http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...95_page2.shtml

As part of the settlement, DuPont agreed to pay $5 million for a study,
to be completed within three years, examining the potential of nine
DuPont fluorotelomer-based products to breakdown to form PFOA, which
can be found in the blood of most Americans.

now is that worth it, non-stick teflon so can have PFOA in your blood?
doubt it makes the blood slicker...

EPA Wants To Eliminate Teflon Chemical

EPA, Bush's EPA yet, whoa

Agency Asks Chemical Companies To Stop Using Certain Compounds
(AP / CBS)

(AP) The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday invited the
DuPont Co. and other chemical companies to join a global effort to
eliminate use of a chemical utilized in making Teflon and other
nonstick and stain-resistant products that may pose potential health
risks to humans.

DuPont agreed last month to pay $10.25 million in fines and $6.25
million for environmental projects to settle allegations by the EPA
that the company hid information about the health risks of PFOA.

naughty naughty dupont, bad dupont

now let's hear it from those who say that teflon is not dangerous,
well, maybe so, but what comes out of it, is dangerous

i don't think teflon is worth having so that the products that break
down wind up in the blood

now as we were saying about birds and the outgassing from teflon

apparently teflon can exude PFOA all on its own, hot damn

>
> DuPont agreed last month to pay $10.25 million in fines and $6.25
> million for environmental projects to settle allegations by the EPA
> that the company hid information about the health risks of PFOA.
>
> naughty naughty dupont, bad dupont
>
> now let's hear it from those who say that teflon is not dangerous,
> well, maybe so, but what comes out of it, is dangerous
>
> i don't think teflon is worth having so that the products that break
> down wind up in the blood
>
> now as we were saying about birds and the outgassing from teflon
>
> apparently teflon can exude PFOA all on its own, hot damn


Ever use Scotchgard, Stainmaster or wear any clothes made with Goretex?
Yes, PFOA is in the manufacture of these products too...it's also used
in fire-fighting foams. So if you throw away your pots and pans because
of this, you might as well get rid of the sofa, carpet and cold weather
clothes.

krimmie wrote:
> >
> > DuPont agreed last month to pay $10.25 million in fines and $6.25
> > million for environmental projects to settle allegations by the EPA
> > that the company hid information about the health risks of PFOA.
> >
> > naughty naughty dupont, bad dupont
> >
> > now let's hear it from those who say that teflon is not dangerous,
> > well, maybe so, but what comes out of it, is dangerous
> >
> > i don't think teflon is worth having so that the products that break
> > down wind up in the blood
> >
> > now as we were saying about birds and the outgassing from teflon
> >
> > apparently teflon can exude PFOA all on its own, hot damn
>
>
> Ever use Scotchgard, Stainmaster or wear any clothes made with Goretex?
> Yes, PFOA is in the manufacture of these products too...it's also used
> in fire-fighting foams. So if you throw away your pots and pans because
> of this, you might as well get rid of the sofa, carpet and cold weather
> clothes.

Gee, does wool have PFOA? Those damn sheep, pulling the wool over our
eyes again!

Obviously this study isn't conclusive, but there are enough warnings
out there to scare me off.

What I find fascinating is how many people will keep defending Teflon
-- almost as if they were paid to do so. Last time I got embroiled in
this discussion folks were actually saying stuff like, "Hey, it only
kills birds when you heat it to five hundred degrees!" A line that
should qualify you for the Stepford Wives, IMHO.

wrote:
> Obviously this study isn't conclusive, but there are enough warnings
> out there to scare me off.
>
> What I find fascinating is how many people will keep defending Teflon
> -- almost as if they were paid to do so. Last time I got embroiled in
> this discussion folks were actually saying stuff like, "Hey, it only
> kills birds when you heat it to five hundred degrees!" A line that
> should qualify you for the Stepford Wives, IMHO.

Why is that?

>> "Hey, it only kills birds when you heat it to five hundred degrees!" *
>> A line that should qualify you for the Stepford Wives, IMHO.

> Why is that?

"'We are confident when we say that the facts, the scientific facts,
demonstrate that the material is perfectly safe to use,' Uma Chowdhry,
Dupont's vice president of research and development, told 20/20 [the TV
newsmagazine]. . . .

"In the demonstration for 20/20, a piece of bacon was just getting
crisp when the Teflon pan went beyond the initial warning point of 500
degrees.

"'I've never cooked bacon,' said Chowdhry. 'I can't comment.'"

(Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...hp?newsid=4716)

wrote:
> >> "Hey, it only kills birds when you heat it to five hundred degrees!" ?
> >> A line that should qualify you for the Stepford Wives, IMHO.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> "'We are confident when we say that the facts, the scientific facts,
> demonstrate that the material is perfectly safe to use,' Uma Chowdhry,
> Dupont's vice president of research and development, told 20/20 [the TV
> newsmagazine]. . . .
>
> "In the demonstration for 20/20, a piece of bacon was just getting
> crisp when the Teflon pan went beyond the initial warning point of 500
> degrees.
>
> "'I've never cooked bacon,' said Chowdhry. 'I can't comment.'"
>
> (Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...hp?newsid=4716)

I think I agree with you, if you're saying "If you don't know how to
cook, don't use Teflon".

> I think I agree with you, if you're saying "If you don't know
> how to cook, don't use Teflon".

And I've obviously found another Stepford Wife. I'm checking out of
this thread now, but not before I point out your deliberate
obfuscation. Please explain for posterity how Teflon is only dangerous
"if you don't know how to cook" when I just cited a problem FRYING
BACON.

For those folks interested in TRUTH, here's what I'm saying:

-- If you believe Teflon is perfectly safe up to relatively low
temperature, at which point it kills birds;
-- If you never preheat your frying pans, constantly watch them, and
somehow know the precise temperature of every square inch;
-- If you have no moral problems backing a company that lied about
water pollution, dodges the truth about Teflon ("I've never cooked
bacon") and PROBABLY pays minimum-wage minions to defend the stuff
online,

then fine, use all the Teflon you want.

It's called perfluoropoctanoic acid, and it isn't IN Teflon - its used in
MAKING Teflon.

So watch out for molten slag when using cast iron - molten slag is used in
making iron.

-------------

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not out to get you."

------

plastic evil, natural good:

a uniquely narrow and provincial human view, not widely held by any of
the animals that lost its skin for your natural shoes, nor widely held by
any of the plants that were castrated and aborted to get their seeds for
your natural bread.

---------

Life at the top of the food chain is a bitch - but not as bad as being on
a lower rung.




> wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...95_page2.shtml
>
> As part of the settlement, DuPont agreed to pay $5 million for a study,
> to be completed within three years, examining the potential of nine
> DuPont fluorotelomer-based products to breakdown to form PFOA, which
> can be found in the blood of most Americans.
>
> now is that worth it, non-stick teflon so can have PFOA in your blood?
> doubt it makes the blood slicker...
>
> EPA Wants To Eliminate Teflon Chemical
>
> EPA, Bush's EPA yet, whoa
>
> Agency Asks Chemical Companies To Stop Using Certain Compounds
> (AP / CBS)
>
> (AP) The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday invited the
> DuPont Co. and other chemical companies to join a global effort to
> eliminate use of a chemical utilized in making Teflon and other
> nonstick and stain-resistant products that may pose potential health
> risks to humans.
>
> DuPont agreed last month to pay $10.25 million in fines and $6.25
> million for environmental projects to settle allegations by the EPA
> that the company hid information about the health risks of PFOA.
>
> naughty naughty dupont, bad dupont
>
> now let's hear it from those who say that teflon is not dangerous,
> well, maybe so, but what comes out of it, is dangerous
>
> i don't think teflon is worth having so that the products that break
> down wind up in the blood
>
> now as we were saying about birds and the outgassing from teflon
>
> apparently teflon can exude PFOA all on its own, hot damn
>

wrote:

>>I think I agree with you, if you're saying "If you don't know
>>how to cook, don't use Teflon".
>
>
> And I've obviously found another Stepford Wife. I'm checking out of
> this thread now, but not before I point out your deliberate
> obfuscation. Please explain for posterity how Teflon is only dangerous
> "if you don't know how to cook" when I just cited a problem FRYING
> BACON.
>
> For those folks interested in TRUTH, here's what I'm saying:
>
> -- If you believe Teflon is perfectly safe up to relatively low
> temperature, at which point it kills birds;
> -- If you never preheat your frying pans, constantly watch them, and
> somehow know the precise temperature of every square inch;
> -- If you have no moral problems backing a company that lied about
> water pollution, dodges the truth about Teflon ("I've never cooked
> bacon") and PROBABLY pays minimum-wage minions to defend the stuff
> online,
>
> then fine, use all the Teflon you want.
>

