Having read the article it's really not clear this it supports that analysis, "As expected, environmentally relevant PFAS levels did not affect survival." In p

Having read the article it's really not clear this it supports that analysis, "As expected, environmentally relevant PFAS levels did not affect survival." In particular, although the high levels of exposure (of one or more PFOS/PFOA) showed effects, there was reverse correlation at low levels. Of course this is in Zebra fish so I'd hesitate to guess the relevance for mammal or human populations. It does seem to most directly affect lipid metabolism including steroids, and is multi-generational. I'd be most worried where the chemical (waste) byproducts were used as fire suppressants rather than the small quantities found elsewhere. Those concentrations (hundreds of ppt) are much more worrying. People who sprayed their clothes, couches, tires with scotchguard were probably also already exposed to 100s of times higher lifetime doses than they will ever see through environmental sources at <10ppt (still above proposed limits). https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/