Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, or “forever chemicals”), synthetic chemicals used since the 1940s in everything from nonstick cookware to firefighting foam, have generated over $16 billion in settlements to date, with one source estimating potential remediation costs of up to $175 billion relating to U.S. drinking water alone. Yet despite the substantial stakes involved in PFAS disputes, the science behind those disputes remains genuinely contested: Early studies linking PFAS exposure to various illnesses are now being challenged, experts disagree on fundamental questions and the sheer diversity of PFAS compounds makes comprehensive testing implausible. This article explains the scientific and evidentiary complexities that make PFAS disputes so difficult to resolve, and suggests that arbitration may provide important advantages over court litigation for the resolution of PFAS disputes.    

The Complexities of the Science of PFAS Disputes

To understand the complexity of PFAS disputes, it is necessary to understand the unique challenges PFAS raise. First, the name “PFAS” does not refer to a single chemical, but to a family of over 12,000 compounds, united by a defining structural feature: chains of carbon atoms bonded to fluorine atoms. This carbon-fluorine bond creates one of the strongest linkages in organic chemistry, considerably more stable than the carbon-hydrogen bonds that comprise most organic molecules.

This molecular architecture explains both PFAS’ industrial utility and their environmental persistence. The strong carbon-fluorine bonds render PFAS resistant to thermal degradation (they withstand extreme heat), makes them both hydrophobic and oleophobic (they resist wetting by both water and oils) and makes them chemically stable (they resist breakdown by acids, bases and most chemical reagents). It was precisely these properties that gave rise to the widespread use of PFAS.

Full article below: