Never once did I say there couldn't be a correlation Jojo, (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if there was) just that the information presented in the article is garbage speculation peddled by garbage sources. Doesn't even list the chemicals, just the buzzword "forever-chemicals". Red flags galore. Until something real is presented, it's just noise.
As Jo Jo should know, there are cancer hot spots everywhere. Because there's a lot of cancer.
So you have to be really careful with casual correlations.
A lot of the science behind "cancer causing chemicals" is based on studies with rats and mega-doses, problem is that doesn't necessarily mean if a megadose does this to a rat, smaller doses does this to humans. Reason for megadoses is rats don't live long, but we don't know enough to confidently extrapolate to humans. We know about things like tobacco and small airborne particles b/c we have data on cigarette usage and since the 1970s, we've been monitoring air quality (even then, the data has a lot of noise).
This is a general problem in medicine, the really good studies require large populations for long-periods (which tends to be very expensive and difficult), and even then you need perspective - how often do you see the headline, "such and such doubles your chances of cancer (or some other disease)" - but that doubling may be from 0.001% over your life to 0.002%. Meanwhile you drive every day, a far riskier endeavor.