>By making a slightly different formula? Yeah, I preemptively addressed this argument by suggesting a reg to "encompass all PFAS-like compounds rather than playing whack-a-mole".

I mean how far would it go? I think now we're entering into a pretty interesting technical argument.

I'm not going to be a donkey and say that what you wrote is the regulation and stick to it to the death. But I want to point out the word like. Are there any derivatives? Are they useful and not harmful? What if they change the compound to something useful and harmless?

With the useful and harmless, it would take generations to even know right? Would regulations such as those create issues with development such as a new vaccine, or would that be granted just for emergencies?

How far would the regulation go and how much would it affect? Regulations written broadly do not really survive the courts. That's part of the problem there by the way.

Also enforcement... If sales = 1 billion and liability = 100 million. Which CEO would say no to that? There should be much much much steeper penalties involved. Not just a game of legal delay until they die because it's a cheaper bill. Yes, that's actually a legal strategy. Regulators should be able to just shut them down.

But then here we are with DuPont that holds a stranglehold on many products. Shut them down and then no more useful products and we start having exponential effects.

Just a side note, I am a socialist and an attorney too, I'm not simping for this corporation. If anything the opposite, but we are limited to the discussion with the way things are right now, sadly. Because while you and I can imagine a better future and how to get there (whether different or not) until it at least begins we're stuck with this.