Thursday, July 16, 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Significantly higher rate of foodborne illness and death in cities with plastic bag bans
We find that the San Francisco County ban is associated with a 46 percent increase in deaths from foodborne illnesses.
The study not only links deaths to the plastic bag ban, but also the additional costs of illness for those who get sick, but do not die. What is the reason for more people getting sick? The study claims it is because we are reusing our reusable shopping bags without cleaning them between uses!
The study goes on to point out that similar increases in illnesses from foodborne diseases have been seen in other communities that have since also banned plastic bags.
Ick!
I pointed out this potential problem about six years ago in my Tuesday Two/Epoch-Fail series, where I stated,
And what of reusable canvas bags? Heh. Guess what. You have to buy them. They get very unsanitary very quickly. Wanna guess how many patrons are not washing them regularly? There are reasons behind our strict food handling guidelines, and canvas bags now represent a very weak link in food safety
The Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illness study isn't perfect, but it does coincide with my statements. However, it's not just about keeping bags washed. The study finds that we store the reusable bags in places that tend to breed bacteria, such as car trunks.
The study also points out that the overall cost of the ban doesn't come close to breaking even with the benefit seen to the environment as a result of the ban. In other words, the cost of plastic bag bans is substantially greater than the cost benefit to the environment!
The problem is that we have local governments making rules about society without proper research in vain attempts at social engineering. Before the plastic bag bans went into effect, these governments should've found and implemented safe alternatives. It's been eights years since that original ban, and we still do not have safe alternatives even being proposed! What we do have is more cities and counties pushing for expansion of the ban, despite the harm it causes us and the lack of actual benefit to the environment.
Thursday, July 02, 2015
Monday, June 29, 2015
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Lack of reproducibility of scientific papers getting attention
A lack of reproducibility of published scientific studies is finally getting recognition by the corporations (that seems to me to that could lose millions from bad research). Academia seems a bit resist. Source article:
Reseach uncovering unreproducibility faces backlash
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Monday, June 22, 2015
Saturday, June 20, 2015
I know English is evolving when I hear these words in a courtroom
The first interesting word was uttered by the Prosecutor quoting the defendant who was fighting a DUI charge. The Prosecutor stated that the defendant pleaded with the arresting officer to cut him a break because he was not cocked. This word cocked was used in a mocking manner by the prosecutor several times in his opening and closing arguments.
The second word that stood out was spoken by the Defense attorney. While questioning the arresting officer, the Defense attorney asked about the likelihood of something-or-another. What caught my attention is that he used the prolly, instead of prob'ly or probably. The use of this word in such a formal manner struck me, since the word is still considered by many to be of the mythically inferior not-a-word status.
The last spoken element I picked up on was the Judge's use of the idiom begging-the-question. I've written about the idiom begging-the-question quite recently. There are two official definitions for the idiom. The traditional definition is based on a logical fallacy. The modern definition is an alternative for raises-the-question; this was Judge's use that day. It is interesting to note that both definitions appear in dictionaries now.
The second word that stood out was spoken by the Defense attorney. While questioning the arresting officer, the Defense attorney asked about the likelihood of something-or-another. What caught my attention is that he used the prolly, instead of prob'ly or probably. The use of this word in such a formal manner struck me, since the word is still considered by many to be of the mythically inferior not-a-word status.
The last spoken element I picked up on was the Judge's use of the idiom begging-the-question. I've written about the idiom begging-the-question quite recently. There are two official definitions for the idiom. The traditional definition is based on a logical fallacy. The modern definition is an alternative for raises-the-question; this was Judge's use that day. It is interesting to note that both definitions appear in dictionaries now.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Monday, June 15, 2015
There is increased awareness of general problem with #scientific studies right now, with #preclinical at the crux
Over reliance on study conclusions and flaws within scientific studies is a troubling problem that is recently getting more attention, finally.
As more studies and data are revealed about this issue, the problem seems to be far worse than some may have believed. This most recent study suggests that 50% of preclinical studies are plagued with errors which prevent their results from being reproduced. As any high school graduate should know, reproducibility of a study's result is the cornerstone of the Scientific Method. Anyone must be able to use the same methods of the study to find similar results. If results cannot be reproduced, the study has no scientific value and cannot be used as a reference or source for further discovery.
To sound the alarm even louder, Nature's article Irreproducible biology research costs put at $28 billion per year cites that as much as 89% of studies may have irreproducible results. They state,
The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research study states,
Flawed preclinical studies create false hope for patients waiting for lifesaving cures; moreover, they point to systemic and costly inefficiencies in the way preclinical studies are designed, conducted, and reported. Because replication and cumulative knowledge production are cornerstones of the scientific process, these widespread accounts are scientifically troubling.The problems go beyond preclinical studies. I've approached this topic before in two previous articles.
As more studies and data are revealed about this issue, the problem seems to be far worse than some may have believed. This most recent study suggests that 50% of preclinical studies are plagued with errors which prevent their results from being reproduced. As any high school graduate should know, reproducibility of a study's result is the cornerstone of the Scientific Method. Anyone must be able to use the same methods of the study to find similar results. If results cannot be reproduced, the study has no scientific value and cannot be used as a reference or source for further discovery.
To sound the alarm even louder, Nature's article Irreproducible biology research costs put at $28 billion per year cites that as much as 89% of studies may have irreproducible results. They state,
Overall, the team [study researchers] found that poor materials made the largest contribution to reproducibility problems, at 36%, followed by study design at 28% and data analysis at 26%. The team estimates the overall rate of irreproducibility at 53%, but cautions that the true rate could be anywhere between 18% and 89%. That puts the potential economic cost of irreproducibility anywhere from $10 billion to $50 billion per year.This is a problem that needs to be tackled. It is costing billions of dollars, and perhaps putting lives at risk.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)