Interesting, but it definitely uses scaremongering and comes from a less than objective source. A simple list of the chemicals that they compiled would have been most useful, but instead they try to editorialize. They do a lot of buzz wording an imply meaning where there is none.
They do themselves a disservice when they say things like
Nearly 60% were associated with ‘other' effects, a category that includes outright mortality as an end point.
and
A relatively high percentage of chemicals that affect the immune system were used.
I also liked where they mention "immediate health effects." They make it sound like there are supertoxic chemicals, when in reality many substances have immediate health effects. Ever inhale some steam off your pasta pot and cough? Burn yourself on the oven? Wipe your eye after handling a hot pepper? All of these fall under the classification of "immediate health effects."
When you look at the list of the chemicals with the most effects, you suddenly realize how much of their scare mongering is just that. At least 6 of the "most toxic" are commonly used in food. An additional 17 are commonly found in people's homes in one form or another. 8 more are fuels or common solvents of some kind (many of which are also kept in the house). So in a list of about 70 chemicals with "10 or more adverse affects," at least 30 aren't that scary (I don't think I double counted anything).
Anyone who has done any sort of risk assessment knows that they are blurring lines and implying things that really aren't supported by what they are citing. The "outright mortality" line (referencing the category of "other effects") comes as close to lying with the facts as you can get. While the category of other effects can include death, there is far more in that category.
A good risk assessment would talk about the degree of risk and how serious the potential outcome. Instead, they looked for buzzwords on the MSDS and in Toxnet. All and all, this is pretty amateurish...then again, I don't think these papers were really meant for Toxicologists, Industrial Hygienists, or Occupational Medicine physicians. These read like papers written for media and political purposes.
