The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
if you go to the environmental working group and you look at Austin Texas for instance there are probably no less than 27 environmental pollutants that are above the level that you'd want in your tap water in Austin a collection of pharmaceuticals pesticides heavy metals other problematic things just in every water supply everywhere in the world
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
if you go to the environmental working group and you look at Austin Texas for instance there are probably no less than 27 environmental pollutants that are above the level that you'd want in your tap water in Austin a collection of pharmaceuticals pesticides heavy metals other problematic things just in every water supply everywhere in the world