If you look carefully for the portable induction burners that are rated for ~1.3 kW, they are excellent. You can get them for about $100 and they would replace about half your cooktop usage. Much better for low temperature work and boiling type work.
We have one and it’s great for low-and-slow unattended cooking. We don’t use it for regular/daily cooking because we just don’t have the space to give it, but agreed that it would work technically for a lot of our cooking if it took up space where the cooktop is or if our kitchen was bigger/had more countertop space.
Electric (non-induction) is awful. Slow to heat up. Impossible to rapidly cool either for cooking or to make the stovetop safe to touch/sit things on after cooking. Constantly worrying about "is the burner still hot, will I/a guest accidentally touch it".
Induction can be nice, but I now have to pay careful attention to any cooking vessel I buy until the end of time and ensure that it's compatible. I also would need to run a new 220V outlet along an exterior wall to my kitchen, expand my breaker box (which has been full for a while and is approaching full of half-height breakers), and so on. Not worth it to me.
Gas is simple and reliable. It's instant on, instant off, and works in a power outage so long as I have matches around. I turn on my exhaust fan when I'm using it and have air filters in my house to catch other particulates. I just replaced my gas stove this year - with another gas stove.
The ones on a induction cooktop are pretty close-coupled and we’re surrounded by other EMF fields (natural and artificial); among the unknown unknown hazards in life, I suspect this one’s pretty low.
Possibly. This seems to state they typically exceed recommended exposure levels. Although I don't know what those levels were set using (what the consequences would be). So probably falls into the category of "everything has some risk or consequence, and it's a trade-off"
Growing up we had these excellent solid ceramic or metal (still not sure what the material was) burners on the stove. Definitely electric and far better than the coils or glass top burners. Never outside my childhood home have I seen them.
Induction and gas are both good, I would prefer having both ideally, and one of those damn jet engine wok burners too.
Disagree. The coils on an induction take way longer to heat up than gas, I've gone through that frustration. How can you beat instant fire? The top of it was always scratched which ruined the kitchen aesthetic.
Also, our gas range saved us during the Texas freeze. Used my lighter to get the gas going and we were able to cook and stay warm for a bit, keeping the window open so we wouldn't die. If I'm out camping, sure, pairs well with my portable solar panels and goal zero.
Are you sure that's induction? I think time from hob off to to boiling water on induction is much faster (roughly half) gas. Starts heating pan immediately?
Halogen and resistance hobs are less responsive though.
Am I sure? No, haha. Maybe I don't understand stove terminology. I thought induction were the metal coils that turn red. Maybe induction is different than a regular electric?
>The coils on an induction take way longer to heat up than gas
I think you might be confused about what induction is, might be worth a revisit to know the difference between induction vs a traditional electric cooktop.
Every benchmark I've seen, things like boiling a quart of water show induction faster then electric faster than gas for comparable ranges.
You sure about the pans? Generally if a magnet sticks to your pan you are good. You don't need new pans marketed as "induction ready", you just need ones that a magnet can stick to, i.e. not completely aluminum.
Iron = ok, copper bottom = ok, any of the copper/AL/steel type sandwiches is ok. I've got a collection of pans from both sides of the family, years in college, and years since buying from various places. I've yet to find a pan/pon that does't work well.
Also keep in mind that induction creates inside the pot/pan, fire has to start working on the outside and let it conduct through.
Accurate and immediate change in cooking temperature is important for many dishes and styles. With Induction, everything is gradual and this cannot be avoided. Might as well be microwaving some dishes. Gas stove wins.
Ambient heat takes longer to dissipate from heated induction stoves which suffer from heat transfer to parts of the appliance, which is mitigated by a fan to a degree. Gas stove wins slightly.
There is a claim that induction stoves and cooktops heat faster than electric and gas counterparts. This is true if you have the correct pan and it's the vast majority of dishes that don't mind the equalized cooking surface. Induction wins slightly.
Gas stove pilot light can go out. Pretty dangerous.
Induction is more expensive and requires new cookware, pushing that further.
The "difficulty" to clean is a matter of learning. Go to home depot and get your glass scraper and cleaning solution, your Induction will be easier than your Gas...although you'll likely clean your Induction more often because of visibility.
Induction is electric. If power goes out, you have no stove. I'm not sure who's worried about cooking in a blackout, but that could be a thing in a cabin, I guess.
I think it largely depends on how good a cook you need to be. If you are looking for finer control, Gas all the way. If you are looking for safety and speed, Induction.
The opposite. It's pretty much the same as gas. Even your article states so:
"Induction stoves and cooktops offer precise temperature control. Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down, and it's difficult to hit a precise temperature with gas ranges. But with induction, you're afforded super precise temperature control which allows for more controlled cooking. When you turn the burner off, heat transfer stops immediately, so there's less of a chance of foods boiling over or overcooking."
>Induction is more expensive and requires new cookware, pushing that further.
I'm not sure if this is true, as far as new cookware. I guess it depends on who you are. I've never had cookware that was incompatible w/ induction.
It's almost like you intentionally misunderstood the point. You can select multiple comparisons and come away with different impressions because of such weasel statements as "It's pretty much the same as gas."
It's a subjective statement that cannot equate to some absolute "superior" claim.
> Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down,
An example of the "Gradual" archetype, I mentioned. This is beneficial in some cases and undesired in others.
> But with induction, you're afforded super precise temperature control which allows for more controlled cooking.
Precise temperature control is not the same as "controlled cooking". It's just one quality. The ability to spike/flash heat or spot heat a dish are examples of different forms of control as well.
> When you turn the burner off, heat transfer stops immediately, so there's less of a chance of foods boiling over or overcooking."
In some dishes this is preferred. It is a rare occurrence that you want to overcook (to then take it off and let it cook down as it cools).
Again, many of the points raised by bother sides seem to come down to required competence and skill for meals, rather than some absolute measure of utility.
Induction stoves do not offer that much of a precise temp control at all…
They all use PWM at a fixed stepped setting depending on the stove and most importantly they are far more dependent on the cookware.
Induction on 5 out of 10 can produce very different results when using different cookware for example steel vs cast iron not to mention the crappier induction ready aluminum cookware with a steel plate you get these days from various brands.
Gas has far more precision since it’s an analogue control from 0 to max and it outputs the same amount of BTU on the same setting.
>Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down
They aren't talking about induction cooktops...they are talking about traditional electric cooktops that use resistance. Induction cooktops are not gradual at all.
> Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down, and it's difficult to hit a precise temperature with gas ranges. But with induction
You need to understand this article is separating into three different categories.
Electric (Resistance), Induction, and Gas. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.
I completely disagree. I've had all 3 and gas is far superior to the other two. Yes, induction is better than electric coils but it pales in comparison to gas.
Get a HEPA filter instead. Lots of cooking methods (especially involving high temperatures with fats) produce terrible air quality by themselves that you can only mitigate with either a prodigious vent fan or lots of HEPA filtration.
I know this from measuring it in my own kitchen, air quality would spike to worse than the worst city globally for hours without filtration or minutes with.
> Get a HEPA filter instead. Lots of cooking methods (especially involving high temperatures with fats) produce terrible air quality by themselves that you can only mitigate with either a prodigious vent fan or lots of HEPA filtration.
> I know this from measuring it in my own kitchen, air quality would spike to worse than the worst city globally for hours without filtration or minutes with.
HEPA filters don't help with NO2 levels. Air filters on the market that advertise activated charcoal are full of it, you need pounds of activated charcoal to make a huge difference, not the tiny little sheet that most filters use.
FWIW I have 2 HEPA filters running, they don't help with spicy food either.
Someone on HN once mentioned a real charcoal filter they had bought that had several pounds in it, but sadly I lost the comment and I don't remember the product they recommended.
That comes with an order of magnitude higher price to boot and whether these improvements are worth it is going to be subjective. For you, you must like your stove, but for me, the improvements are so slight. It takes me a few mins with a wet paper towel to wipe off grease from the stove after using it, I don't think induction would be that much faster since it would only mean I save the 5 seconds it takes to remove the grates over the burners presumably, since I still have to wipe up anyhow. I never felt like gas was too slow to heat either; the kitchen is full of opportunities for parallelizing tasks while one thing is heating anyway. To me these things just aren't worth the cost to buy a new stove and get rid of my old one that does the job today.