This is interesting. I gave up Teflon pots and pans not only because of
the controversy but because my cooking skills have improved greatly over
the years. Non-stick pans don't lend themselves well to searing or
deglazing. The problem with eliminating Teflon completely is the
coating is found on bakeware, appliances like George Foreman grills and
rice makers, and on grill grates for indoor and outdoor grills. The
stuff is almost impossible to avoid entirely. Truth be told, you would
likely have to eliminate eating out entirely as you could never be sure
the food served wasn't cooked in a non-stick pan. I have found silicone
bakeware and parchment paper suitable replacements for non-stick
bakeware. There likely are ways to avoid the other sources by just not
using those appliances. Some stove manufactures offer only non-stick
grill grates for their stove but this can be avoided if you don't grill
indoors. Personally, I don't want to give up my indoor grill or rice
maker.

wrote:
> > I think I agree with you, if you're saying "If you don't know
> > how to cook, don't use Teflon".
>
> And I've obviously found another Stepford Wife. I'm checking out of
> this thread now, but not before I point out your deliberate
> obfuscation. Please explain for posterity how Teflon is only dangerous
> "if you don't know how to cook" when I just cited a problem FRYING
> BACON.
>
> For those folks interested in TRUTH, here's what I'm saying:
>
> -- If you believe Teflon is perfectly safe up to relatively low
> temperature, at which point it kills birds;
If you don't understand chemistry, this would make sense. But I do. Do
you know that water, particularly above 212 degrees F, can kill you? Do
you avoid cooking with water?
Check the statistics, I'll wager you any amount of money you like that
many more people were killed or injured by steam last year than by
burnt Teflon.

> -- If you never preheat your frying pans, constantly watch them, and
> somehow know the precise temperature of every square inch;

I preheat them with oil or butter in them, no problem.

> -- If you have no moral problems backing a company that lied about
> water pollution, dodges the truth about Teflon ("I've never cooked
> bacon") and PROBABLY pays minimum-wage minions to defend the stuff
> online,

Only a moron would heat a frying pan to 500 degrees to cook bacon. The
frying pan doesn't have to be anywhere near that hot. My guess is that
in the demo, they put cold bacon in a cold frying pan, and the bacon
was cooked about the time the frying pan got to 500 degrees. I don't
cook bacon that way, nor does anyone who knows how to cook. In fact,
bacon cooks best, if you're cooking it in a frying pan, on low heat, so
it cooks gradually.

>
> then fine, use all the Teflon you want.

Actually, I have only one Teflon frying pan, which I rarely use. I just
like to point out to people who don't understand chemistry and who take
specious demonstrations to heart, how ridiculous this is. I'm glad I'm
not one to panic everytime I see another fear mongering story on the
evening news or Dateline.
If you keep up on your reading about dangerous things, believning them
all, and avoid them all, you'll have to live in a stainless steel shell
(at least until someone publishes an article about how bad stainless
steel is for you) and drink only purified water. No food would ever be
pure enough. You'd starve. Go ahead, work yourself into a paranoid
frenzy and starve. I'll take my chances with a little Teflon!

On 26 Jan 2006 11:32:51 -0800, wrote:

>> I think I agree with you, if you're saying "If you don't know
>> how to cook, don't use Teflon".
>
>And I've obviously found another Stepford Wife. I'm checking out of
>this thread now, but not before I point out your deliberate
>obfuscation. Please explain for posterity how Teflon is only dangerous
>"if you don't know how to cook" when I just cited a problem FRYING
>BACON.

You've obviously not bothered to read anything salgud said. So are
you an rfc poster, or an anti-teflon-crusading one trick pony?

>For those folks interested in TRUTH, here's what I'm saying:
>
>-- If you believe Teflon is perfectly safe up to relatively low
>temperature, at which point it kills birds;

"relatively low temperature"--yup. 500 deg F is right there at the
mid-level on the temperature controls for all my thermostat-controlled
appliances. (not one of which actually does go that high, btw)

>-- If you never preheat your frying pans, constantly watch them, and
>somehow know the precise temperature of every square inch;

If you never read the mfr's directions about not using non-stick
surfaces above certain temperature settings or burner settings.

>-- If you have no moral problems backing a company that lied about
>water pollution, dodges the truth about Teflon ("I've never cooked
>bacon") and PROBABLY pays minimum-wage minions to defend the stuff
>online,

Oh, boy!!! We have it! "anyone who ever says a good word about
anything I object to is a paid minion of the Evil Empire"--is that
where you're going, ducky?

>then fine, use all the Teflon you want.

