11–20 of 83 posts
Look at these numbers, extrapolate them to the decades they've been in business, and then compare them to DuPont's payment here of $400 million. The numbers aren't even close.
Pocket change. This is not accountability for infecting the worlds population with these nasty chemicals.
Prozac, Lipitor, Flonase and about 30% of upcoming new pharmaceutical drugs are PFAS, so they aren't going away completely, because society has determined that they are valuable even if they can reach toxic levels if not disposed of properly (every chemical is toxic after a certain human concentration, including water).
Companies wouldn't be able to manufacture semiconductors without PFAS as well, or high temperature components for warfare.
Now that we are smarter, we know how to mitigate risk and reduce concentrating materials to keep below relevant ppb thresholds.
If America isn't educationally sophisticated enough to handle this manufacturing and risk, it will just be done in zero regulation geographies like China and the world will be worse off.
When a payout like this occurs, does it mean the problem is resolved? In other words, are these companies no longer putting out toxic chemicals, or are they buying the ability to continue to do that without fear of further lawsuits?
> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they denied in a press release Friday. How can they stop something they never did
When a payout like this occurs, does it mean the problem is resolved? In other words, are these companies no longer putting out toxic chemicals, or are they buying the ability to continue to do that without fear of further lawsuits?
> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they denied in a press release Friday. How can they stop something they never did
Maybe they "synthesized" them, not "manufactured"
Maybe they bought them from some other company (which they might happen to own)
Maybe they manufactured PFAs in general, but not the specific chemicals PFOA or PFOS (it's an awfully specific statement, after all)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they denied in a press release Friday. How can they stop something they never did
I can think of plenty of ways that sentence might be weaselly. Maybe they "synthesized" them, not "manufactured" Maybe they bought them from some other company (which they might happen to own) Maybe they manufactured PFAs in general, but not the specific chemicals PFOA or PFOS (it's an awfully specific statement, after all)
I suspect that just like the whole BPA in plastic thing - the "___ free" alternatives will not be any better.
They will just be sidestepping the very precise legal definition of the chemical that got them in trouble.
The cost for anything like this should always be the cost of cleaning up the entire mess it created and compensating the humans harmed by it and covering their lifetime medical bills. $1billion sounds a tad low for doing any of that given the world wide impact. Its a bad deal.
i really think this problem is out of our hands, i wonder how much time we have until the food and water has so much plastic and forever chemicals that it isn't safe to eat anymore
When a payout like this occurs, does it mean the problem is resolved? In other words, are these companies no longer putting out toxic chemicals, or are they buying the ability to continue to do that without fear of further lawsuits?
> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they denied in a press release Friday. How can they stop something they never did
If they thought they weren't liable then they would have fought this in court.