The Environmental Protection Agency has launched a welcome effort to determine the extent of health and environmental effects of PFAS, a nearly indestructible group of chemicals used in non-stick cookware, stain- and water-resistant cloth and fire-retardant clothing, among lots of other applications. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have had a revolutionary effect on consumer products since the 1950s. But the cost to public health and the environment is believed to verge on catastrophic. The EPA announced this week that it wants to quantify how bad the problem is, devise strategies to stop future use and figure out how to clean them up.

Some 600 chemicals are categorized as PFAS. Because of their resistance to heat, water, grease and stains, the chemicals have found widespread usage in cookware, clothing, upholstery, mattresses, food packaging, electronics, aircraft and cars, to name a few. But they're also showing up in humans, wildlife and in water, soil and air. Some subgroups are so toxic that they're dangerous even if diluted to the equivalent of one drop in 20 Olympic swimming pools' worth of water.

The alert now being sounded across the scientific world resembles what occurred in the 1980s when scientists warned about the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer that protects Earth from the sun's harmful radiation. That problem was caused by widespread use of hydrofluorocarbons in air conditioners and aerosol products. A worldwide phaseout has helped restore the ozone layer.

The science proved so overwhelmingly convincing, and the consequences of inaction were demonstrated to be so horrific, that world leaders from across the political spectrum recognized the need for tighter regulation. That's what researchers are hoping to accomplish with PFAS. The United States started cracking down about 15 years ago, but the chemicals are still in widespread manufacturing use abroad.

Even the U.S. Defense Department, not known for environmental stewardship, is championing the anti-PFAS effort — even as it still distributes PFAS-laced, fire-fighting foam to military installations for use against fuel fires.

That's exactly the point with all major environmental issues affecting human survival: how to balance the risk of inaction against the inconvenience of curtailing popular products and practices. When the ozone layer issue first arose, consumers rebelled at the prospect of giving up their air conditioners and hairspray. But effective substitutes emerged. No one seems to miss hydrofluorocarbons anymore.

The debate extends to another, even bigger question of what humans are willing to sacrifice to slow global warming. People can't see the ozone layer, yet they trusted the call for emergency action. PFAS contaminants also aren't visible, but there's a growing consensus that their global use must be curtailed.

Ironically, everyone can see the global-warming symptoms of drought, wildfires, hurricane devastation and record flooding. But the widespread response when asked to sacrifice for the planet's survival? Too inconvenient.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: WikiImages at Pixabay