It IS concerning that a peer reviewed paper contains such a blatant mistake and yet noone who peer reviewed it noticed it. This will make a huge blow to any peer reviewed papers, seeding doubts to the standard of 'peer review'.
You've been watching science news carefully, this is an old issue. Peer review at this point is a rubber stamp and who you are and what you're publishing about matters more than your actual work
Peer reviews mistakes have always been people The scientific community rejected the old realists and pessimists ages ago Some people sabotage the review due to how small the academic world is where you can easily guess the author of the work, ideas against current popular or established ideas, in recent times ideology is playing a huge role in these reviews if you're an centrist or right winged researcher your work will either get rejected by the common left winged academic community or have hardest time getting your work approved due to first point on how small the academic community is Peer review system is similar to overwatch system same flaws the people within it
@derrickthewhite1 as a former academic research scientist, I can verify that this is true - a rubber stamp And that it was like that 20 yrs ago too when i finally had enough of the bs in the field.
My first year college physics professor would have multiple choice test to which several questions would have wrong answers that were off by a decimal point either way, sometimes even with an incorrect positive/negative indication. This taught us students to pay attention to this type of errors. Thanks professor, and Thanks Presh for sharing.
I do a fair amount of work that involves reading scientific publications around environmental issues, and this episode highlights a few issues that come up frequently. Yes, I see mistakes, publication biases, unsupported claims, and the like all the time. They usually aren't as blatant as this error, but mistakes in published works are distressingly common, especially when they support a preconceived notion. Oftentimes, they aren't errors in a direct sense, but the actual research says something different from what the headlines say. You have to actually read the papers. Most people don't have the knowledge or the time to do this, unfortunately. The second issue is that there is an anti-plastics orientation, and in particularly a hostility to plastics recycling, in the environmental community. Unfortunately, including even for many serious researchers, the belief comes first and the evidence comes second, which is why errors that work in favor of the belief are more likely to slip through the cracks. It's almost as bad as the antivax movement in that these beliefs will persist regardless of what the evidence says, because to some people it "feels" true that plastics must be bad.
This is a bigger problem than people realize. Hundreds of Peer Reviewed medical and scientific studies have been recalled because the reviewers received compensation for their work! Wink, wink! In many cases, the data was incorrect or plain fabricated. This practice results in more investor money and grants being wasted. I think the word is making people Accountable.
Related to your point towards the end at 7:45, another possibility this error came through is that the authors have already made their conclusions before the analysis. It's so much easier to wag fingers at 82% of the limit vs. 8.2%. Sprinkle a little publication bias and there you go.
No! They are nearest to heat, usually on a pan or pot. Direct contact to fire would require fire retardant, hence plastic utensils would only have to be heat resistant.
This type of error is actually very refreshing to see because the huge media blitz about it is proof that it's extremely rare. So rare that it made the news all over.
While I agree with your statement that anyone can make mistakes and that what important is to acknowledge and make corrections, I do feel that your position with regards to those "influencers" that made mistakes is a tad too lenient (at least in general). First, as some other commenters mentioned, the retraction (if it is even made) is usually ignored by the masses (hence, the damage is done and/or irreversible). Second, many of those who made retractions simply play victim after their mistakes got caught. A viral bullying might actually raise awareness that people should not be too gullible and "mind your decisions".
Wow! Math applied to something that matters in the real world, and not just as an intellectual challenge. IMHO, more posts like this would be very good.
@@noobvsprominecraftbuild I am a retired software and electronic engineer, so I know the value of math. This video brings the value of math to the general public on issues that directly affect them.
One of the benefits of the metric system is that multiplying and dividing by powers of 10 is easy. That's also sometimes its flaw... because 10s are easy, this sort of magnitude error is not that rare. Had the numbers been more complicated people verifying it would have been more likely to put it into a calculator and see the result... instead of just thinking 7*6 and add the zeros (and then get the number of zeros wrong).
TBH the first thing I was thinking was... 7000ng/whatever.... why not switch to µg. Working with easier to think about numbers, and the mistake would have been that much more obvious 7µg x 60 is definitely not 42µg, this is so much easier to notice. Both factors are >1, therefore the product must be larger than either.
Peer Review is far less scientific, IMO, than independent replication. F=ma is taken as fact since it's replicated every time I pilot pushes the throttles forward for takeoff (for example). One reason peer review is a suboptimal, IMO, process in sussing out scientific fact is because of exactly what you highlight - errors not detected by the authors or in a peer review. In this case, it was relatively easy to spot the error. In a more complex situation, the error may more subtle and not be revealed until someone else is trying to do the same thing, detailed step by detailed step, but just can't get the results to match the original paper. Reconciling the differences is far more likely to approach physical reality (scientific fact) vs peer review. Not yet replicated results should be treated as unconfirmed.
Another example of our panic culture. And it is not at all surprising to see the error carry through peer review. There have been many such examples. And come on, we really need MORE regulation? How about getting rid of the regulations requiring recycling of everything that is potentially causing the issue in the first place.
This is why I only do math in my head if it's for something that doesn't matter. But also, I avoid using plastic whenever possible. I don't trust it even if it's not recycled e-waste. Also, we have mountains of better plastic we could prioritize over recycling contaminated e-waste. We should recycle all the good stuff first.
"And if you think that transforming wasted electronics into kitchen devices should be alarming, you'd be correct. But that would definetly be possible."
If you do a little digging, you find that the peer review process itself is in beleaguered territory. Many peer reviewed papers are being retrospectively removed from their peer review status after fundamental errors found in their texts, often by members of the public. The fact that peer reviewers are staying quiet about their own errors in judgment flies in the face of your comment that errors should be disclosed and admitted. Peer review is seen as the gold standard of research, which makes such secrecy even more egregious.
The other problem with peer review publication is a bias towards "findings positive" results. Papers that make positive findings (or in other words, they confirm their initial premise) are eight to ten times more likely to be submitted for review than papers that make negative findings (they refute their initial premise). This practice itself causes research bias and a distorted impression of the topic.
Peer-review concept and process is highly overrated. I have read many many papers which had errors that even a highschoolar would catch, and they were published in good impact factor journals.
In today’s culture, nothing in “social media” surprises me. It wouldn’t have surprised me at all if the headline you read @0:15, “Black-colored plastic used for kitchen utensils and toys linked to banned toxic flame retardants”, had caused an uproar from woke people saying that calling them “Black plastics” is racist, and “retardants” is offensive.
It IS concerning that a peer reviewed paper contains such a blatant mistake and yet noone who peer reviewed it noticed it. This will make a huge blow to any peer reviewed papers, seeding doubts to the standard of 'peer review'.
You've been watching science news carefully, this is an old issue. Peer review at this point is a rubber stamp and who you are and what you're publishing about matters more than your actual work
Peer reviews mistakes have always been people
The scientific community rejected the old realists and pessimists ages ago
Some people sabotage the review due to how small the academic world is where you can easily guess the author of the work, ideas against current popular or established ideas, in recent times ideology is playing a huge role in these reviews if you're an centrist or right winged researcher your work will either get rejected by the common left winged academic community or have hardest time getting your work approved due to first point on how small the academic community is
Peer review system is similar to overwatch system same flaws the people within it
@derrickthewhite1 as a former academic research scientist, I can verify that this is true - a rubber stamp
And that it was like that 20 yrs ago too when i finally had enough of the bs in the field.
Yeah, someone really needs to talk to this "Noone" guy. Is he related to Peter Noone from the '60s rock band Herman's Hermits?
My first year college physics professor would have multiple choice test to which several questions would have wrong answers that were off by a decimal point either way, sometimes even with an incorrect positive/negative indication. This taught us students to pay attention to this type of errors. Thanks professor, and Thanks Presh for sharing.
Some businesses will go down by that mistake. And I do not even want to mention the consequences. Who will share the responsibility?
I do a fair amount of work that involves reading scientific publications around environmental issues, and this episode highlights a few issues that come up frequently. Yes, I see mistakes, publication biases, unsupported claims, and the like all the time. They usually aren't as blatant as this error, but mistakes in published works are distressingly common, especially when they support a preconceived notion. Oftentimes, they aren't errors in a direct sense, but the actual research says something different from what the headlines say. You have to actually read the papers. Most people don't have the knowledge or the time to do this, unfortunately.
The second issue is that there is an anti-plastics orientation, and in particularly a hostility to plastics recycling, in the environmental community. Unfortunately, including even for many serious researchers, the belief comes first and the evidence comes second, which is why errors that work in favor of the belief are more likely to slip through the cracks. It's almost as bad as the antivax movement in that these beliefs will persist regardless of what the evidence says, because to some people it "feels" true that plastics must be bad.
This is a bigger problem than people realize. Hundreds of Peer Reviewed medical and scientific studies have been recalled because the reviewers received compensation for their work! Wink, wink! In many cases, the data was incorrect or plain fabricated. This practice results in more investor money and grants being wasted. I think the word is making people Accountable.
The black plastic scare was everywhere! The retractions:
crickets
It's very hard for news outlets to convince people to read an article called "Kitchen utensils safe to use"
Related to your point towards the end at 7:45, another possibility this error came through is that the authors have already made their conclusions before the analysis. It's so much easier to wag fingers at 82% of the limit vs. 8.2%. Sprinkle a little publication bias and there you go.
it was probably that it was such a simple calculation that everyone assumed it was correct
Presh coined a new term today - Mathshaming 😂😂😂😂
Wait...
Why shouldn't cookware be flame retardant?
Aren't those the things nearest the stove?
No! They are nearest to heat, usually on a pan or pot. Direct contact to fire would require fire retardant, hence plastic utensils would only have to be heat resistant.
As a Ragusea subscriber, I knew what this was before I clicked! 😁
This shows why open source data is important. (But still not going to use black plastic cooking utensils haha.)
Definitely need a scientific calculator to do 60 x 7000 :-)
This type of error is actually very refreshing to see because the huge media blitz about it is proof that it's extremely rare. So rare that it made the news all over.
While I agree with your statement that anyone can make mistakes and that what important is to acknowledge and make corrections, I do feel that your position with regards to those "influencers" that made mistakes is a tad too lenient (at least in general). First, as some other commenters mentioned, the retraction (if it is even made) is usually ignored by the masses (hence, the damage is done and/or irreversible). Second, many of those who made retractions simply play victim after their mistakes got caught. A viral bullying might actually raise awareness that people should not be too gullible and "mind your decisions".
Wow! Math applied to something that matters in the real world, and not just as an intellectual challenge. IMHO, more posts like this would be very good.
I don't think that math is as useless as you suggest. Just look at computers.
@@noobvsprominecraftbuild I am a retired software and electronic engineer, so I know the value of math. This video brings the value of math to the general public on issues that directly affect them.
Id say calling it a huge error is an understatement. It is a blunder.
One of the benefits of the metric system is that multiplying and dividing by powers of 10 is easy. That's also sometimes its flaw... because 10s are easy, this sort of magnitude error is not that rare. Had the numbers been more complicated people verifying it would have been more likely to put it into a calculator and see the result... instead of just thinking 7*6 and add the zeros (and then get the number of zeros wrong).
It happens…
As an academic, that sucks.
TBH the first thing I was thinking was... 7000ng/whatever.... why not switch to µg. Working with easier to think about numbers, and the mistake would have been that much more obvious
7µg x 60 is definitely not 42µg, this is so much easier to notice. Both factors are >1, therefore the product must be larger than either.
5:34 Presh, there already is government regulation and oversight. That's why it doesn't work. We need someone else taking care of this.
No surprising for a peer viewed paper- never checked by anyone who is good at maths.
Peer Review is far less scientific, IMO, than independent replication. F=ma is taken as fact since it's replicated every time I pilot pushes the throttles forward for takeoff (for example). One reason peer review is a suboptimal, IMO, process in sussing out scientific fact is because of exactly what you highlight - errors not detected by the authors or in a peer review. In this case, it was relatively easy to spot the error. In a more complex situation, the error may more subtle and not be revealed until someone else is trying to do the same thing, detailed step by detailed step, but just can't get the results to match the original paper. Reconciling the differences is far more likely to approach physical reality (scientific fact) vs peer review. Not yet replicated results should be treated as unconfirmed.
Another example of our panic culture. And it is not at all surprising to see the error carry through peer review. There have been many such examples. And come on, we really need MORE regulation? How about getting rid of the regulations requiring recycling of everything that is potentially causing the issue in the first place.
Thank you Fresh Taliwacker.
I ditched my plastic cookware a while ago. It just doesn't hold up to the amount of abuse I give them.
A plastic that can melt with heat being used with heat might have something to do with flame retardants? Say it ain't so!
This is why I only do math in my head if it's for something that doesn't matter.
But also, I avoid using plastic whenever possible. I don't trust it even if it's not recycled e-waste.
Also, we have mountains of better plastic we could prioritize over recycling contaminated e-waste. We should recycle all the good stuff first.
7000 ng*60= 420000 ng not 42000 ng, checked on calculator, it's a mistake
Don't question. Just react to headline and buy new stuff.
What a crossover!
Well said.
moral of the story: we need to recycle what we hear or see to our brain ( if remotely functional ) before repeating them like a parrot.
Way to add to the conspiracy. No proof against so it must exist.
The intro feels like a nilered vid
Nilered would try to make licorice from his black spatula.
"And if you think that transforming wasted electronics into kitchen devices should be alarming, you'd be correct. But that would definetly be possible."
ali koca moment 7:55
6:10, haha that's also the name of this youtube channel
If you do a little digging, you find that the peer review process itself is in beleaguered territory. Many peer reviewed papers are being retrospectively removed from their peer review status after fundamental errors found in their texts, often by members of the public.
The fact that peer reviewers are staying quiet about their own errors in judgment flies in the face of your comment that errors should be disclosed and admitted.
Peer review is seen as the gold standard of research, which makes such secrecy even more egregious.
The other problem with peer review publication is a bias towards "findings positive" results. Papers that make positive findings (or in other words, they confirm their initial premise) are eight to ten times more likely to be submitted for review than papers that make negative findings (they refute their initial premise). This practice itself causes research bias and a distorted impression of the topic.
I had 5 thousand dollors,
If America's population were 3270, I could have given 1000 dollors to all, and still have 1730 dollors left
Peer-review concept and process is highly overrated. I have read many many papers which had errors that even a highschoolar would catch, and they were published in good impact factor journals.
More evidence that peer review is a rubber stamp.
We need more papers to be public access so we can catch more stuff like this.
Because in academia nobody publishes corrections of someone elses work as theres no money or prestige in it.
dont use plastic in cooking anyway
plasticizers and microplastics are endocrine disruptors.. use stainless
Do you have multiple independent scientific studies that prove this? Otherwise, it seems like you are just making things up.
In today’s culture, nothing in “social media” surprises me. It wouldn’t have surprised me at all if the headline you read @0:15, “Black-colored plastic used for kitchen utensils and toys linked to banned toxic flame retardants”, had caused an uproar from woke people saying that calling them “Black plastics” is racist, and “retardants” is offensive.
What does this have to do with anything in the video?
Except no one did that outside of your imagination.
No, we don't need any more government overreach. Let mother nature take her course.