Hacker News Reader

Comment by js2 | Hacker News Reader

Top reader comment seems apt w/r/t the pollution aspect anyway:

As a scientist (an immunologist) who leads a research lab on lung inflammation including asthma, the cavalier attitude Times columnists have toward scientific references in their articles is appalling.

RMI is a thinktank with an agenda. Not a research institution. And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD. She has an MBA and has never worked in science. Nor did she 'author a study'. She authored a REPORT. Which is not peer-reviewed and not published in a reputable journal.

As an immunologist I assure you that scientific evidence does not indicate that 'increase of asthma is on par with living in a home with a smoker'.

And frankly- just walking outdoors in NYC you're exposed to far higher levels of lung-irritating pollutants than you are cooking stir fry on your stove. But that doesn't fit the agenda the Times is pushing with multiple induction stove articles lately all focused on bogus health effects and the (more legitimate) climate concerns.

https://nyti.ms/3i1tj3B#permid=117337268

View on HN

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways.

That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent video on gas cooking which exposed some very nasty truths of the gas lobbyists and the negative health effects it has on the population.

Citations are in the description: https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54

Do you know what isn't bad for your health? Good, clean healthy home-cooked food. Which, in millions of homes, is cooked swiftly and efficiently on gas ranges.

Politicians and their media lackeys in the media need to stop trying to micro-manage peoples' lives.

I am a big fan of electrification but an induction range to replace my glasstop is on the order of $3-4,000 (and not in stock anywhere anyway) so I can't blame anyone for sticking with an old reliable gas range.

I was able to get an induction glasstop for $300 on ebay (new), then needed to get it installed of course.

I use $30 single pot induction stove everyday. I cook for 3 people. It’s placed on top of old school electric one with spiral elements since we live in a rental. Sometimes I use both, but it’s my go to.

I spent a year and a bit raging at the electric hob in my rented flat every time I cooked something. Replaced it with dual ring plug in induction hob and it’s better in every way, I’m actually able to cook food in a controlled manner again rather than endlessly pulling pans on and off the hob to compensate for a lack of power control.

In Europe you can get 4 burner stoves for under €250. IKEA sell a portable single burner for €40. Why are they so expensive in the US?

Using 110V instead of 220V means 4x the current , so a high power appliance must be much heavier duty, needs to be installed by an electrician, etc …

The USA uses 220V for appliances like stoves.

Europe often uses 3 phase 220V or 1 phase 380V for heavy loads like stoves.

That's not quite right. In Europe three phase wiring is delivered via a 5 core wire: 3 phases, neutral and earth (ground). You can take any phase wire, and the voltage between that and neutral will be 230V. For higher power devices, the voltage between any two phases will be 400V.

My induction hob can be connected to 1 phase or 3 phase power, there's a dip switch on the back to switch it over. I'd imagine inside it changes the voltage and frequency to something completely different depending on what power level you set the burner to, so the actual supply voltage isn't that important.

In the US, most people are buying a range (freestanding stove+oven), while I understand in Europe people are buying cooktops (stove only)

Yes, I have one of these $50 portable cooktops and it works OK but still takes forever to boil water. The expensive ones are actually as good as gas and I was pricing out the freestanding stove+oven, thanks for backing me up xD

I haven't been in houses in all European countries, but I've seen both. I think a range is cheaper (one appliance, one electrical connection), so you find it in cheaper apartments, cheap rentals etc. It might also be the only reasonable option if the kitchen is small.

A separate oven and hob usually means the oven isn't at knee height, which is much nicer. Decent apartments and houses in Europe have this, but so does my relative's million dollar house in the US.

Our old induction cooker cost us €600 more than a decade ago. It’s our old one only because we moved and the kitchen in our new flat had a gas one and we’d need to rip all apart and rebuild to remove it. But otherwise we used it for 11 years without any issue, so I would call that reliable.

https://www.amazon.in/Pigeon-Stovekraft-Cruise-1800-Watt-Ind...

dunno about the US but in india we use these. converted to US$, its like $18. they last about 2-5 years with good usage and if you are really unlucky with your spillovers and frayed cables, maybe less but other than that these things are reliable as fuck..

why do you have to buy thousands of dollars worth of equipment?

I have one of these and it's good for a portable unit but it takes about 10 minutes to boil water, whereas a high end unit will do it in a fraction of the time. I was also looking at replacing the entire stove, not just a burner, so something like this:

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/bosch-800-series-4-6-cu-ft-self...

you do understand the boiling of water and basically everything done on an induction cooker is dependent on the energy needed? this one is at 1800W 220V so your high end machine might be 3x or 5x that.

I don’t know where you live but we literally just did this yesterday – we picked a modest $1,300 unit, but there were multiple options at most price points in stock at most stores here in the DC area. I don’t know if there are specific features or brands you require but it doesn’t seem like there’s a massive supply issue or one specific to induction hardware.

Both (A) and (B) can simultaneously be true:

(A) "Healthy, home-cooked Food" >> "whatever stove type"

(B) "induction stoves" > "gas stoves"

The entire world, in general, aspires to rapidly move away from hydrocarbons. To me, that consideration alone would justify the inequality in (B) when you can afford the choice. Other considerations are a nice bonus.

We're already seeing this play out with municipal regulations deemphasizing gas stoves in new construction.

This isn’t constructive on two levels:

- people with gas stoves need to know the risks to mitigate them. Like paying attention to ventilation, or really ventilate as soon as they put on the stove. All the more so if they don’t have the means or the right to replace their stoves: they’re probably also more vulnerable to health related fees.

- there has been so much advertisement of gas as “fine” that it needs a lot if counterbalance. People are still buying gas stove for new homes for bullshit reasons.

So essentially you should ignore this article and go find real scientifically researched info on this issue elsewhere. Anyone have any good links?

And sorry, I watched the first 30 seconds of that YouTube video and don't see any reason why I'd trust it any more than the times article.

The host Rollie Williams has a graduate degree in climate change, maybe his style isn't for everyone but he's clearly knowledge and passionate about the subject.

The NY Times has and talks to many people who are as well or more qualified. Look at the sources in their articles - not just graduate degrees, but leading experts with decades of experience.

Well, clearly passionate anyway.

Joking aside, I'm glad he is making these videos in that case. However, I'd say the target audience is teenagers so maybe it's not the best suited for this forum?

> However, I'd say the target audience is teenagers

There's this weird generational gap on HN where HNers seem to think the generation born in 2000 are teenagers. They're not. They're 22 year olds.

Damn, I didn't knew that at 36 years old I was still a teenagers!? I knew North-American loved to class people by age group, but this is becoming silly.

36? How was Elvis on American Bandstand, Boomer?

"The dose makes the poison."

We should not accept any health claims without quantification. "Objectively bad for your health" is not particularly relevant, even if I accept that at face value. For example, in right-hand-drive countries, making left turns is "objectively worse" for your health than making right turns.

Even with quantification, you may still want to do it anyway. If I remember the numbers correctly, eating a bacon sandwich everyday increases your risk of dying from heart disease by 25% - that takes the risk in the UK from 4/10000 to 5/10000. ^ Given the second number, I don’t worry about having the odd bacon sandwich. The exact example is irrelevant, rather everything in life has pros and cons, risks and rewards - you have to choose which one works for you. (I write this as an induction hob convert :) )

^ This is based on a vague memory of a lecture on Risk Communication from Prof David Spiegelhalter around 10 years ago.

> If I remember the numbers correctly, eating a bacon sandwich everyday increases your risk of dying from heart disease by 25% - that takes the risk in the UK from 4/10000 to 5/10000. ^ Given the second number, I don’t worry about having the odd bacon sandwich.

The way to stay alive is to reduce a little here and a little there (unless you work as an amatuer bomb technician). Heart disease is a leading cause of death; a 25% improvement would be great. There's not any real relationship between "a bacon sandwich everyday" and "the odd bacon sandwich"; where does anyone talk about the latter?

> environment and is overall worse than induction

would love to see an induction stove with a usable UI. everything I have used is designed by a person that never had to cook for more than 1. the automatic off during the slightest spill, and the impossibility to operate buttons with wet/greasy hands, has to be one of the biggest design mistakes in the history of engineering.

my idea of a great time is to invite this engineer to cook with me a 4 course dinner for 8, where everything is timing crucial, and I get to scream at them like Gordon Ramsey the minute the stove switches off and they lost momentum with the heat but can't operate the button because "wet fingers".

the problem isn't induction and consumers cooking with gas, but that we have a culture operating on "ownership and exploitation" of the environment.

What kind of induction stove do you have? Mine just has knobs. I push down and turn them clockwise, physically, and it heats up. I push down and turn them counter-clockwise, it lessens the heat, or turns it off.

It's the same as the gas stoves of my childhood; I'm not sure how it could be simpler. It even has the icons indicating which knob is for which burner. Is your stove postmodern?

Most induction stoves have touch based inputs. They're awful. I used to have one of those, now I have one with knobs. Couldn't be happier about the change.

God, this.

I like induction stoves. Easier to clean, and do 90% of what I need doing in a kitchen. Not having to run gas lines is a plus, and for the other 10%, I'm probably working on a grill or using a dedicated burner anyway.

But the UIs are awful.

Stop turning yourself off. Yes, I do intend to cook the thing I put on you for six hours. Just fucking do it.

Give me a knob. Gas stoves use knobs for good reasons. You don't need to invent new UX, just give me a motherfucking knob. A knob without complicated family issues is fine as well.

My stove does not need Bluetooth or WiFi. It's a stove. I expect it to work with minor maintenance for 40+ years. Protocols are going to change a lot between here and there.

I am not installing your app. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Baphomet will call up and tell me he got right with Jesus before I install your app.

There has to be a market for people that want appliances that just... work.

Addendum: there are a few induction stoves with knobs, but they are definitely the exception, rather than the rule:

- https://www.bluestarcooking.com/cooking/cooktops/36-turn-ind...

- https://performwireless.com/7-best-induction-cooktops-with-k... (half of these are not full-size built-ins)

You get them with knobs: https://www.smeg.com/cookers/electric

Spilling have to be a gas thing? I experience it maybe once every three months on a induction oven (what I have at home).

I hated the gas oven when I studied in US, impossible to control the temperature accurately and boilover almost every time. Not even any faster.

Suggesting Smeg to someone concerned with quality undermines your point.

Could not find any of the products I am used to with knobs

> Spilling have to be a gas thing?

If you're not spilling, you're not cooking hard enough. :)

Gas does provide easier temperature regulation, as the change is (a) instantaneous; and (b) infinitely fine-grained compared to the average "levels" of an induction stove.

A good gas burner also puts out a more consistent heat pattern, as opposed to the "ring of burning" that is common to most induction cooktops.

But for most things, induction is good enough, and I appreciate the day-to-day versatility of "just wipe it down".

>There has to be a market for people that want appliances that just... work.

I bet none of the commercial induction cooktops are internet of shit devices.

I'm redoing my kitchen (in the US) with induction and ruled out anything with touch controls. I noticed that particular issue as soon as I stepped into the showroom. Thanks for letting me know about the auto-off problem.

The other problem to watch out for is poor reliability due to gradual "cooking" of the circuit board -- after all, the knobs are not physically connected to the power electronics; they're just a digital input to a controller, same as for the touch controlled units.

The showroom had this Beko range with knobs and no Wifi or "smart" stuff for ~half the starting price of their (so-called) "pro" ranges: https://www.yaleappliance.com/kitchen/cooking-appliances/ran...

I think I'm going with this GE ("Café") double-oven option for my small kitchen, as long as I can confirm the Wifi stuff is strictly optional and isn't in the failure path: https://www.yaleappliance.com/kitchen/cooking-appliances/ran...

Other options with knobs were from Miele, Fischer and Paykel, and (less expensively) LG. I believe Samsung also sells a range with knobs; see the photo in the article.

> would love to see an induction stove with a usable UI.

To me, induction with physical knobs and buttons would be the best. Other than the stupid touch things, induction is just so much better than gas for almost anything.

My Miele induction cooktop is physical buttons/knobs and has no auto offs. Honestly, I was confused by all of the replies with complaints about induction UI's because it's the first induction cooktop I've owned and it's been a joy. I couldn't go back to gas.

Miele doesn't make any with real knobs anymore sadly. All the current models are touch controls only.

Product idea; adhesive patches with physical switch/knob/slider that can be applied over touch interfaces.

If I recall correctly, that's what Ford did with the physical knob on their Lightning EV touchscreen.

And that is so unbelievably stupid! The flat surface for your pans is already infinitely better than on a gas stove. I want knobs and be able to quickly dial the heat up or down on the burners. I do not really care if I still have to clean the knobs now and then. And I want non-discrete settings. And I do not need the device to beep loudly if I change from '5' to '9' every time I press a button

I bought a HR1622 3 months ago and it's knobs for the induction elements. It's touch for the oven, I suppose.

https://www.mieleusa.com/e/30-inch-range-hr-1622-3-i-clean-t...

Yeah, that's a range with cooktop though. There are no standalone Miele cooktops being sold with real knobs.

We felt exactly the same way bugging a new kitchen last year. Salespeople thought we were being obstinate.

Fortunately we found one with knobs. https://www.aeg.co.uk/kitchen/cooking/cookers/electric-cooke...

It does have auto off on spills, but it's not overly sensitive and only triggers if you really let things boil over. Had it 9 months, can highly recommend this cooker.

There is definitely a niche market for these kind of cookers, but induction has for as long as I can remember always been a flat surface.

That leads to touch controls with all the listed drawbacks, but it's nonetheless what has gained the most support.

For most i suspect the aesthetics of one clean flat surface wins out over alternatives, even though these alternatives are more usable for cooking.

For us the “one flat surface” is about cleaning instead of aesthetics. We cook all the time and out range constantly has crap spilled on it. Being able to wipe it down in a quick pass is so nice.

That is another big advantage of induction. It gets much less dirty because it’s so easy to wipe clean each time it is used.

That said, it is not necessarily exclusive, we can have a nice flat surface along with a panel with physical knobs on the side. Even with a minimalist look à la Dieter Rams if needed.

It looks great! Thanks for the tip, I’ll definitely have a closer look when we remodel our kitchen next year.

Fisher and Paykel has knobs as does Verona.

Gaggenau got knobs, pricey though.

https://www.gaggenau.com/global/appliances/cooktops/400-seri...

I've been cooking with induction for a few years. My hardware isn't fancy. I have owned a few countertop units, a format that meets my needs. The model I own now is a robust commercial version, 1800W. Works great with pans up to ~11in diameter (bottom).

UI is typical: buttons to set "heat" and "temp", plus on/off and timer. Good part is than buttons activate mechanical momentary contact switches that have a really solid "clicky" feel.

Overall it's a real pleasure to use, but it has its quirks. The biggest "issue" (not really a gigantic flaw) is the ambiguous controls re: heat and temp. Nominally the heat setting controls wattage, temp supposedly sets limits on temp erature of food. It's just very inconsistent, like setting temp to 160 degrees F doesn't have much to do with actual temperature as measured with a thermometer. But I've gotten used to how it works and very rarely overcook or burn stuff.

In the past I preferred gas, but that's not my first choice now.

> would love to see an induction stove with a usable UI.

I bought an AEG stove last year (similar to [1], but an older model I think). Physical knobs for temperature control, no auto off on spills. Touch interface only for a few convenience features and the extra power mode, which is fine by me. I'm very happy with this stove and like cooking with it just as much as I liked gas when I had it a few years ago.

[1] https://www.aeg.com/kitchen/cooking/cookers/electric-cooker/...

That looks really nice - I might consider that one if I'm switching away from gas later this year

How is it for keeping a constant, low-mid temperature? One of the issues I have with induction is that the heat is applied in bursts rather than as a constant with gas

This means that when frying with some oils, induction will either heat them past their smoke point in the burst or the temperature will be too low in-between bursts

Mine does it in bursts I think (it's fairly obvious when cooking rice, as the water bubbles up periodically), but I've never had a problem with that. I can say that I don't have smoke problems with olive oil, which I believe is one that shouldn't be used with high temperatures.

That said, I'm probably an ok cook at best and I don't eat meat so I can't really say how it would work with that. However, I found that at least the gas range I used when I lived in the UK, wasn't really great for low temperatures either, as the flame tended to not self-sustain properly on low settings.

The killer feature for me personally was actually the steambake thing, as I bake bread weekly. It's not quite as good as directly spraying water into the oven, but still works really well. Obviously independent of the induction top though.

Thank you for the comprehensive answer!

Olive oil has indeed been one of the problematic ones for me - to be fair, it might simply come down to my inexperience cooking with induction

I think I will get some additional cast iron cookware when I make the switch. Hopefully it'll be able to retain the heat better between bursts and make the average temperature more stable :-)

I appreciate that you took the time to answer my question. Hope you have a pleasant day

cast iron is seriously under-rated. they're a tiny bit harder to clean, but they're nonstick without giving you cancer, and you can get them really hot without damaging them.

This is correct. Plus they last for generations ... try that with a coated nonstick pan.

Also, and this might just be me, but they are fun to use because they require a bit of skill to use. This is like how it can be more fun to drive a standard car than an automatic-shift one.

This, then, is a limitation of your induction unit. Mine has two modes: Heating, and Temperature. In temperature mode, the cycling you describe occurs. For this reason I almost never use temperature mode. In heating mode, I get the most consistent rice ever (for me, I'm not a cook, just someone who likes rice). Making pancakes in a cast-iron pan, I find myself occasionally switching between 3 and 3.5 on the heating settings -- these are arbitrary numbers assigned by the manufacturer -- to keep the cast iron at the desired heat. It's trivial. I suppose I should try the temperature setting for this -- unlike making rice in a sauce pan, the cast iron probably would probably compensate for the intermittent heating of temperature mode.

My unit is just single-hob portable induction cooker from Duxtop: 15 heat settings -- think of it like continuous power settings -- and I think? about 10 (cycling) temperature settings.

I'm quite optimistic that a high-end unit such as the one used in the Asian restaurant mentioned in the article would hold constant temps without the annoying recycling -- and believe me, I find the on/off business just as annoying as you find it.

I look forward to a time when I have the room for a full-sized induction cooktop. I think that with a decent induction disk (I think I'll just buy a 3/32" disc of mild steel and avoid the laminated units sold commercially, or even just repurpose a crepe pan) I'll be able to do things like Spanish eggs, where just a portion of the pan must be kept heated.

One thing I've found is that egg pans (small saute pans) with just the right slope for flipping eggs are not easy to find in induction-compatible pans. But I did find one pretty close to perfect, and an induction disc will take allow reuse of my favorite non-induction egg pan.

I'm really sold on induction. It's not best for everything, but I can live with its shortcomings while enjoying its advantages.

My Zanussi induction has physical knobs.

I haven't actually seen a stove in the stores that are touch only.

The portable ones are often touch-only.

Guess: touch panels are cheaper, more reliable and more compact than physical knobs.

People are not replacing gas stoves with portable induction, surely.

FWIW the portable ones are great when you live in cheap apartments with shitty stoves. One of the few good investments I made in college...

I have a portable induction for the vehicle, if I am camping in an emergancy it works great to boil water extremely fast.

Though, as a student, if I lived in an apartment with a gas hob I don't know if I would have bought a portable induction unit to replace it.

How did you power it from the vehicle? Not from the 12V outlet, right? Don't those stoves draw hundreds of watts?

Your link doesn't work for me; I get redirected to a "Choose your Country" page, perhaps because I'm in the USA. (FYI...)

I replaced ".de" with ".com" hoping it would then work internationally/display the information in English, but yeah it seems AEG doesn't have a US presence. That's a shame.

It doesn't really matter much as I mainly linked it as an example, but I experimented a bit with the countries and the specific model isn't on the UK site either (they have other ones with knobs there though). If you want to see the one I linked you can choose "Germany" in the "Choose your Country" page and click "Hausgeräte" (top left) followed by "Standherde" and "Standherde" again (what a weird navigation). In the filters select "Kochfeldart > Induktion". It was the first result left.

Also got an AEG induction hob last year.

Mine has all touch controls but I love it. I think it might be my favourite appliance in the new kitchen.

A big slab of black glass with nothing to trap dirt on.

We had to replace a few old aluminium pans with nice Samuel Groves carbon steel ones but I think it was well worth it.

I haven’t had many boil overs or any switch offs.

It has more than enough power when needed. 230v 40amp dedicated supply and RCD I think but it could be 50amp, can't remember.

I would not go back to gas.

I’m not sure I’d want a plug-in 13amp unit though. Seems a bit weedy compared to a real hob.

I use a plug-in 13A unit. It's great for most kinds of cooking - the only time I prefer the performance of my actual stove (a coils-under-glass electric unit) is when I'm boiling water or want a gradual warm-up to low temp. For everything else (searing, stir-fry, deep-fry, steaming), the plug-in induction hob provides better control IMO

The fan and high-pitched pan noise is not my favorite though.

I just got a modest Frigidaire. I would prefer knobs but the buttons are normal covered plastic which work fine with wet hands.

Induction cookers must have been designed by the same person who designed the door opening and closing mechanism on Virgin train toilets.

For those who haven't experienced that particular abomination, they had sliding quadrant doors and separate buttons for locking and unlocking the doors as opening and closing the door. Originally the colour of the lights around the buttons was the only clue to the state of the lock (I think these have been redesigned). This resulted in the unintended comedy of someone sat down to do the toilet as the next person came along, pressed the door open button and slowly unveiled the person doing their business to the whole carriage of people. Inevitably resulting in a mashing of buttons from both sides trying to get the door to close again.

I would rather want to see what reputable scientists have to say than some random youtubers and activists.

Reputable scientists from the Lancet published hoaxes not too long ago. You cant trust anyone.

Here’s the difference: bad publications happen but when they’re discovered that leads to retractions and other professional consequences. For example, Andrew Wakefield did get a bad paper into The Lancet but it was retracted and he’s now a former doctor.

You can't trust anyone completely, not even one's Mom. But you can trust some people a lot more than others. If I have cancer, I trust my doctor a lot more than random people on Youtube.

You should be well aware then that doctors are educated by sales reps from companies who have been caught time and time again in spreading false information to doctors. Good luck.

Oh. And more than half of published studies that are used to approve drugs cant be replicated. Oops ?

I know those things! And it doesn't disagree with my GP statement:

> doctors are educated by sales reps ...

That statement goes to the heart of it: "doctors" aren't educated by sales reps, different doctors are and to different degrees. You can trust different doctors to different degrees, and there is a very wide range - some are highly trustworthy, some the opposite. And you never know for sure and all you can do is observe and apply your best judgment. That's true for everyone, including Moms.

One thing I can observe is that doctors obtain MDs, and I've rarely encountered doctors who didn't have deep expertise in medicine, and I know some about how much study is done at medical schools. I can't be absolutely sure, but that's a strong signal that they know far more than I do.

Saying 'you can't trust anyone' is as serious and reasonable as saying 'you can trust everyone'. The world just isn't that simple, but finding who to trust is almost the most important skill.

> is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways.

The way you would know this to be true is when professional kitchens are defaulting to induction instead of gas. (I think this has started to happen in a few high end places, which is exciting)

I am putting in a new kitchen soon and it will have a gas hob + electric oven because I love cooking and gas is my default. Every electric hob I have ever used has been garbage, and I am not dropping 2 grand to try induction and maybe discover what sound like familiar issues (ha, I am turning myself off now).

Gas always just works. Apply steady heat - perfect cooking experience. Maybe next time.

> The way you would know this to be true is when professional kitchens are defaulting to induction instead of gas.

That is not how you would know that. There are plenty of industries where people stick to the "tried and true" (for various reasons, some of which might even be reasonable) and chose to neglect efficiency gains or long term health of either their employees or customers.

I think I was unclear.

    If A then B true

was my meaning, not

    If and only If A then B true

Hence highlighting that we have seen some of this already!

Side note. The high end ones move first as they discover something better. See the proliferation of technological machines in modern professional kitchens. But the trend gets set and the upper mid range starts to follow and then it will be what chefs want to use because it is best.

Hard to think of an industry where people use legacy technology instead of tearing it all out and replacing it with the newest thing.

Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense. I do 90% of all my cooking on a single induction plate I paid ~$60 for. Non-induction electric hobs are trash, and induction is much closer to gas, but more controllable, less messy, and less dangerous. That said, I would strongly recommend against a builtin induction hob. They're expensive as fuck, and eat lots of counter space. The standalone induction plates are amazing, much nicer to work with, and cheaper, and you can put them away when you need the extra space. Restaurant supply shops have standalone induction plates for ~3x the cost of the consumer ones which are phenomenally good, that's what the higher end new kitchens are going for.

> They're expensive as fuck, and eat lots of counter space.

I am comfortable with the latter at least, as my default would be a 5 ring gas hob! I cannot imagine cooking with fewer than 3 rings. (Say, duck breast, mash, veg is a pretty basic meal)

> Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense.

That is actually a good shout, and not something I had considered. Am currently "camping" kitchen'd in the utility room with a microwave and a 2 ring camping gas stove. Will have a gander, Thanks :)

> I cannot imagine cooking with fewer than 3 rings.

You're allowed to own more than one standalone induction plate. And you're also allowed to position them freely over your work area :)

You're not always allowed to put them into electric sockets and turn them on all at once, though. There's usually special electric wiring done to handle the load of electric stoves.

In the US, at least, the standard is to have outlets every 4' (I think), and have the outlets alternate circuits. So, you plug into two adjacent outlets (not the same two in the same box, but adjacent boxes) and you'll be on different circuits.

> and have the outlets alternate circuits.

That's the first time I've heard of that. Is that for kitchens only, or for all rooms?

I think it is for kitchens, and it is relatively new. My 25 year old refinished kitchen has the outlets, but not the separate circuits. No nespresso + toast.

There is a lot of very old housing in EU.

> Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health,

there is no such thing as "objectively bad". Risk is always measured in relative amounts vs something else.

What a dumb thing to say. Your comment was objectively bad.

Gas is the worst for air quality, in particular with certain types of cooking and the self cleaning cycle some have.

But people with electric cooking devices can still have high pollutant levels without proper ventilation.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/residential-cooki...

I have had asthma since I was a toddler. I see a top-rated immunologist 3 times a year. Not once have they ever asked what kind of stove I have. When I asked about it recently, they laughed about it.

So out of curiosity, did you grow up in a home with a gas stove?

In my experience induction is wildly worse than gas for the cooking experience in just about every way. I'm very surprised to see the opposite suggested.

It's slower, less flexible, makes some styles of sauce making impossible, and probably worst of all - invisible.

Has there been some quantum leap in induction cooking I haven't experienced?

> It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted)

They actually said,

“For children who live in a home with a gas stove, the increased risk of asthma is on par with living in a home with a smoker,” she said.

Eh. Gas is not “objectively bad” unless you want to also say cars are “objectively bad”. How many people die every year from from short or long term effects of gas stoves? Compare that to cars.

Every kitchen I’ve ever been in with a gas stove has some sort of ventilation. Open window, fan, hood, etc.

Same for the environment. Let’s look at older style electric coil resistant heat elements. Largely inefficient and the power generated how?

This is mostly propaganda. The

Citation needed please for the health effects being bogus. NOx emissions from gas stoves seem to be consistently reported as quite high indeed. For example:

https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/publication/methane-and-nox-...

Pretty easily mitigated with a vent hood which all these tests don't have running.

All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting. Maybe good ones make a difference but how many people actually have good ones? And how many people actually use them every time the stove is on?

>All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting

A consumer organisation here studied "rangehoods" and (if memory serves) they found them all to close to useless.

consumer.org.nz - the reports are paywalled and I no longer subscribe, so mēh!

interesting... i wonder if it's because of the height constrained by aesthetic inputs.. i'm pretty sure if you stuck the vent like 50cm above the stove it surely can be a bit more than useless...

I think it's really just because there are no objective and enforced standards for it. I used to have a kitchen with a pretty high ceiling and a fume extractor mounted way up high, so high it was controlled by an IR remote, and it worked great while making little sound. Currently I have one of those integrated with a microwave oven that makes a lot of noise, blocks my view of half the range, and doesn't work at all. Plus even if it did work, it would vent right into my eyes, not to the outdoors.

My vent is about 5 feet above the stove. We had to build a little soffit to get it just within code regulations. It has a huge blower that is located in a small attic space about 20 feet away. 100% recommend! You can’t hear it at all and you can watch all the vapor and smoke from the stove waft right up and away into the unit.

The remote eats a pair of CR2450 cells every three months, so that could have been done better.

Which model vent is it?

That sounds like horrible usability; it's going to be in the way all the time, especially if you're a tad tall. I bet that's the far more important reason than aesthetics. I already don't like the regular ones because I need to be careful not to bump my head in to it.

Boil some water and watch where the steam goes. Because it's pulling air from around the pot along with it, including the hot waste gasses that heated the pot in the first place.

Even on the highest settings, I've never seen one that even makes a dent, or moves the column at all. They're snake oil and fashion, nothing more. And that's before talking about the ones that don't have any ductwork, and just blow it back out into the room.

Commercial-grade ones that move ridiculous quantities of air definitely work, and a tiny tiny handful of people have these in their homes. The rest have essentially nothing.

If you put a paper towel right under the fan you’ll see the paper towel get sucked into the fan.

Right under the fan. Yes, they are useless.

Hm, that's not my experience: I used all three options (no hood [student dorm], circulation hood [currently in our house], outside duct hood [parents; last flat]). There is a huge difference between each. Having no hood is obviously not nice, since water vapor and fat end up everywhere. The circulation hood at least reduces the amount of fat. Not sure if by 20 or 80%, but there is a significant difference between turning it on or not. Especially the amount of fatty haze when making hamburgers is reduced a lot. Now for water vapor it does not help so well. It's okay for one pot of water (boiled eggs or pasta with pesto), but when doing some heavy cooking still a lot of water ends up condensing on the windows. With an outside duct (about 2m of duct work) water vapor becomes a non-issue and the amount of fat haze is reduced much better than with the circulation unit.

Also this isn't biased by "I don't cook". Quite the contrary :)

I've heard the grease thing quite a few times, especially with hamburgers, but... tbh it hasn't ever happened to me. And my past two apartments haven't had a range hood at all (just a microwave with a fan we never use).

Is it saturated fats or something? Burgers are definitely a rarity for me, but I cook plenty. It's just generally lean meat and veg/oil/etc.

Regardless of where the steam goes -- if the hood is not vented, it'll just spill the air back out in to the kitchen. The cabinets above our non-vented kitchen hood are always covered in grease from the cooking. I doubt a simple filter will make that air much healthier to breathe in.