Precisely. Point is--but of course you and your ilk will NEVER get
it--if there's a risk, let it be known. Allow adults to make adult
decisions. But no--you'd far rather be Big Mommy and tell everyone
else what they can't do.

--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"

"It's come as you are, baby."

-over the hedge

hob wrote:
> It's called perfluoropoctanoic acid, and it isn't IN Teflon - its used in
> MAKING Teflon.

actually it's in all Americans thanks to DuPont. that was the point
behind the EPA suing DuPont. the next time you get a blood test, for
kicks, ask the doc to test for PFOA and tell us if it makes you
"slicker."

" wrote:

> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...95_page2.shtml
>
> As part of the settlement, DuPont agreed to pay $5 million for a study,
> to be completed within three years, examining the potential of nine
> DuPont fluorotelomer-based products to breakdown to form PFOA, which
> can be found in the blood of most Americans.
>
> now is that worth it, non-stick teflon so can have PFOA in your blood?
> doubt it makes the blood slicker...
>
> EPA Wants To Eliminate Teflon Chemical
>
> EPA, Bush's EPA yet, whoa
>
> Agency Asks Chemical Companies To Stop Using Certain Compounds
> (AP / CBS)
>
> (AP) The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday invited the
> DuPont Co. and other chemical companies to join a global effort to
> eliminate use of a chemical utilized in making Teflon and other
> nonstick and stain-resistant products that may pose potential health
> risks to humans.
>
> DuPont agreed last month to pay $10.25 million in fines and $6.25
> million for environmental projects to settle allegations by the EPA
> that the company hid information about the health risks of PFOA.
>
> naughty naughty dupont, bad dupont
>
> now let's hear it from those who say that teflon is not dangerous,
> well, maybe so, but what comes out of it, is dangerous
>
> i don't think teflon is worth having so that the products that break
> down wind up in the blood
>
> now as we were saying about birds and the outgassing from teflon
>
> apparently teflon can exude PFOA all on its own, hot damn

===
Reminds me of the lab test done on rats with saccharine. They put a rat in
a fish tank (we'll call him Sac), and filled the tank half way with
saccharine, then they feed Sac three square meals a day of only saccharine
and quench Sac's thirst with liquid saccharine. At the end of the day,
they bathed Sac with saccharine and bed Sac down on a conformable fluffy
bed of saccharine and fed Sac cookies and milk sweetened with saccharine.
When the Sac died, they found a bunch of cancerous tumors filled with
saccharine. Boy, I wonder where it may have come from!!! This was
somewhere in the late 80s, the control rat did not get the treatment as old
Sac and is still living well and has a big family

Just like everything else in life, if you use moderation, you don't have to
worry about crap like teflon and saccharine. Now on the other hand, if you
are licking your teflon utensils all day, you'll end up like Sac.

Just my two cents.

Ray
Austin, TX
===

Ray S. & Nayda Katzaman wrote:

> " wrote:
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...95_page2.shtml
> > As part of the settlement, DuPont agreed to pay $5 million for a study,
> > to be completed within three years, examining the potential of nine
> > DuPont fluorotelomer-based products to breakdown to form PFOA, which
> > can be found in the blood of most Americans.

> > now is that worth it, non-stick teflon so can have PFOA in your blood?
> > doubt it makes the blood slicker...

> Reminds me of the lab test done on rats with saccharine. They put a rat in
> a fish tank (we'll call him Sac), and filled the tank half way with
> saccharine, then they feed Sac three square meals a day of only saccharine
> and quench Sac's thirst with liquid saccharine. At the end of the day,
> they bathed Sac with saccharine and bed Sac down on a conformable fluffy
> bed of saccharine and fed Sac cookies and milk sweetened with saccharine.
> When the Sac died, they found a bunch of cancerous tumors filled with
> saccharine. Boy, I wonder where it may have come from!!! This was
> somewhere in the late 80s, the control rat did not get the treatment as old
> Sac and is still living well and has a big family
>
> Just like everything else in life, if you use moderation, you don't have to
> worry about crap like teflon and saccharine. Now on the other hand, if you
> are licking your teflon utensils all day, you'll end up like Sac.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Ray
> Austin, TX

you texans sure do tell tall tales. you ought to run for president. if
you can lie like that, heck, politics would be your bedfellow, to
complete your saccharine metaphor.
i gather you don't understand the protocols for cancer research, do
you?

moderation, yeah right, moderation, bush is all about moderation,
especially on the supreme court.

