4 ms·

80% of maximum fire retardants entering food or 8% of maximum fire retardants entering food are both "too much fire retardants entering food". Seems like the c

80% of maximum fire retardants entering food or 8% of maximum fire retardants entering food are both "too much fire retardants entering food". Seems like the conclusion very obviously still holds, so I'd agree with the study authors here, that error doesn't alter the conclusion.

coldpie 2y ago
> 80% of maximum fire retardants entering food or 8% of maximum fire retardants entering food are both "too much fire retardants entering food". OK, but that's not what this study was about, right? The original claim by the authors was that these utensils brushed up against safe limits. When that turned out to be false, the claim has shifted to the safe limits are too high. But that's a different study. You need to do a safety analysis of exposures to the substance. That's not what their study did.
- portaouflop 2y ago
  It doesn’t affect the conclusion so who cares what the study was about initially?
  - coldpie 2y ago
    Their conclusion that these utensils are dangerous depended on the results that showed these utensils are at or about the FDA's maximum safe dose. But after correcting the math error, it turns out they're actually about 1/10 of that. That invalidates their conclusion.
    - ternnoburn 2y ago
      1/10th is still high? And doses aren't a on/off amount. It's not like there's no risk until you hit 100% and then there's max risk. Exposure is exposure. There's a lethal dose for alcohol, but having 1/10th of that dose can still strongly negatively impact me.
      - coldpie 2y ago
        > 1/10th is still high Based on what? The FDA's safe dose by definition means there are no known significant risks. They build in pretty hefty safety margins in these things. It definitely could still be too high! We get things wrong all the time. But you need a different kind of study to show that.
        ternnoburn 2y ago
        Based on: the EPA regulates doses not the FDA, there are no human studies for these chemicals at all (the amounts are based on rats and mice), the dose isn't a "safe dose" it's a "reference dose", and a standard human is exposed to a few hundred nanograms of these chemicals normally in a day while cooking with these introduces tens of thousands of nanograms per day. So, baseline, one day of using black cookware exposes you to a years worth of baseline exposure. Every day. That's why I consider it high. These are known bioaccumulating carcinogenic compounds. I can reduce my baseline by over 99% by spending $10 on a new spatula? Yeah, that's high.

coldpie 2y ago

> 80% of maximum fire retardants entering food or 8% of maximum fire retardants entering food are both "too much fire retardants entering food". OK, but that's not what this study was about, right? The original claim by the authors was that these utensils brushed up against safe limits. When that turned out to be false, the claim has shifted to the safe limits are too high. But that's a different study. You need to do a safety analysis of exposures to the substance. That's not what their study did.

portaouflop 2y ago
It doesn’t affect the conclusion so who cares what the study was about initially?
- coldpie 2y ago
  Their conclusion that these utensils are dangerous depended on the results that showed these utensils are at or about the FDA's maximum safe dose. But after correcting the math error, it turns out they're actually about 1/10 of that. That invalidates their conclusion.
  - ternnoburn 2y ago
    1/10th is still high? And doses aren't a on/off amount. It's not like there's no risk until you hit 100% and then there's max risk. Exposure is exposure. There's a lethal dose for alcohol, but having 1/10th of that dose can still strongly negatively impact me.
    - coldpie 2y ago
      > 1/10th is still high Based on what? The FDA's safe dose by definition means there are no known significant risks. They build in pretty hefty safety margins in these things. It definitely could still be too high! We get things wrong all the time. But you need a different kind of study to show that.
      - ternnoburn 2y ago
        Based on: the EPA regulates doses not the FDA, there are no human studies for these chemicals at all (the amounts are based on rats and mice), the dose isn't a "safe dose" it's a "reference dose", and a standard human is exposed to a few hundred nanograms of these chemicals normally in a day while cooking with these introduces tens of thousands of nanograms per day. So, baseline, one day of using black cookware exposes you to a years worth of baseline exposure. Every day. That's why I consider it high. These are known bioaccumulating carcinogenic compounds. I can reduce my baseline by over 99% by spending $10 on a new spatula? Yeah, that's high.