The article fails to mention risk and the amounts that create those. In typical journalist fashion it just emphasizes the word “chemical” and other scary framings.
The article fails to mention risk and the amounts that create those. In typical journalist fashion it just emphasizes the word “chemical” and other scary framings.
True. The risk is heavily downplayed, since the health effects manifest in decades and can be blamed on lifestyle factors, while the amounts causing health issues are in the order of parts per trillion.
Well it is scary and harmful. Since it accumulates in the body, the safe level is zero. Do you work for the chemical industry?
> the safe level is zero.
This is not true of any substance.
> Well it is scary and harmful
Well that narrative certainly came through. The facts supporting it did not.
> Do you work for the chemical industry?
No. Do you? Does this invalidate that the article did not use the opportunity to inform me?