Yes. It’s an assumption but the higher the exposure generally means higher chances of issues. Such is true for most things, especially other cytotoxic materials.
Whilst I agree with the logic presented about exposure an important variable is missing in how much damage actually occurs. It could still be a negligible amount of damage when weighed up against carcinogens that we are already exposed to in our lives even if that negligible amount was multiplied.
Why is it likely substantial? Isn’t that just an assumption?
Yes. It’s an assumption but the higher the exposure generally means higher chances of issues. Such is true for most things, especially other cytotoxic materials.
Whilst I agree with the logic presented about exposure an important variable is missing in how much damage actually occurs. It could still be a negligible amount of damage when weighed up against carcinogens that we are already exposed to in our lives even if that negligible amount was multiplied.