No. Why do you conclude the IARC does this "without scientific evidence". And why do you conclude the article claims it is doing a bad job? Basically, the arti

No. Why do you conclude the IARC does this "without scientific evidence". And why do you conclude the article claims it is doing a bad job? Basically, the article claims people don't understand HOW the IARC does its job, what its reports mean. And that its data is easily misused for fear mongering. Eg scary fact, did you know your water contains lots of dihydrogen monoxide? First and foremost it judges on hazard, which is how much an effect it could be in the worst exposure cases. Only secondly is its job to assess risks, that is how much is the effect under normal/expected exposures.