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

131–140 of 260 posts

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

#131

Post by Miraste »

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.

Cast-iron is a huge pain to maintain in my experience, but ceramic pans are a good non-carcinogenic alternative.

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

#133

Post by fluoridation »

4ec0755f5522 wrote: post #123
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.

Doing something that's not illegal is not a loophole. A loophole involves doing something that would otherwise be illegal in a manner that makes it ambiguously not illegal, often due to a poorly-made law.

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

#134

Post by greenie_beans »

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.

don't you think lobbying might play a factor in whether or not they're banned yet?

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

#135

Post by dylan604 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #124
dylan604 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You sell of the formulas for scotch tape, and maybe the factories that make it as long as it is sequestered from the PFAS type stuff. You sell of the audio tape/VHS factories (haha). You sell off the patents/copyrights for all of that stuff as well. Those are the salable parts.

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

#136

Post by liquidise »

4ec0755f5522 wrote: post #123
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.

Care you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious about how this plays out in in practice.

From the perspective of a driver, this fits: i am held responsible for harm i cause even if i was otherwise driving lawfully. But should my car maker be held responsible for the harm their car caused under lawful use?

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

#137

Post by Miraste »

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…

The problem is the point between 2 and 3:

- Humans who discovered the toxicity lie, bribe, bully, and cheat to stop anyone else from finding out. The solution is delayed by decades and deaths go through the roof.

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

#138

Post by modzu »

Miraste wrote: post #131
stephencanon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cast-iron is a huge pain to maintain in my experience, but ceramic pans are a good non-carcinogenic alternative.

once cast iron is properly seasoned it maintains very well, and can last for generations! and they are dirt cheap to boot. but yes there is a little learning curve. they are heavy, so use two hands when handling. it must be seasoned (many come preseasoned) and never put it in a dishwasher for example -- but when properly seasoned the nonstick properties are so effective food just rinses off. i encourage everyone who cooks to try one!

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

#139

Post by clnq »

sneak wrote: post #102
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.

Is it still carelessness if one knows they are going to kill people for their own selfish, perhaps greedy, goals?

I don't see such a big difference in intent. I think it's more that terrorist groups have people that do what they do for selfish reasons very directly. And corporate groups have people that do what they do for selfish reasons in a way where they are acting on behalf of shareholders' greed, and they aren't really directly harming anyone right now. So it's very indirect. But the intent is kind of similar morally - personal gain at the cost of crimes against humanity, right?

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

#140

Post by CameronNemo »

sokoloff wrote: post #66
CameronNemo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shareholders shouldn't just get zeroed. There should be a clawback of profits made by 3M since the 1970s. Raid my 401k -- someone has to pay.

We'll put you down in the "not a fan of the rule of law" category.

Thanks!

https://www.copblock.org/40719/myth-rule-law-john-hasnas/

Post reply on HN