[bitmasher9]

Doom-and-gloom, fear and anger are the predominant emotions in the entire journalism industry.

Very few places are doing any just-the-facts reporting.

[tokai]

The articles cover an actual study, that wasn't theoretical but based on data of sampling. What kind of just-the-facts reporting do you actually want?

[bitmasher9]

The language it uses to describe the story is clearly designed to make parents feel like the environment is unsafe.

Cherry picking scientific articles to cover that will cause fear is not just-the-facts reporting.

[estearum]

It... probably is unsafe for human babies (or even adults) to be ingesting compounds known to disrupt hormone production in mammals...

Contrarianism has become a mental disorder

[bitmasher9]

It’s not actionable information though.

[estearum]

Sure it is. People should be outraged about this and demanding vastly more testing, more research, and more regulation.

The vast majority of information published anywhere at any time is not any more "actionable" than that. You just don't like this information because it makes you uncomfortable... as it should.

[bitmasher9]

I don’t like this publication, I think the actual scientific study is good information.

The information should be considered by regulators and scientists. They should read the scientific journals directly. I want to be able to trust in institutions to make informed decisions to improve environmental factors that require collective action.

I don’t think informing citizens about danger so they can demand policy reform is the actual purpose of The Guardian article. I’d love to be wrong on this, but that’s a fairy tale about how the system actually works.