3 ms·
Did you read the article? They explain that "traces of" was actually as high as 3% in some samples. The bulk of the article explains the tests performed over ti
by jasongill 8y ago
Did you read the article? They explain that "traces of" was actually as high as 3% in some samples. The bulk of the article explains the tests performed over time including the results of concentration. Not sure what your complaint is, they even link to the original test result documents.
- rightbyte 8y ago3% of other (minerals?) than talk. Not 3% asbestos to make that clear.
- cm2187 8y agoAnd even then, without a dangerous threshold level, the number is meaningless.
- objektif 8y agoHow about none? Is it advertised or listed as containing asbestos in the ingredient list? Do you want to use it on your baby?
- cm2187 8y ago"None" doesn't exist in nature. Every product is always contaminated by all sort of chemicals. It's always a matter of concentration. The water with which you prepare you baby milk likely contains cyanide, lead or arsenic. Just not in high enough dose to matter.
- asaddhamani 8y ago1% is the legal limit in the US