We contacted the Toxicology Department of Public Health England, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards to ask if this was something we should be worried about. They told us that there is very little cause for concern to human health from these chemicals.
You can read their full response from the Toxicology Department of Public Health England here:
Very useful Chris. I have posted the link to the Sense About Science article as a comment on the Greenpeace blog.
greenpeace.org.uk/blog/toxi...
Great stuff!
And on their Facebook page - always worth doing that sort of thing as a matter of course when SAS publish an article.
A slight aside - when you look at how Greenpeace publicise their campaign on their website, you can see why they get so much reaction and support.
greenpeace.org/internationa...
This sort of presentation style is very accessible and powerful and communicates an idea clearly - whether or not you agree with the idea, of course!
It would be nice to see the promotion of good science be so clearly represented/
Neat point. Have you seen the Alzheimer's UK discovery lab? dementialab.org/discovery-lab/ You can click on different rooms on the left.
Okay, that is rather flash!
One point - Greenpeace's idea would have been considerably cheaper!! 
(The only real cost is in the photographs, the actual way the page works is a little quick trick with CSS)
That's useful to know- thank you. We are are looking into website improvements...
I have had a couple of conversations about the Sense About Science website over the years. Always happy to pitch in.
That's really helpful- thank you.
I can't agree with you on the Greenpeace presentation style, JossS.
I was shocked to see how irresponsible it was. As far as I can see, it's a childish, unbalanced and sensationalist approach to an important topic. The way Greenpeace have handled it on that website is worse than the unscientific rubbish you see in the daily papers.
Sense about Science should steer well clear of that sort of approach.
A job well done on your part, Chris. It's a shock to see Greenpeace being so irresponsible.
Sorry Archimboldo, you miss the point. Their information might be wrong, but the style of presentation (by that I mean the use of clear images and short, clear statements) is quick and easy to understand.
Put it this way - the best communicators you will find anywhere are not technical writers but advertising copywriters. Their message HAS to perform for the client or they are out of a job. So they have become really good at it.
Science communication fails continuously with the general public (most of whom have a pretty healthy aversion to science writing) because it is not sold as well as advertising messaging and tabloid headline writing.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with childish if it is a good way of getting a message across. It does not undermine the science, it reinforces it by making it as pleasant to digest as everything else.
There are some very good reasons why huge numbers of people think science is dry and boring and why they don't trust scientists - they think they are out to spoil their fun.
It is the job of scientists and their publicists to bridge that gap - and they do that best by using the communication techniques that have been proven to be most successful.
Water fluoridation
This issue is back but do the promoters of fluoridation give you the facts. 
Blood Test for Depression and Efficacy of CBT?
Dementia! Who really cares?
If sugar is bad for you, Is there any evidence to suggest low fat milk is healthier than full fat?
The most cost-effective ways to save lives?