Of course: The problem is that the data is presented to the observer as something that is within the measurement spectrum. It is not. The graphs show simply no

Of course: The problem is that the data is presented to the observer as something that is within the measurement spectrum. It is not. The graphs show simply noise within the expected spectrum of noise for both the Montana and San Francisco data. Next there is some statement about increased cancer risk which doesn't really reference anything at all but on first blush seems intended to reference then difference between the montana/SF data. The data between both of those graphs if within the noise and we have little information on under what circumstances it was taken [and this is in addition to the fact that it is just noise!] The authors first statement that "it probably means nothing" does nothing to excuse the fact that most viewers will likely view it as as something especially given the comments that follow. FUD.