Hi, guys!

I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
cookware.

My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
question is, just what is the current verdict on that?

Dieter Zakas
--
Good, better, best; never let it rest, until your good is better and your
better is best. (Billy Cox)

"Dieter Zakas" > wrote in message
> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans
> made
> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?

Current verdict is that it is bull shit. It has been disproven.

In article >,
Dieter Zakas > wrote:

> Hi, guys!
>
> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
> cookware.
>
> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>
> Dieter Zakas

Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
If you do some googling, you will find websites with opinions working
both sides of the concept.

Personally, I don't like aluminum because it reacts with acidic foods
like lemon and tomato and makes the food taste nasty. It's reactive.

And I have a pet bird so will not use Teflon.

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

In article >,
OmManiPadmeOmelet > wrote:

> In article >,
> Dieter Zakas > wrote:
>
> > Hi, guys!
> >
> > I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
> > nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
> > you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
> > cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
> > cookware.
> >
> > My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
> > of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> > question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
> >
> > Dieter Zakas
>
> Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.

No, actually, things like that are a matter of *fact*. Either the items
are dangerous, or they are not; the opinions of (possibly not very well
informed) individuals won't change it.

In fact, both of the issues referred to have been totally debunked.

Isaac

Isaac Wingfield wrote:
> In article >,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Dieter Zakas > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, guys!
> > >
> > > I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
> > > nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
> > > you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
> > > cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
> > > cookware.
> > >
> > > My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
> > > of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> > > question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
> > >
> > > Dieter Zakas
> >
> > Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
>
> No, actually, things like that are a matter of *fact*. Either the items
> are dangerous, or they are not; the opinions of (possibly not very well
> informed) individuals won't change it.
>
> In fact, both of the issues referred to have been totally debunked.

The "scientists" who did the aluminum research faked the data.
>
> Isaac

--Bryan

Isaac Wingfield wrote:

> In article >,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>> Dieter Zakas > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi, guys!
>>>
>>>I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
>>>nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
>>>you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
>>>cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>>>cookware.
>>>
>>>My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
>>>of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
>>>question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>>>
>>>Dieter Zakas
>>
>>Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
>
>
> No, actually, things like that are a matter of *fact*. Either the items
> are dangerous, or they are not; the opinions of (possibly not very well
> informed) individuals won't change it.
>
> In fact, both of the issues referred to have been totally debunked.
>
> Isaac

Why does Dupont, the makers of Teflon, acknowledge the health problems
associated with Teflon if they have been totally debunked? They have
the information right on their website. As far as aluminum and dementia
- I thought the controversy first arose during the boom in the health
craze as a reason not to use aluminum containing deodorant then spred to
the pots and pans. IME high acid foods react with aluminum pots causing
discolouration and an off taste to the food. Whether or not this is
harmful to the body now or at some point down the road remains to be seen.

~patches~ wrote:
> Isaac Wingfield wrote:
>
>> OmManiPadmeOmelet > wrote:
>>
>>> Dieter Zakas > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, guys!
>>>>
>>>> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that
>>>> claims that nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off
>>>> (microscopic pieces, mind you), be carried over to the food,
>>>> and be ingested, and can/will ultimately cause Alzheimer's or
>>>> other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>>>> cookware.
>>>>
>>>> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots
>>>> and pans made of or with those materials, and get stainless
>>>> steel or cast iron. My question is, just what is the current
>>>> verdict on that?
>>>>
>>>> Dieter Zakas
>>>
>>> Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
>>
>> No, actually, things like that are a matter of *fact*. Either the
>> items are dangerous, or they are not; the opinions of (possibly not
>> very well informed) individuals won't change it.
>>
>> In fact, both of the issues referred to have been totally debunked.
>>
>> Isaac
>
>
> Why does Dupont, the makers of Teflon, acknowledge the health
> problems associated with Teflon if they have been totally debunked?

Why don't you ask a specific question instead of a vague, loaded one
like this? What health problems are you referring to? I didn't find any
looking online. Perhaps you can offer enlightenment.

> They have the information right on their website.

They don't have information that says ingesting teflon causes dementia
as stated above.

"The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2004: Teflon Causes Health
Problems in Humans" AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH
<http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1017/healthissue_detail.asp>

Lots of articles about Teflon.
<http://tinyurl.com/95a9z

> As far as aluminum
> and dementia - I thought the controversy first arose during the boom
> in the health craze as a reason not to use aluminum containing
> deodorant then spred to the pots and pans.

That's been blown out of the water. Period. Crap science as purveyed by
health-food store weenies who smell bad.

> IME high acid foods react
> with aluminum pots causing discolouration and an off taste to the
> food.

Acids will dissolve aluminum. Yes. That off-taste is a figment of
imagination. Aluminum salts are generally mild in flavor and are used in
many food processing applications.

> Whether or not this is harmful to the body now or at some
> point down the road remains to be seen.

Not really. Aluminum is the most plentiful metal on earth. It's
ultimately in pretty much everything we eat. We evolved on this planet
eating it for the past few million years as part of the environment. No
correlation with any chronic condition or health problem and aluminum.

Look at the FDA site
<http://www.fda.gov/ora/inspect_ref/iom/APPENDICES/appA2.html>

This kind of "logic" is like deciding that something is bad and then
finding "reasons" to assert it.

Pastorio

In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote:

> Acids will dissolve aluminum. Yes. That off-taste is a figment of
> imagination. Aluminum salts are generally mild in flavor and are used in
> many food processing applications.

