“However, it is important to note that this does not impact our results,” Liu told National Post. “The levels of flame retardants that we found in black plastic household items are still of high concern, and our recommendations remain the same.”
The paper correctly gives the reference dose for BDE-209 as 7,000 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, but calculates this into a limit for a 60-kilogram adult of 42,000 nanograms per day. So, as the paper claims, the estimated actual exposure from kitchen utensils of 34,700 nanograms per day is more than 80 per cent of the EPA limit of 42,000. Article content
That sounds bad. But 60 times 7,000 is not 42,000. It is 420,000. This is what Joe Schwarcz noticed. The estimated exposure is not even a tenth of the reference dose. That does not sound as bad.
I’m sure it’s a concern still but lmao the level of concern changed quite a bit
Moving a comma in a chemical calculation is something that can have a severe impact. Like that guy calculating the amount of explosives for a firecracker…
“The estimated exposure is not even a tenth of the reference dose.”
That small math mistake of missing a zero makes a huge difference when you’re talking about the difference between 8% of the safe level and 80% of the safe level.
It also is based largely on assumptions of recycled electronics plastics usage. There’s nothing to see here.
