RFDT is the most knowledgeable group on tea and always seeks for
current scientific knowlege on tea. And hence need of the hour is that
rfdt members and the creators of RFDT group also have a list of FRF
( frequently repeated fallacies) as suggested by Lew in the following
quoted message, and corrections if any be made in FAQ of RFDT.

Recent message from Lew in RFDT

"Maybe this newsgroup needs not just an FAQ list, but also an FRF
(frequently repeated fallacies.) This one might come in as #3,
behind:

1) Black tea has more caffeine than green.

2) Thirty seconds of steeping will remove most of the caffeine from
tea leaves. "

Any new FRF, besides the above two FRF, any new FRF should be added
after through discussion.

I might append to this the related caffeine claims such as "white tea
has the lowest levels of caffeine" and "puer has no caffeine," both of
which I've heard fairly regularly...sometimes even in tea shops whose
information is usually pretty good.

I might append to this the related caffeine claims such as "white tea
has the lowest levels of caffeine" and "puer has no caffeine," both of
which I've heard fairly regularly...sometimes even in tea shops whose
information is usually pretty good.

This is fun! Sort of like Tea Mythbusters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters

Since we recently discussed this one and came to a consensus, I'll add
it:

Otherwise safe-to-drink water does NOT need to be boiled then cooled.
It can simply be heated up to the desired temperature.

Alan

snip

[Alan]

Hi Alan,
Forgive me for entering a thread I've not even read, but despite the "consensus," are you saying it is *not* appropriate to heat water to the desired temperature instead of bringing the water to a boil and then letting it fall to the desired temperature? I think this is purely a matter of taste, and many I respect taste a better tea by stopping before the boil. Who am I to argue with folks' taste? Perhaps you refer to the oxygen issue, wherein some believe that bringing the water to a boil depletes oxygen. Anyway, probably my misunderstanding of your intention.
Michael

On Oct 17, 6:40 pm, Michael Plant pipeline.com> wrote:

well it would be ok for some solid fallacies such as 'tea cures
cancer' or 'tea cures syphillis'

On Oct 18, 11:04 am, SN gmail.com> wrote:

Damn it... you mean my Syphillis ain't going anywhere?!? That's it,
I'm switching to coffee and leaving the group!

- Dominic

(Yes, I can see pointing out the obvious ones, but my Magic 8 Ball
predicts that it won't stop there and be a hotbed of contention.
Again, everyone is free to do what they want, I was just offering up
my singular nay vote.)

BTW What's the consensus on tea and Chlamydia? ...a friend wants to
know.

On Oct 18, 11:28 am, "Dominic T." gmail.com> wrote:

:D

Michael Plant wrote: