I cannot claim to understand the state of research ... But I think we _can't_ wait for the harms to be fully measured if we're to compensate those impacted. Sup

I cannot claim to understand the state of research ... But I think we _can't_ wait for the harms to be fully measured if we're to compensate those impacted. Suppose that drinking PFAS contaminated water decreased your life expectancy -- but to measure that effect with certainty, a meaningful number of people who were impacted would necessarily already be dead and therefore unable to be compensated for the harm done to them. Suppose a fetus whose mother drinks contaminated water has a higher risk of some form of dementia late in life -- only many decades later would the harm be fully understood and the company might no longer even exist (and IANAL but perhaps there are also statutes of limitation?) Waiting to _fully_ characterize the harm seems like a recipe for injustice. In the mean time, "the water in my district has an extra chemical in it, which doesn't need to exist in any amount, and no one's sure whether or not it's dangerous at this concentration" seems like it's already a form of damage. No one wants to drink it, the land is less valuable, etc etc. Similarly, if sewage contaminated your water, you'd be rightly upset even if that particular sewage doesn't cause a cholera outbreak.