[sooheon]

> It can be impossible to tell with things that only have no - to mild effects.

If any effects are unmeasurable with standard clinical trial practices, then it's safe. People care about things that actually are harmful.

> Proving a negative ("this is not dangerous") is hard :)

Which is why I never asked for it. Safety standards are always phrased positively. OSHA doesn't say "workplaces must not be dangerous", they say "wear a hard hat, the employer shall do ___, employees must not be forced to do ___". It's very easy to regulate that "new compounds must be shown not to affect human hormone levels at X concentration, must be shown not to be carcinogenic in Y model of cancer" etc.

[ironmagma]

Even still, PFAS started being used in the 50s. If it took us this long to figure out there is something dangerous about it, chances are a small study would not have found anything either. We’ve had lots of time and a huge N.