Huge math error corrected in black plastic study; authors say it doesn't matter(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Huge math error corrected in black plastic study; authors say it doesn't matter
https://arstechnica.com/health/2024/12/huge-math-error-corrected-in-black-plastic-study-authors-say-it-doesnt-matter/
116 comments
Also see this from Ethan Mollock on Twitter: https://x.com/emollick/status/1868329599438037491 -- o1 was able to spot the error on the first try. It has now led to a whole initiative called the Black Spatula Project: https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/the-black-spatula-proj...
That's actually crazy. How does it do it? I thought that these machines only "predict the next word".
They are.
They’re just really really good at it.
That’s how ML is. “Prediction” is just another word for really really good guess.
They’re just really really good at it.
That’s how ML is. “Prediction” is just another word for really really good guess.
That's dodging my question. I know theyre just predicting the next word, but that doesn't explain how that works so amazingly well in this case. There's a few steps missing.
If anything this seems like an ad for an AI. When I try these things they can even solve leetcode, for which they actually have the solution in the training set.
If anything this seems like an ad for an AI. When I try these things they can even solve leetcode, for which they actually have the solution in the training set.
Every solvable problem is solved by using known information, patterns, context, etc. We (and LLMs) are using some model of the universe and trying to coordinate it in a way that will help us solve some task. The difference between us and "old" LLMs is that we can generate new information/patterns/etc., immediately add it to our model, and use it to solve more complex problems. New LLMs such as o1-o3 are also capable of thinking over and over again and producing new information (in the current context) and trying to apply it to the current task that might not be solvable with just the information that it was trained on.
(This is my understanding, I’m not ml engineer)
(This is my understanding, I’m not ml engineer)
The intuition I’ve been building around LLMs is that they’re like search systems.
They encode their training data in their weights and do a kind of search on it given a prompt.
If leetcode problems are in their training data, then they’ll of course answer the question with ease.
They encode their training data in their weights and do a kind of search on it given a prompt.
If leetcode problems are in their training data, then they’ll of course answer the question with ease.
To predict the next word, you need some model of the universe.
> Ars has reached out to the lead author, Megan Liu, but has not received a response. Liu works for the environmental health advocacy group Toxic-Free Future, which led the study.
Clearly the authors had their conclusion even before doing the study, so of course the error doesn't affect it.
Clearly the authors had their conclusion even before doing the study, so of course the error doesn't affect it.
On the most charitable level, the "huge math error" occurred in the calculation of the FDA's limits on exposure, so if the group feels that the FDA set its limits too high and the amount of chemicals being leached is worrying, then the math error really doesn't affect their conclusion at all.
But digging into the study, it becomes clear that the authors are really reaching in their methodology--subjecting utensils to rather implausible scenarios (when was the last time you microwaved your sushi tray?)--to try to get some samples that would exceed the limit. The hyperbolic media coverage of "ditch all your black plastics" isn't really sustained when the research finds that just a few specimens, when subjected to unusually high heat stresses, managed to just barely cross the incorrectly-calculated FDA threshold (itself likely set at a factor of a tenth to a hundredth of the lowest threshold observed to cause issues in previous studies!). That the authors aren't willing to disavow that media coverage is more telling then their unwillingness to adjust their conclusions in response to their math error.
But digging into the study, it becomes clear that the authors are really reaching in their methodology--subjecting utensils to rather implausible scenarios (when was the last time you microwaved your sushi tray?)--to try to get some samples that would exceed the limit. The hyperbolic media coverage of "ditch all your black plastics" isn't really sustained when the research finds that just a few specimens, when subjected to unusually high heat stresses, managed to just barely cross the incorrectly-calculated FDA threshold (itself likely set at a factor of a tenth to a hundredth of the lowest threshold observed to cause issues in previous studies!). That the authors aren't willing to disavow that media coverage is more telling then their unwillingness to adjust their conclusions in response to their math error.
> subjecting utensils to rather implausible scenarios (when was the last time you microwaved your sushi tray?)
That's not implausible. Sushi actually tastes better a little warm than chilled.
Also I think it would make sense to test all food trays the same way, as some of those do get heated quite a bit (e.g. I've microwaved take-out noodles in plastic trays very similar to a take-out sushi trays). It's not like it's plausible that there's some special sushi-tray supply chain where they've carefully determined they can safely get away with using e-waste plastic. It's almost certain that industry consists of many takeout tray companies that each make a whole line of takeout trays for different uses using the same raw materials (e.g. the sushi cart at my employer sold sushi and hot noodle soup in black plastic trays, which plausibly could come form the same manufacturer).
That's not implausible. Sushi actually tastes better a little warm than chilled.
Also I think it would make sense to test all food trays the same way, as some of those do get heated quite a bit (e.g. I've microwaved take-out noodles in plastic trays very similar to a take-out sushi trays). It's not like it's plausible that there's some special sushi-tray supply chain where they've carefully determined they can safely get away with using e-waste plastic. It's almost certain that industry consists of many takeout tray companies that each make a whole line of takeout trays for different uses using the same raw materials (e.g. the sushi cart at my employer sold sushi and hot noodle soup in black plastic trays, which plausibly could come form the same manufacturer).
I microwave my sushi for precisely this reason — for ten or twenty seconds at most — not half an hour.
