| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Error? edit
I believe the following sentence is wrong: "[T]he view that there is a threshold of dose below which substances have no adverse effects, as has been stated in scientific textbooks, was "an error of historic proportions." I know that that's not what Dr Calabrese would say, but I cannot with certainty say that's not how he was quoted in the linked WSJ piece as I do not have a sub to that newspaper.
Dr. Calabrese would probably say something more like "[T]he view that there is *no* threshold of dose below which substances have no adverse effects, as has been stated in scientific textbooks, was "an error of historic proportions.". (Emphasis mine)
Please correct me if I am wrong. --Leveretth (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)