8 ms·

Huge math error corrected in black plastic study; authors say it doesn't matter

173 points by ars 2y ago

isaacfrond 2y ago
I was actually seriously considering tossing my kitchenware. It was only me inertia that kept me from it. I wonder how long the afterlife of this one is going to be; reminds me of the autism causing vacines hoax
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Well, the original post on HN was front page. This one is collecting... barely more than a point an hour. So if HN doesn't even care...
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    The discussion of this topic five days ago received 128 points and 174 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      Thank you so much!
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > The discussion of this topic five days ago received 128 points and 174 comments Interesting. My understanding was that HN yanks a thread off the front page as soon as it has more comments than upvotes, because that's their indicator of being "controversial". Which never made sense to me, because I leave hundreds of times more comments than article upvotes.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        > My understanding was that HN yanks a thread off the front page as soon as it has more comments than upvotes, because that's their indicator of being "controversial". I have read that a lot of times but this doesn't seem to be the case, I can remember multiple times when I clicked on something on the front page and it had more comments than upvotes. This is currently on the front page with 245 points and 274 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441502
      - 6510 2y ago
        We need an AI to pick the correct topics and raise us properly.
- jkestner 2y ago
  For sure. In the face of bigger systemic changes that feel out of our control (eating better, working less, affordable health care), we’ll try every “one weird trick”.
- moron4hire 2y ago
  It's not a hoax, though. Vaccines causing autism was. While the level of the carcinogen wasn't what they thought it was, it's still significantly higher than the 0 that it should be, because the only reason it's there at all is because the companies are recycling plastic from electronics. I think that the researchers saying it doesn't change their conclusion is reasonable. If you had told me that Cocoa Krispies were 50% rat feces, but then came back and said you'd made a mistake and was off by an order of magnitude, it's only 5%, I think it would be pretty reasonable to not update your conclusion that Cocoa Krispies were significantly contaminated with rat feces.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    > the carcinogen I love how threat inflation turns chemicals from innocuous to deadly in the absence of any strong evidence. No, we cannot say this chemical is a carcinogen. Read the wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether > In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. DecaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."
    - zug_zug 2y ago
      EPA safe guidelines are changed all the time often by much more than 1 order of magnitude. E.G. lead has gone from .5ppm being safe (1995) to 20 ppb (2023). If you adopted a life strategy of "only avoid things after scientists have conclusive evidence it's dangerous for you" then you'd have unnecessarily ingested hundreds of various poisons over the last 100 years.
      - 6510 2y ago
        That people with Alzheimer's cook in aluminum doesn't prove causation. 2024 https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzheimers/ https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzh... > This research has shown higher aluminium levels in the brain and the fluids that bathe the brain in people with Alzheimer’s when compared to healthy individuals. But just spotting higher levels doesn’t mean they are a cause of the disease. > [...] most scientists think that aluminium build-up in the brain is more likely to be a consequence of Alzheimer’s disease rather than a cause. Ah yes, the "most scientists" card. "more likely" is also hilarious! Most doctors are more likely to smoke camel. 2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/ > The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD. The science folk need an entirely different level of evidence than I do.
- phoronixrly 2y ago
  Idk, plastic in contact with hot/acidic food/surfaces gets a no from me. Even before the apparently incorrect paper. Really, you bought Tupperware? Even if you don't ask yourself whether any contaminants were released by it in your food, maybe the fact that it gets stained by pasta sauce to a point where it becomes an Internet meme makes it shitty kitchenware? Even without exposure to food, plastic deteriorates with sunlight exposure or even just age... Why spend money on stuff like this? Buy a porcelain salad bowl instead, get a wooden spatula, put some oil on it so it endures washings.
- Tomte 2y ago
  I did. And today I wouldn‘t, but still, the silicone set is nicer than the hard plastic one. So I don‘t mind too much.
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    Likewise: after throwing out all of our cheap black plastic utensils, we replaced them with much nicer wood, metal, and silicone implements. It was a pleasant little upgrade, even if it wasn't strictly necessary; no regrets.
- emilamlom 2y ago
  They're $5 spatulas that melt and shed bits of plastic over time. Wood, silicon, or stainless steel are all better and not too much more expensive. Even if this was a hoax (which it's not), there's plenty of reason to upgrade anyways.
- dfxm12 2y ago
  As long as some famous nude model doesn't make it a personal crusade to spread disinfo, I don't think it'll quite reach "autism causing vaccines" levels.
- croes 2y ago
  So you are ok with getting a dosis of 8% of the EPA limit when alternatives with much less toxicity exist?
gimmeafb 2y ago
[flagged]
EE84M3i 2y ago
Was this originally discovered by Adam Ragusea? He mentioned it in his video about it before all the press came out about the error, and said he emailed the authors.
- thebetatester 2y ago
  I wondered that as well. Shame they didn't give him credit if he truly was the first one to point it out.
- savanaly 2y ago
  I've never been too sure how closely he's reading those papers he refers to in his informational vids; if he actually discovered a flaw himself from reading one that is highly indicative he's doing a good job!
thaumasiotes 2y ago
Obviously it doesn't matter. If it mattered, the paper might get retracted.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  You forgot the sarcasm font there....
  - phoronixrly 2y ago
    It's not even sarcasm. The authors state that the correction does not alter the conclusion
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      As I pointed out in my comment above, that's the same thing all authors say when someone shows massive problems in their data.
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      There are so many bogus studies out there that are not retracted, a non-alteration of a conclusion based on an order of magnitude error is just par for the course
      - phoronixrly 2y ago
        Well, if an order of magnitude error does not alter the conclusion, then it does not alter the conclusion...
coreyh14444 2y ago
Also see this from Ethan Mollock on Twitter: https://x.com/emollick/status/1868329599438037491 https://x.com/emollick/status/1868329599438037491 -- o1 was able to spot the error on the first try. It has now led to a whole initiative called the Black Spatula Project: https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/the-black-spatula-project https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/the-black-spatula-proj...
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  [dead]
- fnqi8ckfek 2y ago
  That's actually crazy. How does it do it? I thought that these machines only "predict the next word".
  - dartos 2y ago
    They are. They’re just really really good at it. That’s how ML is. “Prediction” is just another word for really really good guess.
    - fnqi8ckfek 2y ago
      That's dodging my question. I know theyre just predicting the next word, but that doesn't explain how that works so amazingly well in this case. There's a few steps missing. If anything this seems like an ad for an AI. When I try these things they can even solve leetcode, for which they actually have the solution in the training set.
      - baggy_trough 2y ago
        To predict the next word, you need some model of the universe.
      - dartos 2y ago
        The intuition I’ve been building around LLMs is that they’re like search systems. They encode their training data in their weights and do a kind of search on it given a prompt. If leetcode problems are in their training data, then they’ll of course answer the question with ease.
