Hacker News Reader

What bold claim are you referring to? Where the IARC places it on its list is a verifiable fact, and let's assume the IARC is doing a reasonable job.

It's a poison, let's be clear about that. So treat it carefully and with respect. But when you do, the end result to human life is more save than bacon.

View on HN

The whole point of the articke is that the IARC does not do a reasonable job, and calls just about everything carcinogenic without scientific evidence, qualification around dosage, etc.

No. Why do you conclude the IARC does this "without scientific evidence". And why do you conclude the article claims it is doing a bad job?

Basically, the article claims people don't understand HOW the IARC does its job, what its reports mean. And that its data is easily misused for fear mongering. Eg scary fact, did you know your water contains lots of dihydrogen monoxide?

First and foremost it judges on hazard, which is how much an effect it could be in the worst exposure cases. Only secondly is its job to assess risks, that is how much is the effect under normal/expected exposures.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com