Since a main concern is about cellular and biological uptake, how about identifying the number of adult humans it would take to fill each cell with one nanoplastic particle each? Or figure out how much plastic an average cell can hold and tell us how many average adult humans we need to pack full?
Ok, then what comes next?
Someone trying to convince us that one particle of today's microplastics will be a thousand particles of nanoplastics in a few years?
In respected journals, peer review is currently the best thing out there. Show us an alternative.
The flip side is non-peer-reviewed journals. We know how valuable that is.
"thrown them into bankruptcy"? Not even close. That's the point AC.
Apple has ~$30 Billion USD in Cash. Operating Expenses of ~$15 Billion.
You should start hearing things more often. Apple is nearer to being net-cash neutral (i.e cash=debt) than debts>ability to pay debts. Where "nearer" is not even in the same novel, let alone the same sentence.
"Nuclear" is not really a good description for a decade(s) long anti-trust case.
I've nearly already fallen asleep at the possibility this amazing option may get exercised.
Pretty much taken into account in the doc.
Obviously, you haven't looked at the document.
Try searching up:
ICNIRP GUIDELINES ON LIMITS OF EXPOSURE TO INCOHERENT VISIBLE AND INFRARED RADIATION
I believe that LIDAR wavelengths mean that the eyeball damage concerns are about thermal damage of the cornea and near-infrared thermal damage of the crystalline lens. Risk assessments are made and certifications are given.
Anyone know that process or considerations as applied to automobiles?
Eyeballs aren't camera sensors, but I also would not knowingly stare into a LIDAR unit in the dark, for a long time.
Depends on if 2 is arbitrary or not, doesn't it?
For example, what if I define markets as efficient when price is within a facrtor of 100 of value? and "Almost means at least 95% of the time".
Would Fischer Black's feelings be hurt that I'm just as correct in my definitions and ambiguities?
Because income is but one of many inputs to personal wealth?
Because inflation makes assessing the pricing/value of an item difficult, thus begetting more inflation?
Because...
Yes, and... that's the point of a pilot study--to see if it's worth it to make a larger study.
Some details from the paper on that point:
While formal power calculations are not required for pilot studies [38], it was important to have a sufficient sample size to examine the feasibility of recruiting participants with and without long COVID, and whether differences could be detected between groups [39].
(Limitations:) First and foremost is the small sample size, which makes generalizability to other populations difficult, although we used a rigorous assessment scheme. Small sample sizes have reduced statistical power to detect true effects and results may be affected by outliers.
Serum levels of nerve growth factor (NGF), a biomarker of brain plasticity, were significantly lower in the long COVID group, which was significantly more likely than controls to have serum levels of inflammatory marker (interleukin (IL)-10) values greater than or equal to the median (p=0.015).
Similar article on Electrek points out that the revenue raised would be equivalent to a 1/2-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase (a tax which hasn't been raised in over 30 years).
Remember when gasoline was $1.20/gallon? Inflation has eroded the dollar by ~120% since then, FWIW.
Investors and those who use Bitcoin for transactions?
Think about running away from a digital asset that you require to run your business--tens of thousands do this and have a vested interest in keeping the value high.
You can dither about the definition of"reserve", but you get the gist of BTC value.
It would be an additional pricing disadvantage to hotels which display neither taxes nor resort fees nor any other fees?
Getting hit by a car a 10 MPH isn't the same thing as getting hit by a car at 46 MPH.
Nice attempt at normalizing current activities by comparing them to 5 years ago, regardless if it is patently wrong.
If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.
