Nacano LR et al. (2014). Evaluation of seasonal dietary exposure to arsenic, cadmium and lead in schoolchildren through the analysis of meals served by public schools of Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 77(7):367-74.
Use the article above and give me a good critique using the format below and answer those questions. You can use bullet point and headings to differentiate your critique. Don't forget a reference page and use your own words
What do you think the public health significance of the research question in this study was? Is it mostly of local significance or is there a global impact? Explain. Does the study fill an important gap, in your opinion? Why or why not? Critique the methodology. Why do you think the authors chose this methodology and what would you have done differently? Explain. Interpret the results in your own words and then discuss with your colleagues whether you agree or disagree with the author's interpretations and why.
Discuss with your colleagues what you believe is the social change impact of the findings. Do you think that the outcomes of the study are modifiable and/or actionable? Why or why not? What would you propose as a reasonable action from the findings, and why? How might the precautionary principle apply to this study?
What other recent studies can you find that either contradict or support these findings? Do the other studies impact your assessment of the significance and interpretation of this study? How? Be sure to provide the full citation for the other studies that you bring up.