[mglz]

The problem is PFAS are in basically all the water on the planet and persist in the body for several years. Even if they might have a small effect that will likely be magnified due to accumulation and the long persistence. We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle.

[lysace]

> We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle.

It's an assumption that this will be similar, but sure.

[mglz]

If it's bad and we avoid it = win

If it's bad and we don't avoid it = potential disaster

If it's no problem and we avoid it = Some unnecessary losses

If it's no problem and we avoid it = No problem

Currently, considering past patterns, it looks like PFAS are problematic and the potential cost of failing to mitigate could be very high. So being more cautious is the rational solution, even in the face of uncertainty.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Surely the far more dangerous assumption is to assume that an untested substance won't be harmful to life.

[analog31]

It also means that there's no control group. I think it was in the New Yorker, an article about the chemist who was asked by 3M to investigate the health effects of PFAS after workers in their factories were getting sick. She tried to find blood samples that were PFAS-free in order to test the detection limits of her equipment, and there was PFAS in virtually every sample.