Which relate also to NOEL in humans who are continually exposed. Why have guidelines and levels, which are continually being lowered, if people like you then say are irrelevant. I assume you can provide all of your peer reviewed literature to support your hypothesis?
As for the asbestos argument: do an epidemiology course and get back to me. A single ecological study that concludes "need more research to establish a casual link" does not a fulsome argument makepic.twitter.com/z2XQkhW7Hd
-
-
We’ll come and visit the 1 firefighter recruit course from Fiskville where 9 out of 14 recruits all had children with severe birth defects, then ask them about your lack of concern. Back to your next groundbreaking, money making thesis.
-
Yes, yes, occupational exposure to things can cause problems and that still has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. And accusing me of making money off this is, again, ridiculous. I'm employed by the govt, I make no money either way
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.