re: #26 gwangung

Well, that’s good to hear, I guess.

How are these newer material playing with human biology? Not carcinogenic?

Currently believed to be much safer. They are also not biopersistent. The PFAS issue was (IMHO) a complete clusterfuck. But because the way regulatory law works, it was very hard to get the authorizations revoked because the data was borderline on the persistence issue, and the carcenogenity took a long time to be seen. Data in rats is always hard to extrapolate to humans. Once the biopersistence became acutely obvious (in humans and the environment), there was a ‘subtle’ push to get industry to go along. They did, and industry wants those authorizations revoked; but not via the safety route. Liability and all that; if FDA had tried to get them removed from a safety standpoint, it would most likely never have gotten out of court. FDA just published amendments to a few relavent regs that now permit them to remove those authorizations by asking. Regulatory law is headache inducing.