Appeal to fear.
The truly frightening part isn't that people like you, completely devoid of logic and common sense, exist. Its that people like you are many, and that your ignorance is exploited by those who run the show and profit off of this poisoning.
But then this sort of thread always generates more hype than light, I suppose.
"These experiments yield bodily concentrations of BPA in ranges of parts per million, but some recent studies have even found that when BPA interacts with hormone receptors on cell membranes, concentrations of one part per trillion can stimulate physiological responses."
Just an example, tho.
Also, to borrow from history, cigarettes once upon a time were not considered harmful mainly because there was just no data suggesting that they were. Smokers regularly "saturated" their environments with smoke. Smoking is banned in a lot of placed now that we have data. Does this help people who got lung cancer or other diseases, who might not even smoked themselves but only second hand? It does not.
The compounds in question here are known to bioaccumulate, meaning once you got them in your system, they will (mostly) stay in and not break down. If I came to your house every day, placing a rock in it and telling you that you cannot remove it, you'd probably object and also don't think that me saying "But it's only one(1) rock and does not matter!" especially after I added new rocks for years.
The default should be to ban use of any compound until you can reasonably prove it is safe according to the current state of science, not allowing everything until somebody proves it is unsafe.
Now, if people want to ingest potentially harmful stuff by choice (e.g. smoking)... that's another matter and they should be free to do so. But they should not be free to make other people ingest potentially harmful stuff against their consent or knowledge (e.g. pollution)
This guarantees an exponential slowdown in human progress, while not demonstrably leaving us any safer.
No, thanks.
citation needed.
There are a bunch of compounds whose effects are so harmful that a few parts per million are potentially lethal.
The fact you apparently are unaware of any of them, speaks volumes.
Which do you prefer, Webster's or OED?
Who the hell are you to say that the adulterant you introduce into my bloodstream is safe because its such a low level? Should you have to wait until I stick my thumb in your eye to attain proof that its harmful before I'm prevented from doing so?