That's the first bit of nonsense in this. I have a feeling there's going to be an absolute ton of sh*t in this post, but I'm happy to wade through it turd by turd. How do I know that in advance? Because you're a bear with a sore head that's why - you didn't get your way in asking for the thread to close.
So the facts are on this point that after Cliffforest told me to google, I did indeed google. Fail number one.
Fail no.2. That's clearly projection - punters here can see your various attempts to insult me for themselves - if that's not picking fights, I have no idea what is.
You misunderstood my point so the 'lack of elementary curiosity' here is yours and not mine. You could have asked me to clarify, but no you've preferred innuendo to questions. Projection again and fail no.3.
Who is annoyed here, other than you? Perhaps cliffforest? If so he can take his beef up with me privately if he likes.
Fail no.4 - again projection. The lack of self-awareness is clearly your own. Yes, its exciting, I am not ashamed to say.
I take 'kid' as a compliment but presumably 'juvenile' here is being meant pejoratively? If so fail no.5 as you're again trying to pick a fight but I can't take you seriously enough to even work up a lather about it.
Frank's been missing the point for quite a few posts now. But when you say 'troll-ing' what do you mean by it? When SY called me a troll a few months back I took it just to mean he didn't like certain questions. So different people use the word in different ways it seems.
Text without context would be a pretext yes. So the context does indeed indicate this interpretation is the most likely one. To wit - Frank's projecting all kinds of attacking onto me. Also juvenile does not fit in a purely descriptive way - I may be younger than SY but that's not saying much
Ah, "projection", I see. No, I like the topic. It's just not being discussed.
I've got a sore head because the thread went really nasty. That's why I said it should be closed:
Not only has it gone off topic but one poster here has accused another of bad faith and told falsehoods about the guy's business. And you encouraged him because you said the ensuing furor was "exciting." You were trolling.
Threads have been closed for lots less serious things.
Your remark about bookkeeping? 28000 scholarly entries about earths's energy budget and you managed roll them all into "bookkeeping"? I just don't believe you actually looked at any of it past Wikipedia, if that.
Why? Because you said in a post in an answer to an assertion that lying is a bad habit, "What's the evidence that lying is bad?" (I say it destroys trust, that's why). And in another post, "rationality is irrelevant," and in an other, "Logic is useless except in digital design. " (Ancient Greeks who first studied syllogism in a systematic way would be surprised). So, there's no real warrant to believe anything you say, is there? In your pursuit of excitement you could say anything for any reason relevant or irrelevant to any given discussion.
Indeed, your writing bears this out, but you should be.
Then there was your absurd conclusion:
Rubbish.
There's all kinds of emotions that drive folk and you have no idea what ones were driving those guys. I have had discussions with Islamist fundamentalists - plenty of emotion there. We agreed to disagree because the differences were existential. Greater emotional release would have included murder. But the discussion was productive because I discovered who some of my enemies were.
I don't have to do any "projecting" to know your motivation. All I have to do is read what you write.
As you say the object is to generate excitement for yourself.
I've missed a post but it's more of the same:
It's not particularly new. It's called "reading what folk write".
What falsehoods have been told? Please back up your accusations.
I have given my opinion on SY's paper & pointed out some of it's flaws. I said it was a fine example of what was being talked about in this thread. Nobody has addressed these points (apart from my being called a liar), rather it's the co-author & my motivation for my criticism that is the main concern of most of the posts here. If I see what I consider bad science, I will call it such. If I'm wrong call me on it. If anybody would like to leave their emotional baggage at the door & discuss this, I'd be happy to.
Again, is this not another fine example of the statement in post #3
Good god, it is educational - this thread is a self-revealing testament to the thread's topic. Is there anybody who is blind to this?
Rather than "this paper is flawed", I'd say the paper is not without flaws. The financial conflict of interest the most glaringly obvious. But accusations of public fear mongering may be inappropriate - the public most likely is largely unaware of the issue. I have not read the entirety of references on the subject, due to a simple value judgement (my main concern here is diy audio). If previous research has shown the chemicals to be harmful to infants, it isn't unreasonable to focus on baby bottles because that's what infants drink from after all. There's no doubt that more could be written, but I'm missing the point of it all. If there's something to the claim, some folks will be well positioned at the forefront of the research and solutions. If it's nothing, it's their loss of time and capital. If the crusade is in the name of truth and justice, there's certainly bigger fish to fry.
