4 ms·

What in the world? This title is extremely editorialized. I encourage readers to actually assess the evidence in the journal article: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/s

What in the world? This title is extremely editorialized. I encourage readers to actually assess the evidence in the journal article: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.9b02226/suppl_file/es9b02226_si_001.pdf https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.9b02226/suppl... 1) It's important to note that the article title is actually: Flame retardant may cause hyperthyroidism in cats 2) Of note, they determined that a p-value of <0.10 was considered statistically significant, and of the studied compounds TDCIPP was the only one with significant odds ratio of exposure being associated with hyperthyroidism in cats (1.36, p value = 0.059). 3) Look. Organophosphates are probably one of those things that we should continue studying in detail. They seem more trouble than they're worth. But I don't think I'd hang my hat on this study alone.

sellyme 6y ago
> and of the studied compounds TDCIPP was the only one with significant odds ratio of exposure being associated with hyperthyroidism in cats (1.36, p value = 0.059). Am I correct in reading that they tested 24 different compounds (or compound groups)? Not often you see such a faithful recreation of https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
- mr_toad 6y ago
  TBF they did just report the odds ratios & p values. They didn’t jump to conclusions. I’d put this us the ‘more research is needed’ box.
- bananaface 6y ago
  I would argue you see that uncomfortably often
zug_zug 6y ago
I can't understand your response at all. The article shows that a flame-retardent increases risk of autoimmune condition with 94% confidence. And you downplay it because... it's less than 95% confident? (by the way, the paper finds its main finding at p < .02) To my mind, a major post-mortem is necessary, government funded. How many other flame-retardents cause health issues? How did they get past approval? In the meantime, an immediate injunction against flame-retardent laws should be passed (numerous tobacco-lobbied laws REQUIRE retardents), and all used retardents should be listed on the labels of all products. I expect the people in charge of public health to be as anal about their job as I am about mine.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  94% is an ordinary 'coincidence' value. Flip a coin until it comes up heads 5 times in a row. What are the odds! Well, if you keep flipping you always can see that. It's inevitable. That's why investigation is done until there are many more 9's. Because one 9 can be found just by trying a bunch of stuff.
  - zug_zug 6y ago
    So the statistical term for what you're saying is that the paper didn't use bonferroni correction. Which is relevant (but unrelated to the p < .05 arbitrary boundary). > That's why investigation is done until there are many more 9's Nobody said the investigation is done. What is being said is that this alone is a red flag that warrants a lot of investigation (and the investigation shouldn't have to be research by colleges whenever a graduate student gets around to it). This is something the EPA should fund an attempt to reproduce. It's the EPA's job to prevent dangerous chemicals from being sold in public goods. It's not college's job to need to conduct exhausting studies with absolute proof with many 9s that something is unsafe and then hand it off to the EPA to act. Once any reasonable doubt is raised the EPA needs to take ownership.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      This investigation is the bare beginning. It may turn out to be completely wrong. It does not warrant 'a lot of investigation'. There are so many spurious results out there, it would be a fools errand to dig into every curious result. And no I did not mean some correction. I meant, that publishing is a filter for any seemingly correlated result. It will inevitably include simple coincidences, because of the sample sizes involved. To put it simply, all coincidental results end up being published, because they look so remarkable. It's a reason to be very skeptical of small samples.
      - zug_zug 6y ago
        >>> I meant, that publishing is a filter for any seemingly correlated result. Great, we all know what publication bias is. Sure there's a non-zero chance that this is a statistical anomaly. But my dude, what exactly is going on in your head? Numerous flame retardants have already been found dangerous and toxic [1]. Are you seriously concerned people are going to take their health too seriously and throw away their couches because of this study? I think the exponentially more likely, and exponentially more dangerous concern is these flame-retardant chemicals aren't taken seriously enough... particularly since it's debatable whether they were ever necessary in the first place. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant#Health_concern...

sellyme 6y ago

> and of the studied compounds TDCIPP was the only one with significant odds ratio of exposure being associated with hyperthyroidism in cats (1.36, p value = 0.059). Am I correct in reading that they tested 24 different compounds (or compound groups)? Not often you see such a faithful recreation of https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/

mr_toad 6y ago
TBF they did just report the odds ratios & p values. They didn’t jump to conclusions. I’d put this us the ‘more research is needed’ box.
bananaface 6y ago
I would argue you see that uncomfortably often

zug_zug 6y ago

I can't understand your response at all. The article shows that a flame-retardent increases risk of autoimmune condition with 94% confidence. And you downplay it because... it's less than 95% confident? (by the way, the paper finds its main finding at p < .02) To my mind, a major post-mortem is necessary, government funded. How many other flame-retardents cause health issues? How did they get past approval? In the meantime, an immediate injunction against flame-retardent laws should be passed (numerous tobacco-lobbied laws REQUIRE retardents), and all used retardents should be listed on the labels of all products. I expect the people in charge of public health to be as anal about their job as I am about mine.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
94% is an ordinary 'coincidence' value. Flip a coin until it comes up heads 5 times in a row. What are the odds! Well, if you keep flipping you always can see that. It's inevitable. That's why investigation is done until there are many more 9's. Because one 9 can be found just by trying a bunch of stuff.
- zug_zug 6y ago
  So the statistical term for what you're saying is that the paper didn't use bonferroni correction. Which is relevant (but unrelated to the p < .05 arbitrary boundary). > That's why investigation is done until there are many more 9's Nobody said the investigation is done. What is being said is that this alone is a red flag that warrants a lot of investigation (and the investigation shouldn't have to be research by colleges whenever a graduate student gets around to it). This is something the EPA should fund an attempt to reproduce. It's the EPA's job to prevent dangerous chemicals from being sold in public goods. It's not college's job to need to conduct exhausting studies with absolute proof with many 9s that something is unsafe and then hand it off to the EPA to act. Once any reasonable doubt is raised the EPA needs to take ownership.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    This investigation is the bare beginning. It may turn out to be completely wrong. It does not warrant 'a lot of investigation'. There are so many spurious results out there, it would be a fools errand to dig into every curious result. And no I did not mean some correction. I meant, that publishing is a filter for any seemingly correlated result. It will inevitably include simple coincidences, because of the sample sizes involved. To put it simply, all coincidental results end up being published, because they look so remarkable. It's a reason to be very skeptical of small samples.
    - zug_zug 6y ago
      >>> I meant, that publishing is a filter for any seemingly correlated result. Great, we all know what publication bias is. Sure there's a non-zero chance that this is a statistical anomaly. But my dude, what exactly is going on in your head? Numerous flame retardants have already been found dangerous and toxic [1]. Are you seriously concerned people are going to take their health too seriously and throw away their couches because of this study? I think the exponentially more likely, and exponentially more dangerous concern is these flame-retardant chemicals aren't taken seriously enough... particularly since it's debatable whether they were ever necessary in the first place. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant#Health_concern...