
From Saturday Morning Breakfast Cartoon, just so you know where I got this from.
"Conservation of works of art often involves the inappropriate application of synthetic polymers."The article certainly doesn't disappoint (open access). In this case, the researchers were trying to selectively remove polymeric films that earlier conservationists had applied to wall paintings in an effort to isolate the paintings from the environment. To the conservationists' credit, the paintings were isolated from the outer environment. Unfortunately, this led to crystallization of salts in the pores of the wall, thereby putting pressure on the coatings which then peel off the wall, often taking the paint with. The coatings also degraded in such a manner that their removal with solvents is either impossible or undesirable as the solvents would pass into the pores taking the coating with them. The only option was to use emulsions of the solvents in water.
"The team has now analysed data from the past 22 years - more than 6,000 net tows- to try and quantify the amount of plastic in the western Atlantic and the Caribbean...Perhaps the most surprising result... is that they didn't see an increase in debris over time. " [*]The authors also correctly point out that this work is only for the North Atlantic Gyre and cannot be extrapolated to other areas.
"So why is the packaging so loud? The new polymers have a higher "glass transition temperature," which is when a polymer goes from a harder, glasslike state to a rubber state. Because the transition to rubberiness happens a bit above room temperature, the bag is kind of crispy and crunchy..."Imagine that! The Wall Street Journal actually using the term "glass transition temperature" and then defining it! I can't say this has never happened before (a search of their website produced zilch, but I don't think the search covers the entirety of the Journal's history, ditto for Google), but it was sure a shocker.
"With few restrictions on space, reviewers may place additional demands on authors, requiring them to perform and add new analyses and experiments to the supplemental data. Often these additions are “invariably subordinate or tangential,” Maunsell maintains, but represent significant work from the author and thus delay the publication process. Supplemental data thus changes the expectations of both author and reviewer, leading to what he describes as an “arms race:”And for the reviewers,
"Reviewer demands in turn have encouraged authors to respond in a supplemental material arms race. Many authors feel that reviewers have become so demanding they cannot afford to pass up the opportunity to insert any supplemental material that might help immunize them against reviewers’ concerns."But there is also the truly laughable perspective of the journal:
"Validating supplementary data adds to the already overburdened job of the reviewer, Maunsell writes. Consequently, these materials do not receive the same degree of rigorous review, if any at all. At the same time, the journal certifies that they have been peer-reviewed."(emphasis added)I say laughable as while I greatly value peer-review and am an active participant and strongly believe it should continue, I never look to a journal to certify anything. A peer-reviewed article has simply been sent out to reviewer and they have sent reviews back. I don't know what the reviews were, if they were done by competent people, if they loved the article, hated it or whatever, and I also don't know if the reviews influenced the editor in the least. I certainly know that everyone reviews articles in their own manner and that that manner may not even be consistent from paper to paper. (I'm not.)
Back in the good old days, raw materials' prices typically only moved in one direction—up—and a manager was tasked with guessing the rate of increase and timing his orders to get ahead of the price hikes. That was then; now, prices for key raw materials fluctuate up and down, often dramatically...(From Plastics Today)
"...that the results were not statistically significant, the study design cannot show cause and effect and there was no comparison group of men who were not attending an infertility clinic....As such, the newspapers have overblown the significance of this research, which does not provide evidence that BPA causes sperm damage or poor sperm quality in humans."The BPF said they are
"concerned that interest in Bisphenol A is reaching the level of a witch hunt with studies which have failed to provide reproducible results."The "witchhunt" statement is certainly ringing true to me, what with BPA being blamed for such a wide, disparate range of symptom and conditions.
"Read full-text of an article for up to 24 hours for as little as $0.99. Rented articles can only be viewed at DeepDyve and cannot be downloaded, printed or shared. Basic DeepDyve accounts, which can be set up at no cost, come with 3 free rentals to allow readers to preview the functionality and presentation of rented articles."Depending on the article, this could be useful, although I don't see that I would personally use it much. I can live without the printing/saving option most likely, but the 24 hour access would be the real challenge for me. There are very few articles that I look at just once. Even if I am using an article for a current project (as opposed to something that is of general value), I usually can't pull all the relevant details with just one look - I keep going back to articles as my knowledge advances.