Hacker News Reader

Comment by stinkytaco | Hacker News Reader

I like my induction cooktop. Sometimes I'm annoyed that I can't use a wok, and the buzzing is annoying if it's a poorly made pan, but all and all, the peace of mind of my child not leaving it on by accident, the immediate response to temp change and the health benefits make it a good option for my house. One of my favorite cooking quotes is from Mario Batali: “Only bad cooks blame the equipment. I can make almost every dish in my restaurants on four crummy electric burners with a regular oven, as can just about anyone else who cares to.”

View on HN

That's a pretty lame quote. Equipment makes things so much easier. It'd be like if an Olympic runner says "If I can run a 5 minute mile without shoes, so can you!".

It's like, alright Mario congrats but I'm not a professional cook.

It's less like not having shoes and more like not having top of the line custom Nike track shoes, but just a set of New Balance you picked up for $100. If that's your excuse for not exercising, then you'll never exercise. The point is that you don't need a restaurant kitchen to put good food on your table. The quote is from this article, by the way: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/weekinreview/14bittman.ht...

To bring it back to cooking, there are literally TV shows based around professional and solid home cooks struggling to use sub-par equipment. The new Ramsey show is literally this. Cutthroat kitchen is the extreme example.

Heat control is one of the hardest thing for home cooks to get right, and a real flame makes that WAY easier.

> there are literally TV shows based around professional and solid home cooks struggling to use sub-par equipment.

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 the quote you mentioned, i agree with you for the most part. However when it comes to cooking with a wok, another factor may come into play, which would give exception to the quoted “rule”. Some Chinese cuisine require something called “wok hei”, which is essentially cooking under intense heat, something that an induction cooktop could not achieve

https://guide.michelin.com/en/article/dining-out/what-is-wok...

Indeed, though in fairness, neither can a home gas range. Professional chefs will use extremely high powered burners that they control with their knees or thighs to manipulate the temperature. It's amazing to watch if you've ever seen it done. Home equipment will never get hot enough to match that kind of heat, gas or induction.

We upgraded to an induction cooktop from a resistive electric coil one last year and we love it. Pots heat up fast, to the point that we make sure to have everything prepped and ready to go, because we're not going to have time to do one or two last things while waiting on the pan to heat. It's also very responsive - I can have a pan of water on a rolling boil at 80-90% power, then turn it down to 40-50% power and it drops to a simmer instantly. It feels like cooking with magic.

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.

> Sometimes I'm annoyed that I can't use a wok,

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. :(

There are induction woks! [1] And cast iron woks - which should work just fine on an induction top.

[1] https://www.spicekitchenandbar.com/induction-woks/

I have a wide bottom induction wok and it's fine, but you don't get the advantage of having the sides heat up as well. So I find it easier to just use a cast iron or carbon steel pan.

Never had an induction cooktop. Why can't you use a wok? I can see why it wouldn't be as nice as having a flame, but are induction woks really so bad as to be unusable?

You can use a wok, it just isn't quite as good as gas because woks tend to have a smallish flat bottom, and with induction only that bottom part is getting heated. With gas the bottom part gets heated but the flames also heat up the sides of the wok.

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...

That's a fair point. I have a flat bottom wok that I use on my electric stovetop and it definitely has a hard time heating as much as I'd like.

Purpose built induction wok hobs can be very, very good, but there are two potential problems with a regular induction range and a wok:

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.

This induction cooktop has a single large gas burner for the wok, so you get the best of both worlds.

https://www.fisherpaykel.com/nz/cooking/cooktops/minimal-coo...

> my child not leaving it on by accident

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.

An induction stovetop can be left on, but it won't get hot unless there's actually magnetic cookware on top.

If the cooktop doesn’t detect a load (i.e. a pan) on the burner, it automatically turns itself off.

Induction burners aren't hot unless there's a pan on there. And they can use sensors to look for a pan (since it has to be ferrous to work with induction) before even turning on the coils.

Because it does not transfer heat at all, it creates a magnetic field that causes the pan to heat itself, with induction effect. The stove will only turn on its magnetic field when something that is affected by the magnetic field is placed on top.

How can you properly sear a steak without overcooking the middle on a stove that doesn't get very hot?

My induction range gets plenty hot. It boils water faster than any gas range I've ever used, and I have zero issues with temperature.

Sorry, that was in reference to "four crummy electric burners"

In my experience, electric burners are also plenty hot, just slower. I think when he uses the word "crummy", he means, regular, consumer equipment. I learned to cook on an electric range and have used them off and on for years. It's not as nice as a gas or induction cooktop, but it's fine. I've made plenty of good meals on them, steak included.

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.

"and the health benefits"

I'll just drop this here...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22674188/

It's non-ionizing. That article doesn't say anything about health implications, just that certain cooktops may expose you to more non-ionizing radiation than they're supposed to. So do plenty of cell phones. And living adjacent to power lines. And that doesn't do anything either.

[edit] Here's a detailed study. [1]

[1] http://www.inis.si/fileadmin/user_upload/INIS/publikacije/20...

Then why have an exposure limit?

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".

Generally industrial exposure limits are set out of an abundance of caution. You don't prove that it's safe under all conditions and at all exposure levels before you start using it - after all, nothing is. You assume that it may cause harm, and you continue to study. None of the studies you found demonstrated harm. To the best of my knowledge no study exists that demonstrates anything resembling a conclusive link between nonionizing EM radiation and harm (except for of course, acute heating, etc).

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...

"It's safe. It's not really debated, no."

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."

> WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required.

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...

I'm basically tired of debating this, but feel the need to correct another inaccuracy.

"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.

Actual toxic gas (NO2) that is known to cause developmental delays in children, or electo-magnetic fields, which have been shown to do absolutely nothing despite decades of testing, and if you are still concerned, you can just have your child stand a few feet further back from the stove and any excess radiation will drop off to effectively nothing.

Gas stoves decrease air quality throughout the entire house. EMF drops off with the cubic law.

That depends. Indoor levels would vary based on a variety of factors. If you're using a vent hood, it shouldn't be much of an issue.

"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.

As has been linked a number of times in comments, the best hoods drop NO2 levels by 70%. Mediocre hoods, 50%.

50% reduction in known neurological toxic chemical is, IMHO, unacceptable.

Seems like 70% would be fine (article I saw was a small unvented kitchen with about 225 ppb).

"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."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com