You see, you were bullishly aggressive and dismissive with your initial assessment. You assumed the informational and detached format used to refute your reductive argument was designed as a personal attack, and therefor assumed it came from a defensive stance aka 'butt hurt'.
I guess what I'm really saying is that you are the one who is butt hurt.
Is not about distractions. The claim on planes is that there is spectrum interference. True or not, that's the lie you need to tell the voters wrt cars. (they do have a lot more electronics in them now adays. Fuck, just say it makes self-driving cars angry.)
Gamification is about taking a beneficial activity or habit and building a game around it to force a reward cycle, not the opposite as described above. Building an entertainment game and then trying to wedge in real world influences that cost money is called "Pay to Win" and they are inherently less fun than stabbing one's self with a sharp stick.
Adding a limit for otherwise unregulated chemicals is not increasing pollution. Raising a limit for a chemical that was regulated artificially low (and not based on toxicity) is fine.
The linked talks about benzene a bunch. The proposed lowers the limit for Class III (recreation water) and increases it from 1.18ug/L to 2 ug/L for Class I (Drinking water). EPA limit for drinking water is 5 ug/L, for reference.