FWIW every single rental I've occupied had never had the screen on the hood cleaned/replaced. They get clogged with grease and stop working, it's an oft neglected maintenance item.

Every rental I've lived in has not had ventilation.

It has had a range hood with a fan... and zero ductwork. The fan pulls up from under the hood, and blows it straight into my face, out the top of the hood.

There are extractors that work without a vent, they filter and release on the same space. I am not saying that was your case, or even if it was, the filters were properly maintained, just saying that those hoods exists. Searching for Recirculating Range Hoods would give more info about those

While they have filters (which I've never known people to replace, but that's not necessarily the hood's fault) and I believe they do something with what passes through them... they unambiguously miss the vast majority of the fumes. Even if you cook with the back burners, a massive amount of heat and steam will flow right around every hood I've run across.

I find it utterly implausible that these filters have any substantial effect on NOx. There are specialized filters consisting of large beds of modified carbon that will remove NO2. Regular activated carbon AFAICT does not, and these recirculating stove filters do not have massive filters.

I would believe they remove particulates and odors, and that’s about it.

> Pretty easily mitigated with a vent hood which all these tests don't have running.

Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment.

Older buildings don't have a hood at all, and new buildings have hoods which circulate air within the apartment, which doesn't really address concerns about accumulation of environmental pollutants.

>Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment.

Thanks. If this bit of context was clear from the get go it would have been a lot easier for those from EUR where we would expect vents outside the apartment to be the norm. ( Not speaking for all EUR, so there may be places this is not the norm )

As a matter of fact this is the first time I hear about vent circulating within the apartment, and to be honest this sounds quite scary.

They're supposed to be used with a charcoal filter as well as the usual metal filter. They're mostly to trap odors, doubt they do much for air quality.

Recirculating filters are commonplace in Germany, as well. Unfortunately.

Many people in the US don't even realize their stove vent is just a filter. They look almost identical to outward venting hoods. Which means the filter medium is never replaced after it fills up with oils either.

> If this bit of context was clear from the get go it would have been a lot easier for those from EUR where we would expect vents outside the apartment to be the norm. ( Not speaking for all EUR, so there may be places this is not the norm )

It is the norm in newer buildings, but there are plenty of older houses or flats blocks in the EU that don’t have a good ventilation system. It’s similarly expensive same in the UK and I cannot say about Norway and Switzerland, but I would think that it is not better in the other non-EU bits of Europe.

Sadly recirculating vents are the new norm because of energy conservation rules.

I've seen that noted on PSA posts on social media for immigrants - that you should make extra sure that vents lead to outside and not into cupboards when renting a room, because it's rather common where people don't do more than boiling water but hard to realize without prior knowledge.

A study found that range hoods don’t actually provide a significant reduction in NO2, but air filters helped.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4909253/

Am ex-home inspector. Almost everyone has a recirculating vent IME

https://youtu.be/rSIqKGsF2ZA

This is the problem with most homes that have vent hoods. I’ve yet to be in a home that has a make up air fan.

I live in a rental right now that doesn’t even have a vent. I just open the door and a window and hope that’s sufficient. (But it really isn’t)

I could see vent hoods helping, but I don't assume they mitigate the risk. They may not capture the gas sufficiently, quickly enough, etc. Maybe vent hoods in homes are not generally effective.

Also doesn't take into account greenhouse gas/global warming affects on human and global health. (this assumes using more green energy in future to power induction electricity).

Natural gas for cooking is a negligible contributor to climate change. 2.8% of natural gas in the US is used for cooking. On a per-BTU basis (which isn't fair because natural gas has fewer carbons), the natural gas/oil split of US consumption is around 40/60. You're looking at around 1% of CO2 emissions in the US coming from natural gas used directly for cooking.

The thing is "I absolutely must have gas installed in my house for cooking" turns into "well let's buy the gas water heater, and the gas central heating, and the gas dryer" and all of a sudden you're using was more piped-in gas for for non-cooking things than you are for cooking, but "cooking with gas" was the hydrocarbon foot in the door at your house.

Otherwise you might opt for an electric tankless water heater, a heat pump HVAC system, and just an electric dryer.

Yes!

I've read that the gas industry uses the cooking specifically in advertising and lobying to keep this toehold for the even bigger emissions. [1]

And 2-3% isn't nothing either. Such an easy win. we desperately need to rack up easy points yesterday...

Relatively as in compared to say utility scale production/storage or hell even replacing home heating like you mention.

I wish we could replace our 110 year old giant cast iron steam heater thing. Would have to either replace all the radiators with electric board things (i hate them) or find an electric boiler (which would have to plasma cut apart the old boiler to get it out lol).

Heat pumps sound cool too but all those options have upfront costs which some of my hoa neighbors can't afford. We couldn't get a loan for other repairs we did with longer term than 3 years.

[1] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/06/how-the-foss...

I feel like we live in the same building with an ancient boiler and HOA neighbors who are extremely cost sensitive!

I do wonder if there's a reasonable heat pump retrofit for old buildings with boiler-based heating. Ultimately you're just heating up a liquid and pumping it through everyone's radiator, right? Seems like a sensible product given the number of old buildings with this kind of heating.

Edit: And here it is! https://electrek.co/2022/01/05/these-new-affordable-electric...

Ha are you in denver? A ton of people in cities are in the same boat.

I wanted to get an electric car. But not only do my neighbors not want to split cost of a charger station but also I'd have to pay over 10k to upgrade/fix the electricity - or so I was told.

It seems like it could be even simpler than a heat exchange that I think puts pipes into the ground?

Like it's just creating steam. Can't we just scale up an electric tea kettle? Seems like it would be pretty efficient.

You seem to think electricity is not produced by fossil fuels. In most countries the majority is made with gas and coal.

doesn't matter. gas pipes leak, and shall appliances aren't efficient, so even if the grid was 100% fossil fuel (which it's not), it still would be more efficient to use electric in the home.

> it still would be more efficient to use electric in the home.

Efficiency wise you may be wrong. Carrying electricity is not efficient (you lose energy with distance) while gas (as long as leaks are limited) is a more efficient store of energy from start to end.

the entire grid has loses of roughly 7%. it also takes energy to pump gas around, and leaks aren't all that limited.

In most countries is changing rapidly as renewables ramp up and it’s not uncommon to hear about major countries having entirely renewable days.

The important part to remember is that natural gas infrastructure is always polluting, and tends to leak a fair amount of fuel which is never even used (around me, there are estimated that this is as high as a third of the total usage). That’s all locked in when you use gas, whereas an electric stove can be powered by a mix of sources which change hourly without the owner even having to know about it.

The other thing to consider is that a professionally-managed and monitored power plant is usually better than equipment as maintained by the average person. Lots of people don’t even get their gas appliances checked once a year on average, and you’ll pretty regularly hear about leaks or fires caused by poor maintenance at apartment buildings where you’d think they’d be at least a little more responsible.

Reducing climate impact from energy production requires both reducing it at the point of production and at the point of consumption. By switching to electric energy at the point of consumption, you reduce demand for gas, etc. The production can then be switched to something zero-impact.

> The production can then be switched to something zero-impact.

There's no such thing as zero-impact. Wind farms have an environmental impact. Building solar-sensitive cells require dirty processes that also create pollution and waste as they don't last forever.

On the west coast there are frequently power outages from downed trees. Gas doesn't go out if you have a tank, so anyone even a little bit rural uses gas if they can.

Hmmm. I grew up in rural Northern California and we had propane that would be trucked in. Is that what you mean by having a tank? I don't live there any more, but my old neighbors tend to be buying backup generators now so they can keep their fridge and internet running when PG&E cuts off power so their distribution lines don't start fires. (This cuts into a whole other issue about people who want to live in the forest asking for extreme subsidies on all the costly electric infrastructure it takes to serve their low density lifestyle.)

Electricity is overall more plugable, versatile and evolvable than appliances that directly consume hydrocarbons. You can meet your source needs using some combination of grid connection, solar, backup generator, backup batteries, etc... - and you can evolve this source side of things over time without being forced to constantly retrofit the load-side systems in your house.

Yes, propane tanks filled by truck is common anywhere it doesn't make sense to run a pipe and the usage is more than makes sense for a hand-carried bottle.

Where i live in the Midwest everyone has gas installed for the furnace and then the builder asks if they want a gas or electric stove. If you ask you can get a heat pump instead of just air conditioning, but it is extra cost and you still need gas heat for the really cold days we get every winter.

> You're looking at around 1% of CO2 emissions in the US coming from natural gas used directly for cooking.

Often, a necessary part of solutions are 1% here and 1% there. There's not always big, satisfying chunks, or they aren't sufficient.

The article is just as bad on the climate aspect.

It asserts that cooking with gas "has been shown to be catastrophic for the environment." What's the basis for this assertion? They link to another NYT article that cites a study that says, "annual methane emissions from all gas stoves in U.S. homes have a climate impact comparable to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of 500,000 cars." [1]

That might sound like a lot until you realize there are 280 million cars in the U.S. In other words, the total impact of all gas stoves in U.S. homes is equal to 0.18% that of cars.

[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

Yes, induction cooking is in par with a typical open fire in terms of electric efficiency.

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

This article is conflating all kinds of things. It says traditional cooking "outperforms" modern but is using a metric that essentially nobody cares about (thermal efficiency). It's just motivated reasoning to argue against electricity.

> The main discrepancy with these figures is caused when one doesn't take into account that electricity first needs to be produced in power plants which sometimes convert less than a third of the primary energy into electricity

That is, induction stoves are about 90% efficient at converting electricity to useful heat, but your electricity generation may not be depending on where you live. It's the same argument people make against electric cars and heat pumps.

As the grid decarbonises, electric cooking will become far more favourable than combustion cooking in terms of CO2 until eventually, hopefully, it is entirely zero emission.

Indeed the article doesn't seem to focus on what could have been its strongest argument: wood/biomass already IS carbon neutral, provided it's sustainably farmed. That does, however, exclude the fossil fuels used in production and distribution which may be significant or zero depending on source, but are usually quite low, albeit human resource intensive. If you want to go one layer deep you should aggregate up the carbon output of all the labour going into the production system but I digress.

Thermal efficiency only matters if you consider the carbon intensity of the source of the energy.

Besides, the major problem with combustion cooking is the particulates anyway, which are immensely better on an electric stove. And the article seems to consider convenience as an irrelevance rather than the primary motivating factor of essentially all technological development.

Until the grid decarbonizes, this is what is actually happening. Maybe in the future we will all have houses capable of producing 2kW energy for cooking.

An efficient rocket stove outperforms induction if you take account externalities, which is the right thing to do if you are environmentally minded.

Unless the electricity comes from renewables...

And you get somehow 2kW power from that renewable source. Good luck with that. Figures are grid averages, so it reflect the current reality.

not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD.

The lack of a PhD doesn't make someone "not a scientist". Science is what one does, not what one is.

I have a doctorate from Oxford, but I'm less of a scientist now than I was as an undergraduate student.

> Science is what one does, not what one is.

yes but someone who has a MBA is definitely NOT a scientist but a salesman.

Wouldn’t it make sense to ask them for citations than use their last/latest educational qualifications?

Isn’t it possible, a sales person is aware of something better than someone having an educational degree over it, esp when selling?

After years of lurking I created an account just to reply to this. While in the context of this article I agree with you - this author clearly has an agenda - the general MBA hate on HN amuses me so I thought I would share my anecdote. Also, Melissa Clark, the author, has a BA and an MFA. Maybe we need to hate on artists doing science?

People’s lives take them down many paths. I am a “scientist” insofar as I have done science - and am an author on two publications in a respected journal (Annals of Botany). The research from my MS in Biology continues to get cited in evolutionary biology and population genetics studies years later. I also have an MBA and am a senior sales leader in a cybersecurity scale up (at some point years ago I decided I wanted to make more money than academia could provide and I made a major pivot). I’m still equally comfortable discussing herkogamy and phenotypic integration as I am GTM strategy and compensation models.

> the general MBA hate on HN amuses me

MBA graduates are by far used in companies in the Marketing and Sales departments, so interpreting my comment about them being salesmen as "hate on MBAs" is quite funny, because that's precisely how the hiring market sees them.

Sure, there are scientists who happen to also have MBAs. That's a huge exception, so you won't win points by finding someone who happens to have that profile. MBAs should typically not be trusted to talk about Science because:

- unless they happen to have a multiple education background, they have NEVER been exposed to serious science and the scientific method. Blame it on the fact that Science outside of higher studies is badly taught if you'd like.

- their education is mostly about how to understand the market and optimize how to exploit it through market research, targeting, and marketing.

The second point makes them suspicious from the get go on any topic they touch publicly. Are they acting as naive actors trying to debate or advance one's understand of the subject, or acting as MBAs trying to push a specific agenda for other reasons?

Lots of assumptions here. I’m not prepared with data on where MBAs end up but far more of my classmates went into finance than went into sales or marketing. Second place is consulting. Sales (not marketing) is a profession where your base income is typically a fraction of your total comp and additional income only comes from results. Many can’t stand that instability / unpredictability. Contrast that with finance which is perceived as “guaranteed money” if you have the quantitative skills, and does not require one to possess a range of non-technical skills / attributes like charisma, public speaking, empathy, relationship building, etc. My MBA program - and most I’m aware of - do not have a class or curricula on sales, specifically. Baylor is fairly renown for being one of few dedicated sales programs. MBA is a broad, not deep degree. Marketing and strategy are significant parts of the curriculum, but no more so than finance, accounting, economics, and HR. The MBA did not teach me how to negotiate contracts with F500 corporate counsel, or how to navigate the complex, varying procurement models across the enterprise space, or how to get a meeting with a CIO who has never heard of me or my company. I see MBAs among sales leadership but it’s definitely the minority among individual reps (even the ones earning seven figures). I would venture to say your view on MBAs is a bit misinformed. I have much criticism and ire to levy against the MBAs of the world, but I would focus it toward those who are financializing every sector of the economy to the point that Verizon doesn’t want to sell me a $500 phone without a credit check and payment plan.

Another quick note: you would probably be surprised by how scientific marketing is. In one point you claim they’ve (MBAs) never been exposed to the scientific method (I would dispute) and then in your second you claim they’re researching and optimizing, which is quite true. How do you think they do that? My marketing team is consistently collecting and measuring data to test effectiveness of campaigns (hypotheses). I’m definitely not defending this article with that point - and it doesn’t make any of them experts on any particular fields within science other than data science. But they’re very much using the scientific method so I found your point to be ironic. Marketing departments now employ data scientists with PhDs and MBAs (my sister is one). So you can dislike their work product but hard to say it isn’t scientific.

On what scientific or factual analysis do you base those claims about MBAs?

> the general MBA hate on HN amuses

Like other communities, sadly, HN is egocentric, thinking what they do is important and that everything else - humanities, social sciences, arts, management, government, etc. - is a waste. The world should be run by hackers, of course. I would guess MBA News is similar.

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from searing food itself… especially since natural gas has odors added to it to ensure we smell it.

Absolutely. My high heat cooking produces a good deal of particulate emissions and always sets off the kitchen air filter, but it's all from the food in the pan. It has nothing to do with the burner technology.

I know this because it doesn't happen when I'm boiling.

If you’re boiling you have worse problems than particular emissions

Sorry, couldn’t resist

The odour you smell is unburnt gas (to make gas leaks less dangerous). Burning gas produces carbon monoxide (among other things), which has no odour.