In general with all the microplastics floating around, I found it not a large investment to divest of 95% of the plastic in my kitchen (there was a lot), including the black variety, and only cook in stainless/carbon steel, ceramic enameled cookware, and glass with wood or stainless steel utensils and only drink filtered water. It's not hard to get most of the plastic out of your kitchen at least, but there are tons of other sources; clothes, furniture, devices, etc. I'm working on minimizing some of that as well. One of the most frustrating things is you can't find a drip coffee maker with an all metal full path for the water to grounds path. Everything I looked at had a ton of plastic unless it was $700+, so I live with the ritual of the french press for now
Pour-over funnels have glass and ceramic options, and the coffee turns out quite tasty.
80% of maximum fire retardants entering food or 8% of maximum fire retardants entering food are both "too much fire retardants entering food".
Seems like the conclusion very obviously still holds, so I'd agree with the study authors here, that error doesn't alter the conclusion.
Seems like the conclusion very obviously still holds, so I'd agree with the study authors here, that error doesn't alter the conclusion.
> 80% of maximum fire retardants entering food or 8% of maximum fire retardants entering food are both "too much fire retardants entering food".
OK, but that's not what this study was about, right? The original claim by the authors was that these utensils brushed up against safe limits. When that turned out to be false, the claim has shifted to the safe limits are too high. But that's a different study. You need to do a safety analysis of exposures to the substance. That's not what their study did.
OK, but that's not what this study was about, right? The original claim by the authors was that these utensils brushed up against safe limits. When that turned out to be false, the claim has shifted to the safe limits are too high. But that's a different study. You need to do a safety analysis of exposures to the substance. That's not what their study did.
It doesn’t affect the conclusion so who cares what the study was about initially?
Their conclusion that these utensils are dangerous depended on the results that showed these utensils are at or about the FDA's maximum safe dose. But after correcting the math error, it turns out they're actually about 1/10 of that. That invalidates their conclusion.
1/10th is still high? And doses aren't a on/off amount. It's not like there's no risk until you hit 100% and then there's max risk. Exposure is exposure.
There's a lethal dose for alcohol, but having 1/10th of that dose can still strongly negatively impact me.
There's a lethal dose for alcohol, but having 1/10th of that dose can still strongly negatively impact me.
> 1/10th is still high
Based on what? The FDA's safe dose by definition means there are no known significant risks. They build in pretty hefty safety margins in these things. It definitely could still be too high! We get things wrong all the time. But you need a different kind of study to show that.
Based on what? The FDA's safe dose by definition means there are no known significant risks. They build in pretty hefty safety margins in these things. It definitely could still be too high! We get things wrong all the time. But you need a different kind of study to show that.
Based on: the EPA regulates doses not the FDA, there are no human studies for these chemicals at all (the amounts are based on rats and mice), the dose isn't a "safe dose" it's a "reference dose", and a standard human is exposed to a few hundred nanograms of these chemicals normally in a day while cooking with these introduces tens of thousands of nanograms per day.
So, baseline, one day of using black cookware exposes you to a years worth of baseline exposure. Every day. That's why I consider it high. These are known bioaccumulating carcinogenic compounds. I can reduce my baseline by over 99% by spending $10 on a new spatula? Yeah, that's high.
So, baseline, one day of using black cookware exposes you to a years worth of baseline exposure. Every day. That's why I consider it high. These are known bioaccumulating carcinogenic compounds. I can reduce my baseline by over 99% by spending $10 on a new spatula? Yeah, that's high.
No. The authors state that their conclusion is not altered by the change in calculations. As per TFA:
> "This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper," the correction reads. The corrected study still ends by saying that the flame retardants "significantly contaminate" the plastic products, which have "high exposure potential."
> "This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper," the correction reads. The corrected study still ends by saying that the flame retardants "significantly contaminate" the plastic products, which have "high exposure potential."
How is that clear? Perhaps they are a group that exists to do studies like that.
Groups that exist to do studies like that can be biased toward gainful employment and suppress anything that threatens the revenue stream.
That is pretty much my point, yes.
So instead of 80% toxic limit it’s „only“ 8%.
Sorry but I don’t want any toxic material in the tools I use for food.
Sorry but I don’t want any toxic material in the tools I use for food.
It's not 'toxic material', it has a toxic dose. Too much water and you die. You do want some percentage of that level of water, though.
The brominated flame retardants are inherently toxic and are therefore considered toxic materials.
The point is that nothing is inherently toxic, as there are almost certainly trace amounts of countless different compounds that are "inherently toxic" all around you. Again, it depends on the dose. I don't think there are many, if any, chemicals where a dozen molecules would negatively affect a healthy adult.
I would wager that you inhale more than zero molecules of this "inherently toxic" flame retardant when you breathe. So you are going to stop breathing?
I would wager that you inhale more than zero molecules of this "inherently toxic" flame retardant when you breathe. So you are going to stop breathing?
Especially since it can build up in the body. Kind of like some vitamins you can have 1000% of the RDA because they are very water-soluble and go through like a sieve anyway, but others get toxic much quicker because they are fat soluble and get stored in fat cells for the long haul.
How many spatulae are you planning on eating?
It's important to consider that the average person is probably much less likely to eat a spatula that is on fire.
Therefore, simply averaging the flame retardant content of a random sample of spatulas could result in a bias.
It's precisely the ones that are the most toxic that one would expect to be the most edible.
Therefore, simply averaging the flame retardant content of a random sample of spatulas could result in a bias.
It's precisely the ones that are the most toxic that one would expect to be the most edible.
First, you have to find a spatula with the specific compound in question.
Less than 10% of items studied contained the specific compound in the article.
FTA:
Less than 10% of items studied contained the specific compound in the article.
FTA:
The study examined 203 black plastic household products, including 109 kitchen utensils, 36 toys, 30 hair accessories, and 28 food serviceware products. Of those 203 products, only 20 (10 percent) had any bromine-containing compounds at levels that might indicate contamination from bromine-based flame retardants, like BDE-209. Of the 109 kitchen utensils tested, only nine (8 percent) contained concerning bromine levels.
