3M reaches $10.3B settlement over PFAS contamination of water systems(npr.org)
npr.org
3M reaches $10.3B settlement over PFAS contamination of water systems
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/22/1183922303/3m-reaches-10-3-billion-settlement-over-contamination-of-water-systems
347 comments
Last week a Dutch research channel made an episode out of the PFAS coverup by a former Dupont factory in The Netherlands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3kzHc-eV88 It's a good video in English with some subtitled Dutch interviews containing a lot of official memo's and internal documents from Dupont and 3M. Funny thing is that they already started installing ground water cleaning installations in the 90's because they measured very high levels of PFAS in the ground, even larger than their factories in the US.
On a similar tack, there was a recent documentary by Vice on PFAS in Michigan and how it's shutting down farms, while the source emitters in the industrial space continue operating. https://youtu.be/X9GTa3a-tFo
The thing speculated in the video is the industrial emitter focused on in the video (Tribar) is depended on by the automotive industry (Ford, Chrysler) which would cause factories to pause (job loss, etc.) and such if immediately shut down.
The thing speculated in the video is the industrial emitter focused on in the video (Tribar) is depended on by the automotive industry (Ford, Chrysler) which would cause factories to pause (job loss, etc.) and such if immediately shut down.
I’m currently in the process of getting a whole home RO system to clean all this garbage out of my water, but I can’t do anything about the water my purchased fruits and vegetables are grown in nor the water the animals raised drinking.
For anyone wondering if this works, the EPA seems to think it does:
>>> High-pressure membranes, such as nanofiltration or reverse osmosis, have been extremely effective at removing PFAS. Reverse osmosis membranes are tighter than nanofiltration membranes. This technology depends on membrane permeability. A standard difference between the two is that a nanofiltration membrane will reject hardness to a high degree, but pass sodium chloride; whereas reverse osmosis membrane will reject all salts to a high degree. This also allows nanofiltration to remove particles while retaining minerals that reverse osmosis would likely remove.
>>> Research shows that these types of membranes are typically more than 90 percent effective at removing a wide range of PFAS, including shorter chain PFAS.
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/reducing-pfas-drinking-wa...
>>> High-pressure membranes, such as nanofiltration or reverse osmosis, have been extremely effective at removing PFAS. Reverse osmosis membranes are tighter than nanofiltration membranes. This technology depends on membrane permeability. A standard difference between the two is that a nanofiltration membrane will reject hardness to a high degree, but pass sodium chloride; whereas reverse osmosis membrane will reject all salts to a high degree. This also allows nanofiltration to remove particles while retaining minerals that reverse osmosis would likely remove.
>>> Research shows that these types of membranes are typically more than 90 percent effective at removing a wide range of PFAS, including shorter chain PFAS.
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/reducing-pfas-drinking-wa...
Was curious, where does all the stuff that's filtered out go? And then industry sites like https://americanhomewater.com/the-truth-about-reverse-osmosi... raise more questions which probably have better answers.
RO systems use a lot of waste water. So the contaminants get concentrated into that and go out the sewer.
I’ve got one set up for my drinking water and it’s 1:1, so a gallon of waste water for every useful gallon. Others use even more.
I’ve got one set up for my drinking water and it’s 1:1, so a gallon of waste water for every useful gallon. Others use even more.
You can dramatically increase efficiency by adding a permeate pump, search Amazon, they can be had very cheaply, they recycle the concentrate, increasing recovery and filter effectiveness.
so you go through all the effort of removing them, then release them straight back into the water supply?
That’s… not how it works. The RO membrane keeps contaminants on one side of the barrier, but it requires that they still be in solution. It’s not like you isolate all the bad stuff then mix it back in, you’re just siphoning off some clean water from the rest of the mix.
Obviously I don’t feel great about the waste, but I’ve got two kids under 6 and I’m trying to do what I can to avoid dosing them with this crap.
I do my best to make up for it in other ways - not watering any landscaping, scraping but not rinsing dishes, water off while brushing teeth/lathering hands, low flow shower heads and toilets, etc. But I'm not aware of another way to get sufficiently clean water.
Obviously I don’t feel great about the waste, but I’ve got two kids under 6 and I’m trying to do what I can to avoid dosing them with this crap.
I do my best to make up for it in other ways - not watering any landscaping, scraping but not rinsing dishes, water off while brushing teeth/lathering hands, low flow shower heads and toilets, etc. But I'm not aware of another way to get sufficiently clean water.
What else would you have them do? They are roughly only doubled in concentration and still mixed into hundreds of gallons of water per year.
The average 4 person house uses 190 gallons per day. About 4 of that is drinking water. So my wastewater contains about 2% more PFAS than a household not using an RO system. Assuming that all of it ends up in my body and not in the toilet.
Yes, I'm agreeing with you that you're doing the only remotely sensible thing. My calculation was considering only alternative disposal options for the RO wastewater, not your entire household water usage. (1 gallon of drinking water per person seems like an over-estimate as well, making your point ever so slightly stronger.)
Good point. Knowingly, too. How much do you think we should fine these people?
Doesn't that involve passing water through a bunch of plastic filters and then letting it sit in a big plastic holding tank?
Sure, but it works :) (except that one company that had a low quality membrane that leached ionomers, lol). Once plastics have leached off their manufacturing chemicals they really are very benign.
The membranes you mention are permeable, basically, only to water. Salt ions are pretty small - if the membrane blocks salt ions, they're going to block just about any molecule [1].
1. for the most part. You can have a molecule that dissolves in the polymer membrane and therefore gets through. A great example is polymer self-diffusion itself (fairly slow) and very short chains of the polymer (faster). But, generally, polymers don't like to mix with anything but themselves (see Flory-Huggins and DeGennes).
The membranes you mention are permeable, basically, only to water. Salt ions are pretty small - if the membrane blocks salt ions, they're going to block just about any molecule [1].
1. for the most part. You can have a molecule that dissolves in the polymer membrane and therefore gets through. A great example is polymer self-diffusion itself (fairly slow) and very short chains of the polymer (faster). But, generally, polymers don't like to mix with anything but themselves (see Flory-Huggins and DeGennes).
These plastic components are made from relatively stable polymers which don’t contain PFAS.
It also involves taking all the minerals out of water.
Why does this "minerals in the water are important" myth keep persisting?
Do yourself a favor and calculate:
1) The specific minerals in the water you want to consume
2) The daily values for each of those minerals
3) Figure out the water you'd need to drink to meaningfully contribute towards hitting those DVs
Hint: It's in the tens to hundreds of gallons of water per day for tap water.
Filter the water and pop a multivitamin, expecting to get significant "minerals" from tap water is a joke.
Do yourself a favor and calculate:
1) The specific minerals in the water you want to consume
2) The daily values for each of those minerals
3) Figure out the water you'd need to drink to meaningfully contribute towards hitting those DVs
Hint: It's in the tens to hundreds of gallons of water per day for tap water.
Filter the water and pop a multivitamin, expecting to get significant "minerals" from tap water is a joke.
sure but you can buy tablets to put them back in, drinking purely distilled water on the regular sound's really bland
> drinking purely distilled water on the regular sound's really bland
Also potentially dangerous.
If you drink a gallon of distilled water all at once, it could screw up electrolyte balance. Screwy potassium levels can cause heart fibrillation.
I would guess that the risk of water that's coming from reverse osmosis is safe for routine use, in the context of a healthy diet.
Also potentially dangerous.
If you drink a gallon of distilled water all at once, it could screw up electrolyte balance. Screwy potassium levels can cause heart fibrillation.
I would guess that the risk of water that's coming from reverse osmosis is safe for routine use, in the context of a healthy diet.
If you drink a gallon of distilled water all at once, it could screw up electrolyte balance.
No it won't.
You get most of your minerals from your food, not your water. Distilled water has zero health effects.
No it won't.
You get most of your minerals from your food, not your water. Distilled water has zero health effects.
My daughter just told me, "If you really stretch it, you can make what you post on social media true."
Alas, I must concede the point: upon actual cursory research, drinking distilled water is NOT a health risk.
(I was once admitted to hospital because of crazy electrolyte levels, while presenting other symptoms as well. Is long story. Perhaps it's time for me to stop worrying about potassium...)
Alas, I must concede the point: upon actual cursory research, drinking distilled water is NOT a health risk.
(I was once admitted to hospital because of crazy electrolyte levels, while presenting other symptoms as well. Is long story. Perhaps it's time for me to stop worrying about potassium...)
[deleted]
Isn't distilled water also bad for your teeth?
Fluorinated water is a US thing.
People elsewhere do fluoride varnishes with their Dentists and that is absolutely fine and sufficient.
People elsewhere do fluoride varnishes with their Dentists and that is absolutely fine and sufficient.
Its not just a US thing, other places in the world have fluoride in their water. In many areas fluoride just naturally occurs in the water at levels even higher than what managed services target. But other countries, such as Hong Kong, parts of Malaysia, Singapore, Ireland, parts of Spain, parts of the UK, parts of Canada, Mexico fluoridates table salt, most of Austrailia, Fiji is rolling out a program, half of New Zealand, about half of Brazil, and most of Chile all have some water fluoridation programs. Many other countries did at some other point in time but stopped doing it.
Fluorinated water has its own health risks, but everyone should absolutely be using either a fluoride toothpaste or fluoride rinse.
Food contains minerals. You probably get more water from food than what you drink.
My family lived on distilled drinking water for years with no mineral deficiencies. RO water isn’t as deficient as distilled.
My family lived on distilled drinking water for years with no mineral deficiencies. RO water isn’t as deficient as distilled.
The contamination is already in your organism.
Nonstick pans, food packaging, fish, microwave popcorn, waterproof clothes, contact lenses, and so many other products.
Nonstick pans, food packaging, fish, microwave popcorn, waterproof clothes, contact lenses, and so many other products.
Im careful when I can be, but it’s hard to always know the source of your food.
check containers too.. but good idea regardless as it's bioaccumulative so less exposure is better
Which one did you go with
You can search the NSF.org certifications here, specifically NSF/ANSI 53 and NSF/ANSI 58:
https://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/Listings.asp?ProductFunc...
https://www.nsf.org/news/pfoa-pfos-reduction-claims-requirem...
