[graeme]

A lawsuit is about harm. If it's a civil lawsuit, you can absolutely be sued for doing things which you know to be harmful to others, even if they aren't crimes. That's what a tort is. The purpose of such private lawsuits it to give people a legal mechanism for redress that doesn't involve physically attacking each other or trying to legislate everything.

[cpncrunch]

>know to be harmful to others

This is the key fact. I had a look at the evidence, and I'm not seeing any harm myself.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...

Taking an example of developmental problems, there is this study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344877/

but it doesn't seem to have been replicated, at least in mice:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345697/

[magicalist]

What is your goal with this comment?

> I had a look at the evidence

The evidence isn't difficult to search for, and your 30 second "look" at two sources from the Wikipedia article doesn't exactly amount to a meta analysis.

[cpncrunch]

If you can post that meta-analysis that would be helpful, thanks. My goal is to find the evidence. It seems you have it, so it would be useful if you could post it. Generally if there is a meta-analysis or robust evidence it will be in the wikipedia article. If not, I'd love for you to add it (or I can). Evidence shouldn't be hard to find...

[smugma]

Why should evidence not be hard to find? It’s why we have detectives (to find evidence of crimes) and why lawsuits have long discovery processes (again, to find evidence).

[cpncrunch]

We are talking about published scientific studies here, which are all listed on pubmed. Clearly there isnt any robust evidence, as nobody has posted a link to anything.

[graeme]

Well the question of whether there was harm and whether it was or ought to have been known is precisely what a court would decide.