It's not obvious to me how much concern one should generally have about this. The first article mostly marketing material for a paper and seems to actively avo

It's not obvious to me how much concern one should generally have about this. The first article mostly marketing material for a paper and seems to actively avoid actually mentioning real numbers or details. I think there's a reason for this -- the paper does not do any original research, and only relies on evaluating other papers. They also seem to be talking about the effect on some kind of brown rice for their % reduction numbers. The second seems better, IMO, but also for some reason adds salt into the mixture. They don't test the salt for the amount of arsenic in it, only noting it's a common household product in Sweden. This alone could be the cause for a significant difference in the boiled-dry vs poured-off results (i.e salt in solution will be partly removed). I'd want to see better research on this before coming to any significant changes in how a major food staple is consumed.