" wrote:

> Ray S. & Nayda Katzaman wrote:
>
> > " wrote:
> > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...95_page2.shtml
> > > As part of the settlement, DuPont agreed to pay $5 million for a study,
> > > to be completed within three years, examining the potential of nine
> > > DuPont fluorotelomer-based products to breakdown to form PFOA, which
> > > can be found in the blood of most Americans.
>
> > > now is that worth it, non-stick teflon so can have PFOA in your blood?
> > > doubt it makes the blood slicker...
>
> > Reminds me of the lab test done on rats with saccharine. They put a rat in
> > a fish tank (we'll call him Sac), and filled the tank half way with
> > saccharine, then they feed Sac three square meals a day of only saccharine
> > and quench Sac's thirst with liquid saccharine. At the end of the day,
> > they bathed Sac with saccharine and bed Sac down on a conformable fluffy
> > bed of saccharine and fed Sac cookies and milk sweetened with saccharine.
> > When the Sac died, they found a bunch of cancerous tumors filled with
> > saccharine. Boy, I wonder where it may have come from!!! This was
> > somewhere in the late 80s, the control rat did not get the treatment as old
> > Sac and is still living well and has a big family
> >
> > Just like everything else in life, if you use moderation, you don't have to
> > worry about crap like teflon and saccharine. Now on the other hand, if you
> > are licking your teflon utensils all day, you'll end up like Sac.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> >
> > Ray
> > Austin, TX
>
> you texans sure do tell tall tales. you ought to run for president. if
> you can lie like that, heck, politics would be your bedfellow, to
> complete your saccharine metaphor.
> i gather you don't understand the protocols for cancer research, do
> you?
>
> moderation, yeah right, moderation, bush is all about moderation,
> especially on the supreme court.

Let me start by introducing myself, I am Ray. You on the other hand, are
nobody. No name on the address and no signature. Are you afraid that someone
will know who you are - I AM NOT. I do not hide behind a pseudonym either - what
you see is what you get, plain and simple.

Second, I am not a politician, and have no intentions or desire to become one,
let alone president. When Bush ran for governor of Texas, I did not trust him
for that position, I still think he should not have been elected, I voted for the
Democrat, even though I am not one. Same goes for his present position, I still
do not trust him. As for presidential votes, I just could not see myself voting
for a socialist.

Next, why in the hell do you bring politics into a discussion, that has nothing
to do with politics. Are personal attacks all you have to defend your position,
because if that is the case, you have no credibility, let alone integrity.

As to my original post, it is not a lie. Don't know if you have any experience
with lab experiments, but usually the majority of the time the subject is
subjected to an overabundance of whatever it is they are testing. The end result
being that whatever or whoever is paying for the testing/experiments, the results
are going to sway towards their goals.

Now as to Texas, just one thing, DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!!! We are the greatest
state in the Union, as a matter of fact, we are the glue that keeps the Union
united.

Cheers,

Ray
Austin, TEXAS
===

By the way, my response was the last one, I will not respond to any more of your
posts.

Ray
Austin, TX
===

Ray S. & Nayda Katzaman wrote:
> By the way, my response was the last one, I will not respond to any more of your
> posts.
>
> Ray
> Austin, TX
> ===

When dealing with people who posture and lie, it is best to keep the
facts out in the open. Especially from Texas where guns and murders are
a way of life. You do not need to know my name since I am not doing
this research. I am just reporting on research that is published in
public documents. You only need to know that your characterization of
cancer research is immature and inaccurate.

I'll deal with just the facts. In cancer research, yes, large
quantities of the carcinogen are given. This is not to falsify but to
accelerate the process of cancer detection. Then the amounts of cancer
produced are compared to similar processes with other substances. If
one chemical produces cancer quickly in large quantities and another
chemical does not, then you can suspect that the first substance is
carcinogenic. Finally, additional tests are done to confirm this is so
in human beings.

Lies are always a problem. In politics and in science. Since Texas has
produced some of our biggest presidential liars which caused wars. Take
LBJ for instance, he lied about the Gulf of Tonkin and the Vietnam war
escalationfailure was the result. He was a democrat. And now we have
Texan supersized whoppers about weapons of mass destruction. And the
Iraqi war ensued but bin Laden is still free after all these years. We
are very lucky that our economy has not tanked.

You may view Texas as the glue that holds the country together. I view
Texas as the gasoline that has robbed our country of many, many fine
young men, mostly men, and social justice. There was not enough money
to fund the Vietnam War and to fund social programs, in education, in
health care, and so forth. The damage Texans did with false lies to
make wars is incalculable.