It is just funny to imagine they can come up with an acceptable level...how do we really know what is acceptable levels of a chemical like that that affects cellular function...
I would think that if the limits of "acceptable levels" were approached, most thinking people would be a bit circumspect about repeated and regular exposure.The issue with acceptable levels is that it implies we reach an unacceptable level and what is that level. What is measured is acceptable level of exposure in a single instance but what is never discussed is accumulated exposure. Then the acceptable level is truly an arbitrary number and is meaningless if you are exposed to it on a daily basis. That level is never discussed.
It is like saying acceptable levels of mercury in tuna but what if you eat it every day. Then you will easily surpass any maximum level and be exposed to the health risks.
Yeah, more oncologists.I would think that if the limits of "acceptable levels" were approached, most thinking people would be a bit circumspect about repeated and regular exposure.
Again, what's the alternative? I get the criticism, but do you have a better idea?