No safe amount means that any exposure increases your risk of bad outcomes. The increase may be negligible, but if it’s detectable, it’s there. There are many compounds that do have a safe level (like water) but may be hazardous above a specific level.
A more useful metric is often the number of excess cancers (or deaths) caused by different levels of exposure. But that requires nuance which is hard to communicate effectively.
You just pointed out my problem with this. If it’s negligible, it doesn’t need a warning label. All sorts of things are detectable; we have amazingly sensitive technology. But it doesn’t mean it’s at harmful levels. I want to know harmful levels, not detectable.
We want there to be meaning behind detectable, but science simply doesn’t work that way; it is a poor indicator of risk.
No safe amount means that any exposure increases your risk of bad outcomes. The increase may be negligible, but if it’s detectable, it’s there. There are many compounds that do have a safe level (like water) but may be hazardous above a specific level.
A more useful metric is often the number of excess cancers (or deaths) caused by different levels of exposure. But that requires nuance which is hard to communicate effectively.
You just pointed out my problem with this. If it’s negligible, it doesn’t need a warning label. All sorts of things are detectable; we have amazingly sensitive technology. But it doesn’t mean it’s at harmful levels. I want to know harmful levels, not detectable.
We want there to be meaning behind detectable, but science simply doesn’t work that way; it is a poor indicator of risk.