"It's technically possible to destroy this stuff" ...that doesn't mean it's relevant to how people are exposed to them, that it is economically feasible or pra

"It's technically possible to destroy this stuff" ...that doesn't mean it's relevant to how people are exposed to them, that it is economically feasible or practical to do the destruction, etc. It does nothing to address exposure from things like cookie wrappers, french fry bags, disposable food trays, bottled water (ironically, which some people have to drink because their water is contaminated with PFAS.) The whole point behind fighting against disposable plastics, for example, is that despite it being possible to recycle it, almost none of it is. "It has a half-life of up to decades but that's better than mercury and arsenic" Whataboutism? And PFAS have nothing to do with mercury and arsenic?