I think that is very much a matter of sensitivity to the Flavor Bob.

I've made the mistake of covering tomato dishes with aluminum foil, and
having holes eaten in the covering by the acid, leaving black spots on
the food...

To me, it leaves a distinct bitter flavor that I find to be very
unpleasant.

Can't help but wonder if cooking acid in aluminum would ruin a
recipe??????
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

In article ,
OmManiPadmeOmelet at wrote on 1/10/06 22:32:

> In article >,
> Dieter Zakas > wrote:
>
>> Hi, guys!
>>
>> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
>> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
>> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
>> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>> cookware.
>>
>> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
>> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
>> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>>
>> Dieter Zakas
>
> Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
> If you do some googling, you will find websites with opinions working
> both sides of the concept.

Opinions don't help. Sound scientific research does.

Dieter Zakas
--
Good, better, best; never let it rest, until your good is better and your
better is best. (Billy Cox)

Dieter Zakas wrote:
> In article ,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet at wrote on 1/10/06 22:32:
>
>> In article >,
>> Dieter Zakas > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, guys!
>>>
>>> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
>>> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
>>> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
>>> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>>> cookware.
>>>
>>> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
>>> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
>>> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>>>
>>> Dieter Zakas
>> Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
>> If you do some googling, you will find websites with opinions working
>> both sides of the concept.
>
> Opinions don't help. Sound scientific research does.

Then stop sniffing around this newsgroup for answers you wont accept
anyway. Talk to some researchers (though you probably wont believe them,
either) or resign yourself to the fact that hard science has gray areas.

<as one of my excellent chemistry teachers put it to us: the Laws of
Science just haven't been disproved yet>

In article , pennyaline at
wrote on 1/11/06 17:59:

> Dieter Zakas wrote:
>> In article ,
>> OmManiPadmeOmelet at wrote on 1/10/06 22:32:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Dieter Zakas > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, guys!
>>>>
>>>> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
>>>> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
>>>> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
>>>> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>>>> cookware.
>>>>
>>>> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
>>>> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
>>>> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>>>>
>>>> Dieter Zakas
>>> Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
>>> If you do some googling, you will find websites with opinions working
>>> both sides of the concept.
>>
>> Opinions don't help. Sound scientific research does.
>
> Then stop sniffing around this newsgroup for answers you wont accept
> anyway. Talk to some researchers (though you probably wont believe them,
> either) or resign yourself to the fact that hard science has gray areas.
>
> <as one of my excellent chemistry teachers put it to us: the Laws of
> Science just haven't been disproved yet>

At the risk of sounding defensive, I'm not, as you put it, "sniffing around
this newsgroup for answers" I "won't accept." I was wondering whether anyone
knew of anything "concrete" regarding the topic of my post, and what its
current verdict is.

I accept the fact that science has gray areas, and that nothing is certain;
however, science regularly proves and disproves research, and this is no
exception. My question is, how many of us on this NG are scientists, and
qualified to comment on this (alleged) teflon-aluminum-dementia link?
Opinions are one thing, but they don't answer the question of the question I
originally posed.

Dieter Zakas
--
Good, better, best; never let it rest, until your good is better and your
better is best. (Billy Cox)

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:14:38 -0500, Dieter Zakas
> wrote:

>In article , pennyaline at
wrote on 1/11/06 17:59:
>
>> Dieter Zakas wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> OmManiPadmeOmelet at wrote on 1/10/06 22:32:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Dieter Zakas > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, guys!
>>>>>
>>>>> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
>>>>> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
>>>>> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
>>>>> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>>>>> cookware.
>>>>>
>>>>> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
>>>>> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
>>>>> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dieter Zakas
>>>> Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
>>>> If you do some googling, you will find websites with opinions working
>>>> both sides of the concept.
>>>
>>> Opinions don't help. Sound scientific research does.
>>
>> Then stop sniffing around this newsgroup for answers you wont accept
>> anyway. Talk to some researchers (though you probably wont believe them,
>> either) or resign yourself to the fact that hard science has gray areas.
>>
>> <as one of my excellent chemistry teachers put it to us: the Laws of
>> Science just haven't been disproved yet>
>
>At the risk of sounding defensive, I'm not, as you put it, "sniffing around
>this newsgroup for answers" I "won't accept." I was wondering whether anyone
>knew of anything "concrete" regarding the topic of my post, and what its
>current verdict is.
>
>I accept the fact that science has gray areas, and that nothing is certain;
>however, science regularly proves and disproves research, and this is no
>exception. My question is, how many of us on this NG are scientists, and
>qualified to comment on this (alleged) teflon-aluminum-dementia link?
>Opinions are one thing, but they don't answer the question of the question I
>originally posed.
>
>Dieter Zakas

Have you checked the web sites of the Alzheimer's Association or
places like the National Institute of Health?
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974

