Science is about evidence and testable hypotheses. The article to which you refer is pseudo science at best. It refers to common TiO2 not the sub oxides referred to in the coal article. TiO2 is very insoluble- even in hydrochloric acid found in the stomach. Hence is does not get absorbed when ingested and passes through the alimentary system. TiO2 as the mineral rutile is naturally occurring and reasonably common.
The article discusses titanium dioxide exposure.
"A Monte Carlo analysis found that children have the greatest exposure because of high titanium content in sweets". One wonders if the author understands what a Monte Carlo analysis is. It is really about modelling probability, uncertainty or risk using simulations when mathematical models are too cumbersome or may involve mathematical trancendentals, for example.
The evidence offered is a study using mice that were subject to nano TiO2 (not the sub oxide form but anatase polymorph). The dose was a lot higher than would normally be encountered using TiO2 products such as sunscreen.
There is a lot of speculation in the article which is not the domain of science. The word 'may' is used numerous times. Because L'Oreal (who must be evil) sponsor a study one cannot believe it. Once again we have the pseudo logic that it has not been proven to be safe therefore it is not.
