This is not a free speech issue. The commenter makes a worthwhile point, and your point meanwhile is incorrect. Critique is not the same as reaction.

Explain

Average can also refer to median. It’s a better measure of central tendency than mean in this case.

It’s a tricky to maintain balance between openness to opposing views while avoiding susceptibility to disingenuous “just asking questions” diversion.

It is not the word. Broiling is a cooking technique of using very high direct radiant heat (i.e. cooking below the heat source). In England and Europe it’s often called “grilling”.

Don’t feed the trolls. This is an obvious attempt to divert the conversation.

Almost certainly the latter. Rogan has forged a remarkable career in legitimizing authoritarianism, and he’s never been more valuable to oligarchs than now.

It took me a second to figure out what you were referring to, but yeah, that’s a case in point.

Yes, and this lawsuit follows a whole series of other actions by the SEC. It may seem like a long time, but due process was followed.

$150 for a meal and five movie tickets doesn’t seem expensive to me. That’s honestly not bad for a meal alone.

This is absolutely spot on.

Exactly this. If you are starting to feel like the world, or a particular people, are excessively negative and hateful, you’re almost certainly spending too much time online.

I’m definitely not doing that. I’m pointing out that the commenter above is correct and you appear to have a misconception about what non-profit means.

Ok, it’s evident that reading papers of this sort is perhaps new-ish territory for you, but I sincerely commend your curiosity.

To whit: if you read the Results and Discussion section of Banaei, you will find at least 5 inline citations that refer to other papers that have investigated plastic microparticle interaction with intestinal cells going all the way back to 2004, and multiple other papers discussing microparticle interaction with other cell types. What this paper does is absolutely not novel. It isn’t necessarily worthless, but it is very much not new.

Per the methodological issues with Hernandez, there is a formalized process in scientific publishing for ensuring that critical discourse about a paper is presented alongside the original work. If you search for Hernandez (or any other paper) in PubMed and scroll down past the abstract, you’ll find related articles. If there are any formal comments/critiques/corrections, those will be listed first with a different subheading.

You mean 501(c), and distribution of excess profit would at minimum evoke an excise tax and might cause loss of 501(c) status.

This article is impressive. Two whole paragraphs of ad-hominem before even mentioning the topic, and then never mentioning it again.

Or maybe zerohedge is right. I’ve heard that DEI hires were the main reason that 30-50% of Europe’s population died between 1346 and 1353. The liberals want us to think it was bubonic plague, but all the red pills really know it was the trans agenda.

You should know that critical methodological issues were reported with Hernandez, viz. they failed to discriminate particle identity. A recreation of their experiment demonstrated that the vast majority/virtually all of the particles were actually soluble oligomers that were subsequently crystallized by their preparation technique, i.e. not microplastics.

Your reading of their paper is extremely generous, but I’m not sure where you get the idea that analysis of the interaction between microplastics and endothelial cells is novel; the citations in this paper alone should be enough to tell you otherwise. The sole novelty of this paper is in drawing a link between existing studies on cell interaction and real-world situations, which is evident right from the title: “Teabag-derived micro/nanoplastics as a surrogate for real-life exposure scenarios”.

There may well be further room for experimentation in this arena, but this paper falls flat. Their methodology is so far off anything that could be described as “real-world” that it is spurious to draw any subsequent conclusions.

In a sense, but clarity of language can be the difference between accurate conclusions and misrepresentation. Just on data presentation alone, formal issuance of a correction is absolutely necessary.

Following on from that is where the issues with study design and methodology come in, and in my opinion they are both so flawed as to lead to spurious conclusions.

The other major problems I see so far:

1. as mentioned previously, their brewing methodology is so different from what would be done under normal conditions/at home that comparison between the two is meaningless. A good paper should discuss these differences and explain why some conclusions can still be drawn, but this one just makes a direct comparison.

2. the authors used empty mesh sleeves from an unnamed aliexpress vendor for their samples. We have no idea whether these sleeves are in use by any tea manufacturer, we don’t know anything about how they were made, and we don’t even know whether they were intended for food usage.

3. one of the three samples produced only cellulose particles, which a) isn't a plastic and b) is a component of plant cell walls. I don’t know the cellulose particle concentration in a kale smoothie, but I’m certain that it’s higher. And yet the authors still just report this figure alongside the others.

Ultimately, the only thing this paper demonstrates is that certain types of thin-fibre plastic will, when handled roughly, shed nanoparticles. This isn’t a new conclusion, and doesn’t provide us with anything actionable with respect to our tea drinking habits.

I’m not totally sure what you mean by “get out more or less of the dissolved particles”, but I think I understand where your confusion lies. You keep referring to quantities, i.e. mass or particle counts. Their data is reporting these things as concentrations.

It should be obvious to you that 7.14g of salt dissolved in 2ml of water will produce a highly concentrated solution (saturated, in fact), whereas the same 7.14g dissolved in 350ml of water will produce a dilute solution. The concentration of the first one is 3.57g/ml, but the concentration of the second is 0.0204g/ml.

If somebody then turns around and says that 7.14g of salt dissolved in a mug of water will produce a concentration of 3.57g/ml, it should be readily apparent that they are incorrect. That is in effect what the authors are saying by reporting their results as particles/ml and then saying that those numbers are representative of what you might expect when brewing tea under normal conditions.

Does that all make sense?

They report their findings as particles/ml, not particles/teabag. It should be obvious to you, as a scientist, that the particles/ml evolved given 1 teabag in 350ml of water will be massively different from the particles evolved with 1 teabag per 2ml of water.