Microbead contamination and harm Although their small size makes them difficult to detect, microbeads have been found in inland and coastal aquatic habitats 4,5 and in fish 6 . Experiments have demonstrated harm in fish 9,10 from plastics that are the same type, size and shape as common microbeads. Microbeads pass through water treatment facilities, are released into natural wat erways and become microplastic debris. Microplastic is ubiquitous in aquatic habitats , including bays 11,12 , estuaries and shorelines 13,14 , coral reefs 15 , the deep - sea 15 , freshwater lakes 16 , rivers 5 and Arctic Sea ice 17 . Microplastics persist in aquatic and terrestrial habitats for decades where they accumulate hazardous chemicals. Microplastic has been reported in hundreds of species globally, including marine mammals, turtles, seabirds, fish and invertebrates 18 . Microplastics cause physical and chemical ha rm to animals 9,19 . Physically, micro plastic can cause cellular necrosis, inflammation and lacerations in the digestive tract 20 . Chemically, microplastic is associated with a complex mixture of chemicals, many of which are priority pollutants under the US E PA Clean Water Act for being persistent , bioacummulative and/or toxic 21 . C hemicals associated with this âcocktailâ(TM) can accumulate in animals that eat them 9,10,19,22 - 27 and cause liver toxicity and disrupt the endocrine system 9,10 .
Wow.. 4 insightful to 0,Troll after folks stopped paying attention and it had 15 replies.
Here's what the original said:
Yea, well you were not kept as slaves, killed for learning to read, beaten with inch and a quarter thick poles (often to death). Your families were not sold separately to different owners and broken up. You were not systematically excluded from education, jobs, housing, medical care for generations and eveb lynched for generations (as recently as the 1990s for several of those). The police don't selectively stop you, shoot you, arrest you while letting other races go without an arrest record.
So affirmative not really so much about helping or hurting you or your minority group. It's about trying to correct evils of the past and make things fair enough again that we don't have violent civil unrest, mass rioting and destruction of property.
If you have 2% of the population and 2% representation at harvard, you don't need help from harvard.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's truth, not trolling.
I found the article you were referring to.
It was written after the principles were dead and after several of them had confirmed the story.
Sure- they may have been lying. But also, looking at the older issues, her breasts do not seem like the double G whoppers they became later.
They do complement Woody in the article on at least drawing her with realistic anatomy.
Woman vs. man in a bare-knuckle, no-rules fight? It happened, and the story is a wild one
âoeI have total respect for him, for taking that fight,â Pereira said. âoe â¦ Iâ(TM)ve been asked if I was crazy to set up that fight. Thatâ(TM)s true. I was crazy. I was crazy to have her fight against one man only. To make it fair, she should have fought two men.â
I'm 6'5" and I'm sure Ediane Gomes could kick my ass six ways from sunday in a fist fight. It would be entirely credible.
The only reason that a female superhero wouldn't be credible is acting, direction, and writing.
When I was 13, I was reading stories about competent 30 year old war and super heroes. Reed Richards had a decade of experience.
Today, everyone seems to be 19 to 22 yet they are somehow completely experienced and more competent than anyone older than they are. (re: the recent Star Trek films). Rogue especially has deaged tremendously from about 30 to about 20.
For some reason, when i was a kid, you didn't need children to attract an audience but these days you do.
It's so unrealistic that it is really jarring to me. These young children lack the experience and gravitas to be in the parts they are playing.
Wolverine at least still has an appearance of being in his mid 30's but he's basically immortal so it doesn't really apply to him except... it seems like a lot of "tricks" he would have seen a dozen times by now.
I think most the readers don't care until they are older and have been reading comics for a while. The boobs, porn faces, and porn poses are a result of the artists. Powergirl specifically has big boobs as a prank by the artist.
Once the readers are a bit older (14+), then yea some would like to buy a sexy version of the superheroine they've read about rather than a sexy poster of some random victoria's secret or sports illustrated model. Either way, the 16 year old boy is going to have a sexy poster of a girl of some kind. And there are sexy boy posters for the girls at that age too tho most are teen bands.
It's a special crossover measurement.
It converts most easily to hulks per meter.
Of course, it's really a bit of both.
When medallions are going for over a million dollars, clearly taxi service is artificially constrained.
So it's partially to protect a monopoly market-- and it's partially about public safety.
And of course the current monopoly holders are using safety as the wedge point for their efforts.
I agree except there's no need for a human dispatcher.
Someone's apparently not a monty python fan!
A good idea 20 years ago. Today, the farmer has a choice of death vs life due to the fully mature gang culture that has grown up around illegal drugs.
Best to just legalize it - let the gangs convert to legal families with less income.
Mainly the land was worthless because no one could find work there any more. Demand for the land dropped precipitously as thousands of people left the area and moved elsewhere. The world is littered with similar ghost towns.
There is not much value in unmanaged woodlands. Perhaps in 20 to 30 years they could grow trees there that could sell.
You are ignoring consumers giving their money to companies for goods and services.
The most obvious case are companies that pay dividends but earnings growth and resulting stock price growth also represent the same thing.
Compare a CD / Bond to a stock.
The CD pays 1% per year. If you put $10,000 into it, you will get $100 per year in interest.
Say you have a company that pays $200 per year on $10,000 of stock. Is $10,000 a fair price? Or are people likely to bid it up until it is paying about 1% per year? There is some risk, but it's likely the stock will go up until it pays a rate closer to the CD. So the stock might go to $18,000 and pay you $200 per year.
Now say the company is increasing earnings by 10% per year. So it will pay $220 next year, $242 the year after that and so on. So reasonable people will now pay even more for the stock. It might go up to $19,000 this year (and more in the future).
Finally, say bad news -- the companies earnings are not going up to $242 as planned but instead are dropping to $180 because of a new invention, new law, or new competitor. And it's earnings are likely to be $160 the year after that. So now, a reasonable person might only want to pay $14,000 for the stock.
Just to make things interesting make a lot of this a matter of opinion and not facts. A new law *may* be passed... a new competitor *may* start up. And different people have different opinions on how likely that is to occur.
And then add oscillation around the "ideal" value. Every time the stock price moves- it slightly overshoots. it takes it time to stabilize on a ideal value and by the time it is going to- some fresh news changes the ideal value. And of course-- occasionally a majority of people will be afraid and unwilling to buy the stock at it's ideal value and other times a majority of people will be irrationally exhuberant and willing to buy the stock above it's ideal value.
Anyway.. long story short- it's not a pure ripoff. For the most part, you don't "get rich" but you do preserve purchasing power adjusted for inflation. Mainly, you need to save hard. People who try to get rich are gambling- some will win big- many will lose big.
Mostly but not always true. A lot of real estate in the middle of the country became worthless after 2000. Recall that they were bulldozing thousands of houses in some towns and offering to let people swap into a different house closer to town while also cutting services/road repair to those who remained further out.
Changing climate or moving rivers/coastlines also render property worthless at times.
I agree that land does tend to hold value better than other assets but it's not an absolute.
It won't happen again.
Actually, if you look at Monthly R.S.I., it's also doing interesting things.
I think the government trying to stop the ordinary business cycle recessions is making the recessions worse when they finally do occur.