I remember the original study that found wood cutting boards to have lower bacterial incidence. Then a later study suggested that lacquers or other treatments on the wood boards and not the wood itself were responsible for the lower incidence. Don’t know if the linked study came before or after all that.
You’d think this would be an easy issue to settle. If matters like this take decades to settle, what does that do for one’s certainty in assessing the question of anthropogenic global warming?
Well *that* headline got my attention.
I remember the original study that found wood cutting boards to have lower bacterial incidence. Then a later study suggested that lacquers or other treatments on the wood boards and not the wood itself were responsible for the lower incidence. Don’t know if the linked study came before or after all that.
You’d think this would be an easy issue to settle. If matters like this take decades to settle, what does that do for one’s certainty in assessing the question of anthropogenic global warming?