As someone who loved gas, I have to say, induction cook tops are just as good if not better. You can boil a giant pot of water on an induction top in like 30 seconds flat, if you want. Heat starts and stops instantly. Works great with cast iron and stainless pans.
> Does that factor in the better food you get to eat for a lifetime?
How do gas stoves make better food than electric? Certainly there's a difference in the experience of cooking, but once you are accustomed to that, I think equally good food can be made in either. Even if food cooked on an electric cooktop was somewhat lower quality (however "better" is measured) I fail to see how that would have a significant impact on life expectancy.
>My best guess is that if you use a gas stove for your entire life instead of an electric stove and change nothing else, that shortens your life expectancy by around 53 days on average
How much is "use"? I "use" my stove maybe once a month now and never for more than 10 minutes (usually to boil pasta). Also, as a side note, I hate gas stoves and would love for them to be banned. The stress I feel when the gas doesn't immediately ignite is dumb.
> The stress I feel when the gas doesn't immediately ignite is dumb.
This is not normal. Remove the burner caps and heads, clean all the way round them, and ensure they are reseated correctly. This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG6JcvW_cYg demonstrates how to do it.
Yes, that stress you feel is dumb. So your dumb stress means gas stoves should be banned? How about you just use whatever type of stove you want and leave everyone else alone.
> I hate gas stoves and would love for them to be banned
I'm curious. I understand you don't like cooking with gas stoves, but why do you think they should be banned? Many significantly prefer them and the impact that others using gas stoves has on your well-being is unclear.
I'm guessing from reading the article that it's not applicable, but does this affect gas barbecues as well? I'm guessing not since they are outdoors. Gas barbecues are pretty common in my neck of the woods, although gas stoves are not.
I wonder how many days of your life you save by having the water boil sooner (life is 53 days shorter, but you spent X days less waiting for things to boil).
Induction stoves heat water far faster than gas stoves do.
My gas stove is so slow to heat water (even with its largest burner) that I have a separate electric kettle I use to heat up a liter of water and then I put that into a pot on the stove, useful when I want to steam something.
The trick in the videos is to use a narrow vessel. I suspect that if they used a bigger pot or, say, a kettle it would not be as impressive. In the second video it's a gas stove from Thermador (you can tell by the star-shaped burner) witch is usually 5K watt burners in the front. I don't know what induction stove they have but seeing that they have multiple "burners" that come together to 10-11K watt max, I'd say it's 3K watt tops. The gas stove is losing way more than 50% heat to be almost twice slower, which is not a surprise since the pot is smaller than the burner.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I know that induction can be faster than gas on energy output alone, but it's just so hard to find how their coils are designed thus what the heating pattern look like when you put a pan on it...
One test I've heard for finding heating patterns is to sprinkle a small layer of flour on the bottom of a pan and then watch it carefully to see where it browns.
Is this assuming you run it ventilated or ventilated? This makes a big difference. Most gas stove users probably don't bother turning on their vent hood, some vent hoods aren't even connected to the outside by contractors who install them.
Depends. Newer houses are built almost air tight, you have to either open a window or have a makeup air system installed to pump air into the house while the vent fan is running. Unless you do that, the poor fan is working very hard trying to basically create a vacuum in your house.
Everyone just needs HEPA filtration in their home. It shouldn’t be “do this because it’s good and not that because it’s bad” but knowing about, measuring, and mitigating fine particles in your life.
Switching away from gas is one mitigation, but it doesn’t handle everything.
The title is a bold statement considering how much ventilation varies. Yes, I'm aware he references this, but it's flip: "Yes, if you have a colossal jet-powered A+ grade hood with a fan that vents outside. With an average range hood, maybe not." or put differently - I don't know and don't have data either way.
Climate change is real. We MUST eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. But once again, the more I dug into this article, the more it feels like the desire for outcomes guiding how the data is presented. And the problem with that is it provides fuel for climate deniers and anyone else opposed to the outcome the researcher is hoping for. They're discrediting themselves, their peers and furthering the harm they're trying to mitigate.
A few additional thoughts: I recently and grudgingly switched to electric, and I actually like the cheap-ass electric stove I'm using. It boils water faster than gas, but it's not as precise, and I'll take the speed over precision. Also, range hoods vary wildly from non-existent, to the side or back hood which is useless to an overhead hood which is spectacular, as evidenced by zero smoke when searing foods.
I never got why people care about boiling water so fast. It comes up too when people talk about induction stoves. I mean, you are cooking, not waiting and watching for the water to boil. You are probably working on sauce for your pasta while the water is waiting to boil anyhow, or could find a hundred other tasks just in the kitchen alone to occupy yourself while this entirely parallel process continues in the background. I don't care that water takes 4 minutes or 14 minutes to boil, I'm spending the same 30 seconds hands on time with the pot of water in either case.
But like how useful is that even? That's what I take issue with. All this cost for a pan to heat up 2 mins faster. So many products in this world exist to simply to add a crumb of convenience and imo something like a pan heating up slightly faster is one of them. It's like, did we need to spend this engineering effort (which is a finite skilled resource) making something 5% more convenient? Did I really need to spend all that money on 5%? On something that I already don't think much of at all? That I didn't even consider a problem until a tech blog or whatever wrote an article about it? Capitalism is truly a bizarre system.
If you take the time to sit on your hands its on you, but I can find no shortage of tasks at home, I could literally be doing chores constantly and still have things to do. I would go off and do stuff like wipe out the sink or take out the compost if I really had no prep work in front of me but something on the stove.
I recently did a deep dive into buying a range hood that would improve air quality in my house.
I discovered the following things:
1. The highest end range hood sold in stores, is not that good at cleaning out air borne pollutants.
2. Nearly every range hood on the market is designed for style over usefulness. You need a large open cavity to capture particles before they are expelled, the larger the empty area in the hood, the better. Modern hoods are flat and stylish.
3. Odds are you need a makeup air system that forces replacement air into the house at the same rate it is being expelled. Without this, your range hood is basically trying to "vacuum" the air out of your house. (This doesn't apply to older poorly insulated leaky houses)
4. Range hoods need to extend over the sides and front of the cook top by a large amount. Some range hoods don't even extend out over the entire front of the cook top!
5. For noise levels, ideally you want an exterior mounted fan. The 2 high end kitchen stores I went to both worked hard to talk me out of even thinking of an exterior fan.
Doing all of these things, or even just the top 4, requires a custom system that is a fair bit of money. The $200 home depot special doesn't cut it. Even the $2000 ultra-deluxe system from dedicated kitchen store won't help improve indoor air quality that much.
Doing it properly actually costs less than the highest end pre-build vent hoods you can buy, which is likely why even the nicest stores try to talk you out of a custom build.
53 days over a lifetime and the only controlled for the basic demographic and location stuff (and I thank them for doing that, many people with an axe to grind don't even bother)?
That sounds so small it could be confounded by just about any spurious correlation.
121 comments
[ 9.5 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadInduction can be nice, but I now have to pay careful attention to any cooking vessel I buy until the end of time and ensure that it's compatible. I also would need to run a new 220V outlet along an exterior wall to my kitchen, expand my breaker box (which has been full for a while and is approaching full of half-height breakers), and so on. Not worth it to me.
Gas is simple and reliable. It's instant on, instant off, and works in a power outage so long as I have matches around. I turn on my exhaust fan when I'm using it and have air filters in my house to catch other particulates. I just replaced my gas stove this year - with another gas stove.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22674188/
I think it's a bit of a mixed bag. But surely we can agree electric coils and ifra tops are both terrible?
Induction and gas are both good, I would prefer having both ideally, and one of those damn jet engine wok burners too.
Also, our gas range saved us during the Texas freeze. Used my lighter to get the gas going and we were able to cook and stay warm for a bit, keeping the window open so we wouldn't die. If I'm out camping, sure, pairs well with my portable solar panels and goal zero.
Halogen and resistance hobs are less responsive though.
I think you might be confused about what induction is, might be worth a revisit to know the difference between induction vs a traditional electric cooktop.
You sure about the pans? Generally if a magnet sticks to your pan you are good. You don't need new pans marketed as "induction ready", you just need ones that a magnet can stick to, i.e. not completely aluminum.
Iron = ok, copper bottom = ok, any of the copper/AL/steel type sandwiches is ok. I've got a collection of pans from both sides of the family, years in college, and years since buying from various places. I've yet to find a pan/pon that does't work well.
Also keep in mind that induction creates inside the pot/pan, fire has to start working on the outside and let it conduct through.
Obviously. Talking about this is like looking at these articles, which often contradict each other:
https://www.thekitchenguy.net/best-induction-cookware-review...
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/appliances/a28435170/induct...
From my experience:
Accurate and immediate change in cooking temperature is important for many dishes and styles. With Induction, everything is gradual and this cannot be avoided. Might as well be microwaving some dishes. Gas stove wins.
Ambient heat takes longer to dissipate from heated induction stoves which suffer from heat transfer to parts of the appliance, which is mitigated by a fan to a degree. Gas stove wins slightly.
There is a claim that induction stoves and cooktops heat faster than electric and gas counterparts. This is true if you have the correct pan and it's the vast majority of dishes that don't mind the equalized cooking surface. Induction wins slightly.
Gas stove pilot light can go out. Pretty dangerous.
Induction is more expensive and requires new cookware, pushing that further.
The "difficulty" to clean is a matter of learning. Go to home depot and get your glass scraper and cleaning solution, your Induction will be easier than your Gas...although you'll likely clean your Induction more often because of visibility.
Induction is electric. If power goes out, you have no stove. I'm not sure who's worried about cooking in a blackout, but that could be a thing in a cabin, I guess.
I think it largely depends on how good a cook you need to be. If you are looking for finer control, Gas all the way. If you are looking for safety and speed, Induction.
The opposite. It's pretty much the same as gas. Even your article states so: "Induction stoves and cooktops offer precise temperature control. Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down, and it's difficult to hit a precise temperature with gas ranges. But with induction, you're afforded super precise temperature control which allows for more controlled cooking. When you turn the burner off, heat transfer stops immediately, so there's less of a chance of foods boiling over or overcooking."
>Induction is more expensive and requires new cookware, pushing that further.
I'm not sure if this is true, as far as new cookware. I guess it depends on who you are. I've never had cookware that was incompatible w/ induction.
It's almost like you intentionally misunderstood the point. You can select multiple comparisons and come away with different impressions because of such weasel statements as "It's pretty much the same as gas."
It's a subjective statement that cannot equate to some absolute "superior" claim.
> Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down,
An example of the "Gradual" archetype, I mentioned. This is beneficial in some cases and undesired in others.
> But with induction, you're afforded super precise temperature control which allows for more controlled cooking.
Precise temperature control is not the same as "controlled cooking". It's just one quality. The ability to spike/flash heat or spot heat a dish are examples of different forms of control as well.
> When you turn the burner off, heat transfer stops immediately, so there's less of a chance of foods boiling over or overcooking."
In some dishes this is preferred. It is a rare occurrence that you want to overcook (to then take it off and let it cook down as it cools).
Again, many of the points raised by bother sides seem to come down to required competence and skill for meals, rather than some absolute measure of utility.
They all use PWM at a fixed stepped setting depending on the stove and most importantly they are far more dependent on the cookware.
Induction on 5 out of 10 can produce very different results when using different cookware for example steel vs cast iron not to mention the crappier induction ready aluminum cookware with a steel plate you get these days from various brands.
Gas has far more precision since it’s an analogue control from 0 to max and it outputs the same amount of BTU on the same setting.
They aren't talking about induction cooktops...they are talking about traditional electric cooktops that use resistance. Induction cooktops are not gradual at all.
> Electric cooktops take a lot of time to heat up and cool down, and it's difficult to hit a precise temperature with gas ranges. But with induction
You need to understand this article is separating into three different categories. Electric (Resistance), Induction, and Gas. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.
If induction were actually far superior, they would have switched by now. They haven't.
What issues due you have with induction? Everything I have seen says they heat up pots faster than gas.
I know this from measuring it in my own kitchen, air quality would spike to worse than the worst city globally for hours without filtration or minutes with.
> I know this from measuring it in my own kitchen, air quality would spike to worse than the worst city globally for hours without filtration or minutes with.
HEPA filters don't help with NO2 levels. Air filters on the market that advertise activated charcoal are full of it, you need pounds of activated charcoal to make a huge difference, not the tiny little sheet that most filters use.
FWIW I have 2 HEPA filters running, they don't help with spicy food either.
Someone on HN once mentioned a real charcoal filter they had bought that had several pounds in it, but sadly I lost the comment and I don't remember the product they recommended.
I imagine there are better ones around with knobs or similar.
Resistance cooktops are garbage, though.
And curiously, simply using a venting hood is mocked by the OP with no actual evidence. Possibly, it mitigates the issue entirely.
How do gas stoves make better food than electric? Certainly there's a difference in the experience of cooking, but once you are accustomed to that, I think equally good food can be made in either. Even if food cooked on an electric cooktop was somewhat lower quality (however "better" is measured) I fail to see how that would have a significant impact on life expectancy.
How much is "use"? I "use" my stove maybe once a month now and never for more than 10 minutes (usually to boil pasta). Also, as a side note, I hate gas stoves and would love for them to be banned. The stress I feel when the gas doesn't immediately ignite is dumb.
This is not normal. Remove the burner caps and heads, clean all the way round them, and ensure they are reseated correctly. This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG6JcvW_cYg demonstrates how to do it.
I'm curious. I understand you don't like cooking with gas stoves, but why do you think they should be banned? Many significantly prefer them and the impact that others using gas stoves has on your well-being is unclear.
My gas stove is so slow to heat water (even with its largest burner) that I have a separate electric kettle I use to heat up a liter of water and then I put that into a pot on the stove, useful when I want to steam something.
Can you share what induction stove you're using that's so great?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjRcEwLGtV8 - Gas VS Induction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe_711l42e4 - Gas VS Induction
Tl;dr over 50% of heat from a gas stove ends up in the environment. Nearly 100% of the energy from an induction cook top ends up in the pot.
You can get woks with wider bases for induction cooktops. I haven't tried one, but I think it could fix the issue.
https://www.tefal.co.nz/c/Daily-Cook-Stainless-Steel-Non-sti...
1. For a round wok, you'd need an 'adapter' to hold the wok. 2. for a flat bottom wok, you might not get enough surface area on the induction element.
https://www.fisherpaykel.com/nz/cooking/cooktops/minimal-coo...
This is interesting. How does your induction cooktop prevent someone from leaving it on? Does it automatically turn itself off after a while? My electric cooktop can be set to do that so just trying to understand the advantage of induction ones here.
[1] https://www.spicekitchenandbar.com/induction-woks/
I'll just drop this here...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22674188/
[edit] Here's a detailed study. [1]
[1] http://www.inis.si/fileadmin/user_upload/INIS/publikacije/20...
There are a variety of studies showing higher levels could have adverse effects, particularly on children. The examples you chose for cell phones and power lines also show mixed results. Non-ionizing radiation also has some known health effects depending on the power and frequency (ask any ham about high power VHF and eyeballs).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9503290/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15933351/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32216233/
The overall risks of EMF is still debated and requires more investigation, but it's not appropriate to say that it "doesn't do anything".
Your first study, power lines and childhood leukemia. No study has ever shown that living near power lines leads to an increased risk of leukemia due to EM radiation, ever. Here's a pooled analysis combining individual-level data (29,049 cases and 68,231 controls) from 11 record-based studies. [1] Conclusion: in this first comprehensive pooled analysis of childhood leukaemia and distance to power lines, we found a small and imprecise risk for residences < 50 m of 200 + kV lines that was not explained by high magnetic fields. It is far more likely IMO to be associated with the chemicals used nearby.
The same is true of wi-fi. And cell phones. [2] The same is true of other cancers near power lines.
And that makes sense because it's non-ionizing EM. All non-ionizing EM radiation can do to your body is warm you up. Once it's acutely warming you up, you have much bigger problems.
The reason you can't say it doesn't do anything is because it's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative, which is what you're asking. However, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the affirmative.
It's safe. It's not really debated, no. [3] And of course, more studies are always welcome due to just how widespread these fields are.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297541/
[3] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...
If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc.
"that was not explained by high magnetic fields."
Which does not rule out specific frequency, fluctuations in field exposure, etc.