oidar 2y ago
People are missing the forest for the trees on this one. I agree with the author here - unfortunate error, but the conclusion should lead to the same actions.
- jtc331 2y ago
  At minimum it changes the urgency for individuals with existing cookware.
  - phoronixrly 2y ago
    We are talking about black plastic spatulas and spoons, right? Existing cookware? Non-plastic replacements' price is less than 5 euro at IKEA, possibly less at local kitchenware stores... What urgency would there be apart from 'oh I need to pick up a wooden spatula for eur 0.50 next time I go to IKEA'...
- coldpie 2y ago
  So the main concept people are having a disagreement here is around the concept of risk versus hazard. A thing can be a hazard, without being a risk. The data you should use to decide to take action is the amount of risk, not the amount of hazard. In the specific scenario of humans ingesting potentially dangerous substances, usually risk is directly related to the amount of exposure to a hazard. In other words, you can think of it as "risk = hazard * exposure." For example: - If you're a smoker, your exposure to the hazardous substances in cigarette smoke is sky-high. The risk to your health of being a smoker is so high and so clear that societies spend millions of dollars to try to convince people of the risk. - If you're living with a smoker, but not a smoker yourself, then your exposure is lower, but still high enough to be actionable. So we see indoor smoking bans and 2nd hand smoke information also included in anti-smoking campaigns. - If you're walking down the sidewalk and pass by a smoker for three seconds, you're still encountering the exact same hazard, but your exposure is so low that the risk is not really actionable. It's not like we see big public campaigns about crossing the street to avoid the risk of 3 seconds of exposure to second hand smoke. That's because the risk isn't there. - Someone smoking in their house 50 miles from you is obviously zero risk to you at all, even though the hazard still exists. You can see the same kind of pattern everywhere: car exhaust is the same hazard everywhere, but whether it's a risk worth actioning depends on whether you live in a dense urban center, or next to a busy freeway, or out in the exurbs. So back to the plastic stuff. The study authors were claiming that the level of risk was high enough to justify everyone in the world throwing their utensils away and buying brand new ones. When it came out that the exposure factor of their "risk = hazard * exposure" formula was actually off by a factor of 10, they... stuck with the exact same story? I don't know, man. The original claim was below the acceptable risk threshold, and now it's even ten times lower than that. Surely that has some impact on the level of risk? Does this drop the risk from "smoker" to "passing by a smoker for 3 seconds"? The distinction matters when deciding how much effort mitigating this risk requires: should I throw everything out right now, or just buy something else when my current ones wear out, or is the risk actually so low that it really does not matter? If I replace them, what is the level of risk of the things I replace them with? Should society put in the effort to ban these chemicals? What are the pros/cons of that? Are the risks mitigated worth the costs? The authors' refusal to acknowledge this really makes me doubt that their conclusion is not affected by some kind of bias. The jury's still out, sure, but I'm not yet sold on their risk claims.
JoshGG 2y ago
What amount of fire retardants would you like in your food? How about zero? I would like zero. These have already been banned in CA from furniture because it creates household exposure. Why would it be ok in cooking utensils? BTW the chemicals don’t actually prevent house fires it’s basically an industry scam to put them into products.
- infecto 2y ago
  Your information is incorrect. Flame retardants were introduced into everything because of CA and Federal laws requiring items to smolder and not catch fire. While I don't believe flame retardants should be as prevalent as they are today, I also think its unfair to say they don't prevent house fires. They absolutely have done some saving but I don't think across the entire population its a net positive. These rules were originally put into place because of a number of high profile cases where kids died, the biggest vector were beds, people smoked and dropped the butt on their mattress and poof. That rule in CA is in the right direction, glad they are helping right some of the wrong they did but it is still in everything. I think its more helpful to paint the accurate historical picture as opposed to yours which is using hyperbole to generate a reaction.
  - JoshGG 2y ago
    “”” Flame retardants were widely adopted in the 1970s, when in-home smoking was more prevalent and electronics frequently overheated. New research, however, shows that flame retardants are not very effective at slowing or preventing fires. “”” https://www.sfenvironment.org/how-can-i-avoid-flame-retardant-chemicals https://www.sfenvironment.org/how-can-i-avoid-flame-retardan...
    - infecto 2y ago
      Is that supposed to prove something? That site is all fluff. I am not here defending flame retardants, I absolutely believe they don't provide a net positive to the population. Your lack of information and hyperbole is what I am after. These were not "scams". Your SF website does a good job of leaving out California’s TB117 which is one of the pivotal laws that created widespread adoption of retardants in items. There were also some prior Federal laws but TB117 is seen as one of pivotal ones. Now, I don't know the history behind the chemical manufacturers and if they were behind the fear mongering but there absolutely were tragic cases that moved the nation to implement these laws. It was not just a "scam" that gets added to everything.
OJFord 2y ago
> Ars has reached out to the lead author, Megan Liu, but has not received a response. Liu works for the environmental health advocacy group Toxic-Free Future, which led the study. Clearly the authors had their conclusion even before doing the study, so of course the error doesn't affect it.
- phoronixrly 2y ago
  No. The authors state that their conclusion is not altered by the change in calculations. As per TFA: > "This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper," the correction reads. The corrected study still ends by saying that the flame retardants "significantly contaminate" the plastic products, which have "high exposure potential."
- ajkjk 2y ago
  How is that clear? Perhaps they are a group that exists to do studies like that.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    Groups that exist to do studies like that can be biased toward gainful employment and suppress anything that threatens the revenue stream.
    - ajkjk 2y ago
      And they can also do real studies with plenty of scientific legitimacy. Without evaluating the studies you have no way of knowing if they're biased or not and you're just spreading conspiracy theories.
    - croes 2y ago
      Can but in this case it’s still unnecessarily toxic with 8% of the EPA limit
  - OJFord 2y ago
    That is pretty much my point, yes.
itsdrewmiller 2y ago
Basically a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008
animanoir 2y ago
Click bait article.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I would say it's a factor of 10 times less clickbaity than the click-bait of the original article if 80% to 8% is indeed correct.
spacemark 2y ago
Maybe it's just too early or there are other posts, but I find it an interesting insight into human behavior - supposedly intelligent human behavior - that there were hundreds of comments on the posting of the original study here at HN, the vast majority of which accepted the study's conclusion, yet there are much fewer comments on the "adjustment" to the study's conclusion. I shouldn't be too cynical, but it's a reminder to be skeptical, always.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  There was a discussion of this retraction last week which received many more comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008
theshaper 2y ago
Update: "Journal that published faulty black plastic study removed from science index" https://arstechnica.com/health/2024/12/journal-that-published-faulty-black-plastic-study-removed-from-science-index/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2024/12/journal-that-publishe...
syndicatedjelly 2y ago
On the one hand, making mistakes in basic math is reasonable cause for retraction; on the other hand, why are people defending the use of something with only 8% of the daily limit of a carcinogen? Is there some hidden benefit to using melty plastic utensils on a hot iron pan versus, say, wood or metal, both of which contribute closer to 0%?

