First one: Oxidative stress biomarkers, ie caused by most things and also are largely irrelevant? Biomarkers don't actually correlate to actual risk increases in themselves.
Second one: High long term exposure, ie being consistently doused in the stuff somehow, And is looking at meta-risk, so not actual risk of cancer development. Also, the 41% even therein is based on risk increase from the original numbers, not an absolute increase. Meaning the actual risk went from something akin to 0.4% over a lifetime to 0.55%. And this only applies to someone who has massive exposure repeatedly over a long period of time.
Third one: Has nothing to do with science or evidence of any kind. Judges in courts don't know anything about science, hence why scientific experts and organizations actually research this stuff.
Fourth one: Is likely referencing studies already covered in #2, which again relies on actually understanding what the 41% is referring to.
In short, a lot of media fearmongering about science would be less effective if the general public understood statistics better.