"[A] minority of black plastic products are contaminated at levels >50 ppm [bromine]," the study states.
But that's just bromine compounds. Overall, only 14 of the 203 products contained BDE-209 specifically.Only 10% across the board, but what’s the probability that one or more of black plastic food tools in a given home contains bromine-based fire retardants?
Probability is a bitch.
Probability is a bitch.
It’s adds up with all the other sources of toxic material we are exposed to.
Was this originally discovered by Adam Ragusea? He mentioned it in his video about it before all the press came out about the error, and said he emailed the authors.
I wondered that as well. Shame they didn't give him credit if he truly was the first one to point it out.
I've never been too sure how closely he's reading those papers he refers to in his informational vids; if he actually discovered a flaw himself from reading one that is highly indicative he's doing a good job!
I was actually seriously considering tossing my kitchenware. It was only me inertia that kept me from it. I wonder how long the afterlife of this one is going to be; reminds me of the autism causing vacines hoax
Idk, plastic in contact with hot/acidic food/surfaces gets a no from me. Even before the apparently incorrect paper.
Really, you bought Tupperware? Even if you don't ask yourself whether any contaminants were released by it in your food, maybe the fact that it gets stained by pasta sauce to a point where it becomes an Internet meme makes it shitty kitchenware?
Even without exposure to food, plastic deteriorates with sunlight exposure or even just age... Why spend money on stuff like this? Buy a porcelain salad bowl instead, get a wooden spatula, put some oil on it so it endures washings.
Really, you bought Tupperware? Even if you don't ask yourself whether any contaminants were released by it in your food, maybe the fact that it gets stained by pasta sauce to a point where it becomes an Internet meme makes it shitty kitchenware?
Even without exposure to food, plastic deteriorates with sunlight exposure or even just age... Why spend money on stuff like this? Buy a porcelain salad bowl instead, get a wooden spatula, put some oil on it so it endures washings.
Well, the original post on HN was front page. This one is collecting... barely more than a point an hour.
So if HN doesn't even care...
So if HN doesn't even care...
The discussion of this topic five days ago received 128 points and 174 comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008
> The discussion of this topic five days ago received 128 points and 174 comments
Interesting. My understanding was that HN yanks a thread off the front page as soon as it has more comments than upvotes, because that's their indicator of being "controversial".
Which never made sense to me, because I leave hundreds of times more comments than article upvotes.
Interesting. My understanding was that HN yanks a thread off the front page as soon as it has more comments than upvotes, because that's their indicator of being "controversial".
Which never made sense to me, because I leave hundreds of times more comments than article upvotes.
> My understanding was that HN yanks a thread off the front page as soon as it has more comments than upvotes, because that's their indicator of being "controversial".
I have read that a lot of times but this doesn't seem to be the case, I can remember multiple times when I clicked on something on the front page and it had more comments than upvotes.
This is currently on the front page with 245 points and 274 comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441502
I have read that a lot of times but this doesn't seem to be the case, I can remember multiple times when I clicked on something on the front page and it had more comments than upvotes.
This is currently on the front page with 245 points and 274 comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441502
We need an AI to pick the correct topics and raise us properly.
Thank you so much!
They're $5 spatulas that melt and shed bits of plastic over time. Wood, silicon, or stainless steel are all better and not too much more expensive. Even if this was a hoax (which it's not), there's plenty of reason to upgrade anyways.
For sure. In the face of bigger systemic changes that feel out of our control (eating better, working less, affordable health care), we’ll try every “one weird trick”.
So you are ok with getting a dosis of 8% of the EPA limit when alternatives with much less toxicity exist?
It's not a hoax, though. Vaccines causing autism was. While the level of the carcinogen wasn't what they thought it was, it's still significantly higher than the 0 that it should be, because the only reason it's there at all is because the companies are recycling plastic from electronics. I think that the researchers saying it doesn't change their conclusion is reasonable.
If you had told me that Cocoa Krispies were 50% rat feces, but then came back and said you'd made a mistake and was off by an order of magnitude, it's only 5%, I think it would be pretty reasonable to not update your conclusion that Cocoa Krispies were significantly contaminated with rat feces.
If you had told me that Cocoa Krispies were 50% rat feces, but then came back and said you'd made a mistake and was off by an order of magnitude, it's only 5%, I think it would be pretty reasonable to not update your conclusion that Cocoa Krispies were significantly contaminated with rat feces.
> the carcinogen
I love how threat inflation turns chemicals from innocuous to deadly in the absence of any strong evidence.
No, we cannot say this chemical is a carcinogen. Read the wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether
> In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. DecaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."
I love how threat inflation turns chemicals from innocuous to deadly in the absence of any strong evidence.
No, we cannot say this chemical is a carcinogen. Read the wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether
> In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. DecaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."
EPA safe guidelines are changed all the time often by much more than 1 order of magnitude. E.G. lead has gone from .5ppm being safe (1995) to 20 ppb (2023).
If you adopted a life strategy of "only avoid things after scientists have conclusive evidence it's dangerous for you" then you'd have unnecessarily ingested hundreds of various poisons over the last 100 years.
If you adopted a life strategy of "only avoid things after scientists have conclusive evidence it's dangerous for you" then you'd have unnecessarily ingested hundreds of various poisons over the last 100 years.
Sure, you can avoid it if you don't trust it. But you can't claim that it is something that it has not been proven to be. Don't falsify reality even if you have good intentions.
That people with Alzheimer's cook in aluminum doesn't prove causation.
2024 https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzh...
> This research has shown higher aluminium levels in the brain and the fluids that bathe the brain in people with Alzheimer’s when compared to healthy individuals. But just spotting higher levels doesn’t mean they are a cause of the disease. > [...] most scientists think that aluminium build-up in the brain is more likely to be a consequence of Alzheimer’s disease rather than a cause.
Ah yes, the "most scientists" card. "more likely" is also hilarious! Most doctors are more likely to smoke camel.
2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/
> The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD.
The science folk need an entirely different level of evidence than I do.
2024 https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzh...
> This research has shown higher aluminium levels in the brain and the fluids that bathe the brain in people with Alzheimer’s when compared to healthy individuals. But just spotting higher levels doesn’t mean they are a cause of the disease. > [...] most scientists think that aluminium build-up in the brain is more likely to be a consequence of Alzheimer’s disease rather than a cause.
Ah yes, the "most scientists" card. "more likely" is also hilarious! Most doctors are more likely to smoke camel.
2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/
> The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD.
The science folk need an entirely different level of evidence than I do.
In the absence of any strong evidence, a wise man would be well-served in treating the ingestion of a novel chemical as deadly.
No, the wise man doesn't have strong evidence to the contrary. And no, he's not interested in finding out either. The consequences of ingesting a novel non-Lindy chemical is an unknown unknown that the wise man is not interested in discovering.
Of course, if the potential upsides are great enough, the risk of downsides might be worthwhile.
In the case of the chemical spatula, the downsides are uncertain, but there's the possibility of cancer. The upsides are...greater corporate profits?
The wise man is going to have to pass on that one.
Moderns would do well to try and be more like the wise man. Scientific studies are not the holy grail of knowledge. New studies are coming out all the time, both negating and reaffirming old conclusions. Is this schizophrenic flip-flopping not enough to convince the modern that Scientism isn't the end-all-be-all?
Unknown unknowns emerge at the tails of novel changes introduced to complex systems. Scientific studies are unable to account for these long-tail events. When it comes to your environment and your body, be more Lindy, and stop deferring to the myopicity of Scientism to guide you.
>Eat no fruits from the past one thousand years; drink nothing from the past four thousand years.
No, the wise man doesn't have strong evidence to the contrary. And no, he's not interested in finding out either. The consequences of ingesting a novel non-Lindy chemical is an unknown unknown that the wise man is not interested in discovering.
Of course, if the potential upsides are great enough, the risk of downsides might be worthwhile.
In the case of the chemical spatula, the downsides are uncertain, but there's the possibility of cancer. The upsides are...greater corporate profits?
The wise man is going to have to pass on that one.
Moderns would do well to try and be more like the wise man. Scientific studies are not the holy grail of knowledge. New studies are coming out all the time, both negating and reaffirming old conclusions. Is this schizophrenic flip-flopping not enough to convince the modern that Scientism isn't the end-all-be-all?
Unknown unknowns emerge at the tails of novel changes introduced to complex systems. Scientific studies are unable to account for these long-tail events. When it comes to your environment and your body, be more Lindy, and stop deferring to the myopicity of Scientism to guide you.
>Eat no fruits from the past one thousand years; drink nothing from the past four thousand years.
> In the case of the chemical spatula, the downsides are uncertain, but there's the possibility of cancer. The upsides are...greater corporate profits?
> The wise man is going to have to pass on that one.
We should be all happy to deliver increase value to the shareholders, in whatever way we can. After all, they are the most important people in the world. The wise man is not too wise if he doesn't believe that.
> The wise man is going to have to pass on that one.
We should be all happy to deliver increase value to the shareholders, in whatever way we can. After all, they are the most important people in the world. The wise man is not too wise if he doesn't believe that.
In the absence of monopoly, advances in technology result in improvement in value for the customers. Profit margins are constrained in any competitive industry.
I was with you until the quote at the end. What does that even mean?
>> Unknown unknowns emerge at the tails of novel changes introduced to complex systems. Scientific studies are unable to account for these long-tail events. When it comes to your environment and your body, be more Lindy, and stop deferring to the myopicity of Scientism to guide you.
>>> Eat no fruits from the past one thousand years; drink nothing from the past four thousand years.
> I was with you until the quote at the end. What does that even mean?
I think it means "don't consume anything foodstuff that doesn't have a long record of safety (v.s. trusting the guy in the white lab coat that says the new thing is safe, since in 20 years some other guy in a white lab coat may find it's actually very unsafe in some previously unknown way).
It appears to be a quote from Nassim Nicholas Taleb, here's a fuller version: https://manassaloi.com/booksummaries/2016/01/21/bed-procrust...:
> Read nothing from the past one hundred years; eat no fruits from the past one thousand years; drink nothing from the past four thousand years (just wine and water); but talk to no ordinary man over forty. A man without a heroic bent starts dying at the age of thirty.
>>> Eat no fruits from the past one thousand years; drink nothing from the past four thousand years.
> I was with you until the quote at the end. What does that even mean?
I think it means "don't consume anything foodstuff that doesn't have a long record of safety (v.s. trusting the guy in the white lab coat that says the new thing is safe, since in 20 years some other guy in a white lab coat may find it's actually very unsafe in some previously unknown way).
It appears to be a quote from Nassim Nicholas Taleb, here's a fuller version: https://manassaloi.com/booksummaries/2016/01/21/bed-procrust...:
> Read nothing from the past one hundred years; eat no fruits from the past one thousand years; drink nothing from the past four thousand years (just wine and water); but talk to no ordinary man over forty. A man without a heroic bent starts dying at the age of thirty.
