while the metals are detectable, the levels are so low as to be unmeasurable
If that particular quote is actually what is said (with no caveats) then it alone would cause me to view it with scepticism.
If you can detect something enough to positively identify it, you can measure it.
To positively identify something, you need a complete one of it - so you've counted one already...
It can legitimately be below the resolution of the equipment, but that should be part of the statement.
As to the actual levels:
The anti vaping scare science measured what they claimed were high levels.
Even those levels, when considered properly and put into proper context, were well below the 'safe' industrial exposure rates, and tens to hundreds of times lower than present in cigarette smoke.
From what I recall, a non-scare study measured them to be factors of ten lower than that.
And yes, they're all within the acceptable medicinal limits.
But, that doesn't mean that such exposure is good nor safe. The key word is "acceptable".
The medicinal limits are based on comparison - as in what happens with this exposure against what happens if you don't take the drugs...
It becomes acceptable to risk exposure if the alternative is worse.
Cynically, industrial limits are based on acceptability as well - are the amount of casualties acceptable (or affordable) compared to the societal benefit (or profitability) of the industry in question.
So, the ideal exposure is zero.
While I do seek to reduce my exposure, I take into consideration the acceptability compared to the case of me continuing to smoke.
In that situation, it's acceptable.
But, as I said in another thread, my ultimate aim is to stop vaping too, which is another voluntary exposure eliminated.
Until that point though, it's (again) acceptable.