3 ms·

>>> 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

>>> 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...

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
What's going on is, the 'emotional outrage of the minute' eco-topics that keep coming up. I have limited investment to spend in outrage. I'm not spending it on every preliminary report that might show some correlation. For instance, tiny cats (6lbs? 10?) that sleep on furniture for 8-10 hours a day show elevated flame retardant in an absorbent tag. Do the cats respond in the same way as humans to these chemicals? (No) Is the acceptable dose for a 10lb cat different from a 100lb person? (Yes) Was anything else measured in the experiment (No?) Did the experiment seek out any other explanations? (No) This reeks of a cherry-picked goal-directed experiment to create outrage. It seems the opposite of science.