I note that the article does not even mention what the numbers in the chart mean in practical terms, for instance whether "7-9 PFAs detected" is something I should be urgently, moderately, or not at all worried about. I'm sure I could read the original study and find the answers to my questions, but providing that context seems like the most basic responsibility of a reporter, and the kind of thing that could make this article actually useful. As it is, it feels like the intent is to scare me without informing me in a meaningful way.