'PFAS bad' is about as sophisticated a viewpoint as 'nuclear bad'.
Also, 3M is exiting PFAS tech since it only accounts for a few % of their business: https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing...
Moving beyond eating lead doesn't mean not using it intelligently when the risk profile is low. Also, lead-based glass is also an important component of the world's high-efficiency perovskite solar cells.
Many of the industrial products materials we wouldn't want to eat, this just means we have to be better about recycling.
It all has to do with how medical billing is structured. Xrays were already cheap before the current model was put in place so they are the go to method for diagnostic. Even though there are better ubiquitous options available, price fixing keeps those out of reach for triage and simple diagnostics.
Is PFAS denialism going to be as bad as climate change denialism is today, or tobacco disease denialism used to be? I'm tired of all these people refusing to acknowledge widespread scientific consensus. (Assuming you're not a 3M or DuPont astroturfer, of course.)