Dieter Zakas wrote:
> In article , pennyaline at
> wrote on 1/11/06 17:59:
>
> > Dieter Zakas wrote:
> >> In article ,
> >> OmManiPadmeOmelet at wrote on 1/10/06 22:32:
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Dieter Zakas > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi, guys!
> >>>>
> >>>> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
> >>>> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
> >>>> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
> >>>> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
> >>>> cookware.
> >>>>
> >>>> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
> >>>> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> >>>> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Dieter Zakas
> >>> Like anything else, it's a matter of opinion.
> >>> If you do some googling, you will find websites with opinions working
> >>> both sides of the concept.
> >>
> >> Opinions don't help. Sound scientific research does.
> >
> > Then stop sniffing around this newsgroup for answers you wont accept
> > anyway. Talk to some researchers (though you probably wont believe them,
> > either) or resign yourself to the fact that hard science has gray areas.
> >
> > <as one of my excellent chemistry teachers put it to us: the Laws of
> > Science just haven't been disproved yet>
>
> At the risk of sounding defensive, I'm not, as you put it, "sniffing around
> this newsgroup for answers" I "won't accept." I was wondering whether anyone
> knew of anything "concrete" regarding the topic of my post, and what its
> current verdict is.
>
> I accept the fact that science has gray areas, and that nothing is certain;
> however, science regularly proves and disproves research, and this is no
> exception. My question is, how many of us on this NG are scientists, and
> qualified to comment on this (alleged) teflon-aluminum-dementia link?
> Opinions are one thing, but they don't answer the question of the question I
> originally posed.
>
> Dieter Zakas
> --
> Good, better, best; never let it rest, until your good is better and your
> better is best. (Billy Cox)
I am not a scientist, but I work with them designing experiments and
analyzing data (as a Scientic Programmer). What I can say is from the
studies that I've looked at is that the ones predicting less risk are
better grounded than those that give more risk.

"Dieter Zakas" > wrote in message
...
>
> At the risk of sounding defensive, I'm not, as you put it, "sniffing
> around
> this newsgroup for answers" I "won't accept." I was wondering whether
> anyone
> knew of anything "concrete" regarding the topic of my post, and what its
> current verdict is.
>
> I accept the fact that science has gray areas, and that nothing is
> certain;
> however, science regularly proves and disproves research, and this is no
> exception. My question is, how many of us on this NG are scientists, and
> qualified to comment on this (alleged) teflon-aluminum-dementia link?
> Opinions are one thing, but they don't answer the question of the question
> I
> originally posed.
>
> Dieter Zakas
> --

I am a scientist and responded with definitive information about this
question. Did you not read it?


--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

> And I have a pet bird so will not use Teflon.

Let me just echo this -- though I already have a stalker after me
because I discussed the possibility that microwaving food covered with
cling film might be unsafe.

>From what I've heard, at some temperature Teflon pans give off fumes
which KILL BIRDS. This has been used as a reason for some people to
toss out their Teflon. I've never had any so I don't know, but like
with the cling film story, people need to know so they make up their
own minds.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> > And I have a pet bird so will not use Teflon.
>
> Let me just echo this -- though I already have a stalker after me
> because I discussed the possibility that microwaving food covered with
> cling film might be unsafe.

OK, but you DO know there's a simple way to foil the efforts of
these stalkers, don't you? See:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

(Sorry about the pun...)

> >From what I've heard, at some temperature Teflon pans give off fumes
> which KILL BIRDS.

News flash: At SOME temperature, just about anything will give
off fumes that would kill birds. Including, of course, the birds
themselves. The question is whether or not the temperature
required is anything you're going to have to worry about in
everyday life, assuming, of course, that "everyday life" for you
doesn't involve things like testing Space Shuttle main engines or
running Bessemer furnaces. For more info, see:

http://www.teflon.com/Teflon/downloa...teflon_faq.pdf


Bob M.

>> From what I've heard, at some temperature Teflon pans give off
>> fumes which KILL BIRDS.

> News flash: *At SOME temperature, just about anything will
> give off fumes that would kill birds.

Dude, nice post, but I don't need the sarcasm. When I wrote "at some
temperature," I fully understood that that at extremely high
temperatures, as you say, even canaries give off toxic fumes.

> The question is whether or not the temperature
> required is anything you're going to have to worry about in
> everyday life . . . .

The Teflon website says not to heat the pans to over five hundred
degrees, and they imply that a responsible chef wouldn't do that anyway
(though thirty degrees less is apparently QUITE USUAL -- that's not a
huge window of safety, is it?). A Google search for +frying +"six
hundred degrees," however, returns thirteen hits, with a couple about
fish frying.

Not *quite* "testing Space Shuttle main engines."

As I said before, it's every man for himself. When I fry, though, I
heat the pan before adding the food. Maybe I'll leave the pan there
three minutes. (The Teflon folks, obviously, would say I'm
irresponsible or INSANE!!!) I'd rather not risk having poisonous fumes
fill the house.

wrote:
> > And I have a pet bird so will not use Teflon.
>
> Let me just echo this -- though I already have a stalker after me
> because I discussed the possibility that microwaving food covered with
> cling film might be unsafe.

the companies themselves discuss this
Glad has reformulated their cling wrap to avoid this problem
with the polyvinyl chlorides or something like that.

the Glad web site discusses this in detail

In article >, Dieter Zakas > wrote:
>Hi, guys!
>
>I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
>nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
>you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
>cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>cookware.
>
>My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
>of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
>question is, just what is the current verdict on that?

The main problem with Al pots and pans is that some foods corrode the
stuff and then you end up with friggin' holes in the things -- and
they're guaranteed to first leak at the most inopportune time.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Dieter Zakas wrote:

> Hi, guys!
>
> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
> cookware.
>
> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>
> Dieter Zakas

As for aluminum, the worry was started when it was found that the brains
of people with Alzheimer's - specifically the affected brain tissue -
contained more alumnum than normal. Perhaps too much ingested aluminum
was a causative factor? But no, this has been shown to be false. What
happens is that the tissue affected by the disease tends to accumulate
aluminum. So, Alzheimers causes excess aluminum in the brain, not the
other way around.

