Plastic Microfibers are in the food supply.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evpdpn/were-eating-plastics-from-our-own-dirty-laundry
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evpdpn/were-eating-plastics-from-our-own-dirty-laundry
Maybe it's the ultimate pick-up line: "For the good of the environment, you must discard your clothing immediately."
Please DON'T discard your fleece and synthetic clothing immediately. At least not on account of the study that is linked in the above article.
The 'study' is a prime example of a few people creating a problem where one almost certainly does not exist, using bush-league 'science' in an effort to do good but ultimately causing for more harm than good. The methods section reads like a bunch of out of town hikers climbing Washington in late November in jeans and sneakers, and then publishing their gear list as a good way to bag the peak. If these scientists (*shudder*) would spend as much time and money on experimentation as they did on the hi-res photos in the website, we'd have a much better understanding of what (if any) problem actually exists.
The Nibiru Cataclysm http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...x-apocalypse-hurricane-irma-mexico-earthquake on the 23rd will make it all spurious.
See a peer reviewed paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14340. I do see the harm has not been determined, but there are specific hypotheses for biological toxicity. I wonder if the chemical structure of the plastic changes with cooking.
Just something to keep your eye on...
The Nibiru Cataclysm http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...x-apocalypse-hurricane-irma-mexico-earthquake on the 23rd will make it all spurious.
It's not fake news, but it's not particularly rigorous or meaningful either. Sample collection, analysis, characterization - it's all pretty amateur. [snip]
Good gosh there was a recent lengthy TV show about this very subject. It purported to be a serious blend of "science and religious prophecy" (yes, an outright miracle). After 5-10 minutes I thought all my eye-rolling would cause me serious vision damage so I switched it off. Truly the bottom of the faux-science barrel but the zenith of 'creative interpretation' of religious prophecy.
I hope whoever funded the show has money left over to produce a second one. It can feature the original cast of "scientific" doomsayers scraping the egg off their ignorant faces. Of course, that'll never happen. At best it'll be some hand-waving about using the "wrong calendar" and "prophecy is not an exact science".
Amateur and "not particularly rigorous" articles do not get published in Nature, the world's preëminent scientific journal.
Except that it's not published in Nature, it's published in Nature Scientific Reports. [snip]
Except that it's not published in Nature, it's published in Nature Scientific Reports. You can look up the corresponding impact factors yourself.
[edit: I'm thinking my pre-coffee posts can be rather pithy. Since probably not a single person reading this has any care or interest in impact factors, I'll just say that not all peer-reviewed journals have the same standards for publication. Nature has very high impact factor and high standards of scientific rigor (though some crap still gets in), while Nature Scientific Reports does not have either. Looking to see where a particular paper is published, and then checking the impact factor of that journal, is a very good start for judging the quality of published research. It's not fool-proof, but it's a very good start. This is becoming rather tangential to the theme of this forum. But since we're bombarded with 'science' on a daily basis, maybe this helps folks better judge the quality of what they're reading.]
Enter your email address to join: