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

121–130 of 260 posts

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

#121

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

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…

Case in point: new refrigerants with lower global-warming-potential were adopted after the hue-and-cry about CFCs. Many of the new refrigerants are now also source of concern due to PFAS. The CFC refrigerants themselves were introduced as superior and safer alternatives to things like ammonia and chloromethane.

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

#122

Post by throwaway173738 »

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?

Care is a big component as well. The real power of cast iron is that you can renew the coating when it wears off by re-seasoning the pan. Using a drying oil like flax, you coat the pan and heat the oil until it starts smoking, then wait for it to stop smoking. Repeat this process a couple of times and you have a durable non-stick surface again.

If you ever have the surface roughen up you can also strip the old seasoning by covering it in oven cleaner and heating it to cleaning temperature. The easiest way to do this is to stick it in an oven on high.

I’ve had the same frying pan for 10 years now and this is how I keep it non-stick.

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

#123

Post by 4ec0755f5522 »

joshe wrote: post #117

Strange that we sue companies for selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet. The idea that 3M "knew the whole time" is kooky when we aren't even sure now, 15 years after people started looking into this, whether we should ban them. Scientists, regulators and legislatures should decide what the rules are and then hold companies accountable for actually breaking the rules.

Hard disagree; companies should be responsible for harm caused by their products regardless of whether it's "legal". This is "loophole thinking" and it only benefits bad actors.

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

#124

Post by s1artibartfast »

dylan604 wrote: post #104
s1artibartfast wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you said the company would be sold off in individual parts to pay the debt.

My point is that selling it off as a complete company or mini companies doesn't really impact the liability. Both would be possible. What matters from a debt or liability perspective is the terms of the settlement.

In reality, the company is probably worth more as a single entity, sorry I wouldn't be surprised if it stays that way. That would maximize the recovery of damages and repayment of debt.

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

#125

Post by Jeff_Brown »

BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #106
Jeff_Brown wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Philosophers seem to delight in the idea that the common good is hard to define. I'm an economist. I don't see much wiggle room. The wiggle room that exists is:

(1) How much do you care about whom? In particular, do you care equally about everyone, or are you a jerk?

(2) How do you weight the relative value of things like money, health, longevity, entertainment?

(3) At what rate does the marginal utility of such things diminish?

Okay maybe that's a lot of wiggle room. Still, under any reasonable set of weights, making millions of people sick is not worth the money 3M made.

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

#126

Post by specialist »

joshe wrote: post #117

Strange that we sue companies for selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet. The idea that 3M "knew the whole time" is kooky when we aren't even sure now, 15 years after people started looking into this, whether we should ban them. Scientists, regulators and legislatures should decide what the rules are and then hold companies accountable for actually breaking the rules.

Does "Don't (knowingly) poison the whole earth and all its inhabitants" need to be a written rule?

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

#127

Post by kubota »

specialist wrote: post #126
joshe wrote: post #117

Strange that we sue companies for selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet. The idea that 3M "knew the whole time" is kooky when we aren't even sure now, 15 years after people started looking into this, whether we should ban them. Scientists, regulators and legislatures should decide what the rules are and then hold companies accountable for actually breaking the rules.

Does "Don't (knowingly) poison the whole earth and all its inhabitants" need to be a written rule?

Yes.

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

#128

Post by fluoridation »

joshe wrote: post #117

Strange that we sue companies for selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet. The idea that 3M "knew the whole time" is kooky when we aren't even sure now, 15 years after people started looking into this, whether we should ban them. Scientists, regulators and legislatures should decide what the rules are and then hold companies accountable for actually breaking the rules.

Presumably these are civil suits, not criminal cases. Whether the chemicals in question were banned or not is irrelevant.

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

#129

Post by Miraste »

joshe wrote: post #117

Strange that we sue companies for selling products we haven't even bothered to ban yet. The idea that 3M "knew the whole time" is kooky when we aren't even sure now, 15 years after people started looking into this, whether we should ban them. Scientists, regulators and legislatures should decide what the rules are and then hold companies accountable for actually breaking the rules.

If the scientists who invented and tested it worked at 3M, how would the government know it was harmful before they distributed it?

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

#130

Post by tobr »

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?

Consider butter instead of oil for pancakes. The water content of the butter boils between the pancake and the pan. The escaping water vapor pushes them apart, which helps prevent the pancake from sticking.
Post reply on HN