Regarding the recent editorial urging the legislature to use its budget surplus for a PFAS fund, (“PFAS fund needed for Maine’s affected farmers,” March 15), we agree that remediation and containment efforts should be a priority for highly contaminated sites.
But we urge policymakers to first consider all current scientific research and weigh the costs and benefits to public health and the economy before taking drastic regulatory action.
The editorial board notes there is “still a lot we need to know about PFAS contamination,” and we agree. Specifically, there is a lot we need to still learn about the risks that exposure to PFAS compounds present to humans.
An analysis of the most widely cited existing research on PFAS, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research, highlights a number of important limitations that should be resolved and provides a roadmap by outlining very specific studies that need to be conducted before effective regulatory policies can be developed.
Margaret M. Murray, Ph.D.
Research Director
Center for Truth in Science
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.