But this is wasting electricity and other resources for a somewhat pointless cause as PFAS production will outpace this. To me, that's a net negative to the environment without any real gain?
As long as spending electricity and other resources on PFAS destruction doesn't inadvertently cause even more PFAS production than it prevents, then this concept seems to make sense at some level. That doesn't mean it's ideal, but we're going to need this anyways even if PFAS winds up being fully phased out.
> But this is wasting electricity and other resources for a somewhat pointless cause as PFAS production will outpace this. To me, that's a net negative to the environment without any real gain?
Insufficient != pointless. What if we made a bunch more of these and offset the electrical consumption by banning utterly useless and wasteful cryptocurrencies? That sounds like an environmental win/win.
There are other creatures that live in/on/near the water or require water for survival, and they don't have filters. Vegetables grown with contaminated water don't have filters either. There are numerous ways you can ingest that contaminated water besides drinking it directly.
You are part of an ecosystem, and you need that ecosystem to function in order to stay alive. This applies to all humans, not just you.
>well, if the filters are 100% effective, then my water is clean
Why can't we stop producing PFAS?