[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
That's the problem with carcinogens - it's hard AF to link cancers to pollutants, but e.g. airport firefighters have succeeded with these claims [1].
> There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely.
On the part of consumers, similarly to our use of plastics, it's convenience.
On the part of producers, the usual: money, bribery ehhh campaign donations and, in some cases, a lack of alternatives.
[1] https://phys.org/news/2023-02-seattle-airport-legacy-pfas-ch...
If you knew nothing about smoking and read a long rant on smoking's health effects, would you dismiss it as easily as you dismissed this one? Probably yes -- but you would be deadly wrong.
It's interesting to me how people, although saying they know nothing about a subject, they still have opinions about what's true or false on that subject. What can one say about something they know nothing about except: I don't know. Maybe: "this opinion (GP's) seems aggressive, is it warranted? I don't know". Just say: I don't know.
> The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely.
Smoking was dropping people like flies left and right. And indeed there was a reason why it was still on the market and used widely.
PFAS in DWR / water resistant applications is being replaced with silicone-based tech and some other novelties.
PFAS in coated paper goods can be replaced with silicones, sulfuric acid baths, etc.
PFAS in machinery could be replaced with food-grade lubricants like mineral oil, etc. (or just more frequent cleaning)
Give me some other common applications and I'll help think about the alternatives
This is an opinion. "screed" and "lobbying" are not neutral words, they have negative connotations.
>The above makes it sound like people are dropping like flies left and right. There must be a reason why it's still on the market and used widely.
This is also an opinion. It uses hyperbole to cast shade on GP's original words, to imply a dreadful scenario that should be happening if those words are true; you then say, paraphrasing: this scenario is not happening, so then it follows GP's assertions are not true (to be clear: this is your inference, implied, not mine).
This is how I read your comment; I admit, I might've gotten wrong and I apologize if that's the case.
Sort of. Smoking was initially only modestly dangerous, but became vastly more dangerous over time. So the situation isn't entirely analogous.
Bottom line is that all the liquid PFAS has been pulled from the market. The last thing I have seen was some ski racing wax had these liquid PFAS compounds, and they got fined pretty heavily.