I think they should be banned because it makes no sense to me to extensively use chemicals that have not been shown to have a reasonable chance of being safe. Why extensively use something about which we know very little what the environmental effects are?
No. What you wrote is completely wrong. Besides, it would be better for the environment and humanity if we did not progress so fast in the area of releasing massive amounts of toxic chemicals and detritus.
This already happens in high-risk areas with the likes of the FDA requiring approval for drugs, since they are more likely to be immediately and/or grossly harmful as a direct result. We don't have evidence that many of these chemicals or even microplastics are directly responsible for any long-term physiological effects (but we know for certain that they exist and are being ingested and distributed throughout the body), so it's not like people are dropping dead from (mis)use of forever chemicals.
The first link is "High exposure to perfluorinated compounds in drinking water and thyroid disease" but the conclusion in the abstract is
> In total, 16,150 individuals had ever been exposed. The hazard ratios did not indicate any excess risk of hyperthyroidism among those with contaminated water. For hypothyroidism, the risk of being prescribed medication was significantly increased among women with exposure during the mid part of the study period (but not men). However, the association with period of exposure was non-monotonic, so the significance is considered to be a chance finding. Our research was limited by the relatively simple exposure assessment.
The second one as well
> No association between serum PFAS and fecal zonulin was found. In conclusion, the present study found no consistent evidence to support PFAS exposure as a risk factor for IBD.
> Why extensively use something about which we know very little what the environmental effects are?
Because burning jet fuel in an enclosed interior ship space while hundreds of miles from land is a bigger and more immediate threat?
It makes sense to phase out dangerous chemicals wherever we can, but sometimes their use is a chemical imperative because there are no equivalent alternatives.
The X-37 reportedly uses hypergolic nitrogen-tetroxide + hydrazine fuel, which means everyone wears spacesuits around it on the ground. But it solves an engineering challenge that more mundane fuel mixes don't. Ergo, they use something toxic and dangerous.
My stance has nothing to do with the study.