by IndrekR on 12/12/24, 3:34 PM with 176 comments
by michaelt on 12/12/24, 5:03 PM
475 points, 845 comments, 42 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41996156
by mentalgear on 12/12/24, 4:23 PM
==== From the article:
“However, it is important to note that this does not impact our results,” Liu told National Post. “The levels of flame retardants that we found in black plastic household items are still of high concern, and our recommendations remain the same.”
So if you’re keen on eliminating these chemicals in any amount, chucking the black plastic kitchenware is a start, even if not as effective as the erroneous calculation suggests.
by FredPret on 12/12/24, 5:03 PM
They like steel and glass kitchenware only. I guess that makes me a crunchy dad (at least when it comes to the kitchen): with any type of plastic, we don't really know what it's really going to do to you long term. Might be nothing at all, but it might be lots of really bad things. But with steel and lead-free glass? It just sits there doing its job for decades on end, no leaching, no reacting, no bits of microplastic in the cooking.
If I saved up the money I spent on non-stick pans, I could've bought several sets of good steel ones, each of which will outlast me. Same goes for steel spatulas.
by sholladay on 12/12/24, 5:18 PM
The earliest I know of is Adam Ragusea.
by tqi on 12/12/24, 4:43 PM
It's interesting that we routinely dismiss studies funded by corporations as "biased" and "junk science", but never seem to scrutinize studies from other such advocacy groups. With a name like "Toxic-Free Future" it seems pretty obvious to me what their conclusions were going to be even before the study was done. Not because of nefarious reasons, but because confirmation bias is a difficult thing to overcome.
by simgt on 12/12/24, 4:58 PM
Somehow we all got convinced that teflon and complex polymers were solving a problem... It's simply not true.
by arboles on 12/12/24, 8:59 PM
Perhaps these are the only exceptions. For some of us that have grown up being taught the importance of sorting your trash for the bins by school and TV, it might feel like a betrayal. I would actually like to know the average percentage of the content of domestic recycling bins that the entities on the other side bother to see recycled.
by croes on 12/12/24, 4:23 PM
But I don’t want 8% exposure either if it’s avoidable
by saulpw on 12/12/24, 4:47 PM
by wruza on 12/12/24, 9:19 PM
A reminder to not believe everything you hear about on the internet, even if you feel smart and scientific about an article having a link to some paper or something. Didn’t read tfa back then.
Edit: now I read this thread, ugh.
by andrewmutz on 12/12/24, 4:32 PM
by kcaj on 12/13/24, 3:48 PM
The authors are from a Seattle non-profit called Toxic Free Future (https://toxicfreefuture.org/mission/https://toxicfreefuture....)
Had the mistake been made in the other direction, making the significance of their finding very small, would they have double checked their math? You bet they would have.
by SubiculumCode on 12/12/24, 4:22 PM
by mhardcastle on 12/12/24, 7:28 PM
So an order-of-magnitude difference has no impacts on the result? How can that be?
by oidar on 12/12/24, 4:56 PM
by stevenhubertron on 12/12/24, 4:15 PM
by sinuhe69 on 12/12/24, 4:42 PM
by warkdarrior on 12/12/24, 4:35 PM
by chias on 12/12/24, 6:26 PM
Are we assuming that children also weigh 60 kilograms, that they don't eat, or that we never liked them anyway?