61–70 of 124 posts
Microplastics have always fascinated me, because I keep seeing article after article about how much microplastic exists around us, but far less strong evidence about its actual effects. That is not to say there are no effects, of course. Maybe we just have not found them yet. A friend of mine worked on her bachelor’s thesis about the effects of microplastics on the immune system, specifically T cells. Her result was…
Microplastics have always fascinated me, because I keep seeing article after article about how much microplastic exists around us, but far less strong evidence about its actual effects. That is not to say there are no effects, of course. Maybe we just have not found them yet. A friend of mine worked on her bachelor’s thesis about the effects of microplastics on the immune system, specifically T cells. Her result was…
> but far less strong evidence about its actual effects. Yeah, but we shouldn't take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. The fact is that it's just really really hard to establish a causal relationship, even if it's there, because of all the cofounders. Heck even if you constructed a study with a known poison, like lead, and you might not see the results in a single study. You could give 50 participants water…
That's wrong. Yes, we should.
Each and every study that doesn't find evidence for what they are looking for is evidence for its absence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... too large to interact with T cells. Also, unfortunately, a result that industry and the anti-regulation crowd will use to say microplastics are harmless.
also, asbestos is too small to interact with T-cells, so it must be safe.
The mechanism of harm for asbestos is known to be that the fibers enter the lungs and can't be expelled, eventually leading to cancer. Its interaction with T-cells is quite irrelevant there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but far less strong evidence about its actual effects. Yeah, but we shouldn't take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. The fact is that it's just really really hard to establish a causal relationship, even if it's there, because of all the cofounders. Heck even if you constructed a study with a known poison, like lead, and you might not see the results in a single study. You could give 50 participants water…
> Yeah, but we shouldn't take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. That's wrong. Yes, we should. Each and every study that doesn't find evidence for what they are looking for is evidence for its absence.
If the studies are powerful enough then that absolutely isn’t evidence of absence at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but far less strong evidence about its actual effects. Yeah, but we shouldn't take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. The fact is that it's just really really hard to establish a causal relationship, even if it's there, because of all the cofounders. Heck even if you constructed a study with a known poison, like lead, and you might not see the results in a single study. You could give 50 participants water…
> Yeah, but we shouldn't take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. That's wrong. Yes, we should. Each and every study that doesn't find evidence for what they are looking for is evidence for its absence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> She probably will not publish this result because she thinks it is not interesting enough. Classic file-drawer problem in academic science. It's truly insane that everyone in the academic class understands the fundamental problems of herding and sampling bias and yet every incentive is in place to do this.
Having lived this reality, people respond to incentives. Your have to very fundamentally re-architect the incentives and career progression in academia to make publication of null results more common. The other side of this is reducing the time and hassle of publication. Right now I’m unlikely to battle for 1.5-3 years to get something through peer review for a result that nobody will find interesting.
Careful, you're starting to sound dangerously close to an Austrian economist!
[ ;) ]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this whole attitude. Moving away from plastics in our kitchen was basically zero extra cost. Something busted, and we replaced it with non-plastic. Even bamboo scrubbers don't cost more than plastic (maybe even a little less) and I can't see any particular longevity difference. I think the fact that I volunteer to clean up trash on public lands and know that weathered plastic is the period worst period to…
Things like glass food storage containers are really expensive compared to plastic. And they still have plastic lids; like, I don't know what you'd even do without at least the seal-part being some kind of plastic, I guess you'd need to use natural-sourced wax to make it seal, or something? And on the topic of cost, I'm certain my kids have broken between 50 and 100 glass and ceramic drinking cups, storage containers…
> That's just true. Plastic spoons for cooking suck, wood and (where it makes sense and won't damage other things) metal are way better.
If you have ever used nice commercial high-temp silicone spatula, it's an incredibly versatile and easy to clean spoon for cooking. A bit expensive at like $20 though. Pair with nice nonstick pan and polycarbonate cutting board (dishwashable) for the easiest and most out of fashion cooking and cleaning experience.
> One thing that's surprised me is the cost and/or total lack of availability of glass blender jars
My cheapest in the store oyster blender is glass, I think they mostly still are.
I think hate of plastics is an emergent form of elitism. Upwardly mobile middle/upper class people who've sort of "maxed out" the amount of personal identity they can buy with regular plastic things can unlock a new level of identity by deciding that plastics are bad for them and eliminating plastics from their life, a process which conveniently requires buying a whole new set of things that distinguish them from the…
Microplastics have always fascinated me, because I keep seeing article after article about how much microplastic exists around us, but far less strong evidence about its actual effects. That is not to say there are no effects, of course. Maybe we just have not found them yet. A friend of mine worked on her bachelor’s thesis about the effects of microplastics on the immune system, specifically T cells. Her result was…