Activism or Fear Mongering?

Before the 1970's, environmental activism was centered around educating people to harmful activities.
Since that time environmentalists have shied away from real public involvement, to the point where today, it's a matter of, we say it's bad, so it's bad.  We will not take any questions on the matter.
Environmental activists are directly responsible for what we're seeing in Ruidoso.  Their activism against any effective management of forests is what directly led to the scale of the fires in Ruidoso, and around the state and country.
Another case in point is the recent activism by this publication on PFAS.  While I'm sure the intentions were good, I don't believe they ever looked beyond the headlines.  And as the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
That activism, according to this publication, has led to a closure to public access of a contaminated area.  Erring on the side of caution is not necessarily a bad thing, within limits.
There's a fairly wide list of substances that fall under the group PFAS, and while some have alternatives, others don't have alternatives that are both effective and cost efficient.
Studies on the health effects of PFAS started a few years ago, and are on going.  There are no preliminary results of these studies available to make a decision either way.
The lack of information hasn't stopped the EPA from churning out a regulation however.
The EPA drinking water regulation was put in place with no scientific information to inform it.
The regulation allows between 4 and 10 parts per trillion depending on the specific PFAS.
Let's put that in perspective, would that be equal to a certain number of stars in the Milky way? Yes, just 1 star in the entire galaxy.
Another comparison would be to mercury, it's a substance that also tends to accumulate in the body, the EPA drinking water standard for mercury allows 1,000 times more than it does for PFAS.  And the health risks for mercury poisoning are well known.
This reminds me of the EPA statement on second hand smoke, they stated that "There is no known safe level of second hand smoke." Which was true only because a harmful level has never been established, which is the first step in determining a safe level.  So the EPA regulation on allowable drinking water levels is not known to be a safe level.  The safe level may in fact be zero, or it could be totally inert health wise.

PFAS is a vital substance in numerous applications other than fire fighting foams.  PFAS are used in fabric protection, and water proofing, it is in batteries, micro electronics and medical devices.
Most people in the United States have had exposure to PFAS which complicates the health studies being done, because researchers don't have an exposure free control group to compare to.
But even though the science is still out, NM legislatures have already put a plan in place for the total ban of PFAS in the next few years.  This total ban could conceivably affect pace makers and insulin pumps, as well as orthopedic devices.
While the scientific verdict is still out, the observable evidence seems to point to a different conclusion.
With the worlds highest levels of PFAS at Holloman Lake, the flora and fauna are not only surviving, but appear to be thriving with thousands to millions of times the EPA's recomended safe levels.
Again, the EPA has pulled this safe level out of thin air, with no science to say it is actually a safe level, or that a level millions or trillions of times higher wouldn't be safe.
I am not fighting for or against the use of PFAS, what I am fighting for is transparency and following the scientific method, neither of which seem to have a home at the EPA.