How can you accurately estimate any of this?
What they should be made to do is provide free filters to all of the governments to filter PFAS until a time when no PFAS is detected. Or if that's not possible, R&D until some form of it is possible then do that.
But that would probably damage the company forever, and that's bad.
If they don't wanna do it they could just spin off a 'water filter' division and then bankrupt it. Problem solved!
Fructose is ok to consume in amounts that are typical for fruit (which is less than you‘d think), but is a metabolic disruptor in higher amounts. Liver cells have to do a lot of work to metabolize fructose, compared to glucose which needs quasi no conversion. As to health effects of fructose, I‘ve found it hard to determine which studies are reliable, because there is just so much money in this industry, and high interest to influence research. But the metabolic complexity it brings is undeniable, and one could argue that fructose is kinda like a poison we have adapted to - if we lack key enzymes, we can’t metabolize it.
Glucose is harder on the pancreas and chronic high insulin seems to be really bad, so I‘d avoid that too of course. But a reasonably healthy liver can quickly buffer excess glucose (hepatocytes) and rather easily convert to glycogen and store it, in big amounts.
The value of those houses (as a place to live) is $0 to anyone who cares about not consuming PFAS, and thus should be $0 until the problem is fixed. I guess you can rent them out to people you don’t care about, which would make them worth >$0, but also clearly unethical.
In a society that’s functioning correctly, sane people would pass a law prohibiting consumption of water with PFAS; those houses would be declared uninhabitable, the same way a fire marshal now can declare a building uninhabitable as it violates a fire code.
When someone sells their house, the price is an agreed upon valuation by buyer and seller. It’s probably the closest to true value we’ll ever get.
How do you propose to value better?
If they are selling for more than $0, then someone values them.
Obviously humans aren’t rational actors, so assuming as much would be dumb to use as the basis of an economic system. People generally are shortsighted- they build on flood plains, for example, or use toxic building materials that cause damage long term (ex: asbestos), or whatever.
Nor should humans be expected to be rational actors. (!) You shouldn’t need a PhD in biochemistry in order to evaluate water quality impact to health, in order to buy a home. If we require people like software engineers to be full blown doctors just to rationally evaluate a place to live, we have failed as a society.
Allowing the government to declare homes uninhabitable is clearly better than a pure market based system.
Otherwise, you either live in an unusual location that makes any kind of water-related infrastructure projects very expensive - like, idk., a small settlement at a summit of a mountain, or in the middle of a desert - or something is very much broken about that place.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/bottled-water/pfas-in...
You do understand that that’s worse for you, right?
it's not a good defense for indiscriminate contamination of water, if that's what you're trying for