Posted on 12/28/2021 9:11:33 PM PST by ConservativeMind
We told people metric wasn’t easier.
5mm in length? Seems kind of stupid to be ingesting chunks of plastic that big.
It would seem to me that what goes in is just as important as what comes out. Did they consider, maybe the control group gets the same amount of microplastic but doesn’t get rid of it?
That was the Hubble Telescope..... and 5mm is 0.19 inches.... not hard to understand and convert.
Well, they say Math is Racists now.
Bad urinalism when you blow a key point in the first line of you piece.
See what I mean?
you=your.
Miss more coffee please.
I will begin to use these terms.
If this is Chinese research it is probably sloppy and likely fraudulent. The “5mm” error certainly indicates the first point is correct.
Microplastics are fragments of any type of plastic[1] less than 5 mm (0.20 in) in length, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)[2][3] and the European Chemicals Agency.[4] They cause pollution by entering natural ecosystems from a variety of sources, including cosmetics, clothing, and industrial processes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics
Plastic clothing fibers would make this up, too. Take a look at the dust around you or on your furnace filters, and you’ll see a bunch of lint, made up of skin cells and mostly small clothing fibers.
Well, somethings going on. I excreted a Tervis tumbler, complete with top and straw, the other day.
I thought IBD meant “Investor’s Business Daily” ... which has been able to give me great indigestion from time to time despite their wonderful reporting.
Sorry, I should have used the sarcasm tag.
The point of my intended sarcasm was that by only estimating the length (less than 5mm), the writers “buried the lead” - namely, that these tiny fragments are nearly invisible, and weightless enough to float in the air and unknowingly be inhaled or ingested.
In order to properly convey that property, the far more relevant dimension to offer would have been the estimated breadth - not the length.
I’ve been told I have a weird sense of humor.
I just thought it was funny picturing everyone brainlessly filling themselves up with 3/16” bits of plastic.
Wonder if they cross-referenced their findings to whether those affected also had adequate fiber in their diet. In other words, if low-fiber diets were the cause of not having enough fiber to scrape foreign matter out of the intestines, versus whether some people just have a natural vulnerability regardless of diet.
I pity the people who had the crappy job of looking for micro plastics.
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.