7 Comments
User's avatar
Jed's avatar

what about the precautionary principle? They might not be dangerous or they still might be.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Thanks for the comment. You hit on a key concept (the PP) that cuts across a lot of these issues (PFAS, climate change, Covid-19(84), other). More to come on that. An excellent point!

Expand full comment
Judith G's avatar

Once “Save the Planet!” became a popular emotional motivator (and to be sure a few productive environmental policies re clean air and water have resulted), it soon became a ginormous bandwagon for non-profit grifters to load up with the good-hearted credulous. Whereas … where do we who want to stop the madness … especially the climate catastrophe con … go to support a focused, rational, effective opposition? Where is our Real Science Defense Fund? So many of us feel helpless to defend our country from these gruesome assaults … I’m just one person, what can I do? I’m even outnumbered by my own family! Help!

Expand full comment
Thoughtful Reader's avatar

If only all the hysteria were actually about the facts. Unfortunately, countering grift-deployed fear with reality is devilishly difficult.

Expand full comment
David Walker's avatar

So the specious statistical sophistry known as Linear No Threshold principle beloved of regulators the World over strikes again...

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Looks that way.....

Expand full comment
Waspi, Kevin G's avatar

We can hope logic dominates the future of PFAS regulation. Thank you for writing this up for review as well as you have. The comparison to municipal swimming pools is a very good way to get the average person familiar with concentrations.

Expand full comment