[theptip]

This is the problem with our current approach to safety testing; it takes decades of statistical analysis across the population in order to determine whether there are long-term effects from these chemicals. By the time there is evidence to make PFAS illegal, a new alternative will be found. Who knows if this alternative will be turn out to be better or worse that PFAS in 30 years?

This is a hard problem; in general you don't want to shut off all new technological development, and presumably the worse something is for you, the faster the harm will become apparent (e.g. thalidomide). But I'd be interested to see a full-system cost/benefit analysis of e.g. PFAS. If the cost is "with X probability, cause Y QUALYs of harm to the population over 30 years", and the benefit is "improve convenience of cooking by making pans non-stick", what are the maximum values of X and Y that we should be happy to agree to?

It doesn't seem to me that society is currently well equipped to make decisions in this way.

[foobiekr]

To add to this is the fact that we also have plenty of evidence that industry will do the wrong thing. Lead additives to gasoline is a common example but the story of Diethylstilbestrol (more commonly known as DES) is so much worse.

10 million or more fetuses exposed over 30 years with results ranging from fatal aggressive cancers in young children to birth defects. DES still shows effects two full generations later - in the grandchildren.

During the time DES was in use it was often defended using the “But women have estrogen already and this is exactly the same so obviously it’s fine” sorts of dismissals.

And now, here and again I encounter people dismissing concerns about BPA or PFOA and other endocrine disrupters with hand waving about how if there was really a problem we would have seen it and reacted to it by now so - the reasoning goes - obviously there is not a problem or, if there is one, it’s minor. And then I think of DES.