at 120 degC. Those are... fairly... well behaved chemicals, but lye is stout stuff and DMSO attacks nitrile gloves.
You could imagine a remediation process that uses this process but the combo ain't exactly Dawn dish soap. I'd almost prefer pyroprocessing over it.
[+] [-] doodlebugging|3 years ago|reply
He also used it on his wife. He told me that she had type I diabetes and neuropathy as a result. Her feet were always cold from poor circulation. That was true until he happened to rub her feet one day after treating a horse. Her feet warmed up in minutes and became normal pink again. After that, he used it on her feet and legs since it improved circulation.
You can say what you will about it being reactive and possibly not good for you but she was able to dance again and get back on her horse so it definitely does have some benefit. They did this for at least 30 years and both of them were past 75 years old when they passed away.
Like another poster said, it is used as a carrier for some medications since it pulls them straight into the bloodstream. I don't think it's magic but I also don't think you'll suffer much using it even with bare hands.
As far as lye is concerned, the sodium hydroxide in this paper, you can easily make that yourself with wood ash and water. It is pretty handy if you are tanning hides since the treatment of a raw hide with lye causes the hair to slip right off leaving a smooth skin ready for the next step.
[+] [-] chasil|3 years ago|reply
"DMSO can cause contaminants, toxins, and medicines to be absorbed through the skin, which may cause unexpected effects.
"Because DMSO easily penetrates the skin, substances dissolved in DMSO may be quickly absorbed. Glove selection is important when working with DMSO. Butyl rubber, fluoroelastomer, neoprene, or thick (15 mil / 0.4 mm) latex gloves are recommended. Nitrile gloves, which are very commonly used in chemical laboratories, may protect from brief contact but have been found to degrade rapidly with exposure to DMSO."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide
[+] [-] Supermancho|3 years ago|reply
DMSO is used in pain relief in other countries (eg Mexico). It's also excellent for burns as it allows the body to repair a tiny amount of nerve damage or prevents it. Hard to say. This is demonstrable by burning yourself, I guess. My family and I have used it for burns for over 20 years. Granted, we don't get burned/encounter people who have been burned at home that often. I had a close friend with a rare disease (McCune Albright's Syndrome) who used it for pain relief, after I treated a burn she received.
It has been reported that it use has repaired massive nerve damage, which is probably coincidental. It is sold in healthfood stores in the US, but you want to dilute it 1/100 parts water. While it is primarily used as an industrial lubricant, on contact, it immediately travels through the skin to the nervous system. Most people get the strange reaction of the taste of oysters, when it's absorbed. There is a small percentage of people with various allergic reactions, like with many chemicals.
I would never mix it with soap, for any reason. It's like mixing shoe polish or granola with soap, you just end up with a mess of concerns.
[+] [-] ngold|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zoomablemind|3 years ago|reply
"...The relatively high freezing point of DMSO, 18.5 °C (65.3 °F), means that at, or just below, room temperature it is a solid."
, per Wikipedia.
I guess, it could be powdered before use. Though the whole application proposition hardly fits into a common household let alone kitchen.
[+] [-] kortex|3 years ago|reply
Big if true. I'm slightly skeptical that just decarboxylating PFAS causes the rest of the backbone to "fall apart" - I would expect it to form CF3[CF2]· (carbon radical) which would readily react with water to form -H or -OH, which is basically back to square one. But maybe it can eliminate HF in the presence of UV, forming CF3[CH2]CF=CFOH, which gets hydrolyzed, oxidized, then cleaved, but boy is that an unfavorable process.
(edit: skimmed the paper, I was pretty close. Forms CF3[CF2]- which goes to CF3[CH2]CF=CF2 which then gets hydrolyzed, but...DMSO/NaOH at 80-120°C ...yikes. This is the ochem equivalent of "nuke the site from orbit", very few compounds survive these conditions)
I've been out of the chemistry game for a few years now so I'm a bit rusty but gut instinct is that this is far from a slam dunk. But anything to reduce FC's is a boon to the world, so I'm hopeful this is a breakthrough.
Edit2:
> This high fluoride recovery indicates that most of the perfluoroalkyl fluorines were defluorinated and mineralized rather than being transformed to smaller-chain PFAS or being lost as volatile fluorocarbons.
So the surprising thing isn't the decarboxylation, it's that NaOH encourages the perflourylalkenes to cleave at sites away from the alpha (splitting, rather than carbon-by-carbon), which is neat. Still doesn't touch PFOS, unfortunately.
[+] [-] kragen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rad88|3 years ago|reply
The reaction can occur at more moderate temperatures. There is more analysis (with experimental results) further down in the paper:
> Substantial defluorination still occurred when the isolated PFOA degradation product (perfluoro-1H-heptane 2) was subjected to degradation conditions but heated to only 40°C (table S3).
[+] [-] chaxor|3 years ago|reply
As with everything, It very much depends on the concentration.
[+] [-] fnordpiglet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] culi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Teknoman117|3 years ago|reply
Company gets sued for using and hiding the danger of a compound they learned fairly quickly was toxic. Goes and invents another compound and switches to it without having to prove its safety. After it becoming public that they were intentionally hiding dangers for a half century, I feel we should take away their ability to be given the benefit of the doubt.
All I think they learn from these lawsuits is that they need to get better at identifying and removing people who will call them out on their bullshit.
Edit - I know the whole thing with DuPont was using PFOAs in the manufacturing process and leaking (intentionally dumping) them into the environment, but it's not like the final product (Teflon) is safe to ingest either, which as a cooking surface, you most definitely will in some quantity.
[+] [-] ars|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonebrunozzi|3 years ago|reply
Is this based on insight or knowledge? Or simply wanting to bash Teflon (probably rightfully so)?
[+] [-] sivizius|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superkuh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoingIsLearning|3 years ago|reply
Same 3M contamination of groundwater happened in Belgium (Zwijndrecht plant) and the Netherlands (Dordrecht plant), with very little international coverage.
[+] [-] pueblito|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] armitron|3 years ago|reply
The fact that they refuse to get certified / conduct any independent rigorous testing (like in NSF/ANSI certification) should have clued you in.
"We also cut open a pair of Black Berkey filters to see how they are constructed and to look for evidence that, as Berkey marketing claims, they contain “at least” six different filtering elements. We found that though the Berkey filters are larger and denser than filters from Brita and 3M Filtrete, they appear to share their filtration mechanisms: activated charcoal impregnated with an ion-exchange resin. "
I wouldn't count on any of this to filter chemicals, much less PFAS.
[+] [-] samwillis|3 years ago|reply
We also have a Teflon milk pan but that is never used at a high tempriture so I’m less concerned about that.
[+] [-] pomian|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jabbany|3 years ago|reply
If you want to use metal cookware, go for cast iron (heavy) or carbon steel (light). There's a lot online about how to season or maintain them -- you can safely ignore all of this advice. These are pans you can abuse. They're not as nonstick as Teflon so you still want to use some cooking oil, but that's about it. Both kinds may rust if there's humidity, but that's fine -- just wash before (instead of after) cooking and a bit of leftover rust is just a tad extra iron in your diet ;)
[+] [-] henry_bone|3 years ago|reply
They are great because you can get them really hot and they have excellent heat inertia. You can put them in the oven if needed. And cleanup is simple: just hot water & a brush. No chemicals. I've often got the pan clean and back in the cupboard while my protein is resting.
But if it's not protein that your cooking on your pan, but instead perhaps its an acidic sauce, then I would recommend a stainless steel pan for that.
For pots I would go with stainless also. Or copper if you can afford it.
[1] https://www.solidteknics.com/
[+] [-] themagician|3 years ago|reply
Cast iron really doesn't require much maintenance. You can season it and never wash it and be delicate with it like a fancy chef, or you can abuse the hell out of it and it doesn't matter because it's basically indestructible. The only thing you can't do is let it sit in water or run it through the dishwasher. I mean, you can, but it rusts… which also isn't that difficult to clean if it happens.
Cast iron and a green scotchbrite pad or a stainless steel scouring pad and you are good. You can use hot water and soap to clean it. It will deteriorate any "seasoning" but so what. Clean after use, dry and store away. Takes maybe two minutes. If you want to get it seasoned so it has some non-stick to it you can, but you don't have to.
[+] [-] bcbrown|3 years ago|reply
An aluminum skillet from a restaurant supply store is cheap and low-maintenance. I use this one [0] for omelets and scrambled eggs, and it's probably my favorite pan. The thickness means that the heat is incredibly even, and there's enough mass that it won't cool down much when adding food to a preheated pan.
[0] https://www.foodservicedirect.com/alegacy-eagleware-the-poin...
