You should be outraged, not scared. But what he's saying isn't that there's nothing to be scared of, just that this particular type of BS is just as often writt

You should be outraged, not scared. But what he's saying isn't that there's nothing to be scared of, just that this particular type of BS is just as often written about things that actually aren't real problems. This is the exact same tone the anti-vaccination crew consume constantly - it holds no numbers, and threatens us with words like "poison", "unique properties", and "have confirmed links", without specifying how strong those links are, or how much actual impact they have. With a good study, you can have a statistically significant outcome of "increases the odds of rectal cancer over a lifetime by 0.0001%", but that shouldn't really motivate much change, since you can say that about bananas. It's attention-inducing alarmism: "scaremongering". Most of the country consumes 'science' only through the lens of journalism, and journalists have been doing an increasingly awful job of helping readers distinguish between real problems, potential problems, and non-issues. Fear sells a lot better than science does.