Well, this is exactly the problem, it's completely arbitrary and based on public outrage what gets banned and what doesn't. If we can't motivate enough people to care about something, it won't be banned.

That's not a way to run health policy. I'd certainly like more action against PFAS, for example. At very least, more science done to know exactly how harmful it is (especially given how it's permeated so much of the public drinking water).

But, would I ban PFAS all together? Heck no. Rather I'd want to have a better understanding of where they should and shouldn't be used and how we should treat PFAS chemical outputs.

Yes, ban/restrict PFAS

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32980712

I think you’re overestimating the degree to which these decisions are made logically based in a desire to avoid problems, and overly quick to dismiss different opinions on acceptable levels of risk as arbitrary or outrage-driven. There’s a long history of companies claiming to be doing the smart thing but cutting corners ruthlessly - for example, here’s a story I read last week contrasting how they told regulators they worked versus the actual plant conditions:

https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-poisoning-chemic...

To illustrate this: Asbestos is only banned in spray-on insulation, pipe insulation, paper, flooring, and new uses. The actual reason its not used as much (and it certainly is still used) is because of the public opinion and threat of lawsuits.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121022215630/http://www.epa.go...

> EPA does NOT track the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of asbestos-containing products. It would be prudent for a consumer or other buyer to inquire as to the presence of asbestos in particular products.