[Nahtnah]

You're arguing as if you understand all the side effects of the biochemistry on the biology. None of us do. Theyre correct about one thing: its probably not good for you.

But sure, you might be more right on the basics of the biochemistry.

I guess I'm just frustrated about the state of the world - im not a degrowth person I just want a better balance.

There seems to be plenty of evidence for, for example, their role in endocrine disruption.

[timr]

At no point did I claim they were "good for you". I'm just saying that the OP is not making a valid argument.

[Nahtnah]

Sure, but I didnt claim he made a valid argument either. What I am claiming is when someone says things like

"The question of what this would do in the human body, which is full of polymers with very sensitively evolved mechanical properties, was obvious - yet it was not asked in a funded capacity until we had been letting it accumulate in our kids for decades"

which the article I linked supports, people come out of the woodwork to argue we need "more evidence/an exact biochemical pathway" when we dont have the understanding/technology to actually do that.