
That's very unscientific of you. GEE, LOOK, THAT NUMBER IS SMALL! SMALLLLLLLLLLLL!
If you wanted to truly show that the number was insignificant, perhaps you could provide a scientifically tested benchmark of what would be considered to be a level of pollution that is truly unhealthful. But no, you just gasp at what seems to be a small number without grasping how truly large or small it may be on the appropriate scale.
From what I can recall, the one making the argument (Hands) should be the one to back it up. So he (MJ) asked him to do so. What is your beef with that?

Hands has stated very flatly that the numbers they are looking for are not good enough and should be much more restrictive based on health concerns and such.
I read his (MJ's) reply as:
That number is very small so as to seem insignificant, please tell me why it is not with more than simple conjecture.
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi













I was asking in context. I simply didn't word it precisely as you have. Perhaps you're being deliberately obtuse here...maybe because I'm the one involved.

\