They're also "hiding" this information from OSHA, as stated in the article.

Not if it’s below regulatory threshold. Which they seemed to say it was in the article (they said it’s below EPA threshold, so I assume that means the OSHA threshold too).

The article never says how much they detected. I can only assume it’s because it’s a nothing amount. If it was significant they would have been saying how much. It’s hard to take the article seriously as a result. We have crazy sensitive tests now, they do nothing in the article to show it’s not just another story about how sensitive testing is these days.

> The article never says how much they detected. I can only assume it’s because it’s a nothing amount. If it was significant they would have been saying how much. It’s hard to take the article seriously as a result.

Did we read the same article? There's a table with the amounts of different metals, with the amounts found in each of the different samples.

Most are in the range of 100X allowable in drinking water in in a liter of the powder. Seems minor.

*100X allowable in a liter of drinking water in a liter of the power

> who decided they would publish this story before even knowing whether there is a story or not.

What makes you say that?

827a's decision to deride the journalist before even reading the article.