Highlights: A study this summer found that using a single gas stove burner on high can raise levels of cancer-causing benzene above what’s been observed from secondhand smoke.

A new investigation by NPR and the Climate Investigations Center found that the gas industry tried to downplay the health risks of gas stoves for decades, turning to many of the same public-relations tactics the tobacco industry used to cover up the risks of smoking. Gas utilities even hired some of the same PR firms and scientists that Big Tobacco did.

Earlier this year, an investigation from DeSmog showed that the industry understood the hazards of gas appliances as far back as the 1970s and concealed what they knew from the public.

It’s a strategy that goes back as far back as 1972, according to the most recent investigation. That year, the gas industry got advice from Richard Darrow, who helped manufacture controversy around the health effects of smoking as the lead for tobacco accounts at the public relations firm Hill + Knowlton. At an American Gas Association conference, Darrow told utilities they needed to respond to claims that gas appliances were polluting homes and shape the narrative around the issue before critics got the chance. Scientists were starting to discover that exposure to nitrogen dioxide—a pollutant emitted by gas stoves—was linked to respiratory illnesses. So Darrow advised utilities to “mount the massive, consistent, long-range public relations programs necessary to cope with the problems.”

These studies didn’t just confuse the public, but also the federal government. When the Environmental Protection Agency assessed the health effects of nitrogen dioxide pollution in 1982, its review included five studies finding no evidence of problems—four of which were funded by the gas industry, the Climate Investigations Center recently uncovered.

Karen Harbert, the American Gas Association’s CEO, acknowledged that the gas industry has “collaborated” with researchers to “inform and educate regulators about the safety of gas cooking appliances.” Harbert claimed that the available science “does not provide sufficient or consistent evidence demonstrating chronic health hazards from natural gas ranges”—a line that should sound familiar by now.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    For discussion, I always use an electric kettle to start water for pasta and similar.

    I also love TC and have seen this video.

    The hobbyist cook angle is qualitative though, if a home cook wants to emulate restaurant style there’s just no comparison.

    • pirat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      For acknowledgement, I always do the same thing with the kettle.

      I also love TC, and have seen this one too!

      And, if that wasn’t enough, I even agree with you on the last part.

      Now, what do we discuss?

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am comfortable arguing about any topic of your choice. I won’t let the possibility of my not being familiar with it reduce our sport.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh. Unless you ACTUALLY get a restaurant grade set up (not just the expensive stuff with Bobby Flay branding), that tend to actually need real range hoods and so forth, you are, at best, cosplaying being a restaurant chef. At the consumer grade, the BTU differences are mostly a matter of branding over technology. And the responsiveness is almost universally beat by induction.

      Don’t get me wrong. I am a sicko with a propane burner in his backyard for when I want to make a night out of my stir fry (or season some cast iron/carbon steel).

      But I’ve had gas burners and electric burners over the decades and have even had the opportunity to cook in restaurant kitchens on occasion (the joys of being friends with people having millennial weddings…).

      • Consumer grade? Electric and gas are more or less interchangeable. I feel fancier when I have a gas burner but I also end up sweating a lot more and don’t want to cook in the summer
      • The usual reason given for why electric is bad is that it is horrible for “wok hei”. Ignoring the hilarity of right wing chuds suddenly caring about east asian cuisne, “wok hei” is mostly a Cantonese thing and generally involves actually igniting some of the cooking oil which should only ever be done outside with a fire extinguisher nearby. What woks DO need is very high heat so as to fry, rather than steam, the ingredients. But… that is resolved by just cooking in batches. That is WHY home chefs should keep a resting (or even mise en place) bowl nearby. Cook a component, swap it out with the next. Or, if you are in bachelor mode, just do it all at once. Just don’t put the entire atomic family meal in the wok at the same time until the very end.
      • Gas in a restaurant is FUN. Although it is mostly about just heating pans ridiculously fast (and being drenched in sweat even in the winter…). Incredibly easy to burn just about anything, but it is also really nice that I can overcrowd the hell out of my pan or wok and barely notice.
      • I do not believe electric will ever be viable for a restaurant kitchen. Well, maybe if they adopt a model of always keeping pans on the burners and adding ingredients as needed but…
      • I think, with a bit of tweaking, induction can be VERY viable and have almost all the same properties as “restaurant gas”. With maybe the exception of giving you an open flame to char something but… I’ve always felt weird about doing that with a gas flame?
      • When I eventually have to replace my electric stove, I am going induction.