> Nobody's arguing for a zero-tolerance policy Well, what level do you find acceptable? It seems even very, very low exposures to toxic products are objection

> Nobody's arguing for a zero-tolerance policy Well, what level do you find acceptable? It seems even very, very low exposures to toxic products are objectionable. > it seems that people knew about those, yet chose to hide these things from the public. Did they? They saw some data -- but data are just data. I haven't seen anything indicating they deliberately hid "unacceptable risk." > the question is whether they had a moral obligation to research that and publicize it But that is, in fact, a question in dispute. Not everyone agrees with the extremely precautionary position commenters here are taking.