Journal that published faulty black plastic study removed from science index

The study was off by a factor of 10, and the levels of flame retardants found was actually under the FDA guidelines for maximum daily exposure.<p>However, in my own assessment, my maximum daily exposure to ingested flame retardants should be zero, rather than some off the cuff figure that was certainly done with appeasing industry in mind.<p>So yes, I still ditched my plastic cookware in favor of stainless steel and silicone, and am still happy that the erroneous study got my attention.

When this study was first published, Adam Ragusea did a video on it[1]. 12 minutes in, he points out that he thinks there is a basic arithmetic error in the paper. This was well before anything was on the news, and he was the only one talking about that before everything blew up. I&#x27;m surprised more people didn&#x27;t catch it.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=58HUM40gDPU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=58HUM40gDPU</a>

Good. Not catching a simple multiplication error is a terrible indictment of their peer review process. On the other hand, peer review is doomed and getting more doomed by the day, and I expect more and more journals will fail if the quality criteria get fairly applied.

An off-by-10x multiplication error in a published paper?<p>How about this off-by-100x multiplication error I discovered in a published paper[1]?<p>AFAIK, that paper hasn&#x27;t been retracted. I was meaning to contact the author and publisher, but never got around to it. A mitigating factor is that the error is made in regard to a side topic of the paper, not the main topic of the paper.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27419018">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27419018</a>

Related (in reverse order):<p><i>Huge math error corrected in black plastic study; authors say it doesn&#x27;t matter</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=42437201">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=42437201</a> - Dec 2024 (112 comments)<p><i>A simple math error sparked a panic about black plastic kitchen utensils</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=42400008">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=42400008</a> - Dec 2024 (176 comments)<p><i>Cooking with black plastic is particularly crucial to avoid</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41996156">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41996156</a> - Oct 2024 (845 comments)

I trashed all my black plastic utensils and bought stainless steel ones. I can’t decide if I did the right thing or not.

I doubt this matters for the general population. My folks had already thrown out their black plastic utensils.

I never read any of these articles, but I also never use plastic cookware.<p>Heat does leach plastisizers and other chemicals into food.<p>Microplastics do move from cookware into food.<p>I have a set of pots&#x2F;pans and accompanying utensils, all stainless, that I&#x27;ve used for decades, and plan to use for the rest of my life.<p>This also constitutes a reduction in constantly produced plastic waste.<p>Try not to use ANY plastic...

The study has other problems as well. The typical customer electronics cases where you would find the flame retardants would be mostly from ABS. Kitchen utensils used in a pan can not be from ABS or they would melt. So they are made from silicone or nylon. There is a table in the paper, but its vague at best.

It’s funny that this article makes a mistake in its reporting. There wasn’t an error in the levels. But just how they compared it to the guidlines

Ah, the revenge of the mighty plastic industry pulling its strings.