What exactly is the threshold you're waiting for on this escape plan?

Both distillation and reverse osmosis should get rid of microplastics. Reverse osmosis should get rid of mercury in any form, while it would depend on other chemical properties (evaporation rate, temperature source water is heated to, etc.) on whether distillation would remove chemicals like mercury.

Some further reading.

Most of these costs are in terms of energy, one of the most plentiful things in space. Also, if we do things right (a huge if, I know), the bigger idea is to bootstrap it by sending enough tools to make the tools you need to extract and refine resources. This doesn't require a von Neumann machine since we can control them, either directly or remotely. Also, if we are going to extract resources in space, a lot of infrastructure will need to be built first, which is cheaper if we use resources that are already in space. And as the saying goes, the surface of the moon is halfway to anywhere in the solar system.

It's what helps Dianetics stay in the Bestsellers lists.

I'm not sure what you're trying to implying here. Is there some industrial espionage happening, where you think Iran is going to lose some secret to the other nuclear powers? Or do you think the international watchdog isn't going to report on the facilities and activities they're mandated to monitor?

Then allow me to rephrase. Checking if the forbidden thing has been done is often easier than checking if the thing which is allowed, but with many caveats and conditions, has been done correctly.

I see you're focusing on semantics, and not the issues raised, which i can only assume is because you have no valid response to the issues and not the wording.

A lack of regulations can mean "anything goes," as in unregulated, or "nothing of this sort is acceptable," as in illegal. Checking if the illegal thing has been done is often easier than checking if the regulated thing has been done correctly, so making things that are easily abused illegal makes sense if the consequences of breaking those regulations, such as a global depression, are too great.

It also assumes that businesses won't do anything they think they can get away with if they think it will make a buck. Given just how many times that has happened, saying regulators will catch any attempts to sidestep those rules is fairly optimistic, in my opinion.

A lot of things happen in the developed world that serve no purpose besides economics. Phones could be made to last twice as long, and aren't getting dramatically better from one generation to the next. We could build houses to last a century instead of 50 years for little more cash. We could make clothes that last longer, but then fashion would have to take a back seat to function. We have much more efficient lighting, but they are also designed to break more often than they could so more light bulbs can be sold. Cars could be made more efficient, and non-car transportation could be incentivized. We could fix food supply/distribution issues so there is less food waste. We could use more efficient, non-fossil methods of heating and cooling our homes, which should also be better insulated so they also cost less to heat or cool.

We may not be able to have 8 billion people living in the lap of luxury, but we could have 8 billion people with a place to live, food to eat, access to a green space to enjoy the outdoors, and access to the rest of the world through modern communications.

Their navy does need to be enlarged...

And to that, I'll reiterate my second paragraph previously.

There are certainly issues with sport categories that are designed to be for something other than the elite in their field, but I don't expect nuance from the same groups that banned a boxer because she wasn't sufficiently attractive.

So this test probably won't catch someone who is XY, but missing the SRY gene. I'm not sure if it will detect a mutated SRY gene, and I don't pretend to be an expert. I also can't be sure if thos test will catch someone who is XX with an SRY gene, which is also a thing, nor if it will catch XX/XY mosaicism. And those are the easy ones.

The fact of the matter is, internationally competitive athletes are a group of 0.1% or less, and people with abnormal sex genes, let alone abnormal genes in general, fall into the 0.5% to 1% category. What do you think the overlap is in two groups of outliers?

Sure, but do you think that's the test they're doing? Are they testing for the various SRY mutations? Multiple X chromosomes? Multiple Y? Genes that impact hormone regulation?

There are certainly issues with sport categories that are designed to be for something other than the elite in their field, but I don't expect nuance from the same groups that banned a boxer because she wasn't sufficiently attractive.

I don't, but I can provide an article with the infographic included.

Because numerous people around the world have been using cutting edge research for decades to study these things, observing their effects in actual people, means that I honestly don't give a fuck if you "buy the idea". Your feelings, opinions, and armchair assessments on this topic are worthless.

Just because the words are too big for you to understand doesn't mean what they're describing isn't real.

Looks like I need to post this again.