Right, so, I suspect this didn't get much traction, despite being posted and re-posted many times, because the cancer risk assessment was total bunk:

> For exposure assessment, EPA develops conservative exposure scenarios which are designed to provide conservative estimates of exposure; this allows EPA to have high confidence – when it finds no risks of concern – that this is in fact the case. In some instances, due to a lack of information on which to based exposure estimates, the conservative assumptions can lead to an over-estimate of risk. For one of the PMN substances in this integrated risk assessment (a jet fuel), the Agency divided the total projected future annual production volume of the new jet fuel by the total number of locations expected to receive the fuel, and then assumed each location could be an end-use location (e.g., airport) and that all the fuel would be burned there. The scenario that was modeled effectively presumed that every plane at the airport was idling on a runway burning an entire tank’s fuel without ever taking off, that the components of the fuel that contribute to c risk are not fully combusted and are present in the exhaust, and that residents living nearby (in a fenceline community) would continuously breathe the exhaust each day over many years in their lifetime.

It's unfortunate we don't have a better risk assessment.

There’s a shit-ton of loopholes in this space because the legislation creating the EPA doesn’t require oversight for chemicals in use before 1976. Many of these byproducts are awful, but not subject to regulatory analysis. It’s similar to hoe people say that if we discovered acetaminophen in 2023, it would never be FDA approved!

One branch of my family grew up near the Mobil Refinery on the Newtown Creek in Queens, NYC. 12/12 have had cancers from that place, as do many others.