It's an aphorism suggesting the importance of the Lindy effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
The longer something has been around, the longer it will continue to be around. The longevity of something also validates its efficacy and resiliency.
If people have been eating figs and drinking wine for thousands of years, then it's probably good and safe for you to do as well.
If traditional salad recipes avoid the use of conium maculatum, then you should probably avoid it too.
If your ancient ancestors didn't cook with margarine, then you probably shouldn't cook with it either.
The longer something has been around, the longer it will continue to be around. The longevity of something also validates its efficacy and resiliency.
If people have been eating figs and drinking wine for thousands of years, then it's probably good and safe for you to do as well.
If traditional salad recipes avoid the use of conium maculatum, then you should probably avoid it too.
If your ancient ancestors didn't cook with margarine, then you probably shouldn't cook with it either.
I can see the appeal of simple, science-sceptical traditionalism.
But it does not pass the smell test.
There is a plethora of substances and practices that are quite harmful, but have been used for millenia. This is because your suggested methodology fails to detect really anything that does not cause traceable and observable harm before the next generation is raised. And that's a lot of things.
"Science" adds value compared to pure traditionalism because it analyzes precisely how things are harmful, and helps discover mitigations and strategies that pure outcome-driven traditionalism would never have explored.
Examples:
- Lead pipes (used successfully for over two millenia-- harmless? no.)
- Basically every carcinogen ever (e.g. Radon: people in affected regions did simply not know about keeping it out of cellars/dwellings, and just died of lung cancer sometimes)
- Salmonella, syphilis, cholera and other pathogens-- they are non-issues with proper prevention and/or countermeasures-- without those, people just suffer and/or die.
- Alcohol consumption during pregnancy
edit: I'm not saying that "sticking with what worked in the past" is wrong, or useless information, but its just that-- a statistical prior for harm. It won't reliably tell you neither which things are harmless nor which are harmful, it just gives a rough indication of which it might be.
But it does not pass the smell test.
There is a plethora of substances and practices that are quite harmful, but have been used for millenia. This is because your suggested methodology fails to detect really anything that does not cause traceable and observable harm before the next generation is raised. And that's a lot of things.
"Science" adds value compared to pure traditionalism because it analyzes precisely how things are harmful, and helps discover mitigations and strategies that pure outcome-driven traditionalism would never have explored.
Examples:
- Lead pipes (used successfully for over two millenia-- harmless? no.)
- Basically every carcinogen ever (e.g. Radon: people in affected regions did simply not know about keeping it out of cellars/dwellings, and just died of lung cancer sometimes)
- Salmonella, syphilis, cholera and other pathogens-- they are non-issues with proper prevention and/or countermeasures-- without those, people just suffer and/or die.
- Alcohol consumption during pregnancy
edit: I'm not saying that "sticking with what worked in the past" is wrong, or useless information, but its just that-- a statistical prior for harm. It won't reliably tell you neither which things are harmless nor which are harmful, it just gives a rough indication of which it might be.
> If people have been eating figs and drinking wine for thousands of years, then it's probably good and safe for you to do as well.
This is ignores the amounts consumed. Just because a thing is safe at N mg/day doesn't mean it is safe at all doses. The change circumstances of human existence make attempts to come up with simple, eternal rubrics at best a bit chancy, and at worst completely misleading.
This is ignores the amounts consumed. Just because a thing is safe at N mg/day doesn't mean it is safe at all doses. The change circumstances of human existence make attempts to come up with simple, eternal rubrics at best a bit chancy, and at worst completely misleading.
Are you cautioning against overdosing on figs?
It also ignores the particular size of the figs that should be consumed. And it ignores the season that they should be consumed. And it ignores the weather conditions that you should consume them in. And it ignores the hour at which they're consumed. And it ignores the gender of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the eye color of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the hair length of the person that should consume them. And it ignores the precise composition of nitrogen in the soil with which the fig tree has been grown in. And phosphorous. And potassium. And it ignores the day of the week in which the fig should be consumed. And it ignores the material of the utensils used to consume the fig. And it ignores the age of the person that consumes them.
Just enjoy your figs, Paul.
Just enjoy your figs, Paul.
If lead pipes were good enough for the Romans, they should be good enough for us!
It's funny that you use wine as an example of "obviously safe" drink. Because wine is chock full of not-safe-for-human-consumption chemicals (e.g., tannic acid) that would be illegal to use if it were synthetically prepared, but since it's "natural", it gets a free pass. And if you tried to remove all of those chemicals, you'd find that the resulting flavor profile is absolute garbage.
I can also point out--we've been drinking out of lead pipes for thousands of years, so they're obviously safe, right? ... right?
I can also point out--we've been drinking out of lead pipes for thousands of years, so they're obviously safe, right? ... right?
The problem here is you are asking for the impossible: strong evidence that novel chemicals are safe. How could you ever get that? It's impossible to prove a negative.
And doesn't this just privilege tradition? Chemicals will be grandfathered in for spurious reasons, not because they are actually any safer. Famously, chemicals in plants very often light up the Ames test for carcinogenicity and would be ruled out by your argument if they weren't "natural".
And doesn't this just privilege tradition? Chemicals will be grandfathered in for spurious reasons, not because they are actually any safer. Famously, chemicals in plants very often light up the Ames test for carcinogenicity and would be ruled out by your argument if they weren't "natural".
We have to compare potential downsides though, we have two choices, we can:
* not ingest novel chemicals
or
* ingest novel chemicals that may be carcinogenic, but scientific research will not be able to prove anything either way
Do you not think that it is rational to choose option 1, given our understanding of the Lindy effect?
