I apologize but I've been goobersmacked by the gobbledigook. Could you say it again?

Really! This is the question. There's detectable levels and there's toxic levels. There's acute toxic levels and there's chronic toxic levels. How many orders of magnitude are these things separated. I grow weary of the alarmist crap that we're constantly bombarded with because journalist can't, in general, do math. We need numbers to be informed.

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess 95% of bears is a number after all.

Buy, Sell or Hold? People have been saying that Apple has run its course for the last 36 years. But my stock keeps returning 20% annually. Is it finally time to sell or do I just hold on for another 35 years?

Bomb implies an explosion, something that happens really quickly. Regardless of what impact microplastics have on mankind, wether it's lethal or benign, It's not going to happen like a bomb. It's gonna be slow and deliberate. Using such analogies in the title diminishes the articles trustworthiness.

And?

No. When it comes to the basic building blocks, plant life and animal life and even bacteria and viruses are all using the same chiral DNA, RNA, Amino acids etc. Maybe you were just setting up the Solar powered death algae threat. If that's the case, you can ignore me.

I'm not a rocket scientist but I am an organic chemist. They ain't gonna make no damn mirror life anytime soon. Even if they did manage to make a few of them, they would die of starvation almost immediately. There's nothing for them to eat. Bacteria and anything else living require all this current chiral pool for survival. This is a load of hooey. This is for stupid people to fret and worry about. Me, I'm sleeping like a baby.

This is not correct. You could raise antibodies to any random shape. There is nothing inherent in the process that says you can only raise antibodies to proteins made with S-amino acids. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of chirality at work in this post.

Please see below (Robinhood CEO) for a different perspective.

I laughed at the use of "onboarding" in the last quote. I hope it was a joke. Right?.

No. This is not applicable. I've run plenty of photochemistry reactions. In those cases, the energy goes into the molecules that end up reacting. This article was about capturing energy, like some energy harvesting method. The drug part was bullshit. If what you're saying is that this is the same as the J. Med. Chem article, then it's not new or news. But it's not. Again, the "making drugs" connection was gratuitous bullshit. Trust me.

That ain't happening. Most of the smart people I know, don't have no grandchildren. But back in my hometown, I read the obituaries and there's some dude dying at 59 and left 17 great-grandkids.

Most all of my life I've been hearing all this doomsday talk about the population explosion and how we can't sustain all the people on this planet and it's gonna be horrible. And now that we've figured out how to solve the problem, everybody is freaking out about that. The bottom line is that, more than anything else, we just like to be freaking out about something.

Thanks for the info. I've been in drug discovery for 45 years. This was about capturing photons. It's a long way from capturing photons to making drugs. You might use this technology to heat a flask. Or you might use nuclear, solar, wind or whatever. The coupling of light capture to making drugs is bullshit.

This is another one of those articles about some technology for doing something maybe useful and then they always tack on some bullshit about using it to make drugs. That's always a Red Flag that you're being fed bullshit.