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

191–200 of 260 posts

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

#191

Post by waif »

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.

Also, "microwave safe" does not mean it's safe for people... it only means the container won't melt in the microwave. If you're going to reheat leftovers, definitely don't keep it inside a plastic container.

I also switched to glass containers and stainless steel everything, about 20 years ago, out of distrust for reasons like in this article.

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

#192

Post by AnonCoward42 »

rdli wrote: post #188
AnonCoward42 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

PFAS and BPA are not used for (multi-use) food containers I think. Don't get me wrong! Avoiding throwaway packaging, where possible, absolutely makes sense. I specifically mean to find the culprit with Tupperware (or multi-use plastic food containers in general).

> 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.

Glass breaks faster than plastic containers (usually). I still use glass containers, but I am always aware that they break relatively easily.

Regarding microwave-use I am with you. Not a fan of microwaving plastic, even if it is safe for many plastic materials (the term plastic is vague I admit).

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

#193

Post by arrosenberg »

shrx wrote: post #175
throwaway173738 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 season…

It's kind of funny that heating up the oil to the point of smoking is considered a healthy alternative to teflon coated pans. When oil is heated up to the point of smoking it produces carcinogenic compounds.

Not significant. You aren't burning the oil or keeping it at high temp for a long time, you are just getting hot enough to smoke, then you cut the heat. That polymerizes the oil into a non-polar coating. Can't get non-stick without some kind of polymer that things don't stick to.

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

#194

Post by zukzuk »

shrx wrote: post #175
throwaway173738 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 season…

It's kind of funny that heating up the oil to the point of smoking is considered a healthy alternative to teflon coated pans. When oil is heated up to the point of smoking it produces carcinogenic compounds.

Comparing the misc acrylamide and other byproducts of seasoning a cast iron skillet to the PFAS and other byproducts of teflon production is nonsense.

Yes, complex hydrocarbons are not good for you, but PFOAs and their ilk are really really really bad for you and the environment. It's like comparing spent nuclear rods with brazil nuts. Yes, both are radioactive, but there is zero equivalence.

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

#195

Post by cush »

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.

How do we know that any new product doesn't have long term health effects? As science advances, the ability to precisely measure health effects advances as well. In most cases, we simply don't know until it's too late. There's a realistic balance between caution and innovation.

That said, if 3M knew about and covered up known health effects, then take em for all they're worth.

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

#196

Post by pizlonator »

digging wrote: post #181
pizlonator wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, i…

Yeah, should.

But what if there are no alternatives?

What if the alternatives are worse?

What if the alternatives are the kind of thing that could possibly be worse but we don’t have enough experience with them yet to know that they are worse?

Often the known bad thing is better than the thing you don’t know to be bad yet.

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

#197

Post by phil21 »

AnonCoward42 wrote: post #192
rdli wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? PFAS and BPA are not used for (multi-use) food containers I think. Don't get me wrong! Avoiding throwaway packaging, where possible, absolutely makes sense. I specifically mean to find…

> Glass breaks faster than plastic containers (usually). I still use glass containers, but I am always aware that they break relatively easily.

I have maybe 60-70 or so glass food containers that get very regular use from being used for leftovers, to being put in the deep freezer for 6mo and then warmed up.

We handle at least half a dozen of these a day on average from filling/cleaning/removing portions and putting back into the fridge.

I've broken dozens of the plastic lids for them. I can't remember a single case (although I'm sure it's happened) of breaking a glass container in the past decade. They have survived more than a few rather large drops. These are the Pyrex brand glassware with the new glass that is more drop but less heat shock resistant.

Luckily Snapware also sells lids, since the glass containers far outlast the plastic lids and we end up replacing 3-4 of those a year as wear items. That doesn't bother me much since very little food gets in contact with them.

I expect my Snapware/Pyrex food storage sets to largely outlast my lifetime, but without lids to match once they stop manufacturing them.

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

#198

Post by givemeethekeys »

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?

Don't overthink it. Look up America's Test Kitchen videos on cast iron pans. They probably have one to recommend the best one for the $$ and how to take care of it.

I have an old school cast iron skillet and pot. I wish I'd watched videos because newer types of cast iron apparently has a smooth finish and is thinner and lighter. When new, I washed it with soap and water, dried it, added a nice and thin layer of olive oil all around wiped it with a kitchen towel to take off the excess, then baked it for half an hour. Let it cool. Repeated that once or twice. You can even just heat it on a stove top.

Once I'm done cooking something, I rinse scrub and rinse with warm water to get all the food off and add a touch of oil. A little goes a long way.

That's all, really. It isn't complicated or particularly laborious. It just weighs a fair bit - it'll take your hands a couple of weeks to get stronger and then you won't care.

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

#199

Post by pizlonator »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #107
pizlonator wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Greed is always part of it. It’s a part of everything.

Thats why I don’t usually use greed as an explanation for stuff. Of course greed is part of the system and sometimes it causes bad things to happen. Sometimes it also causes good things to happen. So, if you want to prevent the bad, it’s useful to look for some explanation that isn’t just “greed”.

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

#200

Post by TylerE »

kmod wrote: post #23
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #5

> Financial research firm CreditSights estimates that 3M could ultimately be on the hook for nationwide PFAS cleanup costs of up to $142.7 billion. That’s almost triple the company’s $53 billion market capitalization, and that’s before any personal injury claims and other lawsuits. What does this actually mean? It's just showing off a big number without giving any real context. 3M is the only manufacturer of tons of…

Assuming those numbers are realized it would mean bankruptcy, essentially, and questions like this are pretty standard and well-thought-about there. IANAL but I think this is why Chapter 11 bankruptcy exists (where you keep the company going because that's valuable) vs Chapter 7 (where you liquidate it). I think the Purdue bankruptcy is similar where the company is somewhat being handed over to the people that were h…

3M going under would be bad in a lot of ways. They are THE name is serious respiratory and other PPE, for instance.
Post reply on HN