MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4378605354 · doi:10.1353/cye.2010.0035

Slow Death by Rubber Duck

2010· article· en· W4378605354 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueChildren Youth and Environments · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueScience Education and Perceptions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 20 No. 1 (Spring 2010) ISSN: 1546-2250 Slow Death by Rubber Duck Smith, Rick and Lourie, Bruce (2009). Canada: Alfred A. Knopf Canada; 323 pages. $32.00 (CAN). ISBN 9780307397126. Toxic chemicals can be found not only in the environment that surrounds and sustains us, but inside each one of us. Smith and Lourie bring this point home by demonstrating—with a dozen or so off-the-shelf products and a few days spent holed up in an apartment—the role that consumer products play in determining our “body burdens” of toxic substances such as phthalates, Bisphenol-A, mercury and the antibacterial chemical Triclosan. In a semicontrolled experiment on themselves, the authors use laboratory test results of their before-and-after blood and urine levels to illustrate that simple everyday actions such as eating tuna, using fragranced personal care products and drinking from polycarbonate plastic containers can significantly increase a person’s body burden of toxic chemicals associated with cancer, disruption of the hormone system and a range of other health concerns. While much of the information in the book is not new, Smith and Lourie bring a fresh perspective to the daunting and disturbing issue of the health effects of the many chemicals used in everyday consumer products. With fascinating historical highlights of how substances such as brominated flame retardants have come to be incorporated into sofas and electronics and, ultimately, shed into the house dust that settles on the floors where our children play, the authors reveal the seemingly cavalier manner in which companies have placed our children’s delicate brains and hormone, immune and respiratory systems at risk for the sake of product “enhancement” and market share. With an engaging, rambling journey through the history of chemicals in consumer products, Smith and Lourie, both veteran environmental activists, successfully deliver their two intended “take home” messages. The first is that our choices as consumers do have 345 a profound effect on the levels of chemicals in our bodies. In one experiment, for example, Smith increased his urine levels of Triclosan from less than 3 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) to a whopping 7,180 ng/mL after using a handful of antibacterial products, including soap, dish liquid, toothpaste, shave gel and deodorant, for just two days. Their second take-home message is that it is impossible to completely avoid these toxic exposures given their ubiquitous nature: we must take action at the societal level. Despite the serious nature of the issues it addresses and the legitimate concerns it raises, Slow Death by Rubber Duck is a refreshing break from the often depressing books that line the environmental shelf at the local bookstore. While conveying an urgent need for societal action to curb the toxic content of consumer products, the authors’ insider description of recent regulatory gains and the related upsurge in public interest impart a sense of hope and momentum. While not as groundbreaking as Theo Colborn and colleagues’ expertly-crafted exposé of endocrine disrupting chemicals, My Stolen Future, Smith and Lourie’s book is a welcome addition to the growing tradition of books that translate complex scientific and biomedical concepts into terms that ordinary people can understand and incorporate into their daily lives. Although perhaps worth its inaccuracies given its attention-grabbing power, the book’s title—Slow Death by Rubber Duck—strikes me as somewhat unfortunate. If our kids’ bath toys were indeed made of rubber, a natural substance, we would have less to worry about. Also, the title’s focus on death, although certainly an outcome we want to avoid, belies the perhaps more unsettling concerns about the insidious, often subtle effects that toxic chemicals can have on the delicate architecture and functioning of the brain and other organ systems of the developing fetus and child. The real challenge is getting a scientific grasp of the difficult-to-pin-down chronic effects of the complex mixtures of low-dose synthetic chemicals we are all exposed to on a daily basis, from conception through old age. This book should be read by parents, grandparents, educators, health professionals, activists, industry leaders, shopkeepers, young people, and lawmakers alike. Because of its accessibility...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle