Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 260 posts

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#101

Post by stephencanon »

rdli wrote: post #84
Sytten wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are used in all kinds of products that I personaly use everyday from pans to dental floss. And the replacements are not better, they just dont have studies yet that prove they are toxic...

We've worked to reduce plastics & chemicals in our house. Some things we do: * We use silk dental floss (we use Radius) * We use glass storage containers instead of Tupperware * For cooking, we use All-Clad. * If a recipe calls for non-stick (e.g., pancakes) I use a braiser from Le Creuset, which works reasonably well. (Edited: formatting)

A plain cast-iron skillet works flawlessly for pancakes and crepes, FWIW.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#102

Post by sneak »

clnq wrote: post #77

At these times, it's good to remember that PFAS will very likely kill more people than any terror attack so far. Among cancers, it is a known contributor to obesity and many other diseases. We go to war over terror attacks. And for this, we probably won't even bankrupt 3M, nor DuPont. To my mind, it brings into question what qualifies as terrorism. Is it not terrorism if many people die to push the stock price up whe…

Accidents due to carelessness and greed lack the same intent as terrorism.

You may recall Exxon's famous memos from the 60s or 70s when they realized that continued use of fossil fuels was going to incinerate the planet.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#103

Post by jansan »

Sytten wrote: post #14
pcurve wrote: post #9

The chemicals in question are of type PFAS and believe it or not, they're still legal to use today, though they're being phased out and banned in a few years. The problem is 3M scientists have know toxicity to human and have withheld the information to the public and regulators. Since 1970s.

They are used in all kinds of products that I personaly use everyday from pans to dental floss. And the replacements are not better, they just dont have studies yet that prove they are toxic...

What does "toxic" mean in this case. AFAIK "toxic" can mean that you will get a headache if you eat a gram, but it can also mean that it will kill you if it touches your skin. For example I do not mind drinking a beer or two, which includes 5% of toxic ethanol, but I prefer not having lead in my drinking water.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#104

Post by dylan604 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #97
dylan604 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it removed the liability of the company. It just means that the company that is left after selling off its profitable assets has the burden of the liability but with nothing but literal toxic assets. They can use the proceeds of the sales to start paying down the debts. The assets sold would obviously not be the toxic assets.

See my response to the sibling post for Clarity on what I mean. The nature of the liability depends on what is being sold off and the terms of the bankruptcy settlement

right, but you introduced "breaking up" into the conversation

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#105

Post by juujian »

stephencanon wrote: post #101
rdli wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've worked to reduce plastics & chemicals in our house. Some things we do: * We use silk dental floss (we use Radius) * We use glass storage containers instead of Tupperware * For cooking, we use All-Clad. * If a recipe calls for non-stick (e.g., pancakes) I use a braiser from Le Creuset, which works reasonably well. (Edited: formatting)

A plain cast-iron skillet works flawlessly for pancakes and crepes, FWIW.

Thinking about buying one. Would I be wrong in assuming it was just a matter of the order: (really) heat the pan, add the oil, and then whatever you need to cook?

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#106

Post by BSEdlMMldESB »

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #50
BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or mabye we should be more honest and consider that maybe this is a way for the USA government to fill its coffers back up? (rapping on another comment saying that there's a chance this is a way for the USA government to sell the 'manufacture capacity' that 3M is to other "greener" owners) now that I type this out, I realize that this is perfectly consistent with the behavior of empires. the realization that the alle…

As long as the laws and their enforcement are just, a theoretical government profit motive doesn't seem like a bad thing. But it's hard to see how the particular people who brought this case to bear would be motivated by the small slice of the increase in federal funding that would redound to them. And it's not consistent with most of the government's behavior -- it doesn't spend as many resources extracting judgment…

no, you gotta be much more deep in your reasoning this "high" up

philosophically, at this height, the principle of "justice" is to not so simple... what does it even mean "to be just"? may as well say "be good" but the point is that the issue is good for whom?

the concept is "Empire"... USA government is the empire? aside question: can there ever exist multiple "empires"? monotheistic~ally speaking?

uff... My English prose is answering its own questions... I am no longer deeply disturbed by this phenomenon... but it's not something scientifically real so it still shakes me.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#107

Post by FollowingTheDao »

pizlonator wrote: post #91
bravoetch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're okay with companies not being responsible, but you want the press to help you out here? I feel the opposite. Companies should be responsible for poisoning us, and the press has zero to do with it.

I don’t think that the problem some posters are alluding to is the kind where we should be placing blame. The problem is: - Humans invent something useful and cool. - Humans discover that the cool and useful thing is toxic as fuck, but only after years go by. It takes years for the awareness of the toxicity to become widespread enough for everyone to concur it’s a problem. Often, we only find out about the toxicity a…

> it’s just a fundamental problem in science and engineering.

In my opinion is is a problem not of science and engineering, but of human greed.

We do not need these products, we want them. As a species we did fine without them but suddenly in the last 100 years we need the so desperately?

Adding, no one can give me a response, just downvotes. Why is the aversion to speaking about greed so strong here on hacker news?

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#108

Post by pleb_nz »

I can't believe people do this just to make money. And it's not just this case, for example, our food supply is filled with stuff that is really bad for us, barely passes as edible, and is even sold as a healthy alternative in a lot of cases. For example, vegetable oils and cooking with vegetable oils and the growing evidence behind how bad they are, they extremely highly processed and in some cases not even an edible product until the last refinement step.

We're out own worst enemies and greed is so often the issue.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#109

Post by giraffe_lady »

tclancy wrote: post #95
giraffe_lady wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference in harm between these two transgressions is a few orders of magnitude at least.

I think the idea is suggesting a problem at the corporate culture level.

Yeah I mean maybe mussolini liked to kick puppies too but I don't really need it as evidence of his character you know what I'm saying? The pfas stuff is so heinous it downplays it to even mention this other thing in the same context.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#110

Post by cptaj »

juujian wrote: post #105
stephencanon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plain cast-iron skillet works flawlessly for pancakes and crepes, FWIW.

Thinking about buying one. Would I be wrong in assuming it was just a matter of the order: (really) heat the pan, add the oil, and then whatever you need to cook?

In my experience all non-stick strategies are a hoax, including teflon XD
Post reply on HN