Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

81–90 of 260 posts

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

#82

So what, they'll pay a few million (even few billion) fine, and go back to doing it anyways. Having grown up as part of the "Maryvale Cancer Cluster" in Arizona in the 70's with DuPont dumping fluorine and other bad things into the well water and giving most of my family leukemia, cancer, and who knows what else. Class action ensued, DuPont lawyers fought it for 30 years, end of the day my dad got a check for $200 do…

I'm always amazed that in cases like this nobody gets crazy and try to get justice themselves. There are so many guns in the US, and we hear about rogue snipers and school shooters, but never about one guy that decided a CEO should pay for his bad deeds in blood. Maybe it shows that the average human being is quite stable and peaceful?

Despite our media, it isn't part of our shared culture to go out shoot someone in revenge. Things like murder and generational feuds are taboo. And we're too individualistic to do things like make the ultimate self-sacrifice in pursuit of justice.

We are also very far removed from nature and death. Most of us fear death and do everything to avoid it. Few of us have any experience in killing.

It's easy to get a gun and kill someone in broad daylight. But you have to be really motivated to overcome all that I mentioned and accept the consequences.

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

#83
post #14
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.

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...

You are referring to Teflon, there's some confusion with the differences in toxicity between the chemical used in the final products (today at least) and the chemical used in manufacturing. Although the human impact is only subtly different (that in theory it makes no personal difference whether or not you buy such products, which is a worse position to be in than it sounds)...

As a non-chemist I don't claim to have a comprehensive understanding, but as far as I can tell: PTFE (Teflon) is found in consumer products today, and has not been directly linked to cancer yet, i.e if you eat teflon (and you have) it will supposedly just pass through your gut in an inert fashion. PFOA and more generally PFAS are used to manufacture PTFE, these are known carcinogens according to independent studies and (allegedly) internally by 3Ms own research, unfortunately PFOA is also in your blood and my blood, not because you ate teflon from a frying pan, but because once it's in the environment it doesn't get broken down, and so inevitably we end up ingesting it.

The reason we have to generalise to the group of chemicals "PFAS", is because once PFOA specifically was found to be problematic companies looked for similar alternatives, but these have also found to cause similar issues.

To complicate matters the PTFE in your non-stick frying pan can also releases PFOA if heated high enough, supposedly the threshold is around 300 degrees C, however it has been found that this threshold varies between products and can be realistically reached under in "normal" cooking scenarios, but usually when someone accidentally dry heated a frying pan too much, or is just plain cooking on too high a temperature. The side effects of being exposed to PFOA in this way are supposed to feel similar to catching a cold that disappears fairly quickly, and is often mistaken as such, I presume this is because it's vaporised.

Even knowing all this (that provided you don't nuke your cookware it likely makes no personal difference) I've still decided to personally go down the stainless steel route, it's not very scientific, but the relationship between PTFE and PFOAs is close enough, and it flakes off my frying pans frequently enough that I've decided I don't want to keep on ingesting it only to find out later that it's also a problem. Although stainless is not hazard free, because you can get problems with metals leaching into the food and have to be careful with acidity, and also make sure you buy high quality pans. They also require more skill to cook with without destroying them, but ultimately last indefinitely if you can take care of them.

The main problem with continuing to use PTFE in products is the indirect cost to the environment and human health through the "externalities" of manufacturing.

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

#84
post #14
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.

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)

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

#85
post #14
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.

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...

Dental floss is easy - the widely available/cheap waxed Reach floss tested negative for PFAs[1], and it does a better job of cleaning too. The non-stick flosses miss stuff for me.

1: https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-floss-to...

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

#86
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...

I hope steel pans aren't on that list. I prefer them to non-stick and I'm under the assumption that they're healthier than non-stick pans.

I am also a big fan of carbon steel cookware, I've replaced everything with cast iron where that is necessary or carbon steel everywhere else. It really is a minor adjustment to workflow, non stick coatings can be pretty easily avoided.

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

#87
post #84
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)

Same here, additionally reducing plastic packaging in our food purchases has been a constant effort. Glass milk jugs, baby bottles, etc. It's probably only touching the margins, but we're trying.

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

#88
If the chemicals are bad, and everywhere, we need a reaction time faster than 50 years.

For new inventions (not well-known issues), it would be far better to be fast-reacting and no-fault rather than slow-reacting with vengeance.

Run studies as the use of the chemicals scales up and start raising warnings early so the company has time to collect more information and adapt formulas or applications. As the costs become apparent, start placing those costs on the companies ahead of time rather than 50 years later. That will sort out who really needs the new chemical, versus who just wants to spray it everywhere.

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

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking it up doesn't change the liability post bankruptcy.

If I buy a candy bar from a bankrupt chocolate company I don't inherit any liability from the candy bar. "Breaking up" a company by selling its assets and distributing the profits to creditors absolutely does vanish the liability.

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 material Goods. This generally isn't considered breaking up a company.

Breaking up a large company into smaller ones during bankruptcy does not by default absolve the smaller companies of liability. Courts can add bankruptcy settlement terms that absolve a company of liability moving forward, but these can be applied to the company at all as a whole or the smaller businesses if it is broken up.

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

#90
post #14
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.

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...

"Why are so many young people getting colon cancer...????"

>They [PFAS] are used in all kinds of products that I personaly use everyday from pans to dental floss.

Perfluorooctanoic acid enhances colorectal cancer DLD-1 cells invasiveness through activating NF-κB mediated matrix metalloproteinase-2/-9 expression

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637576/

I just do not understand how people can be so "whatever" about this stuff. It is sad and infuriating.

Post reply on HN