Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.

or, put more concisely:

Sola dosis facit venenum.

It's doesn't matter how deadly something is at a given concentration, if it doesn't exist in that concentration in any context where you're going to encounter it.  HCN and its salts being super deadly and occurring in peach pits doesn't really matter since you'd have to eat several dozenpeach pits intentionally (after breaking them open) to get a sufficient dose to actually die from it.

The only actually dangerous one is botullotoxin, which probably does exist in sufficient concentration to kill your dumb ass if the can it's in has enough pressure to be puffed up.

The reason the quotes at the top of this post are not in English is that this observation is literally, literally the absolute first thing that science discovered about the natural world, verified by empirical experimentation, and recorded for dissemination to the nascent scientific community.  It quite literally predates fully modern English, Paracelsus died in the early 1500s.  This observation was codified and established before Shakespeare was born.

Al!: I read scientific papers for fun and I have never seen a number written with thousands separators after the decimal. I can't find any information on the internet stating that there are nations that do that. Which parts of the world use thousands separators after the decimal?

Scientific papers have actual formal standards required for when authors publish, especially regarding the formatting of numbers.  Using x10^whatever instead of a decimal followed by a bunch of trailing zeroes is actually an explicit rule, generally speaking if you do that shiat the journal will send your paper back for revision.  So arbitrary notational dividers are somewhat irrelevant.

The rule on arbitrary dividers before the decimal is less universal, but generally speaking your paper will be sent back for formatting correction if you do that, too, you either need to use scientific notation or present the number without any dividers at all (e.g. you'd write 3147 instead of 3,147 or 3.147,00 etc) basic common-sense rules on significant figures tend to also make such concerns irrelevant in almost every context, as having a five-plus digit number with significance is unlikely in any actual scientific paper (though sometimes it'll happen in supporting theoretical or analytical papers which are directly scientific in themselves).

My point isn't about whether any nation does separators after the decimal, I actually have no idea about that.  My point is that leading with "I read scientific papers" and then making a comment about informal notation standards is extremely silly, because scientific papers by definition don't follow such standards.  At the worst, a journal will have its own notation standards independently, which it will provide on request and usually list in the back of the paper edition.