Not really a sign of the times. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a new concept. The burden of proof is on the people suing to show that PFAS both came from the fertilizer and is the cause of the issues.
The article mentions that microplastics was another theory. It's not encouraging when the leading theories appear to be plucked out of current trends for scary chemicals.
It would have been interesting if the article if the article gave prior concentrations as a baseline, such as when cattle died in WV from PFAS. Without a baseline it's hard to say. However, the levels being referenced in the calfs and the timing of the fish kills seems to indicate that a preponderance of the evidence supports the claims. In civil trials, it just has to be more likely than not.
> The article mentions that microplastics was another theory
The mention of microplastics was in relation to why the piles of biosolids were smoking. Speculation that heat from composting was burning microplastic particles.
Breathing burning plastic and ingesting large amounts of PFAS can both be harmful at the same time. The 'micro' part is irrelevant, you don't want to breath burning plastic regardless of the size of the particles burning.
Polluting your neighbor's property IS NOT OK. Normally externalities are more ambiguous, but this is literally polluting your neighbor's land. This isn't just a failure of our laws, this a failure of a community.
Not really a sign of the times. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a new concept. The burden of proof is on the people suing to show that PFAS both came from the fertilizer and is the cause of the issues.
The article mentions that microplastics was another theory. It's not encouraging when the leading theories appear to be plucked out of current trends for scary chemicals.