[+] [-] cityofdelusion|3 years ago|reply
I think the safest option is stainless steel, and funny enough, Teflon. They are both inert and Teflon is only toxic if you cook on high heat. I keep a Teflon around solely for scrambled eggs and fish on low heat, but they are very doable in a well oiled stainless fry pan as well.
[+] [-] swlkr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tetetetetete|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonmoy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|3 years ago|reply
According to the EPA Teflon frying pans do not leech any PFOA into food, that's not where people are exposed.
I've noticed that for some reason a ton of people think they get exposure to PFOA from cookware, and that's simply not true. PFOA exposure mainly comes from waterproofing coatings, slippery coatings (like the bottom of skis), and firefighting foam.
Paper dishes (plates, straws, etc) are a big source of exposure because they need to make them waterproof. Make sure to ask for plastic.
[+] [-] bfrog|3 years ago|reply
Just get used to the imperfect surface, its not going to be perfect, it may get to be smooth and black one day, but even my nearly hundred year old skillet I've gotten through my family sometimes gets a scratch or a flake off. Its self correcting the more you use it.
If that's still too much "maintenance" try a nice enameled cast iron skillet or pot from le creuset. Don't cheap out. These are fantastic, aren't bothered by acidic foods, and still have the same nice heat holding properties of seasoned iron. Really love these. Don't use steel utensils or bang them around the edges with sticks and they last forever, or at least long enough you feel the cost was well worth it. My mother in law had hers, used, for nearly 25 years before the enamel flaked, and she didn't bother treating it nice (scrubbed, used metal utensils, etc).
[+] [-] asdff|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smaddox|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] desmosxxx|3 years ago|reply
You can effectively make stainless steel non-stick with correct use of a neutral oil and either cooking at a slightly lower heat and/or keeping the contents moving. Have to be ok with some oil though, for most foods it shouldn't be a problem.
It's not teflon, but I haven't come across anything that sticks to the pan in a consequential manner. Scrub with stainless steel scrubber to clean, done.
[+] [-] RosanaAnaDana|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] junkypuppet|3 years ago|reply
[1]https://fromourplace.co.uk/
[2] https://www.carawayhome.com/
[+] [-] Tobani|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bruce343434|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnordpiglet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokoon|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eesmith|3 years ago|reply
A search across the last 6 months at HN - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal... - shows:
> Pollution: 'Forever chemicals' in rainwater exceed safe levels(https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62391069) 12 days ago
> Forever Chemicals PFAS, PFOA, PFOS, BPA, Explained Clearly [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QuvTjLZaXs) 2 months ago
> 3M’s PFAS Crisis Has Come to Europe(https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-3m-pfas-toxic-foreve...) 2 months ago
> EPA: 'Forever chemicals' pose risk even at low levels(https://apnews.com/article/science-climate-and-environment-g...) 2 months ago
> PFAS chemicals do not last forever [i.e. PFAS can be destroyed](https://phys.org/news/2022-05-pfas-chemicals.html) 3 months ago
> PFAS Linked to Liver Damage(https://www.studyfinds.org/forever-chemicals-liver-damage/) 4 months ago
> Regular blood donations can reduce “forever chemicals” in the bloodstream: study(https://theswaddle.com/regular-blood-donations-can-reduce-to...) 4 months ago
> Farewell, forever chemicals: Researchers aim to eliminate PFAS for good(https://phys.org/news/2022-03-farewell-chemicals-aim-pfas-go...) 5 months ago
> The farmers facing ruin in Maine’s ‘forever chemicals’ crisis(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/22/i-dont-k...) 5 months ago
> Michigan beef found to contain dangerous levels of ‘forever chemicals’(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/11/michigan...) 6 months ago
[+] [-] rob_c|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|3 years ago|reply
As the article notes, we already had ways of breaking them down, just with difficultly: "current PFAS-destruction techniques, such as incineration, can require vast amounts of energy, superhigh temperatures, and millions of dollars".
[+] [-] alliao|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ckcheng|3 years ago|reply
> Roughly 40% of PFAS compounds contain carboxylic acid groups, and thus could potentially be degraded by the new approach, Trang says. Though it has yet to be tested in the field, she adds that the most likely strategy would be to use conventional means to filter PFAS chemicals from, say drinking water, and then treat them off-site.
> The method doesn’t work on all types of PFAS, however. Compounds used in flame retardants and batteries, for example, contain a sulfonate group instead of a carboxylic acid group and won’t break down with this approach.
[+] [-] pressurefree|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smm11|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _carbyau_|3 years ago|reply