>New chemicals save lives as well [...] what do you think about the counterargument that by blocking technological improvements before actually investigating th

>New chemicals save lives as well [...] what do you think about the counterargument that by blocking technological improvements before actually investigating their risk you could be doing more harm than you prevent. What about chemicals that are relentlessly studied, but for some reason can't seem to be regulated at all? Try reading a little about PFAS, darling wonderchemical of DuPont, which is in everything from takeout containers to furniture to dental floss, will never break down in the environment, and causes everything from low birth weight to decreased penis size to cancer. [0] This is preventable harm, but note how this awful chemical is regulated by no one, and can barely be tested for. Oh, wait, they're going to regula-- "Amid growing public concern, the EPA announced in February it would begin the process of regulating PFOA and PFAS in the next two years (these regulations, if issued, would not apply to other PFAS chemicals)." [0] Look at how incredibly difficult it is to prevent the blanketing of the world with PFAS, and how toothless the too-late regulation of it -- and not its structural analogues -- will be. The only entities seemingly capable of new chemistry are utterly disinterested with the consequences, and the impotent regulators won't force them to care: it's insane to support new chemical development. It's going to be poison. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pfas-everyday-products-toxics-guide https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pfas-everyda...