Those words need context, otherwise this reads a lot like scaremongering. Dangerous as in close to an LD50? A minimum measured effect? Or in layman: how much worse/better are exposure to those concentrations than say time-equivalent exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke? Or first-hand.
>in drinking water, soils and foods.
Routes of introduction to people and environment are also important to understand to eliminate hazards while minimizing damage. Is the contamination a production 'sloppiness' issue? Resulting from correct or incorrect application of non-durable goods (e.g. lubricants, firefighting foam). A wear of durable goods issue (rubbers, PTFE, etc.)?
Those words need context, otherwise this reads a lot like scaremongering. Dangerous as in close to an LD50? A minimum measured effect? Or in layman: how much worse/better are exposure to those concentrations than say time-equivalent exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke? Or first-hand.
>in drinking water, soils and foods.
Routes of introduction to people and environment are also important to understand to eliminate hazards while minimizing damage. Is the contamination a production 'sloppiness' issue? Resulting from correct or incorrect application of non-durable goods (e.g. lubricants, firefighting foam). A wear of durable goods issue (rubbers, PTFE, etc.)?