4 ms·

The study is underpowered. But I sure as shit wouldn't be bathing in this stuff given the results.

• jncfhnb 3y ago
  I bet your bathing products aren’t far off
  • eggy 3y ago
    Funny you should say that, because I managed a water show in Macau. The 17 million liter, 10m deep pool had hydraulically actuated lifts in it, and we went from normal hydraulic fluid to vegetable oil for leak and contamination issues. The vegetable oil hydraulic fluid had issues, so we switched to a PEG-based fluid. Toxicity reports were great. I had over 400 technical dives in the pool servicing equipment. When we switched over, the performers were concerned about the PEG-based fluid. Some claimed they had a rash after a small leak (5 gallons in a 5m gallon pool). Others joined in on the fear and I had to address the technicalities to a mostly lay audience. I asked them to check their body moisturizers and hair conditioners they all used before and after each show. One of the top half of the ingredients were PEGs. I am not saying someone couldn't have a sensitivity to PEGs, but in this case it seemed like fear over rationality when they were putting more ppm of PEG on their bodies via their care products than they could have been exposed to in the pool.
• Fomite 3y ago
  This is a very confusing statement to be, statistically. Statistical power is the ability to detect an effect, given an effect is there. This study detects an effect - and indeed, does so with statistical significance. By definition, that seems like it can't be underpowered.
  • Fomite 3y ago
    ^"...a very confusing statement to me" as it were.