As for teflon, it is an extremely intert material and will pass thru you
without being absorbed.

Peter

In article , P.Aitken at wrote
on 1/11/06 8:50:

>
>
> Dieter Zakas wrote:
>
>> Hi, guys!
>>
>> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
>> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
>> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
>> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>> cookware.
>>
>> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
>> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
>> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>>
>> Dieter Zakas
>
> As for aluminum, the worry was started when it was found that the brains
> of people with Alzheimer's - specifically the affected brain tissue -
> contained more alumnum than normal. Perhaps too much ingested aluminum
> was a causative factor? But no, this has been shown to be false. What
> happens is that the tissue affected by the disease tends to accumulate
> aluminum. So, Alzheimers causes excess aluminum in the brain, not the
> other way around.
>
> As for teflon, it is an extremely intert material and will pass thru you
> without being absorbed.
>
> Peter
>
Peter,

I figured about the Teflon, as it's also used in miscellaneous implants,
like heart valves and the like.

Dieter Zakas
--
Good, better, best; never let it rest, until your good is better and your
better is best. (Billy Cox)

Dieter Zakas wrote:
> Hi, guys!
>
> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
> cookware.

You can send all your aluminum and non-stick to me.

The original studies that gave rise to the aluminum nonsense was
flawed; there is no research currently that connects aluminum with
Alzheimer's.

Non-stick surfaces, when old and flakey, should be discarded. Until
then, there's nothing wrong with using them at recommended temperatures
(which don't include extremely high heat - read the directions).

N.

Dieter Zakas wrote:

> Hi, guys!
>
> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
> cookware.

IIRC the main controversy with the nonstick is overheating that causes
offgasing. The offgasing can cause health problems something that the
makers of Teflon have acknowledged. If you check Dupont's website there
is a link to this. I can attest to the nonstick surface flaking off
occasionally. I had a fry pan that did this as well as a couple of
cookie sheets. I tossed both along with the food with the flakes in it.
I switched to stainless steel some time ago and have never regretted
it however, I still use a non-stick fry pan on occasion for fried eggs.
I prefer a well seasoned cast iron fry pan for most of my frying purposes.

>
> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?

I think your girlfriend has a point.
>
> Dieter Zakas

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...

>
> IIRC the main controversy with the nonstick is overheating that causes
> offgasing. The offgasing can cause health problems something that the
> makers of Teflon have acknowledged. If you check Dupont's website there
> is a link to this.


Could you perhaps provide the link HERE?

Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:
> "~patches~" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > IIRC the main controversy with the nonstick is overheating that causes
> > offgasing. The offgasing can cause health problems something that the
> > makers of Teflon have acknowledged. If you check Dupont's website there
> > is a link to this.
>
>
> Could you perhaps provide the link HERE?
>
> Bob M.

Do you know how to Google? Some of the websites are suspect in
motivation - here's one: http://www.newstarget.com/001453.html

Dupont just paid a huge EPA fine for covering up environmental and
human worker problems in the MANUFACTURE of Teflon-coated stuff - but
not in the use of it. However, offgassing of high-heat Teflon coatings
is generally accepted fact.

N.

"Nancy1" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bob Myers wrote:
> > "~patches~" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > IIRC the main controversy with the nonstick is overheating that causes
> > > offgasing. The offgasing can cause health problems something that the
> > > makers of Teflon have acknowledged. If you check Dupont's website
there
> > > is a link to this.
> >
> >
> > Could you perhaps provide the link HERE?
> >
> > Bob M.
>
> Do you know how to Google?

Do you know how to correctly interpret what you're reading?
The assertion was made that this information appears ON DUPONT'S
WEBSITE, or at the very least that there was a link to it there. I
don't find any such thing - there are a lot of "websites suspect in
motivation," as you say, but the question at hand currently is what
DuPont is saying on THEIR site.

Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:

> "Nancy1" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Bob Myers wrote:
>>
>>>"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>IIRC the main controversy with the nonstick is overheating that causes
>>>>offgasing. The offgasing can cause health problems something that the
>>>>makers of Teflon have acknowledged. If you check Dupont's website
>
> there
>
>>>>is a link to this.
>>>
>>>
>>>Could you perhaps provide the link HERE?
>>>
>>>Bob M.
>>
>>Do you know how to Google?
>
>
> Do you know how to correctly interpret what you're reading?
> The assertion was made that this information appears ON DUPONT'S
> WEBSITE, or at the very least that there was a link to it there. I
> don't find any such thing - there are a lot of "websites suspect in
> motivation," as you say, but the question at hand currently is what
> DuPont is saying on THEIR site.
>
> Bob M.
>
>
BUT there is a link on their website. I didn't bookmark it so will look
for it as soon as I can. The health risks of teflon have been
acknowledged by the makers so that *should* come up using a good search.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:43:09 GMT, "Bob Myers"
> wrote:

>
>"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> IIRC the main controversy with the nonstick is overheating that causes
>> offgasing. The offgasing can cause health problems something that the
>> makers of Teflon have acknowledged. If you check Dupont's website there
>> is a link to this.
>
>
>Could you perhaps provide the link HERE?
>
>Bob M.
>

Look at your own cite:

http://www.teflon.com/Teflon/downloa...teflon_faq.pdf


Are fumes from overheated non-stick coated cookware harmful to people?
All fumes can be irritating or even harmful. Butter, fats, and cooking
oils will begin to smoke at 400°F (204°C), producing fumes that can
irritate eyes, nose and throat and possibly cause respiratory distress.
DuPont non-stick coatings will not begin to deteriorate in appearance or
performance until the temperature of the cookware reaches about 500°F
(260°C). The coating will not show significant decomposition unless
temperatures exceed about 600°F (316°C). Only at these extremely high
temperatures (600ºF and above) could non-stick coatings emit fumes that
could produce a temporary flu-like condition called “polymer fume
fever.”

