She was an environmental science major at BYU, and from what I remember her talking about is that both the dose response models aren’t really based on anything and how levels are measured during tests are terrible too.

There’s no financial interest in disproving it, which makes sense why it would continue persisting. All of the financial incentive lies on the side of people wanting to install the systems.

Here’s an example of some research on the other side:



I wouldn’t pay a dime for one of those systems unless my home sale depended on it.

Edit: the link to that article isn’t working for some reason. Here’s a link to the original study: