So what exactly is replacing PFAS?
https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a43241598/gore-tex-patag...
> That Hail Mary thrown out by Gore-Tex turned out to be ePe (expanded polyethylene): a new durable, waterproofing membrane that is just as efficacious at repelling water as Gore-Tex's original ePTFE formula — yes, that's short for Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene — but without fluorocarbons.
Good question!
Something chemical that will eventually also be proven dangerous, but only after a decade or so of exposure…
In another field, DDT was safe until it wasn’t, then came neonicotinoids…safe until they weren’t…and so it goes…
If it's harmful to humans, it's not harmful enough to make much of a dent in our health or lifespans.
All that aside .. just like uranium.
Oh, except it's not a natural element like uranium that's been present as part of the earth for 4 billion years, it's a synthetic first created here by humans somewhat more recently.
But sure. Just like uranium.
The polyethylene family is not like the PFAS family being discussed here - the biggest environmental issue with polyethylene to date is that it requires the introduction of specific bacteria in landfills to make it degrade. It does seem that it can be treated to recover usable oil .. which is either a pro or a con - but no known health issues (unlike, say, uranium).
So your comment boils down to "magnitude is irrelevant".
By your logic (if you can call it that), there's no point in saying arsenic is more dangerous than milk because "swap out the units and you're describing milk".
Why study the effect of anything on anything when we could just swap out the units and everything is the same?
Hell, "swap out the units" and Earth is the same size as Jupiter, and it's just as hot as the sun!