So, yes it can cause health problems. Not long term, but ....

"Dieter Zakas" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, guys!
>
> I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
> nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces,
mind
> you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will
ultimately
> cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to
aluminum
> cookware.
>
> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans
made
> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?
>

there was a chart posted some months back - most cooking utensil materials,
if ingested in large enough quantities, can be toxic to some degree. :-)

if it makes her happy (and isn't just the first in a line of demands so you
have to make a stand on it now), get rid if the aluminum and get some
ceramic-teflon and cast iron.
Besides, if she wants to cook and has to use something she doesn't like -
you're going to be sorr-eee...

Aluminum, teflon, and stainless.

Aluminum:

1) From the "Medterms" medical dictionary - aluminum "poisoning":

"Aluminum toxicity occurs in people with renal insufficiency who are
treated by dialysis with aluminum-contaminated solutions or oral agents.
The clinical manifestations of aluminum toxicity include anemia, bone
disease, and progressive dementia with increased concentrations of aluminum
in the brain.
Prolonged intravenous feeding of preterm infants with solutions
containing aluminum is associated with impaired neurologic development."

2) As to the sources: Aluminum is chemically transferred proportional to
heat, Ph, mechanical contact, and time.
Remember that aluminum cola and beer cans are in contact with aluminum
for weeks on end, and beer and cola are more acidic than tomato juice or
even some lemon juice. In contrast, aluminum pots and pans are in contact
cooking the usual food for maybe 20 minutes, and most food is a far lower Ph
than cola or beer.
(some vendor's cans are plastic coated inside to protect against
significant transfer.) Antacids have a lot of aluminum, as do buffered
aspirin, which are both considered as having a lot more aluminum ingested
than one ever gets from cooking in direct-aluminum pans
So compared to not cooking food, or to other sources of aluminum,
cooking in an aluminum pot or pan may be the least of your worries. (And as
a side note: can one even find uncoated aluminium pans any more?)

4) As to whether the amount taken in by your body in pots is significant
enough to constitute toxicity: no one is sure what the long term acceptable
levels are, but they know a relatively acute poisoning when they see it.
Aluminum oxidizes in air in a matter of hours and the very thin oxide
itself is damn near impervious to anything. Alkalines and salts attack
aluminum if they can get through the oxide -and in cookware where the oxide
is very thin, they usually can.
Aluminum is equal in hardness to nylon (shore a? 123-125), while aluminum
oxide is harder than tempered steel. It therefore is prone to deep scratches
and release by overeager use of utensils.
So yes, some aluminum can leech into the food under the right conditions,
such as salt or alkaline, but all the other materials have similar problems.
If you have aluminum cookware, you could get dump it because it browns
poorly, sometimes puts an off-taste into food, susceptible to pitting, and
isn't dishwasher "safe".

I got rid of my aluminum because it was much less suitable than iron for
frying, than enamel for making sauces, than stainless for cooking
vegetables, and than glass for highly acid foods. Which kind of left it out
there as a bad compromise all around.

Teflon:
Teflon is a plastic that melts somewhere around 500-600 F, depending on
the type. Melted is not nice, but still inert. The stuff used to make teflon
is very reactive, which also means it hangs onto its bonds very strongly and
won't let go of the teflon molecule to get into the food.

Teflon is insoluble and pretty much inert unless you are cooking sodium or
flourine or ionized oxygen. Fill a teflon pan with stomach acid, and it
holds the acid without damage indefinitely. Which kind of tells you how well
the body can break it down or make it so it could get into the cells -it
can't.

Teflon is a soft plastic, which means it can dent and be scratched. Some
teflons are mixed with fine ceramic powder (as inert as glass) to improve
surface hardness.

I use commercial grade premium teflon pans for most pan work which does
not involve frying.

Stainless steel - several types, known in formable types as "series". Two
of the three series of stainless steel have iron, chrome, and nickel. The
200 series has no nickel but usually uses manganese instead.

There has been some recent concern about nickel poisoning using stainless
steel cookware, since acids leech nickel from the metal, and perhaps salt
(which pits stainless).
Literature (other than the natural foods groups, who have anything made
of metal responsible for everything from flatulence to cancer) indicates
that in some sensitive/previously allergic persons, prolonged nickel
contact can cause dermitological problems -- so avoid hugging your pots. (
Nickel vapors are not normally a problem wiht kitchen cookware.)
The chrome and iron are said to be beneficial offsets to any nickel
downside.

FWIW......



> Dieter Zakas
> --
> Good, better, best; never let it rest, until your good is better and your
> better is best. (Billy Cox)
>

hob wrote:
> Teflon:
> Teflon is a plastic that melts somewhere around 500-600 F, depending on
> the type. Melted is not nice, but still inert. The stuff used to make teflon
> is very reactive, which also means it hangs onto its bonds very strongly and
> won't let go of the teflon molecule to get into the food.

your post appears very knowledgeable until i get to this

buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

teflon outgasses around 550, i can't remember if it's a bit less or a
bit more

it does not melt

it outgasses, that is, produces a gas

it is not inert in that it produces a gas and that gas can kill birds

does kill birds

that's not a great and wonderful sign

now if you want to quibble about what inert means, go ahead

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> hob wrote:
> > Teflon:
> > Teflon is a plastic that melts somewhere around 500-600 F, depending
on
> > the type. Melted is not nice, but still inert. The stuff used to make
teflon
> > is very reactive, which also means it hangs onto its bonds very strongly
and
> > won't let go of the teflon molecule to get into the food.
>
> your post appears very knowledgeable until i get to this
>
> buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> teflon outgasses around 550, i can't remember if it's a bit less or a
> bit more

We are discussing Teflon, a generic name for PTFE type plastic films used to
coat cookware. The original PTFE Teflon is no longer used, TTBOMK. The
question is stability, loss of material, temperature, and then if the
material is harmful.

1) Stability, outgassing, and loss of material:

from "Outgassing Properties of EMI/RFI Materials, Space Environmental
Effects on Outgassing and the beneficial effects of vacuum bakeout on
outgassing behavior" by Patrick Hogue (MS Materials Science, CSM and 20 yrs
Aerospace amterials engineer) of CGS Technologies

"When thermal vaccum stability (TVS aka "outgassing") is a concern...Teflon
is among the best, polyvinylcholoride among the worst..."

There are several types of polyflouros: "Teflon", "Teflon 2", etc.

From Cobest plastics:

"PTFE is extremly stable at high temperatures and can be used continuously
at 260 C. At that temperature, > 50% of the mechanical properties are
retained after 20000 hrs.
Above 300 0C, PTFE stars to slowly weight. At 300 0C (572F), the weight loss
is 0.0003%/h, and at 3600C it is 0.003%/hr. Above 400 0C (750F), PTFE starts
to decompose rapidly."



Does the molecule decompose into its parts and is lost as molecular
fragments, or does the molecule itself leave the matrix? ( Can't say, I
don't know, but given the bonds in each, I would hazard a guess that since
the matrix bonds are supposedly less strong than the molecular bonds, it's
leaving the matrix)



2) Harmful:

There were three or four reported bird deaths purportedly from overheating
teflon pans, reported anecdotally in veterinary science papers about 30-40
years back. The papers have no toxicology reports or records of autopsies.
One can also make the case that the birds died because their level of care
was equal to that of owners who left pans on the stove to overheat, or they
died of anxiety from being around that kind of danger all the time.

(As to the "mine canary" argument of sensitivity: Canaries die in mines
first because they have faster metabolisms and thus exhibit symptoms faster
in lower oxygen or toxic environments - to my understanding it is not
because their blood is more sensitive than human blood, and humans left in
the same environment will also reach that level of toxicity- but in those
reports I saw, those bird owners who remained in the dwellings where the
teflon was overheated did not exhibit symptoms)

For the dead-bird theory to hold, there was an assumption that once the
molecules/fragments were freed from the teflon film, they were as active as
they were when released. However, unless the birds were in 550 degree
rooms, that is a false assumption. The freed molecules drop to room
temperature almost instantly in the air, and become much less active.

So the birds died from inhaling cold inert teflon molecules? Not likely

From fragments? Assuming the chain did break, which is unlikley, but for
the sake of argument - the chloro-flouro compounds are active halogens, and
will strongly attach to anything nearby, first contact - food first, frying
pan, walls, floors, countertops. Those elements are not specific to organics
like a carbon monoxide is. Unless the morons were heating empty pans, which
aids the "dumb owner" theory, the fragments were in the food/water.

Best bet is that those birds of 20-35 years ago died from other causes
(like smoke inhallation from whatever was burnt to dust in the unattended
pan, perhaps?)



"Outgassing"

Basically, outgassing is serious problem in industry where the "outgassed
materials" create electrical paths. corrosion bridges, deleterious chemical
changes in parent and nearby materials, etc.

First, you need to define the term "outgassing". It can mean transfer of
trapped gas from within the matrix, it can mean creation of gas by
decomposition of material or matrix, it can mean loss of original product by
evaporation or sublimation, or it can mean contamination from a product (a
kind of "who cares from what" approach)

As to transfer of any trapped gas -
IF the matrix does not have a compound within the matrix to absorb
residual gas, OR IF the product was not reheated and outgassed before
shipping, then one heating of a thin teflon film like that on a frying pan
for a few minutes will cause any residual gas in the matrix to be excited
and move out of the matrix as gas.
You are not talking about a quarter-inch thick seal or gasket heated to
400F by shaft friction and "outgassed" by having one side at atmosphere and
the other at vacuum -it's a thinly coated frying pan at atmosphere.

As to creation of toxic gas by ordinary decomposition -
A teflon film on a frying pan is not formaldyhide trapped inside a wood
fiber cell and released when the cell or the formaldyhide breaks down. The
molecule does not spontaneously break down within any age we can live
through.

As to loss of original product by sublimation and evaporation.
Lay people assume that melting means boiling away because they see water
steaming. Water's weak H-OH bonds are not the extremely strong CH bonds of
teflon, so the analogy is not appropriate. What can happen is that the
molcule can leave the matirx
Teflon has material like any other - it has solid, liquid, and gas phases
with phase changes subject to temperature and pressure.

And using the water analogy, bad as it is - How much steam do you see
rising when ice is melting in water? Not how much is being condensed from
the air above, but how much rises off the mix when you take the mix out
into -20 degree air?

As to fragments:
The fragments of polytetraflourocarbons are flourocarbons - for a moment,
say one does get a flourine atom looking for a bond - where does a highly
active flourine bond go when it is freed?
As flourine, to the next thing it touches - food, pan, air.
Assume you leave your Teflon pan empty AND at 550F AND for an hour AND
every molecule fragments AND contrary to the basic laws of physics, it all
goes onto your skin rather than evenly disperse the walls, food, etc. - free
flourine bonds on 10 mg of olimer fragments does what?

IMHO, You get a hell of a lot more outgassed plastic when you jump in your
car after your car's dash has been sitting in the sun and greasing up your
windows, and breathe that outgas trapped in the little box of a car in that
15 minute to the store and back.

Now, if you work in the industry forming plastics and can get into fairly
heavy concentrations of heated 200 pound lots of the material, different
story. But a thin film on a pan?

Recommendation for paranoid types-- avoid using teflon with gas burners and
electric stoves that have no heat sensors, use a vent when using teflon you
plan to overheat, and don't leave your teflon pans unattended so long that
they melt.


that was relaxing..... :-)


(I'm still using my teflon fry pans for sloppy pan mixes, cast iron for hot
things like frying and roasting, stainless for boiling, and enamel for
delicate sauces. I bake on aluminum sheets with parchment paper/aluminum
foil, and glass pans.)

>
> it does not melt

it most certainly melts. it is applied and formed as/in a liquid state.

>
> it outgasses, that is, produces a gas
>
> it is not inert in that it produces a gas and that gas can kill birds
>
> does kill birds
>
> that's not a great and wonderful sign
>
> now if you want to quibble about what inert means, go ahead
>

hob wrote:
> 2) Harmful:
> There were three or four reported bird deaths purportedly from overheating
> teflon pans, reported anecdotally in veterinary science papers about 30-40
> years back. The papers have no toxicology reports or records of autopsies.
> One can also make the case that the birds died because their level of care
> was equal to that of owners who left pans on the stove to overheat, or they
> died of anxiety from being around that kind of danger all the time.

There are many reports of bird deaths. It's more than anecdotal in
Medline. Here is a letter, but the next abstract spells out PTFE or
Teflon gas as killing avians stock.

Vet Rec. 2004 Dec 11;155(24):784.
PTFE toxicity in birds.
Woodhall S, Stamford M.

Here's one, recent too: Death is by teflon outgassing or PTFE. Do you
agree now? Formalin is formaldehyde that you mentioned as an absurd
possibility. Now it is not so absurd. Did I misunderstand the abstract?

Avian Dis. 2000 Apr-Jun;44(2):449-53.
Polytetrafluoroethylene gas intoxication in broiler chickens.
Boucher M, Ehmler TJ, Bermudez AJ.
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine,
University of Missouri-Columbia, 65211, USA.

A poultry research facility that housed 2400 Peterson x Hubbard
cross broilers (48 pens of 50 chicks each) experienced 4% mortality
within 24 hr of chick placement. Mortality started within 4 hr of
placement, and within 72 hr, cumulative mortality had reached 52%. Mild
dyspnea was the only clinical sign noted in some chicks prior to death.
The primary gross lesion noted in the chicks submitted was moderate to
severe pulmonary congestion. The lungs of four of these chicks sank in
formalin, and blood-tinged fluid was noted in the mouth and nares of
two chicks. The microscopic lesions noted in the affected chicks were
moderate to severe pulmonary edema and congestion. The diagnosis
indicated to the submitter was that pulmonary edema caused by exposure
to an unidentified noxious gas caused the death of the chicks. The
poultry house environment was tested for sulfur dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and volatile organic
compounds (as produced by combustion engines); all tests were negative
for significant levels of these compounds. A second broiler flock was
placed in the same facility and the mortality at 6 wk was 11%, which
was greater than the 2.5%-4.7% mortality seen in the previous four
flocks on the farm. Further investigation revealed that the only change
in management practice in this facility prior to the onset of the
severe mortality problem was the replacement of 48 heat lamp bulbs (one
for each pen). The new heat lamp bulbs were polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) coated. PTFE gas intoxication has been reported in several
exotic avian species, but this intoxication has not been previously
reported in a poultry flock.

Here's another recent one:
Tijdschr Diergeneeskd. 1997 Dec 15;122(24):720. Related Articles,
Links
[Risk for pet birds following exposure to burn products of pans
coated with PTEF and butter]
[Article in Dutch]
Lumeij JT.
Think more Teflon flu. You are saying the gas is completely inert then?


> As to creation of toxic gas by ordinary decomposition -
> A teflon film on a frying pan is not formaldyhide trapped inside a wood
> fiber cell and released when the cell or the formaldyhide breaks down. The
> molecule does not spontaneously break down within any age we can live
> through.

Hmmm. Read the article whose abstract I produced. Formalin is
formaldehyde, is it not. Funny that you should use that very word.

So there. It occurs and not 30-40 years ago as you said. These are very
recent articles from the National Library of Medicine or Medline. Are
they not?

wrote:

> Here's one, recent too: Death is by teflon outgassing or PTFE. Do you
> agree now? Formalin is formaldehyde that you mentioned as an absurd
> possibility. Now it is not so absurd. Did I misunderstand the abstract?

I misunderstood the formalin. They are referring to fixing the lungs of
the dead chickens in formalin, not that formalin formed in the lungs?
In any case, PTFE cause pulmonary edema and the death of the chickens.
So that's proof enough that PTFE can kill birds and it's not a fairy
tale.

> Avian Dis. 2000 Apr-Jun;44(2):449-53.
> Polytetrafluoroethylene gas intoxication in broiler chickens.
> Boucher M, Ehmler TJ, Bermudez AJ.
> Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine,
> University of Missouri-Columbia, 65211, USA.
>
> A poultry research facility that housed 2400 Peterson x Hubbard
> cross broilers (48 pens of 50 chicks each) experienced 4% mortality
> within 24 hr of chick placement. Mortality started within 4 hr of
> placement, and within 72 hr, cumulative mortality had reached 52%. Mild
> dyspnea was the only clinical sign noted in some chicks prior to death.
> The primary gross lesion noted in the chicks submitted was moderate to
> severe pulmonary congestion. The lungs of four of these chicks sank in
> formalin, and blood-tinged fluid was noted in the mouth and nares of
> two chicks. The microscopic lesions noted in the affected chicks were
> moderate to severe pulmonary edema and congestion. The diagnosis
> indicated to the submitter was that pulmonary edema caused by exposure
> to an unidentified noxious gas caused the death of the chicks. The
> poultry house environment was tested for sulfur dioxide, oxides of
> nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and volatile organic
> compounds (as produced by combustion engines); all tests were negative
> for significant levels of these compounds. A second broiler flock was
> placed in the same facility and the mortality at 6 wk was 11%, which
> was greater than the 2.5%-4.7% mortality seen in the previous four
> flocks on the farm. Further investigation revealed that the only change
> in management practice in this facility prior to the onset of the
> severe mortality problem was the replacement of 48 heat lamp bulbs (one
> for each pen). The new heat lamp bulbs were polytetrafluoroethylene
> (PTFE) coated. PTFE gas intoxication has been reported in several
> exotic avian species, but this intoxication has not been previously
> reported in a poultry flock.

Dieter Zakas wrote:
> My girlfriend Kelly strongly advocates that I get rid of pots and pans made
> of or with those materials, and get stainless steel or cast iron. My
> question is, just what is the current verdict on that?

smart girl. what is she doing with you

teflon, even the best of teflon outgasses around 550 F, give or take 20
degrees.
i forget.

I can get an empty pot up to 700 F in less than 1 minute.

since i am not that careful, i threw out all my teflon after i realized
that in the space of 1 minute, i could produce enough teflon gas to
kill any birds in my apartment.

cast iron is not good for men since too much iron is a no-no - heart,
but take folacin just in case? but iron is good for women, menstruation
and anemia. so this is a tough call. i threw out all my cast iron along
with the girl friend - just kidding. i did throw out the cast iron.
that hurt. big beautiful and cheap. somewhere i still have my iron wok
but i can't find it so it's safe for the time being.

my preference is for glass since that is truly less reactive than any
metal. i still have my corning ware amber visions which goes from stove
to 'fridge to microwave. it really holds heat but it is glass. all my
other stuff is stainless steel. but nothing beats glass. that's why you
see in science, glass, not cast iron, not aluminum, not teflon, not
even much stainless steel except where glass would break.

the outgassing of teflon is a simple fact known for what 30 years or
more. just look it up in any chemistry book or even call dupont. it's
not a theory. it's a simple fact. teflon produces a gas somewhere
around 550 F. and teflon is dangerous to make, so if we all bought less
teflon, there would be fewer people done in with the manufacturing.

ever hear of teflon flu? i don't know if it's true but it sounds like a
touch of teflon outgassing to those who are susceptible.

if you have no birds and will never have birds, if you buy very high
quality pots with teflon, if you never cook over 500 F, although how
you monitor this, well, in that case, you can try teflon.

but i think you should let your girlfriend be right and win the next
argument instead.
this is a weak one and there is some science against you. just remember
the word, outgassing. nice word. sums it up.

> just remember the word, outgassing. nice word. sums it up.

We should slide this into a discussion of gullibility. C'mon -- people
are quoting the TEFLON website! They've already paid a third of a
BILLION for knowingly polluting rivers: you think they'd volunteer
their other problems? You think they'd publicize a study that shows
their stuff has faults?

The sad fact is, you need money to conduct studies . . . which means
unbiased studies don't get done. If you think the government is
protecting you, ask how Olestra got on the market: you know, that
"safe fat" that caused projectile diarrhea.

I was totally dogged in another discussion about cling film. Seems
Saran Wrap has always maintained that their stuff was safe, and said
all their studies showed it. But then Consumer Reports conducted
studies that showed DIOXIN, a carcinogen, leached out of Saran Wrap
into food. "Oh, that study was COMPLETELY wrong," the Saran folks
said, "but we'll change our wrap just to be nice." And now they're
spinning the whole thing as a HOAX: "SC Johnson has researched these
claims and it is clear that the information is not only misleading, but
also unnecessarily alarms consumers." Yeah, *information* is alarming.
Not that for years Saran Wrap left chemicals in food.

You want to believe cling film is safe, fine. But even the GOVERNMENT
won't say it is . . . which to me is like a waiter steering you away
from the fish. Me, I'll order something else; you can feel free to dig
in.

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:17:01 -0500, Dieter Zakas > wrote:

>Hi, guys!
>
>I seem to recall an article not long ago about research that claims that
>nonstick materials used in cookware can flake off (microscopic pieces, mind
>you), be carried over to the food, and be ingested, and can/will ultimately
>cause Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. This also applied to aluminum
>cookware.
>
>
>Dieter Zakas

Most everyone in this newsgroup cooks with
one of the items you've mentioned.
Read the posts, and form your own conclusion !

<rj>