You made me look it up. Methane has no smell, so they add an odorant. Usually these contain sulfur, so there will be some amount of sulfur dioxide in the combustion products. Sulfur levels as limited to 70ppb, and are typically around 7ppb. This compares to a natural atmospheric level of sulfur dioxide at 1ppb. So unless you are breathing something like 10% combustion product the contribution is negligible.

The rest of the odor molecule is hyrdrogen, carbon, and oxygen, so likely goes to water and carbon dioxide or monoxide.

The problem with this thinking is you're referring to a constant factor; you'd be cooking the same foods either way, searing all the same.

These effects are cumulative, it's not some threshold you cross where the other negatives are no longer relevant because you do something far worse.

It's like people who rationalize eating a pint of ice cream before bed because they had mcdonalds and a beer for lunch already. The appropriate action would be to skip dinner and dessert altogether, but they're doing the opposite due to such wrongheaded thinking.

You should really be thinking "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"

I think your analogy is missing the scale. In this case, I think it's likely that the equivalent scale would be worrying about eating a tic tac, when lunchtime is beer and burgers.

> "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"

How about not cooking animal products, i save more emmissions that way than spending $2k on an appliance that will be obsolete or irreparable in 5~6 years.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/personal-incredulity.html

As with ad-hominem, this isn't actually a fallacy - it's just declared as such by people who don't understand Bayesian reasoning. Using informed judgement helps us separate fact from fiction.

Just curious, if we are discussing cooking, safety, health and the environment, why did the author not discuss Teflon™ pans and how "unsafe" and damaging this is not only to health but also the environment?

If you want to make certain forms of energy "illegal" because of some "lung-irritating pollutants", I mean why not start with the unsustainability and cancer risks of these poly type chemicals, no? Especially ones coming in direct contact with your food, and your water supply (a.k.a Dish Washing?)? Never mind the actual environmental damage of manufacturing chemicals like these?

> If you want to make certain forms of energy "illegal" because of some "lung-irritating pollutants", I mean why not start with the unsustainability and cancer risks of these poly type chemicals, no?

This is a fallacy. Regulations can be improved even without being perfect and your pet peeve not being addressed in a specific discussion does not make the discussion useless. Gas is harmful, as well as some antiadhesive coatings. Saying we should not do anything about either because the other would still be bad is not particularly smart. It is also the contorted logic that lobby groups use when they know they are on the wrong side of a public health issue.

This is a fallacy. All materials and compounds are harmful, in certain degrees. Along with gas, anti-adhesive coatings and potentially maybe even some of those glass ceramic compounds those induction cookers use (especially at high heat)? It's a slippery slope.

I didn't say we shouldn't do anything about either, but banning natural gases that are found in nature because of "lung-irritating pollutants" is not particularly smart. I'm not in any lobby groups. I care about freedom and energy independence. Some NYT article pushing an agenda of "all electric" and climate change is contorted logic.

Put all of your trust in some on-grid electric power utility company where in some cases are not stable(cough cough PG&E), all the while power grids are huge targets for foreign "attacks", and even a solar EMP (Nuclear bomb? Solar flare?) could render all electronics useless. All the while, you make cooking with natural gas illegal? I suppose at that point, we could rub sticks together and cook by a wood fire (since the dawn of Man)? Or that is illegal now too?

Uh...Yea, no thanks.

So they are lying, again? ( Edit: Apparently not, refers to the context here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30658022 )

What are normal people suppose to do without expertise on any subject.

Not against induction cooking but It is very common for these type of reporting that for induction cooking to succeed they must get rid of every single gas stove. And make gas stove cooking as evil. Start a movement, conjure a trend, make hype.

Induction cooking has been around a very long time, competing with gas.

What has changed?

I am getting one when I get a new stove, but then again I do not have reticulated gas here.

My mother had one and it was great

For the others about to Google this: "Reticulated gas is LPG distributed by a network of pipes. These pipes are connected to a storage vessel away from the customers site and multiple customers are serviced from one storage vessel."

> So they are lying, again? What are normal people suppose to do without expertise on any subject.

This is unfortunately just how the world is. Epistemology is hard, and there are a ton of people out there who make it harder (Three guesses as to whether the author of this article, or any other crappy prestige-publication journalist, thinks they're lying).

It's a scary and confusing world! At some level you just have to internalize that, build the most accurate model that's worth the overhead, and accept that you'll be wrong a lot.

Off-topic, but another area where it seems hard to get good answers is what cooking oil is actually best. E.g., palm oil / coconut oil gets hyped lately, but is it really healthy (in a meaningful way)? Is it gentle on the environment (very likely not).

The industries (merchants of doubt) are so active, it's absolutely nontrivial for a well meaning layman not wanting to invest oddles of time to get to good conclusions.

Just use olive oil for everything except deep frying. It really is the best, and what is used by high end restaurants almost exclusively.

The smoking point is not a problem, the nasty stuff start appearing as couple dozen degrees _above_ the smoking point, so you can use that as an early warning system.

It also contains antioxidants, which bind some of the nasty stuff for a while, so it really is better for you for regular cooking.

> The smoking point is not a problem

Could not disagree more. Olive oil will be spewing smoke and changing flavour well before you get to a sensible temperature for shallow or stir frying. It is very tasty and apparently quite good for you, so it's a great choice for low-temperature cooking, but anywhere smoking point is important, olive oil is not what you're looking for.

That's a different point though: the fact that it tastes different does not mean it is harmful to consume (which is the point I was trying to make).

The article gets weird a few paragraphs in: people like cooking with gas because it's primal and sensual? Really? Is that the best you can come up with, in an NYT article?

I like cooking with gas because when my power goes out I can use a match to boil water when the boil water orders go into effect because mains keep bursting.

Also I can make smores when I don't feel like getting a fire going.

I do have an induction plug in hot plate and for actually cooking its really quite good. It boils water faster than all but my 21k btu burner on just 110v, dumps no heat into the room, cools down when I lower the temp as fast as gas, and did I mention it dumps no heat into the room?

As far as air quality taking anything above boiling temperatures inside is super bad for your lungs no matter how you do it. The NO isn't nearly as bad as the particulates created by searing or frying.

When I put a log burner in my house I choose one with a flat top for this reason. I get your point.

But many things that cause electricity to go out (floods, earthquakes... Russian invasion) will put out the gas too

I’m 41. I’ve had countless power outages in my life. 0 gas outages.

I know it does happen but because the lines are buried it’s at least 2 orders of magnitude less likely.

> will put out the gas too

Gas is obviously far more resilient, though not immune to more extreme problems. I’ve literally never experienced a gas outage, yet power outages are routine almost everywhere I’ve lived.

I don't have mains gas. My gas hob uses propane.

>many things that cause electricity to go out ... will put out the gas too

IME, this is objectively false. I've lived in the Northeast my entire life (40+ years). We have on average 2-3 power failures lasting more than a few seconds per year. I have never in my life experienced a natural gas system failure. The pumps that pressurize the gas are themselves powered by gas, and the delivery is not in any way dependent on the power grid; also, as someone else stated, gas lines are buried well underground.

> when my power goes out I can use a match to boil water

A generator is a small investment to fix this and many other problems, without causing indoor air pollution.

Maybe we have a different opinion on what small is but to run a stove, you will need a whole house generator and the starting point is about $10k and most folks will end up spending twice that.

I have a gas line to my grill outside. Induction inside.

> people like cooking with gas because it's primal and sensual? Really?

Yes, really. I personally love the aesthetics of flames on the stove, and this might lead me to choose a gas stove over the alternatives despite minor downsides like being slower to bring water to a boil. On the other hand, the air quality issue seems like a much more significant downside, though I haven’t researched it much. (I haven’t personally ever had the opportunity to choose the type of stove for a place I’ll be living, so it hasn’t come up. Someday.)

Gas is also universally considered better to cook with than electric (not induction) which is presumably why every restaurant kitchen uses it. My guess is ‘sensuality’ is not even in the top five considerations when equipping a kitchen.

When my wife and I were choosing rentals, the only thing I refused to compromise was a gas stove. At least in my case, it's entirely a sensual thing. There's a real joy in lighting the fire, feeling its warmth, making the flame larger and smaller with the knob, and the way it heats up the pan.

I know a lot of older Greeks/Italians are the same way with their gas ovens. There's just something magical about it that turns your time in the kitchen from a chore into something you look forward to.

Sensuals doing some work here though - that flame is sensual, but also gives immediate feedback over temperature/spread. You can lift your pan up and down to control heat over a gradient that radiates above over a larger distance. That lifting and moving of the pan alongside adjusting the flame and seeing it change immediately combines to give you a lot of control. So sensual, yes. A lot more intuitive and powerful, too.

Metal slats are also nicer to hit your a pan against than flat glass for a variety of useful/sensual reasons.

By what measure? Induction wins hands down for control, responsiveness, efficiency, and heat output: https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54

Doing a super low temp simmer on gas is hard. Double boilers are only something you need with gas. Induction imho and experience is just better all around. What the video for someone putting it far more eloquently then I ever could.

Try stir-frying with a wok, lift the pan to shake it without losing all heat or not having to be gentle when setting it back down because it's metal-on-metal not metal-on-glass.

Or how about my 11" cast iron; the induction only heats the middle 7". Half the pan is useless.

> Try stir-frying with a wok, lift the pan to shake it without losing all heat

In a home context its irrelevant. You're not doing true wok cooking at home anyway, your piddly little small bore home gas feed won't be providing anywhere near the required intensity.

They have zoneless induction cooktops.

They're like $5000.

The side burner of a $150 grill does a fine job, but can't find a wider-diameter induction.

For the majority of tasks for the majority of people in NA induction is better. Wok cooking is the only one that it makes tricky (not impossible) and your not doing proper wok cooking on basically any NA home gas cooktops anyway. for that you should be using a proper commercial propane burner. If your not doing that the correct pan (one that will hold and spread the heat) and cooktop will be pretty close to gas, unless you want to bash when putting it down I guess.

As for your cast iron maybe use the correctly sized induction element then? It’s cast iron and it doesn’t spread heat well, that’s how it works. You would have the same issue on a resistive element.

Those propane burners are wicked. I still can remember the sounds of when they are turned on and off (Chinese hole in the wall restaurants usually have the kitchen right next to dining).

They make induction cooktops for woks (they are basically slightly bowl shaped), I’m not sure how popular they are in Asia, however.

My cheap gas stove heats my cast iron just fine. Induction seems to have standardized on ~7" and anything more is thousands of dollars.

IKEA sells one with a 10” for 850 Canadian.

Compared to $50-150 for a single-burner unit, that's quite a bit. Plus I like the portability, though I'm probably only using the cast iron under the vent hood.

Ikea has the 36" in stock in the US for 950USD, but the 30" would be tolerable at 800 or 700USD if they were available.

You do realise heat transfer works completely differently in each case ? Therefore you cannot possibly replicate what they do. They are not equivalent and yes there are things you can do better in induction but the opposite is also true.

It is true that you can’t blister peppers on induction and you can’t get wok he, but you already basically can’t get that on an indoor stovetop. The actual proposed benefits of gas are so marginal that they do not affect a home cook.

There are few things gas is better at the induction, and for most of them there are workarounds. I would argue that the default for hikes and people just shouldn’t be gas. Induction is safer, cleaner, easier to clean, and more precise.

As I said watch the video it says it better then I

Note that I explicitly said gas is universally superior to electric, not induction. I understand that induction has some advantages over gas. That being said it looks like induction is still much more expensive than gas for a comparable quality range.

> is universally considered...

No.

There are definitely a few more benefits than aesthetics. Comparing to electric stoves rather than induction (which are in the same price range) a few benefits I’ve noticed are:

1. Instant heat off/heat on response. In electric stoves the cook top still remains fairly hot and cooking can happen from residual heat after you turn off the heat. Same issue with turning the heat on. While the gas stove has minimum hearing from the thermal mass after you turn it off

2. Psudeo-grilling ability

3. Cost for gas vs. electricity. In an ideal world the heat output per $ would be exactly the same but there are subsidies, pricing structures, different supporting infrastructure etc.

As the article implies, at the current price point, gas stoves are competing with electric stoves rather than induction stoves. And there are definitely a few benefits.

I like gas ranges because i hate having to “fix the tool”. A gas appliance is almost ethernal because is simple, just a valve. No circuit boards, no microcontrollers, no sensors, no firmware updates. Turn the knob->cook.

> But that doesn't fit the agenda the Times is pushing with multiple induction stove articles lately

the NYT has always been agenda driven. even for the iraq war they were spreading the WMD bullshit to lead the US into war.

This whole comment is simply an appeal to authority fallacy. Could be right or wrong, but it does not support any of their claims with hard data which makes it suspect or low quality.

"I have a PhD and I know better" is not a compelling argument.

So, just to be clear, you've copied in a comment from a random anonymous source, highly voted by other random anonymous people. You're not actually an immunologist that posts on HN (which would probably raise people's likelihood of trusting the comment), the message is actually from a random newspaper commenter, who thinks that bad air in NY when you go outside is a good argument for not increasing air quality inside? And that the NY Times has an agenda to promote induction stoves?

It's weird that they use their immunologist credentials to specifically attack it being worse than second hand smoke (which doesn't seem particularly controversial) as it seems very commonly accepted that it's bad, which you'd think an immunologist would know. Like if you look up any asthma charity for advice on your child's asthma, they're going to have this in the list of avoidable triggers. Why such venom because a reporter has (though probably hasn't) mildly exaggerated a real threat?

https://www.thoracic.org/patients/patient-resources/resource...

> Anything that burns inside the house will create smoke that can damage your lungs. There are many things you can do to help protect you and your family’s health from air pollution inside your home:

> Use the cleanest burning fuel you can find and afford. Electricity is the cleanest and does not create any household air pollution

Thank you!

I'd previously seen reports on the studies about gas stoves being harmful even when off, and wondered about the credibility.

I guess stoves have electric pilots these days, but many installed gas stoves/cooktops have a constantly burning pilot light.

...that goes out

> many installed gas stoves/cooktops have a constantly burning pilot light.

Not for many decades surely. I'm 66 and I haven't used a gas stove that had a pilot light for at least forty years, all have had piezo-electric or mains electric ignition. But then again, I live in Norway now and formerly England not the US.

In the US, that's forbidden in residential, so I doubt you'll find many in people's homes. They are common in commercial.

> And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD.

Why do you think you need a PhD to be a scientist? Many famous scientists, even some distinguished professors, don’t have a PhD. A PhD isn’t even the only type of doctorate!

> Many famous scientists, even some distinguished professors, don’t have a PhD

Examples? I'm really not aware of anyone, so I'm curious.

Are you in tech? Then an obvious example is Simon Peyton Jones. Full professor, Fellow of the Royal Society, ACM Fellow, Senior Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research. No doctoral degree of any kind. Really think he can't claim to be a scientist?

Scientist yes, in the same way that anyone who follows the scientific method can be a scientist.

Professor however, no, except as a honorary title.

I know exactly zero tenured professors who do not have a PhD.

I wonder who would push anti gas ideas and why. /s

My dilemma as I catch more and more propaganda: should we support it as it is our side or should we try to expose it as it is not true?

Journalism in general seems to be in trouble and people take real problems and add embellishment.

I'd still rather not breathe any harmful agents at all though, when better tech exists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com