Your number 3 link acknowledges that some studies have found increased risks. "of which few studies have reported evidence of increased risk"
WHO considers EMF to be a possible carcinogen and says that more studies are required.
https://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/radiation.pdf
"All non-ionizing EM radiation can do to your body is warm you up."
No, it can at least affect intracellular calcium.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcmm.12088
"The reason you can't say it doesn't do anything is because it's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative"
Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population. The studies have done this and show a correlation between higher risk and powerlines. They just haven't shown causation or the underlying mechanism, including the chemicals you mention (traffic exposure). "This association was not explained by exposure to high MF levels or by other measured confounders."
That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link.
The category that it's in (Group 2B) also contains coffee and pickled vegetables. But nobody's out there screaming about their potential to cause cancer - because they're safe too. [1]
Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic", a higher classification than "possibly") includes any and all hot beverages consumed over 65C.
ELF inclusion in group 2b was based on those leukemia studies you pointed to which, as my metastudy illustrated, do not actually conclude a carcinogenicity risk. However, due to the way risk management works, it will never be removed from category 2b because it cannot unequivocally be proven safe.
> If there wasn't still debate then there wouldn't still be studies questioning it. There are tons of studies that say something to the effect of non-thermal effects being debated/possible/etc.
Sure, and studies continue to be done on aspartame even though it's the single most studied compound in the history of the world. That doesn't mean there's not consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity.
All the studies you dug up are "10th dentist" studies - you know, the ones who hate Oral B.
And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo? At what level? How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about? Is there any demonstrated harm there either? Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else?
Again, you're asking to disprove a negative for which there is no evidence.
> Not really. If you properly control all the variables, you can measure the differences. This may not be feasible when studying humans, but typically a control group is used or comparison to the population.
This theory about controlling for all the variables is why we have studies that show one day that eggs will kill you and your babies, and the next day that eggs are fantastic superfoods. You cannot do so with that many variables. Otherwise, you know, it would have been done by now.
[1] https://www.coffeeandhealth.org/factsheet/coffee-and-iarc-wh...
"That category simply means that it hasn't been ruled out - again, proving a negative. Nothing has established that link."
This is not correct. IARC group 3 means something has not been ruled out. Group 2B means there have been findings that suggest a potential link but the data is not conclusive and needs further study.
"And as for EM radiation and calcium channels - is that in vivo?" Referenced studies in the prior link included, mice, rats, in vitro, and in vivo.
"At what level?" Types and levels varied by study.
"How does that compare to exposure in the environments you are talking about?"
Again, varies by the referenced studies, from weaker to stronger.
"Is there any demonstrated harm there either?"
Oxidative stress
"Does this kind of change have a conclusive link to cancer or anything else?"
Oxidative stress is linked to, and thought to be linked to, many issues.
Gas stoves decrease air quality throughout the entire house. EMF drops off with the cubic law.
"been shown to do absolutely nothing"
That's entirely false. There is still debate about the overall effects of EMF. Plus, there are known effects like high power VHF and excess heat build up in the eyes.
50% reduction in known neurological toxic chemical is, IMHO, unacceptable.
"The EPA has concluded that the current NAAQS protect the public health, including the at-risk populations of older adults, children and people with asthma, with an adequate margin of safety. The NAAQS for nitrogen oxides are a 1-hour standard at a level of 100 ppb based on the 3-year average of 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, and an annual standard at a level of 53 ppb."
It's like, alright Mario congrats but I'm not a professional cook.
Heat control is one of the hardest thing for home cooks to get right, and a real flame makes that WAY easier.
I guess I'm not sure I consider TV shows -- who's role is to create viewer interest and can artificially manufacture drama to do so -- a very good judge of reality. Additionally, of course professional equipment will be easier for professionals to use. But most of the world uses electric ranges (about 50% of cooktops in the US are gas and that number is much lower in Europe and Asia), but somehow people get by.
For ~$500 you can get a dedicated rounded induction wok burner! It needs its own 220V plug, but if you really love wok cooking, they exist!
I am super sad that, at least in the US, I can't buy an induction stove top with a dedicated wok burner built in. :(
Incidentally, if I can't grill a steak my favorite method is to heat a cast iron pan under the broiler until it's quite hot, then place the steak in the pan. It sears on the bottom and begins to cook on the top from the broiler. Then you can remove it and finish it on the stove if need be, flipping it to sear the other side.
After using it for a while, I'd go as far as to say that if I bought a house with a gas stove, removing that in favor of an induction range would be pretty high on my priority list. Safer, better for air quality, and the occasional spill is much easier to clean.
Not being able to take proper advantage of a wok is a little annoying, although I've only tried it with a relatively small stainless steel one. I'm betting a flat bottom carbon steel wok large enough to fit the 12" burner would work better, though.
https://guide.michelin.com/en/article/dining-out/what-is-wok...
>Can a range hood fix this? Yes, if you have a colossal jet-powered A+ grade hood with a fan that vents outside. With an average range hood, maybe not
Well, does a decent range hood (vented to the outside) fix it or not? Author provided a non-answer. Regular hoods are pretty good in my experience.
How bad is my gas stove? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29935939 - Jan 2022 (520 comments)
Cities try to phase out gas stoves but cooks are pushing back - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27874912 - July 2021 (481 comments)
Experts are sounding the alarm about the hidden dangers of gas stoves - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25332332 - Dec 2020 (343 comments)
> Yes, if you have a colossal jet-powered A+ grade hood with a fan that vents outside.
Quite an exaggeration. Even cheap vent hoods (assuming vented to outside, of course) can move a lot of air.
You don’t have to 100% mitigate the problem to make an impact.
The author’s core analysis may be valid, but the rush to dismiss any mitigating factors feels like a significant bias showing through.
Switching away from gas is one mitigation, but it doesn’t handle everything.
HEPA filters don't filter NO2.
Average life expectancy is just shy of 30,000 days, making this an effect of less than 0.2%. This would be impossible to even measure definitively.
This article seems to be nothing more than logical conjecture and opinion. The related evidence also seems to be tangentially related at best.
Climate change is real. We MUST eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. But once again, the more I dug into this article, the more it feels like the desire for outcomes guiding how the data is presented. And the problem with that is it provides fuel for climate deniers and anyone else opposed to the outcome the researcher is hoping for. They're discrediting themselves, their peers and furthering the harm they're trying to mitigate.
A few additional thoughts: I recently and grudgingly switched to electric, and I actually like the cheap-ass electric stove I'm using. It boils water faster than gas, but it's not as precise, and I'll take the speed over precision. Also, range hoods vary wildly from non-existent, to the side or back hood which is useless to an overhead hood which is spectacular, as evidenced by zero smoke when searing foods.
Of course not. It'll never boil if you watch it.
Boiling is a proxy for gets-hot-fast which is useful.
Like if I’m making real boring pasta:
1. Xm to boil 2. 10m to cook pasta 3. 3m to microwave meatballs 4. 1m30s to microwave sauce
The meatballs and the sauce both fit within the pasta cook time, so boil time is all wait.
I discovered the following things:
1. The highest end range hood sold in stores, is not that good at cleaning out air borne pollutants.
2. Nearly every range hood on the market is designed for style over usefulness. You need a large open cavity to capture particles before they are expelled, the larger the empty area in the hood, the better. Modern hoods are flat and stylish.
3. Odds are you need a makeup air system that forces replacement air into the house at the same rate it is being expelled. Without this, your range hood is basically trying to "vacuum" the air out of your house. (This doesn't apply to older poorly insulated leaky houses)
4. Range hoods need to extend over the sides and front of the cook top by a large amount. Some range hoods don't even extend out over the entire front of the cook top!
5. For noise levels, ideally you want an exterior mounted fan. The 2 high end kitchen stores I went to both worked hard to talk me out of even thinking of an exterior fan.
Doing all of these things, or even just the top 4, requires a custom system that is a fair bit of money. The $200 home depot special doesn't cut it. Even the $2000 ultra-deluxe system from dedicated kitchen store won't help improve indoor air quality that much.
Doing it properly actually costs less than the highest end pre-build vent hoods you can buy, which is likely why even the nicest stores try to talk you out of a custom build.
That sounds so small it could be confounded by just about any spurious correlation.
From Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication. https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-risk-does-co...