Do you not think that it is rational to choose option 1, given our understanding of the Lindy effect?
It depends on the benefit of the chemical vs. the risk. One-sided assessment isn't wise.
We have plenty of strong evidence for the safety of tons of things. My ancestors have been consuming cow's milk, mache, and wine for thousands of years. If these things were not safe for consumption, we wouldn't be consuming them to this day. My bloodline wouldn't have made it this far. We don't add poison hemlock to our mache salads because thousands of years ago, some poor souls gave us strong evidence that it's not something you should eat, and that knowledge was passed down to us.
This logic is not formally valid. It's a reasonable basis of belief for a pre-science culture, though.
Also, FWIW, cow's milk has objectively changed in the last few decades.
Also, FWIW, cow's milk has objectively changed in the last few decades.
> wine
Thank you for a most excellent example illustrating my point and demolishing yours.
Alcohol is estimated to cause 4.5% of all cancers in Europe. It's a Group 1 carcinogen, yet it is privileged because of tradition.
https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/6/1128/7295464
Thank you for a most excellent example illustrating my point and demolishing yours.
Alcohol is estimated to cause 4.5% of all cancers in Europe. It's a Group 1 carcinogen, yet it is privileged because of tradition.
https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/6/1128/7295464
> In the absence of any strong evidence, a wise man would be well-served in treating the ingestion of a novel chemical as deadly.
Isn't this why we (used to?) feed things to mice to learn about them? To collect additional evidence of safety after basic things like knowing what general kinds of things interact with people's biology say it's probably safe?
Isn't this why we (used to?) feed things to mice to learn about them? To collect additional evidence of safety after basic things like knowing what general kinds of things interact with people's biology say it's probably safe?
I did. And today I wouldn‘t, but still, the silicone set is nicer than the hard plastic one. So I don‘t mind too much.
Likewise: after throwing out all of our cheap black plastic utensils, we replaced them with much nicer wood, metal, and silicone implements. It was a pleasant little upgrade, even if it wasn't strictly necessary; no regrets.
As long as some famous nude model doesn't make it a personal crusade to spread disinfo, I don't think it'll quite reach "autism causing vaccines" levels.
People are missing the forest for the trees on this one. I agree with the author here - unfortunate error, but the conclusion should lead to the same actions.
So the main concept people are having a disagreement here is around the concept of risk versus hazard. A thing can be a hazard, without being a risk. The data you should use to decide to take action is the amount of risk, not the amount of hazard. In the specific scenario of humans ingesting potentially dangerous substances, usually risk is directly related to the amount of exposure to a hazard. In other words, you can think of it as "risk = hazard * exposure."
For example:
- If you're a smoker, your exposure to the hazardous substances in cigarette smoke is sky-high. The risk to your health of being a smoker is so high and so clear that societies spend millions of dollars to try to convince people of the risk.
- If you're living with a smoker, but not a smoker yourself, then your exposure is lower, but still high enough to be actionable. So we see indoor smoking bans and 2nd hand smoke information also included in anti-smoking campaigns.
- If you're walking down the sidewalk and pass by a smoker for three seconds, you're still encountering the exact same hazard, but your exposure is so low that the risk is not really actionable. It's not like we see big public campaigns about crossing the street to avoid the risk of 3 seconds of exposure to second hand smoke. That's because the risk isn't there.
- Someone smoking in their house 50 miles from you is obviously zero risk to you at all, even though the hazard still exists.
You can see the same kind of pattern everywhere: car exhaust is the same hazard everywhere, but whether it's a risk worth actioning depends on whether you live in a dense urban center, or next to a busy freeway, or out in the exurbs.
So back to the plastic stuff. The study authors were claiming that the level of risk was high enough to justify everyone in the world throwing their utensils away and buying brand new ones. When it came out that the exposure factor of their "risk = hazard * exposure" formula was actually off by a factor of 10, they... stuck with the exact same story? I don't know, man. The original claim was below the acceptable risk threshold, and now it's even ten times lower than that. Surely that has some impact on the level of risk? Does this drop the risk from "smoker" to "passing by a smoker for 3 seconds"?
The distinction matters when deciding how much effort mitigating this risk requires: should I throw everything out right now, or just buy something else when my current ones wear out, or is the risk actually so low that it really does not matter? If I replace them, what is the level of risk of the things I replace them with? Should society put in the effort to ban these chemicals? What are the pros/cons of that? Are the risks mitigated worth the costs?
The authors' refusal to acknowledge this really makes me doubt that their conclusion is not affected by some kind of bias. The jury's still out, sure, but I'm not yet sold on their risk claims.
For example:
- If you're a smoker, your exposure to the hazardous substances in cigarette smoke is sky-high. The risk to your health of being a smoker is so high and so clear that societies spend millions of dollars to try to convince people of the risk.
- If you're living with a smoker, but not a smoker yourself, then your exposure is lower, but still high enough to be actionable. So we see indoor smoking bans and 2nd hand smoke information also included in anti-smoking campaigns.
- If you're walking down the sidewalk and pass by a smoker for three seconds, you're still encountering the exact same hazard, but your exposure is so low that the risk is not really actionable. It's not like we see big public campaigns about crossing the street to avoid the risk of 3 seconds of exposure to second hand smoke. That's because the risk isn't there.
- Someone smoking in their house 50 miles from you is obviously zero risk to you at all, even though the hazard still exists.
You can see the same kind of pattern everywhere: car exhaust is the same hazard everywhere, but whether it's a risk worth actioning depends on whether you live in a dense urban center, or next to a busy freeway, or out in the exurbs.
