Calling the contents an acid which the average person knows is dangerous is arguably better than being precise but confusing people into not realizing the true danger.
The reporter could have substituted "chemicals" for "acid", which would have been less imprecise, but is still a scary enough word for average readers to interpret as dangerous.
Lowering expectations/standards for journalism is a slippery slope.
Acids aren’t inherently dangerous. And I know plenty of “average” people that know that vinegar is an acid and swear by it as a household cure-all to a fault. Same goes for carbolic acid.
This is all stupid when we have perfectly correct adjectives in the English language to use like caustic, toxic, noxious, incendiary, poisonous etc.