My best estimate is gas stoves decrease life expectancy by 53 days on average
dynomight.net
dynomight.net
You can get woks with wider bases for induction cooktops. I haven't tried one, but I think it could fix the issue.
https://www.tefal.co.nz/c/Daily-Cook-Stainless-Steel-Non-sti...
1. For a round wok, you'd need an 'adapter' to hold the wok. 2. for a flat bottom wok, you might not get enough surface area on the induction element.
https://www.fisherpaykel.com/nz/cooking/cooktops/minimal-coo...
This is interesting. How does your induction cooktop prevent someone from leaving it on? Does it automatically turn itself off after a while? My electric cooktop can be set to do that so just trying to understand the advantage of induction ones here.
I'll just drop this here...
[edit] Here's a detailed study. [1]
[1] http://www.inis.si/fileadmin/user_upload/INIS/publikacije/20...
There are a variety of studies showing higher levels could have adverse effects, particularly on children. The examples you chose for cell phones and power lines also show mixed results. Non-ionizing radiation also has some known health effects depending on the power and frequency (ask any ham about high power VHF and eyeballs).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9503290/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15933351/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32216233/
The overall risks of EMF is still debated and requires more investigation, but it's not appropriate to say that it "doesn't do anything".
Your first study, power lines and childhood leukemia. No study has ever shown that living near power lines leads to an increased risk of leukemia due to EM radiation, ever. Here's a pooled analysis combining individual-level data (29,049 cases and 68,231 controls) from 11 record-based studies. [1] Conclusion: in this first comprehensive pooled analysis of childhood leukaemia and distance to power lines, we found a small and imprecise risk for residences < 50 m of 200 + kV lines that was not explained by high magnetic fields. It is far more likely IMO to be associated with the chemicals used nearby.
The same is true of wi-fi. And cell phones. [2] The same is true of other cancers near power lines.
And that makes sense because it's non-ionizing EM. All non-ionizing EM radiation can do to your body is warm you up. Once it's acutely warming you up, you have much bigger problems.
The reason you can't say it doesn't do anything is because it's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative, which is what you're asking. However, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the affirmative.
It's safe. It's not really debated, no. [3] And of course, more studies are always welcome due to just how widespread these fields are.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297541/
[3] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...
If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc.
"that was not explained by high magnetic fields."
Which does not rule out specific frequency, fluctuations in field exposure, etc.
Your number 3 link acknowledges that some studies have found increased risks. "of which few studies have reported evidence of increased risk"
WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required.
https://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/radiation.pdf
"All non-ionizing EM radiation can do to your body is warm you up."
No, it can at least affect intracellular calcium.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcmm.12088
"The reason you can't say it doesn't do anything is because it's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative"
Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population. The studies have done this and show a correlation between higher risk and powerlines. They just haven't shown causation or the underlying mechanism, including the chemicals you mention (traffic exposure). "This association was not explained by exposure to high MF levels or by other measured confounders."
That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link.
The category that it's in (Group 2B) also contains coffee and pickled vegetables. But nobody's out there screaming about their potential to cause cancer - because they're safe too. [1]
Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic", a higher classification than "possibly") includes any and all hot beverages consumed over 65C.
ELF inclusion in group 2b was based on those leukemia studies you pointed to which, as my metastudy illustrated, do not actually conclude a carcinogenicity risk. However, due to the way risk management works, it will never be removed from category 2b because it cannot unequivocally be proven safe.
> If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc.
Sure, and studies continue to be done on aspartame even though it's the single most studied compound in the history of the world. That doesn't mean there's not consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity.
All the studies you dug up are "10th dentist" studies - you know, the ones who hate Oral B.
And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo? At what level? How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about? Is there any demonstrated harm there either? Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else?
Again, you're asking to disprove a negative for which there is no evidence.
> Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population.
This theory about controlling for all the variables is why we have studies that show one day that eggs will kill you and your babies, and the next day that eggs are fantastic superfoods. You cannot do so with that many variables. Otherwise, you know, it would have been done by now.
[1] https://www.coffeeandhealth.org/factsheet/coffee-and-iarc-wh...
"That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link."
This is not correct. IARC group 3 means something has not been ruled out. Group 2B means there have been findings that suggest a potential link but the data is not conclusive and needs further study.
"And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo?" Referenced studies in the prior link included, mice, rats, in vitro, and in vivo.
"At what level?" Types and levels varied by study.
"How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about?"
Again, varies by the referenced studies, from weaker to stronger.
"Is there any demonstrated harm there either?"
Oxidative stress
"Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else?"
Oxidative stress is linked to, and thought to be linked to, many issues.
Gas stoves decrease air quality throughout the entire house. EMF drops off with the cubic law.
"been shown to do absolutely nothing"
That's entirely false. There is still debate about the overall effects of EMF. Plus, there are known effects like high power VHF and excess heat build up in the eyes.
50% reduction in known neurological toxic chemical is, IMHO, unacceptable.
"The EPA has concluded that the current NAAQS protect the public health, including the at-risk populations of older adults, children and people with asthma, with an adequate margin of safety. The NAAQS for nitrogen oxides are a 1-hour standard at a level of 100 ppb based on the 3-year average of 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, and an annual standard at a level of 53 ppb."
It's like, alright Mario congrats but I'm not a professional cook.
Heat control is one of the hardest thing for home cooks to get right, and a real flame makes that WAY easier.
I guess I'm not sure I consider TV shows -- who's role is to create viewer interest and can artificially manufacture drama to do so -- a very good judge of reality. Additionally, of course professional equipment will be easier for professionals to use. But most of the world uses electric ranges (about 50% of cooktops in the US are gas and that number is much lower in Europe and Asia), but somehow people get by.
For ~$500 you can get a dedicated rounded induction wok burner! It needs its own 220V plug, but if you really love wok cooking, they exist!
I am super sad that, at least in the US, I can't buy an induction stove top with a dedicated wok burner built in. :(
Incidentally, if I can't grill a steak my favorite method is to heat a cast iron pan under the broiler until it's quite hot, then place the steak in the pan. It sears on the bottom and begins to cook on the top from the broiler. Then you can remove it and finish it on the stove if need be, flipping it to sear the other side.
After using it for a while, I'd go as far as to say that if I bought a house with a gas stove, removing that in favor of an induction range would be pretty high on my priority list. Safer, better for air quality, and the occasional spill is much easier to clean.
Not being able to take proper advantage of a wok is a little annoying, although I've only tried it with a relatively small stainless steel one. I'm betting a flat bottom carbon steel wok large enough to fit the 12" burner would work better, though.
https://guide.michelin.com/en/article/dining-out/what-is-wok...
Induction can be nice, but I now have to pay careful attention to any cooking vessel I buy until the end of time and ensure that it's compatible. I also would need to run a new 220V outlet along an exterior wall to my kitchen, expand my breaker box (which has been full for a while and is approaching full of half-height breakers), and so on. Not worth it to me.
Gas is simple and reliable. It's instant on, instant off, and works in a power outage so long as I have matches around. I turn on my exhaust fan when I'm using it and have air filters in my house to catch other particulates. I just replaced my gas stove this year - with another gas stove.
I think it's a bit of a mixed bag. But surely we can agree electric coils and ifra tops are both terrible?
Induction and gas are both good, I would prefer having both ideally, and one of those damn jet engine wok burners too.
Also, our gas range saved us during the Texas freeze. Used my lighter to get the gas going and we were able to cook and stay warm for a bit, keeping the window open so we wouldn't die. If I'm out camping, sure, pairs well with my portable solar panels and goal zero.
Halogen and resistance hobs are less responsive though.
I think you might be confused about what induction is, might be worth a revisit to know the difference between induction vs a traditional electric cooktop.
You sure about the pans? Generally if a magnet sticks to your pan you are good. You don't need new pans marketed as "induction ready", you just need ones that a magnet can stick to, i.e. not completely aluminum.
Iron = ok, copper bottom = ok, any of the copper/AL/steel type sandwiches is ok. I've got a collection of pans from both sides of the family, years in college, and years since buying from various places. I've yet to find a pan/pon that does't work well.
Also keep in mind that induction creates inside the pot/pan, fire has to start working on the outside and let it conduct through.
Obviously. Talking about this is like looking at these articles, which often contradict each other:
https://www.thekitchenguy.net/best-induction-cookware-review...
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/appliances/a28435170/induct...
From my experience:
Accurate and immediate change in cooking temperature is important for many dishes and styles. With Induction, everything is gradual and this cannot be avoided. Might as well be microwaving some dishes. Gas stove wins.
Ambient heat takes longer to dissipate from heated induction stoves which suffer from heat transfer to parts of the appliance, which is mitigated by a fan to a degree. Gas stove wins slightly.
There is a claim that induction stoves and cooktops heat faster than electric and gas counterparts. This is true if you have the correct pan and it's the vast majority of dishes that don't mind the equalized cooking surface. Induction wins slightly.
Gas stove pilot light can go out. Pretty dangerous.
Induction is more expensive and requires new cookware, pushing that further.
The "difficulty" to clean is a matter of learning. Go to home depot and get your glass scraper and cleaning solution, your Induction will be easier than your Gas...although you'll likely clean your Induction more often because of visibility.
Induction is electric. If power goes out, you have no stove. I'm not sure who's worried about cooking in a blackout, but that could be a thing in a cabin, I guess.
I think it largely depends on how good a cook you need to be. If you are looking for finer control, Gas all the way. If you are looking for safety and speed, Induction.
The opposite. It's pretty much the same as gas. Even your article states so: "Induction stoves and cooktops offer precise temperature control. Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down, and it's difficult to hit a precise temperature with gas ranges. But with induction, you're afforded super precise temperature control which allows for more controlled cooking. When you turn the burner off, heat transfer stops immediately, so there's less of a chance of foods boiling over or overcooking."
>Induction is more expensive and requires new cookware, pushing that further.
I'm not sure if this is true, as far as new cookware. I guess it depends on who you are. I've never had cookware that was incompatible w/ induction.
It's almost like you intentionally misunderstood the point. You can select multiple comparisons and come away with different impressions because of such weasel statements as "It's pretty much the same as gas."
It's a subjective statement that cannot equate to some absolute "superior" claim.
> Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down,
An example of the "Gradual" archetype, I mentioned. This is beneficial in some cases and undesired in others.
> But with induction, you're afforded super precise temperature control which allows for more controlled cooking.
Precise temperature control is not the same as "controlled cooking". It's just one quality. The ability to spike/flash heat or spot heat a dish are examples of different forms of control as well.
> When you turn the burner off, heat transfer stops immediately, so there's less of a chance of foods boiling over or overcooking."
In some dishes this is preferred. It is a rare occurrence that you want to overcook (to then take it off and let it cook down as it cools).
Again, many of the points raised by bother sides seem to come down to required competence and skill for meals, rather than some absolute measure of utility.
They all use PWM at a fixed stepped setting depending on the stove and most importantly they are far more dependent on the cookware.
Induction on 5 out of 10 can produce very different results when using different cookware for example steel vs cast iron not to mention the crappier induction ready aluminum cookware with a steel plate you get these days from various brands.
Gas has far more precision since it’s an analogue control from 0 to max and it outputs the same amount of BTU on the same setting.
They aren't talking about induction cooktops...they are talking about traditional electric cooktops that use resistance. Induction cooktops are not gradual at all.
> Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down, and it's difficult to hit a precise temperature with gas ranges. But with induction
You need to understand this article is separating into three different categories. Electric (Resistance), Induction, and Gas. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.
If induction were actually far superior, they would have switched by now. They haven't.
What issues due you have with induction? Everything I have seen says they heat up pots faster than gas.
I know this from measuring it in my own kitchen, air quality would spike to worse than the worst city globally for hours without filtration or minutes with.
> I know this from measuring it in my own kitchen, air quality would spike to worse than the worst city globally for hours without filtration or minutes with.
HEPA filters don't help with NO2 levels. Air filters on the market that advertise activated charcoal are full of it, you need pounds of activated charcoal to make a huge difference, not the tiny little sheet that most filters use.
FWIW I have 2 HEPA filters running, they don't help with spicy food either.
Someone on HN once mentioned a real charcoal filter they had bought that had several pounds in it, but sadly I lost the comment and I don't remember the product they recommended.
I imagine there are better ones around with knobs or similar.
Resistance cooktops are garbage, though.
Climate change is real. We MUST eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. But once again, the more I dug into this article, the more it feels like the desire for outcomes guiding how the data is presented. And the problem with that is it provides fuel for climate deniers and anyone else opposed to the outcome the researcher is hoping for. They're discrediting themselves, their peers and furthering the harm they're trying to mitigate.
A few additional thoughts: I recently and grudgingly switched to electric, and I actually like the cheap-ass electric stove I'm using. It boils water faster than gas, but it's not as precise, and I'll take the speed over precision. Also, range hoods vary wildly from non-existent, to the side or back hood which is useless to an overhead hood which is spectacular, as evidenced by zero smoke when searing foods.
Of course not. It'll never boil if you watch it.
Boiling is a proxy for gets-hot-fast which is useful.
Like if I’m making real boring pasta:
1. Xm to boil 2. 10m to cook pasta 3. 3m to microwave meatballs 4. 1m30s to microwave sauce
The meatballs and the sauce both fit within the pasta cook time, so boil time is all wait.
I discovered the following things:
1. The highest end range hood sold in stores, is not that good at cleaning out air borne pollutants.
2. Nearly every range hood on the market is designed for style over usefulness. You need a large open cavity to capture particles before they are expelled, the larger the empty area in the hood, the better. Modern hoods are flat and stylish.
3. Odds are you need a makeup air system that forces replacement air into the house at the same rate it is being expelled. Without this, your range hood is basically trying to "vacuum" the air out of your house. (This doesn't apply to older poorly insulated leaky houses)
4. Range hoods need to extend over the sides and front of the cook top by a large amount. Some range hoods don't even extend out over the entire front of the cook top!
5. For noise levels, ideally you want an exterior mounted fan. The 2 high end kitchen stores I went to both worked hard to talk me out of even thinking of an exterior fan.
Doing all of these things, or even just the top 4, requires a custom system that is a fair bit of money. The $200 home depot special doesn't cut it. Even the $2000 ultra-deluxe system from dedicated kitchen store won't help improve indoor air quality that much.
Doing it properly actually costs less than the highest end pre-build vent hoods you can buy, which is likely why even the nicest stores try to talk you out of a custom build.
My gas stove is so slow to heat water (even with its largest burner) that I have a separate electric kettle I use to heat up a liter of water and then I put that into a pot on the stove, useful when I want to steam something.
Can you share what induction stove you're using that's so great?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjRcEwLGtV8 - Gas VS Induction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe_711l42e4 - Gas VS Induction
Tl;dr over 50% of heat from a gas stove ends up in the environment. Nearly 100% of the energy from an induction cook top ends up in the pot.
> Yes, if you have a colossal jet-powered A+ grade hood with a fan that vents outside.
Quite an exaggeration. Even cheap vent hoods (assuming vented to outside, of course) can move a lot of air.
You don’t have to 100% mitigate the problem to make an impact.
The author’s core analysis may be valid, but the rush to dismiss any mitigating factors feels like a significant bias showing through.
Switching away from gas is one mitigation, but it doesn’t handle everything.
HEPA filters don't filter NO2.
And curiously, simply using a venting hood is mocked by the OP with no actual evidence. Possibly, it mitigates the issue entirely.
How do gas stoves make better food than electric? Certainly there's a difference in the experience of cooking, but once you are accustomed to that, I think equally good food can be made in either. Even if food cooked on an electric cooktop was somewhat lower quality (however "better" is measured) I fail to see how that would have a significant impact on life expectancy.
How bad is my gas stove? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29935939 - Jan 2022 (520 comments)
Cities try to phase out gas stoves but cooks are pushing back - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27874912 - July 2021 (481 comments)
Experts are sounding the alarm about the hidden dangers of gas stoves - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25332332 - Dec 2020 (343 comments)
>Can a range hood fix this? Yes, if you have a colossal jet-powered A+ grade hood with a fan that vents outside. With an average range hood, maybe not
Well, does a decent range hood (vented to the outside) fix it or not? Author provided a non-answer. Regular hoods are pretty good in my experience.
That sounds so small it could be confounded by just about any spurious correlation.
From Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication. https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-risk-does-co...
Average life expectancy is just shy of 30,000 days, making this an effect of less than 0.2%. This would be impossible to even measure definitively.
This article seems to be nothing more than logical conjecture and opinion. The related evidence also seems to be tangentially related at best.
How much is "use"? I "use" my stove maybe once a month now and never for more than 10 minutes (usually to boil pasta). Also, as a side note, I hate gas stoves and would love for them to be banned. The stress I feel when the gas doesn't immediately ignite is dumb.
This is not normal. Remove the burner caps and heads, clean all the way round them, and ensure they are reseated correctly. This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG6JcvW_cYg demonstrates how to do it.
I'm curious. I understand you don't like cooking with gas stoves, but why do you think they should be banned? Many significantly prefer them and the impact that others using gas stoves has on your well-being is unclear.