5 ms·
The significance of this retraction may be too late. Some governments have already banned microplastics.
by rubatuga 10y ago
The significance of this retraction may be too late. Some governments have already banned microplastics.
- danso 10y agoI don't think this study was the one that triggered regulatory action. For one thing, this particular study seems to have been published in late June 2016. But U.S. regulatory action took place well before that: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/health/obama-bans-microbeads/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/health/obama-bans-microbeads/
- ouid 10y agoThe negative impact of microplastics on the environment is not being contested in this retraction. This is not the only study of its kind, and the fact that it was fraudulent is not good evidence that the entire line of inquiry is.
- blacksmith_tb 10y agoNot to mention that the case for microplastics seems to me to be non-existent: I don't doubt manufacturers were interested in using them for marketing, but as a consumer, the prospect of putting tiny pieces of plastic in my toothpaste/soap/etc. instead of other more harmless - to me and the environment - abrasives leaves me cold.
- wlesieutre 10y agoIt's not just deliberate use of plastics in stuff that gets designed to go down the drain. We're also shedding plastic fibers into the water by washing synthetic clothing: http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html http://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html
- blacksmith_tb 10y agoAbsolutely - but I'm not aware of any sort of regulations limiting the use (or washing) of, say, microfiber polyester (unlike the 'microbeads' I was heaping scorn on). I have mixed feelings about microfibers, they certainly have justifiable uses, I wonder if what we need to solve is how to effectively remove them from the wastewater generated by laundering them.
- erikpukinskis 10y agoThe existence of a flawed paper claiming microplastic harm doesn't mean that microplastics are harmless.
- throwanem 10y agoOr that they aren't. It doesn't mean anything. There is no conclusion about the subject matter of the study which it is able to support, and that's why it was withdrawn. Can you cite a study of similar import which tends to contradict this paper's null hypothesis?
- ricardobeat 10y agoA quick search will turn over dozens of years-long studies on the subject. You said it yourself: there is no conclusion on the subject matter based on this retraction, so really nothing to challenge here.
- dnautics 10y ago> It doesn't mean anything That's not true. It is as an indictment of the scientific system that would allow fraud like this to get through because it fit the prevailing narrative.
- throwanem 10y agoTo be sure. I meant more specifically in relation to the hypothesis it purported to test, but you're not wrong. These are frightening times. Old certainties are crumbling around us and no one yet knows what new realities will rise to replace them. But we've been through worse times, and come out better in the end. We will do so this time, too.
- dnautics 10y agospeaking strictly about science, the community of science has never been in a time like this. To be fair, there have been 'arguably worse' times, but the difficulites of those eras were imposed on the scientific community from without. What is happening now is all from within.