To me, someone who celebrates a bit more of the spectrum than most: Metal hot. Make food hot.

Non-stick means easier cleanup, but my wife seems to think cast-iron is necessary for certain things (searing a prime rib roast, for example.).

After I figure those out, then I gotta figure out gas vs. electric vs. induction vs infrared…

  • Dicska@lemmy.world
    5·
    1 day ago

    I have a non-stick, and I use it rather infrequently. I have read about the effects of damaged coating, and GOD I would throw it away immediately as soon as I see ONE flake in it. Maybe I’m just overreacting it, but I treat it like it was a delicately covered layer of asbestos.

    It’s great and smooth NOW, but I’m only using it until I see a noticeably hard scratch. Until then, I get rid of the oil and juices with a paper towel immediately after cooking (and I’m already slightly worried that the dry paper could be too abrasive on the dry bits of the pan), and I leave it to cool down before I wash it to prevent it from heat stress.

    I might be overthinking it. But I’m playing with the thought of getting a cast iron or carbon steel already.

    • hansolo@lemmy.today
      6·
      1 day ago

      Please consider how many decades it took for lead in the atmosphere from leaded gasoline to be considered bad enough that we got rid of it. PFAS and other toxic chemicals that are ubiquitous are known to be toxic in lab conditions, so just imagine how bad that shit is in the wild.

      I agree don’t waste money, but might as well get the cast iron now, keep it in training mode for 2-3 months, and just wait for the cast iron to get bumped up to the big show.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      21·
      1 day ago

      Everyone else in the comments are saying Teflon is harmless to consume. Who do I believe?

      • Dicska@lemmy.world
        7·
        1 day ago

        Scientists are your best bet, I guess. I wish I could cite you studies, but I would have to search, as well. I might soon.

        UPDATE: This far all I got was ‘best to be careful’ or ‘staying away never hurts’:

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389425031759

        These findings challenge the assumption that PTFE particles are biologically inert, highlighting hazards arising from their physical interactions, especially at the nanoscale. Given the relevance of the co-culture in vitro model of intestinal barrier to human intestinal physiology, the results underscore potential intestinal health risks from PTFE-MNPL exposure. Future studies should focus on chronic, low-dose exposures to elucidate the specific cellular pathways activated by PTFE-MNPL exposure.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28913736/

        Due to toxicity concerns, PFOA has been replaced with other chemicals such as GenX, but these new alternatives are also suspected to have similar toxicity. Therefore, more extensive and systematic research efforts are required to respond the prevailing dogma about human exposure and toxic effects to PTFE, PFOA, and GenX and other alternatives.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          3·
          10 hours ago

          Thanks. So it sounds like it probably has the same effect as other microplastics? Chemically inert, but can physically cause damage.

          I believe the harms that are well known are the environmental impacts and that on people involved in its production. Weighing all of that together, I’ll maintain my policy that I’d never buy a non-stick, but if I happen to have one, I’m not going to toss it and create more waste than is necessary. I mainly keep mine around because other people (e.g. parents) like to use them sometimes when they visit.

      • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
        2·
        1 day ago

        We could choose to believe that same folks who previously told us that cocaine, asbestos, lead, and tobacco smoke were healthy / perfectly safe / not really harmful.