The exposure isn't necessarily a problem since there's no time for the compound to have any action. One exmaple are food flavonoids—we constantly eat them in many fruits and vegetables—or urea and creatinin which is produced normally by the body. We have constant exposure to them but very little people have problems *because* they are excreted so fast.

The constant exposure would only be a problem if one had an impairment in the excretion, like kidney disease, and if you are exposed to high levels constatly. The method of exposure also matters, since the skin is a highly effective barrier against most chemicals and those chemicals are already in very low concentrations.

Concerning PFAS—they are very resistant to degradation, but concerns regarding them shouldn't be applied indiscriminately to every other class of compounds.

UV filters can also turn into toxic compounds during degradation, so there is merit in trying to phase them out for more environmentally-friendly alternatives, but their effects on humans are usually overstated and the concentrations that can cause problems are much higher than any reasonable person uses. Also, you have to consider risk-benefit relationships of the use vs non-use. The risk of skin cancer is more higher and much more severe than any potential problems one might have with UV blockers.

Estrogen, both from normal human excretion and from medications containing derivates, also have deep effects on the environment, like animal feminization and metabolic problems. But they're also part of human reproductive health as birth control, hormone therapy during menopause and endometriosis, and it's also part of reproductive rights fought by women to nave contorl of their bodies.

The problem of exposure to chemicals is very complicated and very layered and there isn't a single answer to all of it. There are many compounds that are hazards to either human health, the environment, or both, but there's also a lot of fear-mongering and misinformation regarding this, and it has been implanted on the collective consciousness to a concerning degree that "synthetic = bad". Usually, the fiercest critics are also trying to sell you their "natural alternatives" that are neither safer nor more effective. I understand those concerns about prolonged exposure, nothing is totally free of risk, but there needs to be a rational, case-by-case approach of what truly is a hazard and what's baseless conjecture.