Is this going to be like the micro-plastics-are-actually-contamination-from-lab-gloves news all over again?<p>I'm all for removing PFAS and similar chemicals from the many places and uses they aren't needed, but if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water, they certainly aren't going to care about penguin PFAS.
No, they-are-not-actually-contamination. Some studies might have inaccurate numbers due to contamination. That's all.<p>Important to correct for, but doesn't invalidate the whole microplastics concern.
> if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water<p>People don't? Sounds to me like they need to look at history a bit more.<p>To me, this looks very much like some of the other magical materials...<p>Lead in gasoline, asbestos as building material, tobacco etc
Yes, it could be (I posted the article about the gloves), but PFAS are different from microplastics, and not all the studies are contaminated by gloves.<p>The interesting part here is using the animals as “scientists” to collect samples in their habitats for years (2022-2024) instead of sending humans to collect samples. This is far more reliable in my opinion
Trust the science.