https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/have-a-gas-stove-how-to-...
> Heck, my PM2.5 meter skyrockets whenever I cook anything in a frying pan, because many of the aerosolized oil droplets are PM2.5.
I'm not sure how they determined that PM2.5 is not a neurotoxin, or the full extent of their claims, but frying pans inside are a common cause of minor health problems.
The toxicity judgement comes from the information what substance has the form of PM2.5, and the journo managed to omit that.
This does not logically follow at all. The size indicates where it can reach in the lungs, whether cilia can eject it, etc.
A 5cm ball shot at the head at high speed is indeed dangerous. We are talking about inhalation of particles causing irritation, and the size is indeed the major factor. Content as well, but frying pan particles filled with carbon chains that have gone through who knows what reactions are indeed of concern. Lots of extremely nasty things are easily accessible from chains of hydrocarbons, from toluene to formaldehyde.
> The toxicity judgement comes from the information what substance has the form of PM2.5, and the journo managed to omit that.
I believe the journalist is not at fault here in the least. The scientific papers I have seen usually class all PM2.5 together, and perhaps by source. But the size itself is of great concern due to the size allowing easy entry to the body that is not possible for larger sizes.
Water and sugar particles, for instance, are almost certainly harmless below some reasonable threshold.
What they do there is up for further study.
Many studies show a high correlation with childhood respiratory defects and living near roads (or even attending school near roads) specifically a road with diesel truck traffic, and a recent study showed a decrease in effects when air filters are installed in the schools. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6949366/
They said that the category "small particles" is not equal to the category "neurotoxic".
Much like how "Walks on Two Legs" is not "Men", there may be some overlap in the categories, but the first does not reliably indicate the second. (Or vice-versa.)
Nobody is saying frying some eggs is equivalent to sucking the tail pipe of a 50s era car. You're arguing with yourself.
https://preventcancer.org/article/lung-cancer-asian-american...
> Environmental exposures, such as cooking oil fumes and secondhand smoke, have long been identified as risk factors for lung cancer among women in Asia who do not smoke
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385529/
Apologies!
Quote: Research shows cooking on domestic gas hobs can cause two of the most harmful air pollutants, NO2 and PM2.5, to exceed WHO guidelines
I just asked ChatGPT: when using a fry pan, does the smoke contain formaldehyde and benzene?
> Cooking at very high temperatures (over 450°F or 232°C), especially with oils or fats, could theoretically contribute to benzene formation.
"could easily"? Hardly.
I'm sure now some other HN poster will come up with an explanation how Amino Acids are still neurotoxic of some sort.
See what i wrote in the other thread... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45784538
Indeed, imagine seeing "... chronic exposure to 5 ML, a chemical poison, not only...". Not sure how they can mistake a measurement for what the particles actually are.
What is more dangerous, PM2.5 or PM10? Well, naturally, smaller particles are more harmful to humans usually, but without knowing what the particles are, it's impossible to tell. Just like "5ML is/isn't more dangerous than 10ML", it doesn't really tell us anything.
It looks like there are a couple reasons for this.
1. There are a lot of substances that are neurotoxic. Most things that create PM2.5 pollution will involve some of them.
2. PM2.5 is good at getting to places where the body really doesn't like foreign objects and so the mere presence of PM2.5 particles can trigger responses, such as inflammation, that can cause neurological damage even if the particle itself is made of a normally non-toxic substance.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9491465/#:~:text=PM...
In the studies described, they weren't looking for these particles in the brain.
There is potentially a case to be made that the particles result in systemic inflammation, or some other pathway which leads to effects in the brain, rather than a direct action.
Unfortunately currently only super expensive instruments can measure this in real-time.
This is why I believe contextual information will become much more important in future.
Detect an indoor short PM2.5 spike around lunch time, probably a cooking event.
Detect medium elevated levels outdoor in a city in the morning and late afternoons, probably traffic related smoke.
I actually made a small tool to simulate different events that contain a quiz. Give it a try here [1].
[1] https://www.airgradient.com/air-quality-monitoring-toolkit/p...
</tinfoil-hat>
PM2.5 is not a neurotoxin, that's an absurd thing to say.
It's literally any particles under a certain size. Whether it's a neurotoxin is necessarily going to depend on what the substance is made of.
Whether your PM2.5 exposure is coming from automobiles or wildfires or a factory, the potential outcomes may be different in different areas of the body. Heck, my PM2.5 meter skyrockets whenever I cook anything in a frying pan, because many of the aerosolized oil droplets are PM2.5.