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

181–190 of 260 posts

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

#181

Post by digging »

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…

> 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.

There's no reason for there to be years between discovery and action. It doesn't matter how quickly the discovery ripples through lay society. Once it's known that something is harming and/or killing people, it should be stopped.

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

#182

Post by [deleted] »

jackmott42 wrote: post #27
BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

disbanding this corporation doesn't undo decades of pollution either. I doubt very much that they're the only ones able to manufacture this stuff

The point isn't to undo the past, it is to make it clear to other companies that if they lie about safety they will face an existential threat too. Who are you people who feel compelled to defend mega corporations that screw people over? What is your psychology? What do you value in life? My goodness.

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by AnonCoward42 »

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)

Honest question: Why do you try to replace Tupperware?

Plastic has a bad reputation because of its longevity, but that also makes it a good material for containers. That - in turn - makes it bad for throwaway packaging of course. I might have missed something, that's why I ask.

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

#184

Post by cpncrunch »

magicalist wrote: post #180
cpncrunch wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>know to be harmful to others This is the key fact. I had a look at the evidence, and I'm not seeing any harm myself. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst... Taking an example of developmental problems, there is this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344877/ but it doesn't seem to have been replicated, at least in mice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC53456…

What is your goal with this comment? > I had a look at the evidence The evidence isn't difficult to search for, and your 30 second "look" at two sources from the Wikipedia article doesn't exactly amount to a meta analysis.

If you can post that meta-analysis that would be helpful, thanks. My goal is to find the evidence. It seems you have it, so it would be useful if you could post it. Generally if there is a meta-analysis or robust evidence it will be in the wikipedia article. If not, I'd love for you to add it (or I can). Evidence shouldn't be hard to find...

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

#185

Post by s1artibartfast »

valleyer wrote: post #169
s1artibartfast wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe we're confusing terms here. Breaking up a company normally means separated into smaller existing companies. If you buy 3m's candy bar division, you still might be on the hook for the forever chemicals the candy shop dumped in the river. If you're just talking about dissolving a company and selling off the tangible assets, not selling off functional business units then I agree, liability doesn't follow m…

What statute or case law supports this distinction between material goods and business units? It seems reasonable to me that you could absolutely purchase a business unit from a bankrupt company without any associated liabilities. Of course, you'd pay the full price for it (as compared to the discount you'd be able to negotiate if you accepted liabilities). And, of course, the proceeds of the sale would go to the cre…

I am not a lawyer, but here is a decent summary [1]. The legal term you would be looking for is "successor liability".

Liability can be servered from a operational buisness unit, but it basically requires the court intervention to formalize the seperation. Liability follows the functional business so that sale can't be used to evade liability.

Imagine if this wasnt the case. 3M could take on 100B debt, sell the bussness & assets to "4M" , leaving "3M" with no funds or assets for the creditors to go after.

https://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/20....

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

#186

Post by sigstoat »

Ekaros wrote: post #94
hgsgm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking the L out of Limited Liability Corporation. If you paid $100 for a share after the damage was done, who should pay? You, or the shareholder who sold to you?

Both? Just track everyone who has ever owned a share and confiscate their whole property.

what’s the point of even typing such silliness? you just said “confiscate the property of everyone on the _planet_ who has ever had a retirement account”

you might as well propose “we should just snap our fingers and wish really hard for utopia”

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

#187

Post by red-iron-pine »

RajT88 wrote: post #44
jackmott42 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't to undo the past, it is to make it clear to other companies that if they lie about safety they will face an existential threat too. Who are you people who feel compelled to defend mega corporations that screw people over? What is your psychology? What do you value in life? My goodness.

> The point isn't to undo the past, it is to make it clear to other companies that if they lie about safety they will face an existential threat too. DuPont, while removed from the threat of this lawsuit, is guilty on plenty of counts of the same behavior with other chemicals. I believe I've read articles about GE and Monsanto also knowing the health risks to their own employees and doing nothing about it. Let alone…

> this lawsuit

There can and will be others. Esp. if there is a legal precedent.

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

#188

Post by rdli »

AnonCoward42 wrote: post #183
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)

Honest question: Why do you try to replace Tupperware? Plastic has a bad reputation because of its longevity, but that also makes it a good material for containers. That - in turn - makes it bad for throwaway packaging of course. I might have missed something, that's why I ask.

There's definite leaching of plastic compounds into food, which gets exacerbated when heated. My concern is the number of unknown unknowns. BPA became a big part of the consciousness a few years ago, and now it's PFAs, but what else?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/18/are-plastic-...

My general view is that glass is super-durable, microwave-safe (I would never microwave Tupperware), and the cost tradeoff is minor, so it seems worthwhile. That said, if I order takeout and it comes in a plastic container that's hot ... I still eat it :).

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

#189

Post by elwebmaster »

pleb_nz wrote: post #108

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 edibl…

Or fake “beyond” meats. Highly processed, who knows what. The opposite of fresh vegetables and meat.

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

#190

Post by sokoloff »

NickC25 wrote: post #144
youreincorrect wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it. Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt. Let companies that did not go under for such awful practices pick up the pieces. Why is bankruptcy acceptable for Kmart but not 3M? Be specific, no nonsense about how they are the only company in…

Thanks for taking my points in good faith - others have not done the same (or to your points either). Upvoted. > Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt. It's not good politics, unfortunately. The political actors that have the will to do such a thing would get trounced by the next "pro business" candidate, and a lot of Americans would back such a candidate no mat…

> if they don't have enough money to pay the fine, who is on the hook for the remaining damages?

No one. The remaining damages go uncollected as there is no one to collect them from. Shareholders, bondholders, and junior creditors are wiped out of their ownership stake in 3M and the 3M company would cease to exist.

Post reply on HN