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.
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?
Did you ask the LLM about your claim that no level was safe?