Very interesting that McFiggans responded so forcefully to the reporter's alarmist overinterpretation of his study. I was rather under the impression that's exactly what their intent was: present some weak, equivocal findings about grossly exaggerated exposures in the hopes somebody (glANTZ?) would run with it and draw sweeping and ridiculous FUD conclusions.
Not quite sure what to make of this public criticism he lashed at the reporting...
I see it slightly differently. I don't think McFiggans was aware of the politics behind all of this. Do note Amanda hauling him up during the panel discussion - she was quite cross that he glossed over the contextual slides, and forced him into answering a couple of questions he'd answered during the pre-summit conversation they'd had.
And also, note his voluntary contextualizing during the panel discussion: The 1-2 nanometers exposure from forest terpenoids: "If it's all about particle size we're all done for".