173 points by ars 2y ago

I was actually seriously considering tossing my kitchenware. It was only me inertia that kept me from it. I wonder how long the afterlife of this one is going to be; reminds me of the autism causing vacines hoax

crazygringo 2y ago
Well, the original post on HN was front page. This one is collecting... barely more than a point an hour. So if HN doesn't even care...
- marssaxman 2y ago
  The discussion of this topic five days ago received 128 points and 174 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Thank you so much!
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > The discussion of this topic five days ago received 128 points and 174 comments Interesting. My understanding was that HN yanks a thread off the front page as soon as it has more comments than upvotes, because that's their indicator of being "controversial". Which never made sense to me, because I leave hundreds of times more comments than article upvotes.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      > My understanding was that HN yanks a thread off the front page as soon as it has more comments than upvotes, because that's their indicator of being "controversial". I have read that a lot of times but this doesn't seem to be the case, I can remember multiple times when I clicked on something on the front page and it had more comments than upvotes. This is currently on the front page with 245 points and 274 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42441502
    - 6510 2y ago
      We need an AI to pick the correct topics and raise us properly.
jkestner 2y ago
For sure. In the face of bigger systemic changes that feel out of our control (eating better, working less, affordable health care), we’ll try every “one weird trick”.
moron4hire 2y ago
It's not a hoax, though. Vaccines causing autism was. While the level of the carcinogen wasn't what they thought it was, it's still significantly higher than the 0 that it should be, because the only reason it's there at all is because the companies are recycling plastic from electronics. I think that the researchers saying it doesn't change their conclusion is reasonable. If you had told me that Cocoa Krispies were 50% rat feces, but then came back and said you'd made a mistake and was off by an order of magnitude, it's only 5%, I think it would be pretty reasonable to not update your conclusion that Cocoa Krispies were significantly contaminated with rat feces.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > the carcinogen I love how threat inflation turns chemicals from innocuous to deadly in the absence of any strong evidence. No, we cannot say this chemical is a carcinogen. Read the wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether > In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. DecaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."
  - zug_zug 2y ago
    EPA safe guidelines are changed all the time often by much more than 1 order of magnitude. E.G. lead has gone from .5ppm being safe (1995) to 20 ppb (2023). If you adopted a life strategy of "only avoid things after scientists have conclusive evidence it's dangerous for you" then you'd have unnecessarily ingested hundreds of various poisons over the last 100 years.
    - 6510 2y ago
      That people with Alzheimer's cook in aluminum doesn't prove causation. 2024 https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzheimers/ https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news/aluminium-and-alzh... > This research has shown higher aluminium levels in the brain and the fluids that bathe the brain in people with Alzheimer’s when compared to healthy individuals. But just spotting higher levels doesn’t mean they are a cause of the disease. > [...] most scientists think that aluminium build-up in the brain is more likely to be a consequence of Alzheimer’s disease rather than a cause. Ah yes, the "most scientists" card. "more likely" is also hilarious! Most doctors are more likely to smoke camel. 2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21157018/ > The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD. The science folk need an entirely different level of evidence than I do.
phoronixrly 2y ago
Idk, plastic in contact with hot/acidic food/surfaces gets a no from me. Even before the apparently incorrect paper. Really, you bought Tupperware? Even if you don't ask yourself whether any contaminants were released by it in your food, maybe the fact that it gets stained by pasta sauce to a point where it becomes an Internet meme makes it shitty kitchenware? Even without exposure to food, plastic deteriorates with sunlight exposure or even just age... Why spend money on stuff like this? Buy a porcelain salad bowl instead, get a wooden spatula, put some oil on it so it endures washings.
Tomte 2y ago
I did. And today I wouldn‘t, but still, the silicone set is nicer than the hard plastic one. So I don‘t mind too much.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  Likewise: after throwing out all of our cheap black plastic utensils, we replaced them with much nicer wood, metal, and silicone implements. It was a pleasant little upgrade, even if it wasn't strictly necessary; no regrets.
emilamlom 2y ago
They're $5 spatulas that melt and shed bits of plastic over time. Wood, silicon, or stainless steel are all better and not too much more expensive. Even if this was a hoax (which it's not), there's plenty of reason to upgrade anyways.
dfxm12 2y ago
As long as some famous nude model doesn't make it a personal crusade to spread disinfo, I don't think it'll quite reach "autism causing vaccines" levels.
croes 2y ago
So you are ok with getting a dosis of 8% of the EPA limit when alternatives with much less toxicity exist?

gimmeafb 2y ago

[flagged]

EE84M3i 2y ago

Was this originally discovered by Adam Ragusea? He mentioned it in his video about it before all the press came out about the error, and said he emailed the authors.

thebetatester 2y ago
I wondered that as well. Shame they didn't give him credit if he truly was the first one to point it out.
savanaly 2y ago
I've never been too sure how closely he's reading those papers he refers to in his informational vids; if he actually discovered a flaw himself from reading one that is highly indicative he's doing a good job!

thaumasiotes 2y ago

Obviously it doesn't matter. If it mattered, the paper might get retracted.

readthenotes1 2y ago
You forgot the sarcasm font there....
- phoronixrly 2y ago
  It's not even sarcasm. The authors state that the correction does not alter the conclusion
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    As I pointed out in my comment above, that's the same thing all authors say when someone shows massive problems in their data.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    There are so many bogus studies out there that are not retracted, a non-alteration of a conclusion based on an order of magnitude error is just par for the course
    - phoronixrly 2y ago
      Well, if an order of magnitude error does not alter the conclusion, then it does not alter the conclusion...

coreyh14444 2y ago

Also see this from Ethan Mollock on Twitter: https://x.com/emollick/status/1868329599438037491 https://x.com/emollick/status/1868329599438037491 -- o1 was able to spot the error on the first try. It has now led to a whole initiative called the Black Spatula Project: https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/the-black-spatula-project https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/the-black-spatula-proj...

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
[dead]
fnqi8ckfek 2y ago
That's actually crazy. How does it do it? I thought that these machines only "predict the next word".
- dartos 2y ago
  They are. They’re just really really good at it. That’s how ML is. “Prediction” is just another word for really really good guess.
  - fnqi8ckfek 2y ago
    That's dodging my question. I know theyre just predicting the next word, but that doesn't explain how that works so amazingly well in this case. There's a few steps missing. If anything this seems like an ad for an AI. When I try these things they can even solve leetcode, for which they actually have the solution in the training set.
    - baggy_trough 2y ago
      To predict the next word, you need some model of the universe.
    - dartos 2y ago
      The intuition I’ve been building around LLMs is that they’re like search systems. They encode their training data in their weights and do a kind of search on it given a prompt. If leetcode problems are in their training data, then they’ll of course answer the question with ease.

oidar 2y ago

People are missing the forest for the trees on this one. I agree with the author here - unfortunate error, but the conclusion should lead to the same actions.

jtc331 2y ago
At minimum it changes the urgency for individuals with existing cookware.
- phoronixrly 2y ago
  We are talking about black plastic spatulas and spoons, right? Existing cookware? Non-plastic replacements' price is less than 5 euro at IKEA, possibly less at local kitchenware stores... What urgency would there be apart from 'oh I need to pick up a wooden spatula for eur 0.50 next time I go to IKEA'...
coldpie 2y ago
So the main concept people are having a disagreement here is around the concept of risk versus hazard. A thing can be a hazard, without being a risk. The data you should use to decide to take action is the amount of risk, not the amount of hazard. In the specific scenario of humans ingesting potentially dangerous substances, usually risk is directly related to the amount of exposure to a hazard. In other words, you can think of it as "risk = hazard * exposure." For example: - If you're a smoker, your exposure to the hazardous substances in cigarette smoke is sky-high. The risk to your health of being a smoker is so high and so clear that societies spend millions of dollars to try to convince people of the risk. - If you're living with a smoker, but not a smoker yourself, then your exposure is lower, but still high enough to be actionable. So we see indoor smoking bans and 2nd hand smoke information also included in anti-smoking campaigns. - If you're walking down the sidewalk and pass by a smoker for three seconds, you're still encountering the exact same hazard, but your exposure is so low that the risk is not really actionable. It's not like we see big public campaigns about crossing the street to avoid the risk of 3 seconds of exposure to second hand smoke. That's because the risk isn't there. - Someone smoking in their house 50 miles from you is obviously zero risk to you at all, even though the hazard still exists. You can see the same kind of pattern everywhere: car exhaust is the same hazard everywhere, but whether it's a risk worth actioning depends on whether you live in a dense urban center, or next to a busy freeway, or out in the exurbs. So back to the plastic stuff. The study authors were claiming that the level of risk was high enough to justify everyone in the world throwing their utensils away and buying brand new ones. When it came out that the exposure factor of their "risk = hazard * exposure" formula was actually off by a factor of 10, they... stuck with the exact same story? I don't know, man. The original claim was below the acceptable risk threshold, and now it's even ten times lower than that. Surely that has some impact on the level of risk? Does this drop the risk from "smoker" to "passing by a smoker for 3 seconds"? The distinction matters when deciding how much effort mitigating this risk requires: should I throw everything out right now, or just buy something else when my current ones wear out, or is the risk actually so low that it really does not matter? If I replace them, what is the level of risk of the things I replace them with? Should society put in the effort to ban these chemicals? What are the pros/cons of that? Are the risks mitigated worth the costs? The authors' refusal to acknowledge this really makes me doubt that their conclusion is not affected by some kind of bias. The jury's still out, sure, but I'm not yet sold on their risk claims.

JoshGG 2y ago

What amount of fire retardants would you like in your food? How about zero? I would like zero. These have already been banned in CA from furniture because it creates household exposure. Why would it be ok in cooking utensils? BTW the chemicals don’t actually prevent house fires it’s basically an industry scam to put them into products.

infecto 2y ago
Your information is incorrect. Flame retardants were introduced into everything because of CA and Federal laws requiring items to smolder and not catch fire. While I don't believe flame retardants should be as prevalent as they are today, I also think its unfair to say they don't prevent house fires. They absolutely have done some saving but I don't think across the entire population its a net positive. These rules were originally put into place because of a number of high profile cases where kids died, the biggest vector were beds, people smoked and dropped the butt on their mattress and poof. That rule in CA is in the right direction, glad they are helping right some of the wrong they did but it is still in everything. I think its more helpful to paint the accurate historical picture as opposed to yours which is using hyperbole to generate a reaction.
- JoshGG 2y ago
  “”” Flame retardants were widely adopted in the 1970s, when in-home smoking was more prevalent and electronics frequently overheated. New research, however, shows that flame retardants are not very effective at slowing or preventing fires. “”” https://www.sfenvironment.org/how-can-i-avoid-flame-retardant-chemicals https://www.sfenvironment.org/how-can-i-avoid-flame-retardan...
  - infecto 2y ago
    Is that supposed to prove something? That site is all fluff. I am not here defending flame retardants, I absolutely believe they don't provide a net positive to the population. Your lack of information and hyperbole is what I am after. These were not "scams". Your SF website does a good job of leaving out California’s TB117 which is one of the pivotal laws that created widespread adoption of retardants in items. There were also some prior Federal laws but TB117 is seen as one of pivotal ones. Now, I don't know the history behind the chemical manufacturers and if they were behind the fear mongering but there absolutely were tragic cases that moved the nation to implement these laws. It was not just a "scam" that gets added to everything.

OJFord 2y ago

> Ars has reached out to the lead author, Megan Liu, but has not received a response. Liu works for the environmental health advocacy group Toxic-Free Future, which led the study. Clearly the authors had their conclusion even before doing the study, so of course the error doesn't affect it.

phoronixrly 2y ago
No. The authors state that their conclusion is not altered by the change in calculations. As per TFA: > "This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper," the correction reads. The corrected study still ends by saying that the flame retardants "significantly contaminate" the plastic products, which have "high exposure potential."
ajkjk 2y ago
How is that clear? Perhaps they are a group that exists to do studies like that.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  Groups that exist to do studies like that can be biased toward gainful employment and suppress anything that threatens the revenue stream.
  - ajkjk 2y ago
    And they can also do real studies with plenty of scientific legitimacy. Without evaluating the studies you have no way of knowing if they're biased or not and you're just spreading conspiracy theories.
  - croes 2y ago
    Can but in this case it’s still unnecessarily toxic with 8% of the EPA limit
- OJFord 2y ago
  That is pretty much my point, yes.

itsdrewmiller 2y ago

Basically a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008

animanoir 2y ago

Click bait article.

EasyMark 2y ago
I would say it's a factor of 10 times less clickbaity than the click-bait of the original article if 80% to 8% is indeed correct.

spacemark 2y ago

Maybe it's just too early or there are other posts, but I find it an interesting insight into human behavior - supposedly intelligent human behavior - that there were hundreds of comments on the posting of the original study here at HN, the vast majority of which accepted the study's conclusion, yet there are much fewer comments on the "adjustment" to the study's conclusion. I shouldn't be too cynical, but it's a reminder to be skeptical, always.

marssaxman 2y ago
There was a discussion of this retraction last week which received many more comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42400008

theshaper 2y ago

Update: "Journal that published faulty black plastic study removed from science index" https://arstechnica.com/health/2024/12/journal-that-published-faulty-black-plastic-study-removed-from-science-index/ https://arstechnica.com/health/2024/12/journal-that-publishe...

syndicatedjelly 2y ago

On the one hand, making mistakes in basic math is reasonable cause for retraction; on the other hand, why are people defending the use of something with only 8% of the daily limit of a carcinogen? Is there some hidden benefit to using melty plastic utensils on a hot iron pan versus, say, wood or metal, both of which contribute closer to 0%?