So back to the plastic stuff. The study authors were claiming that the level of risk was high enough to justify everyone in the world throwing their utensils away and buying brand new ones. When it came out that the exposure factor of their "risk = hazard * exposure" formula was actually off by a factor of 10, they... stuck with the exact same story? I don't know, man. The original claim was below the acceptable risk threshold, and now it's even ten times lower than that. Surely that has some impact on the level of risk? Does this drop the risk from "smoker" to "passing by a smoker for 3 seconds"?
The distinction matters when deciding how much effort mitigating this risk requires: should I throw everything out right now, or just buy something else when my current ones wear out, or is the risk actually so low that it really does not matter? If I replace them, what is the level of risk of the things I replace them with? Should society put in the effort to ban these chemicals? What are the pros/cons of that? Are the risks mitigated worth the costs?
The authors' refusal to acknowledge this really makes me doubt that their conclusion is not affected by some kind of bias. The jury's still out, sure, but I'm not yet sold on their risk claims.
I think the paper's authors contribution to common knowledge here isn't the risk/hazard/exposure calculation - it is that there is a risk at all.
I don't think so. The authors recommended stopping using these utensils based on their faulty risk analysis, and all of the media coverage repeated that. Even after the correction, the authors are still pushing their conclusion.
At minimum it changes the urgency for individuals with existing cookware.
We are talking about black plastic spatulas and spoons, right? Existing cookware? Non-plastic replacements' price is less than 5 euro at IKEA, possibly less at local kitchenware stores... What urgency would there be apart from 'oh I need to pick up a wooden spatula for eur 0.50 next time I go to IKEA'...
Why? The risk is much much lower than they stated.
Because risk is still high. It's not astronomically high, but it's still quite high.
And it's trivial to replace with materials that don't have that risk. For a couple bucks you can remove fire retardants from your food. Why wouldn't you?
And it's trivial to replace with materials that don't have that risk. For a couple bucks you can remove fire retardants from your food. Why wouldn't you?
What amount of fire retardants would you like in your food? How about zero? I would like zero.
These have already been banned in CA from furniture because it creates household exposure. Why would it be ok in cooking utensils?
BTW the chemicals don’t actually prevent house fires it’s basically an industry scam to put them into products.
These have already been banned in CA from furniture because it creates household exposure. Why would it be ok in cooking utensils?
BTW the chemicals don’t actually prevent house fires it’s basically an industry scam to put them into products.
Your information is incorrect.
Flame retardants were introduced into everything because of CA and Federal laws requiring items to smolder and not catch fire. While I don't believe flame retardants should be as prevalent as they are today, I also think its unfair to say they don't prevent house fires. They absolutely have done some saving but I don't think across the entire population its a net positive. These rules were originally put into place because of a number of high profile cases where kids died, the biggest vector were beds, people smoked and dropped the butt on their mattress and poof.
That rule in CA is in the right direction, glad they are helping right some of the wrong they did but it is still in everything. I think its more helpful to paint the accurate historical picture as opposed to yours which is using hyperbole to generate a reaction.
Flame retardants were introduced into everything because of CA and Federal laws requiring items to smolder and not catch fire. While I don't believe flame retardants should be as prevalent as they are today, I also think its unfair to say they don't prevent house fires. They absolutely have done some saving but I don't think across the entire population its a net positive. These rules were originally put into place because of a number of high profile cases where kids died, the biggest vector were beds, people smoked and dropped the butt on their mattress and poof.
That rule in CA is in the right direction, glad they are helping right some of the wrong they did but it is still in everything. I think its more helpful to paint the accurate historical picture as opposed to yours which is using hyperbole to generate a reaction.
“”” Flame retardants were widely adopted in the 1970s, when in-home smoking was more prevalent and electronics frequently overheated. New research, however, shows that flame retardants are not very effective at slowing or preventing fires. “””
https://www.sfenvironment.org/how-can-i-avoid-flame-retardan...
https://www.sfenvironment.org/how-can-i-avoid-flame-retardan...
Is that supposed to prove something? That site is all fluff.
I am not here defending flame retardants, I absolutely believe they don't provide a net positive to the population. Your lack of information and hyperbole is what I am after. These were not "scams". Your SF website does a good job of leaving out California’s TB117 which is one of the pivotal laws that created widespread adoption of retardants in items. There were also some prior Federal laws but TB117 is seen as one of pivotal ones.
Now, I don't know the history behind the chemical manufacturers and if they were behind the fear mongering but there absolutely were tragic cases that moved the nation to implement these laws. It was not just a "scam" that gets added to everything.
I am not here defending flame retardants, I absolutely believe they don't provide a net positive to the population. Your lack of information and hyperbole is what I am after. These were not "scams". Your SF website does a good job of leaving out California’s TB117 which is one of the pivotal laws that created widespread adoption of retardants in items. There were also some prior Federal laws but TB117 is seen as one of pivotal ones.
Now, I don't know the history behind the chemical manufacturers and if they were behind the fear mongering but there absolutely were tragic cases that moved the nation to implement these laws. It was not just a "scam" that gets added to everything.
I think they could be called a scam. Having flame retardent in our bedding by law, all so smokers could smoke in bed safely, feels like some sort of regulatory capture to me.
They should make flame-retardent bedware and non-flame-retwrdent bedware, and should be legally obligated to disclose every flame-retarded chemical and daily expected daily exposure levels on the tags and box.
They should make flame-retardent bedware and non-flame-retwrdent bedware, and should be legally obligated to disclose every flame-retarded chemical and daily expected daily exposure levels on the tags and box.
Well things have gotten better in the past 20yrs but there is a long way to go. Childrens sleepware is the notable item that still contains retardants and at least there is mandatory tagging for when its present.
when I have done readings before I honestly could not find note of regulatory capture but sometimes these things get muddied with history. Saying its a scam is just hyperbole. Most of the laws on the book are tied in time to some fairly large (100+ person) fire death events. There is a reason those laws were created and we were still in a period of time where chemicals could solve all problems.
when I have done readings before I honestly could not find note of regulatory capture but sometimes these things get muddied with history. Saying its a scam is just hyperbole. Most of the laws on the book are tied in time to some fairly large (100+ person) fire death events. There is a reason those laws were created and we were still in a period of time where chemicals could solve all problems.
Flame retardant bedware is called "the bedware your great grandparents had".
Problem is, in capitalism's endless march towards ... well, who knows what, precisely ... companies began to make bedware out of synthetic fabric because it was (a) cheaper to make (b) allowing lower retail prices and potentially (c) higher profit margins. There's also some sense in which synthetic fabrics can be longer lived than non-synthetics.
Once this stuff was out in people's lives, we realized that there was (at least) one downside: these fabrics also ignite much more easily than non-synthetics, and when they do, they generate flame which spreads a fire even more rapidly.
One option would have been to just ban any fabrics that ignite more easily than (say) cotton. That would have been cast by some as a move against the interests of lower income people (not necessarily incorrectly).
Another option would have been to just leave things alone, and let the people who choose to buy synthetic bedware sans flame retardants deal with the consequences themselves. Alas, that's not actually how our society works. When your neighbor's house goes up in flames because of their bedding choices, you still want your fire department to show up and get things under control, lest you lose your home too.
So .. we set standards for how much and what types of flame retardants were acceptable (standards that are subject to and have been changed over time), and let people continue to buy synthetic bedware (and furniture and clothes and ....) all of which contribute to the fuel load should a fire break out.
I am a firefighter (II), and the increase in the speed with which homes can now be fully engulfed because of the decline in the low of low-flammable materials and the rise of synthetics is utterly terrifying.
Problem is, in capitalism's endless march towards ... well, who knows what, precisely ... companies began to make bedware out of synthetic fabric because it was (a) cheaper to make (b) allowing lower retail prices and potentially (c) higher profit margins. There's also some sense in which synthetic fabrics can be longer lived than non-synthetics.
Once this stuff was out in people's lives, we realized that there was (at least) one downside: these fabrics also ignite much more easily than non-synthetics, and when they do, they generate flame which spreads a fire even more rapidly.
One option would have been to just ban any fabrics that ignite more easily than (say) cotton. That would have been cast by some as a move against the interests of lower income people (not necessarily incorrectly).
Another option would have been to just leave things alone, and let the people who choose to buy synthetic bedware sans flame retardants deal with the consequences themselves. Alas, that's not actually how our society works. When your neighbor's house goes up in flames because of their bedding choices, you still want your fire department to show up and get things under control, lest you lose your home too.
So .. we set standards for how much and what types of flame retardants were acceptable (standards that are subject to and have been changed over time), and let people continue to buy synthetic bedware (and furniture and clothes and ....) all of which contribute to the fuel load should a fire break out.
I am a firefighter (II), and the increase in the speed with which homes can now be fully engulfed because of the decline in the low of low-flammable materials and the rise of synthetics is utterly terrifying.
Zero is an impractical goal. I would like zero cars on the road. Zero litter. Zero CO2 emission. Zero idiots on the internet.
Sadly we both live in the real world. "A small fraction of the recommended limit" is perfectly acceptable.
Sadly we both live in the real world. "A small fraction of the recommended limit" is perfectly acceptable.
Is 8% a small fraction? I don't think it is... sure it's not 80%, but it's definitely not 0.08% either.
I am unlikely to use a black plastic spatula more than 12.5 times more often, daily, for enough days in a row for this to really be a risk I need to worry about. Having said that, the next time I need to buy a spatula I'll probably buy one made of something else.
> it’s basically an industry scam to put them into products.
This assertion cannot possibly be correct, regardless of the study
This assertion cannot possibly be correct, regardless of the study
Maybe it's just too early or there are other posts, but I find it an interesting insight into human behavior - supposedly intelligent human behavior - that there were hundreds of comments on the posting of the original study here at HN, the vast majority of which accepted the study's conclusion, yet there are much fewer comments on the "adjustment" to the study's conclusion.
I shouldn't be too cynical, but it's a reminder to be skeptical, always.
I shouldn't be too cynical, but it's a reminder to be skeptical, always.
There was a discussion of this retraction last week which received many more comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008
On the one hand, making mistakes in basic math is reasonable cause for retraction; on the other hand, why are people defending the use of something with only 8% of the daily limit of a carcinogen? Is there some hidden benefit to using melty plastic utensils on a hot iron pan versus, say, wood or metal, both of which contribute closer to 0%?
Update: "Journal that published faulty black plastic study removed from science index"
https://arstechnica.com/health/2024/12/journal-that-publishe...
https://arstechnica.com/health/2024/12/journal-that-publishe...
Basically a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008
Obviously it doesn't matter. If it mattered, the paper might get retracted.
You forgot the sarcasm font there....
It's not even sarcasm. The authors state that the correction does not alter the conclusion
As I pointed out in my comment above, that's the same thing all authors say when someone shows massive problems in their data.
There are so many bogus studies out there that are not retracted, a non-alteration of a conclusion based on an order of magnitude error is just par for the course
Well, if an order of magnitude error does not alter the conclusion, then it does not alter the conclusion...