> That's weird because I'm pretty sure that my point is explicitly spelled out. Yeah I read it the first time, so repeating it is non responsive. The article w

> That's weird because I'm pretty sure that my point is explicitly spelled out. Yeah I read it the first time, so repeating it is non responsive. The article was about one person's opinion on the subject of water filters. Your opinion is just one more in a sea of opinions. It's not like the author hid those numbers that you keep repeating -- you're just (again, repeatedly) saying they're scarier than the author felt they were. > And if your trust is based on "Rah, rah, America!", you should know that 15% (!!) of water systems serving over 10k people have PFAS levels measured above what the EPA says is safe. (And if you don't think that 15% is a lot, holy smokes, that's nuts.) Yeah, OK. So basically you just want everyone to be as scared as you are. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but your "holy smokes, that's nuts" is worth approximately what I paid to read it. That goes for the author, too, btw.