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

211–220 of 260 posts

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

#211

Post by digging »

BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #28
enraged_camel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> disbanding this corporation doesn't undo decades of pollution either. Yes, but it prevents them from harming the public like this in the future, and also serves as a very strong deterrent for others.

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…

It is imperative to control material incentives for all entities, both individuals and organizations. Entities will pursue incentives; money is no exception. Therefore, if we have designed a government so that it profits from protecting citizens from the ravages of corporate greed... that still counts as a good system.

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

#212

Post by mensetmanusman »

Miraste wrote: post #129
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?

PFAS was military tech before it came to 3M.

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

#213

Post by digging »

sneak wrote: post #93
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.

I still walk into high end restaurants that put water resistant cardboard straws covered in PFAs into my drink. Sometimes I send them back and ask for another; always I remove the straw quickly.

Wait, what kind of drinks from what kind of high end restaurants are coming with straws?

And why don't you just ask for a drink without a straw instead of removing it later?

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

#214

Post by JPws_Prntr_Fngr »

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.

I feel compelled to back you up on this one. You mention your experience with cast iron, and 20 semi-pro internet chefs jump all over you to gaslight you with "you just didn't season it properly bro"

No. I polymerized it with the grapeseed oil. I tried it with sunflower oil. I polymerized until my apartment swirled with smoke. I wiped it down with nothing besides a paper towel and water. I followed youtube guides.

Nothing worked, and that goddamn pan would lose slickness in the heavily-used center every other day. Plus, I'd leave it unused for a few weeks while traveling, and upon returning, it'd be covered in rust! This happened with at least 3 different pans from 2 different manufacturers.

Low-maintenance my ass.

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

#215

Post by mensetmanusman »

NickC25 wrote: post #47
gwright wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because nationalized industries/companies have a wonderful track record of environmental concern and practices? I'm not sure what the solution is to these problems (or this particular problem) but "nationalizing" producers certainly isn't one of them. Destroying 3M isn't one either. I don't understand the approach to difficult problems that starts with thinking "the government" is effectively a magic wand.

I'm not saying nationalized companies are great. I'm saying that if a company engages in such deceptive practices with materials that they know are toxic, and they fail to disclose that to the relevant parties (the government, and the people), they have no business being in business, as they are effectively externalizing the risk their products put on the rest of us. Destroying the company is not the best idea, but t…

In a company of 100k, probably like 8 people are at fault for this from the 80s and 90s. The rest are taking orders and are working on completely different areas of industry.

3M only works because they share R&D across various divisions. If it was broken up, the R&D goes away and new materials development all moves to Asia.

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

#216

Post by mensetmanusman »

rob-olmos wrote: post #21

3M is also in another lawsuit for defective earplugs supplied to the US military: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/3m-ea... Additional info: https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/3m-combat-a...

3M acquired that company and then was on the hook. A few bad decisions at the wrong level can sink a company.

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

#217

Post by mensetmanusman »

orangepurple wrote: post #152

In the future there will be a $200 trillion dollar lawsuit against tire manufacturers and brake disc manufacturers once people learn about those

Yeah, people don't know that everything that last long is pfas. Tires are a great example.

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

#218

Post by digging »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #208
digging wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"There's no reason for there to be years between discovery and action." Democracy is slow.

Most government actions aren't democratic.

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

#220

Post by BatFastard »

Miraste wrote: post #129
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?

The government did not know, but 3M knew. They made a choice not to burn it in order to save money.
Post reply on HN