At last, a level-headed & logical reply!
As I said I'm not the only critic of this paper & it's intent. Here's just one example
I wouldn't go as far as this statement but you see the picture, I'm sure. Others
That's the point, chemicals with estrongenicity have not been proven to cause health effects in humans - hence my criticism! PlastiPure even admit this - See the quote belowsofaspud said:
This is the fear factor I'm talking about, illustrated by a quote from the PlastiPure website itselfsofaspud said:
The point is that this is an area of debate & contention in the scientific field. Leaving aside the health issue & just focusing on this as a scientific paper. What you say is correct, science operates on the basis of repeatability so others could verify or contradict these findings. What repeatability requires is enough detail is given in the paper so that others can verify or not, the findings. Have these newly discovered estrogenetic chemicals been identified to allow others to do this? No! I consider this bad science!sofaspud said:
Last edited:
Thank you. I do try.
Tax dollars? Treading too near the whirlpool of politics. Or is that cesspool? I can say I agree with those concerns, but fairness compels an admittance that I don't know Stier and Ross. Maybe they're plastics lobbyists, or lost the grant to PlastiPure.
This is the claim I'll attempt to find an answer to. Outside the diyAudio forum.
Maybe they just seek to exploit a market opportunity. In itself I don't find that to be immoral. I liken it to something like bottled water... if people want to pay a premium, fine by me. If an additional premium is added for the bottle too, is it much different?
I agree with this for the most part. If findings are given, they should include details on how those findings were made. But the real research is in using different methods to arrive at results, and subsequent comparison. Not just copycat lab work.
They were. Again, the paper, like all scientific papers, may not be comprehensible to the dim-witted, but a bright nonspecialist like you can certainly read the experimental details (they are contained in both the main paper and the supplemental material) and comprehend that other scientists can run the same experiments the same way. Lacking that, a paper won't even get to the referees- an editor will reject it immediately.
ACSH is a nongovernmental organization principally funded by the petrochemical and plastics industry and their affiliated foundations. A similar organization is the American Chemistry Council (not to be confused with the American Chemical Society, a truly independent scholarly organization).
Whoa! Whoa! I said "for the most part." I did read those details in the paper. And that's why I wrote the part about copycat lab work. Sure, run the experiments the same way. But aren't those in the field able to conceive of other methods which can be used to form a base of knowledge for comparison? Don't you execute different experiments looking at the same thing? Running the same experiment over and over achieves little, and I doubt that is where the intellectual challenge comes from in your job. I'm not your antagonist, SY. Apologies for the miscommunication.
"bright nonspecialist" hehe So much flattery this morning. I'm blushing.
"bright nonspecialist" hehe So much flattery this morning. I'm blushing.
Last edited:
spudster, no offense intended, I just wanted to clarify once again (in response to repeated false claims) that the experimental details sufficient for replication are given in the paper. Now, to your point, there's two levels of replication. The most obvious is to perform the experiment the same way, i.e., use an MCF-7 cell proliferation assay to quantify levels of EA in extracts from plastics. I guarantee you that there are several chemical company labs doing just that, and they will be delighted if they show that we made a mistake.
The second level, as you correctly point out, is to try to use an alternative detection method. There are a few problems with that, mostly sensitivity and repeatability. The government consortium tasked with qualifying in vitro test methods (ICCVAM/NICEATM) has only had two testing labs qualify (with ours being one). The qualification involved a very detailed double-blind study of test chemicals to determine sensitivity and reliability. The other lab to pass uses a yeast reporter gene assay (Lumicell), which is quite reliable but less sensitive. As part of our work, we sent several blind, coded samples to them for assay and comparison to our results. And to no-one's surprise, their results were the same as ours.
The second level, as you correctly point out, is to try to use an alternative detection method. There are a few problems with that, mostly sensitivity and repeatability. The government consortium tasked with qualifying in vitro test methods (ICCVAM/NICEATM) has only had two testing labs qualify (with ours being one). The qualification involved a very detailed double-blind study of test chemicals to determine sensitivity and reliability. The other lab to pass uses a yeast reporter gene assay (Lumicell), which is quite reliable but less sensitive. As part of our work, we sent several blind, coded samples to them for assay and comparison to our results. And to no-one's surprise, their results were the same as ours.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.