@Typo-MAGAshiv

Back in the day I thought we should have a Mrs Archwinger appreciation day.

As the alchemists showed, unsolvable problems contributed majorly to the advance of human knowledge.

I like how @Kloi sums up the current state of affairs.

What's left out, though, is men's need for love. (Men need love but can't find it, because women are incapable of it, while women find love but can't feel content because they are gluttonous by nature).

Until 100 years ago, a man was supposed to enter marriage with a woman after he made her submitt. The taming of the shrew was a prerequisite.

Now, capitalism has found that it can squeeze more surplus out of the family if it constantly excites the shrew. There's no reprieve for the man. (Typo, you've read Esther Vilar's second book, The polygamous sex, right? It's a bit dated, no evopsych back then, but it's impressive how she is able to grasp the gist of the difference in male/female love using 70s sociological notions and a humanitarian perspective).

The sad fact is that a relationship that is not supposed to last "till death do us part" necessarily turns into an antagonism of who can extract the most out of it. And women, having a more integrated psychopathic mode, are more equipped for that.

@Typo-MAGAshiv

His discussions did not include people who were led to addiction by their doctors,

Dude, I was in a position of listening to all three hours of his radio show, every day, for literally half a decade. Therefore, I can say with certainty: Rush did NOT, I mean not fucking once EVER, clarify, caveat, offer exceptional or outlier cases, that could in any way get even perceived as "diluting/softening" his hard-line positions on issues, particularly that of drugs. Even "legal" pharmaceuticals, he stood hard for the for-profit model, and vilified every other alternative as "socialized medicine, a slippery slope directly to full Communist takeover of the USA."

So yes, he was HARD in favor of the status quo that financially incentivizes doctors, hospital systems, and pharmaceutical companies, to push pills for money, and fuck all the guardrails around those with abuse potential. And, he wasn't just speaking in a vacuum. He was nationally syndicated, with an audience of tens of millions, who called themselves "Dittoheads" which as repeated on-air meant "I love you and completely agree with and believe everything you say!"

Thus, he modeled ideas, behaviors, and attitudes for the entire American Right Wing culture. His platform and positions, therefore held a symbiotic relationship with the culture and positions of law enforcement up to and including Federal agencies (classic example Chief Darryl Gates saying publicly, "Casual drug users ought to be taken out and SHOT!"), legislative bodies therefore the drafting, enactment, and enforcement of drug laws and literally tens of millions of dollars per year budgeted for interdiction and enforcement activities.

For my part, I was closely involved with the "legalize hemp/cannabis" movement, therefore a ground level soldier intimately involved in the "Drug War," Immersed in it personally, not a casual pundit on the sidelines with no more skin in the game than agreeing with a fat fuck radio host.

SO, for one of THE. TOP. players in the entire 2 decade drug war vertical industry and legislative machine, who in service of this position expressed the harshest possible treatment of OTHER drug users, to carve out a personal exception, and to selectively do the opposite of the entire corpus of his expressed position on the entire thing, is COMPLETELY out of the fucking question. When it came down to him personally, "falling victim" to the same human foibles and weaknesses he spent literally thousands of hours condemning others for; he deserves ZERO compassion, mercy, empathy, and other such things he also condemned personally, and claimed belonged to his ideological opposites, "The Left", when it suited him and the entire breadth and height of his hard line positions on drugs and their users.

Key Study (2019, McGill University) Researchers steeped a single plastic ("silken") teabag (made of nylon and PET) at 95°C (brewing temperature) and found it released:

~11.6 billion microplastics

~3.1 billion nanoplastics

per cup. These particles matched the bag's material composition (confirmed via FTIR and XPS spectroscopy). The levels were orders of magnitude higher than microplastics reported in other foods/drinks at the time.

Subsequent studies have found similar (or varying) high releases:

Polypropylene bags: Up to ~1.2 billion particles per milliliter (hundreds of billions per cup, depending on volume).

Nylon-6: ~8 million per milliliter.

Some cellulose/paper bags: Still ~135 million per milliliter (due to coatings, heat-sealing plastics, or fibers).

Even "bioplastic" (e.g., PLA) or composite bags can release significant amounts when steeped in hot water. Heat, agitation, and brewing time increase release.

Not All Teabags

Traditional paper teabags often contain small amounts of plastic (polypropylene) for heat-sealing edges or gluing strings/tags. These can still shed particles, though typically fewer than fully plastic "pyramid" or silken sachets.

Truly plastic-free options exist: Some brands use 100% plant fibers (e.g., abaca, wood pulp, cotton) with stitching or folding instead of heat-sealing/glue. These release far fewer (or negligible) microplastics from the bag itself. Loose-leaf tea with a metal/plastic-free infuser avoids the issue entirely.

Many companies (e.g., some UK brands like PG Tips or Yorkshire) have phased out plastics, but transparency varies. Always check for explicit "plastic-free" or "compostable without plastic" claims, and verify via the brand's site.

Health Context Microplastics and nanoplastics are now ubiquitous (in water, food, air, and human tissues), and tea can be a notable source for regular drinkers. Particles this small can potentially be absorbed by intestinal cells. However, the long-term human health risks of this specific exposure level are still under study—acute toxicity was observed in water fleas, but human data is limited.