Remember the scare over black kitchen utensils? Andrew Gelman points to this piece about it in the National Post:
The study estimated that using contaminated kitchenware could cause a median intake of 34,700 nanograms per day of Decabromodiphenyl ether, known as BDE-209 . . . [which] “would approach” the reference dose given by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
....The paper correctly gives the reference dose for BDE-209 as 7,000 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, but calculates this into a limit for a 60-kilogram adult of 42,000 nanograms per day.
So, as the paper claims, the estimated actual exposure from kitchen utensils of 34,700 nanograms per day is more than 80 per cent of the EPA limit of 42,000.
In reality, 7,000 x 60 = 420,000 nanograms. So the kitchenware contains 8% of the recommended max. Not even close to worrying.
Andrew gently says the peer reviewers are busy people and mistakes can happen, but the authors are more at fault: "I guess that part of the problem is that the incorrect number fit their story so well. When you come up with a result that doesn’t accord with the story you want to tell, you’re inclined to check it. If the result is a perfect fit, you might not even give it a second look."
I'm less gentle. This is a wild-ass screw-up of 8th grade math. It's barely conceivable that this paper could have been seen by at least half a dozen people with PhDs and not a single one noticed an error that literally jumps off the page and hits you in the face. Come on. 7,000 x 60? Even the most rudimentary sense of magnitude tells you this has to be six figures.
The authors call this a typo, which it isn't. If it were just a transcription error they'd have the proper estimate (8%) and recommendations with just a puzzling missing zero. This mistake carried through the whole paper.
The worst part, maybe, is that the authors don't care. They've submitted a correction, but stand by everything else on the grounds that anything above 0% is unacceptable. This is ridiculous. If that were so, there'd be no point in even doing the study. We already knew there was some BDE-209 there.
Oh well. Just another black eye for activist-supported research. The hits keep rolling in.
As a frequent reviewer of academic papers, the reviewers shouldn't be left off the hook. Part of their job as reviewer is to catch glitches like this, and being busy isn't an excuse.
Hey Rich, could you review my paper? Oh wait, you seem to be on honest reviewer, so yeah I will find someone else.
In July 2023, the Chemosphere was put on hold in the Web of Science Master Journal List due to concerns about the quality of its content. As of May 2024, more than 60 papers had been marked with expressions of concern.
Umm....no. You don't get to pick your reviewers. That's done by the editor of the journal. And reviews are confidential - the reviewers are not disclosed to the author of the paper.
You do by picking the journal, which is what deathawaits wrote.
I have also been a reviewer of academic papers, and I find it hard to believe that the reviewers missed that. It's pretty obvious. One would assume that the reviewers are numerically literate.
Hmmm
"One would assume that the reviewers are numerically literate."
OR, they ran out of fingers to use - (like I do sometimes)
Yeah, the reviewers are supposed to check the fine print and consider whether the data and conclusions make sense. That part about determining that the data make sense includes reviewing the calculations. Otherwise, why have reviewers?
Then there are the credulous reporters, who express scorn and fear of anything arithmetic-related. I've heard this too often on NPR (NPR! where you'd think they would assume an educated audience!!).
In one appalling story years ago, a reporter was interviewing the mathematician/programmer responsible for the Mathematica software, and asked him whether science or math had ever discovered a solution to "the quadratic equation" and could his software do it.
It being radio, you could hear the man's jaw drop.
The expression is ... confirmation bias.
If you look at the actual paper, they don't rely on this mistaken number (42,000) anywhere. So it really doesn't affect the paper itself and its conclusions.
Specifically, it doesn't actually claims "80 per cent" that appears in Kevin's quote. That is somebody else mis-representing the paper.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653524022173?via%3Dihub#sec4
They do rely on it:
"Applying the transfer rate derived in those experiments (11.7%) to the median concentration of BDE-209 in the cooking utensils in this study, we obtained an estimated daily intake of 34,700 ng/day from the use of contaminated utensils (see SI for methods). This compares to a ∑BDE intake in the U.S. of about 250 ng/day from home dust ingestion and about 50 ng/day from food (Besis and Samara, 2012) and would approach the U.S. BDE-209 reference dose of 7000 ng/kg bw/day (42,000 ng/day for a 60 kg adult) (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2008)."
This is the punch line of the entire paper, and it clearly misrepresents the results.
The authors have the responsibility to get these things right before submission.
No, this is not the punch line.
The punch line, by definition, is either in the abstract or the conclusions.
And is clear from your quote, they don't actually use the number, they just mention it.
And they don't represent it as their results, either.
They "use" the number in so far as they draw _a_ conclusion about exposure levels based on it. Perhaps it isn't "the" conclusion. I'd love to know where/how to find the full thing pre-this breaking.
"They "use" the number in so far as they draw _a_ conclusion about exposure levels based on it"
That is simply a false statement. They did not draw any conclusion based on it.
The reference I give above is the actual paper, though in principle may be fixed. The bad number is still in.
Perhaps you and I are using different definitions of "conclusion." They took their estimated intake, and the incorrect multiplication, and concluded in the layman's sense of the word at least that the intake approached the reference dose. They didn't just state the estimated intake and the reference dose and leave the rest to the reader. They went ahead and wrote "and would approach the U.S. BDE-209 reference dose"
I don't think you can find a definition of the word "conclusion" that fits to the way you (and KenSchulz) use it here.
I'll go with 1a and 1b here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion
"1
a:
a reasoned judgment : inference
The obvious conclusion is that she was negligent.
b:
the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises
especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism"
Neither of these fits here.
I give up.
Oh, don't leave without providing your definition.
What an obnoxious little shit are. No, the definitions given fit the sense of how he's using the word as I understand it. But you unilaterally say he's not, then refuse to explain why, and finally declare victory and run away.
"I give up."
You should have done this sooner.
They drew the conclusion that exposure would ‘approach the reference dose’. That’s a pretty strong suggestion that use of black utensils is concerning.
Well, damn, I'd like a refund for throwing my black kitchen utensils away. But, I really did need an upgrade and am happy with the silicon ones I replaced them with.
I'm still using mine, because I'm old and don't need to live forever.
Silicone ones leach other things into your foods. Estrogenic compounds.
Plastic utensils in hot oil?!? And what of Kuang et al I could read, didn't say how hot and for how long. I assume that lurks in the full PDF.
https://www.nbcnews.com/select/shopping/black-plastic-cooking-utensils-rcna183495
I guess that explains why oils were used.
Come on Kevin, it's obvious they got confused by the SI units. What's this "nanogram" "kilogram" nonsense? True patriots use the Imperial system.
Wait, there's something wrong with my last sentence.
>chuckle<
True patriots most certainly understand SI units! They see them each spring - 38C, 36B, 40D ...
Nice.
TBF, I've never seen a 36B in SI.
I feel tiresome doing this over and over again, but this has been today's episode of "That thing you're worried about (poisonous cookware)? It's not a big deal to Kevin Drum (this time for legitimate, quantifiable reasons)"
You can find toxic substances in anything except a few kinds of ceramics and glassware - but even they're not free of hazards and chemical coatings.
Yes, you are tiresome.
Enemy Drones in New Jersey and plastic utensils!
Practicing the assassination of… someone! And poison too!
Oh the humanity!
Okay, so the solution is obvious. Your (black, silicone, whatever) spats leach Chemicals that Will Kill You. So will your non-stick pans, which is why you bought your Deadly Plastic spats to begin with, so they wouldn't damage The Deadly Non-Stick Surface.
Go back to cast iron, steel, aluminum etc pans and similar spatulas.
Actually, Eggs taste ever-so-much-more-better when fried in a cast iron skillet, and, I would wager, there are more than a few households that keep a small one for just that reason. Fun fact: Do you know what's better than a cast iron skillet for frying eggs? A gold skillet. A small, but extremely heavy gold skillet as demonstrated in a National Geographic from many years ago.
On Edit: I'm guessing the people who own one skew older if for no other reason than they inherited it from their mother.
Are you aware that aluminum cookware is suspected to be a contributor to the development of Alzheimer's disease?
That was disproven decades ago, like , sometime in the 90's. That's not quite correct, of course. The sciencey way to say this is that as of 2024 there is no study that associates Alzheimer's with aluminum.