P.S. Note the "facility" where these products are manufactured are also listed. One might also want to note that [replacement] filters may also have different country origins.
https://info.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU/Listings.asp?ProductFunc...
https://www.nsf.org/news/pfoa-pfos-reduction-claims-requirem...
P.S. Note the "facility" where these products are manufactured are also listed. One might also want to note that [replacement] filters may also have different country origins.
In the process of getting one of these units https://hanspremiumwater.com/reverse-osmosis/
Key features
High efficiency
No need for water storage tank, but optional pressurized tank available
Real-time TDS monitoring via screen on RO unit and free Android/iOS apps.
Key features
High efficiency
No need for water storage tank, but optional pressurized tank available
Real-time TDS monitoring via screen on RO unit and free Android/iOS apps.
Super frustrating company, just show me the dang price don't link me to a "distributor".
I was quoted around 22k, which is on the high side, you can get whole home ro units starting around $2-3k mark, but storage tank + install puts you around 5k minimum, some higher efficiency units can’t also be had for around $10k.
I am willing to spend so much because of the high efficiency, live TDS monitoring and the $20 per month full maintenance plan.
Some of the higher end systems require a lot of fiddling and knowledge to run properly, and most plumbers where I live know next to nothing about whole home RO, so having the maintenance plan which covers, parts, labor and replacement filters is priceless in my book.
I am willing to spend so much because of the high efficiency, live TDS monitoring and the $20 per month full maintenance plan.
Some of the higher end systems require a lot of fiddling and knowledge to run properly, and most plumbers where I live know next to nothing about whole home RO, so having the maintenance plan which covers, parts, labor and replacement filters is priceless in my book.
Find someone with a LCMS and have your food tested.
Is $10.3B enough to clean up all the PFAS that 3M contaminated water systems with?
I doubt that amount will help cover removing it from just about all the rainwater on the planet.[0][1]
[0] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62391069
[0] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62391069
That amount is only got the US though.
3M is paying about 500 million euros for the same kind of PFAS pollution here in Antwerp and although I was thinking that is a ridiculous amount compared to the $10 billion, after all it's more per capita, so maybe it's still a "correct" amount.
I think the PFAS pollution topic is just starting being discussed in France as well, so although these fines are probably never going to fix everything, I think they do have the potential to give enough incentive to these polluters... writing that though, honestly who am I fooling?
It's going to give them incentive to hide things better and lobby harder next time, and nothing will change until executive get actual prison sentences.
I truly believe that the only way large companies can be made to behave is to make their executives actually responsible of their actions, and to give them sentences that affect them personally. The whole limited company system is harmful today.
3M is paying about 500 million euros for the same kind of PFAS pollution here in Antwerp and although I was thinking that is a ridiculous amount compared to the $10 billion, after all it's more per capita, so maybe it's still a "correct" amount.
I think the PFAS pollution topic is just starting being discussed in France as well, so although these fines are probably never going to fix everything, I think they do have the potential to give enough incentive to these polluters... writing that though, honestly who am I fooling?
It's going to give them incentive to hide things better and lobby harder next time, and nothing will change until executive get actual prison sentences.
I truly believe that the only way large companies can be made to behave is to make their executives actually responsible of their actions, and to give them sentences that affect them personally. The whole limited company system is harmful today.
I seriously doubt 3M is the only or even dominant contributor to rainwater pollution. Surely there are big Chinese companies, among others, also producing fluorine compounds.
The other polluters should also contribute to cleanup rather than just using this as an excuse to further erode the USA’s industrial base.
That said if someone can convincingly show that 3M all by themselves managed to pollute the entire global water supply to a dangerous level I’ll accept it.
The other polluters should also contribute to cleanup rather than just using this as an excuse to further erode the USA’s industrial base.
That said if someone can convincingly show that 3M all by themselves managed to pollute the entire global water supply to a dangerous level I’ll accept it.
That's not what I was implying (agreed, my initial comment was a bit short). But they have played a part in this. It seems that corporate social responsibility these days amounts to having to pay trivial fines, then washing their hands clean.
I'm a bit mortified that the consequences to 3M for the amount of damage caused amounts to 10.3BN-12.5BN over the course of thirteen years. They should clean up the mess they made themselves - God only knows what that would cost in the end.
Edit: Corrected 1.3BN to 10.3
I'm a bit mortified that the consequences to 3M for the amount of damage caused amounts to 10.3BN-12.5BN over the course of thirteen years. They should clean up the mess they made themselves - God only knows what that would cost in the end.
Edit: Corrected 1.3BN to 10.3
Plz fix all rain.
The settlement will be paid over a decade and 3M don't admit liability. Feels like another slap on the wrist for Corporate America. Mike Roman should at least be serving prison time as a warning to others.
It's not even a slap on the wrist. 3M will just past the costs of this onto end-users (consumers). Their board and C-Suite won't face and personal liability claims or pay a cent towards the settlement costs, nor will they ever see the inside of a jail cell.
Corporations MUST admit liability if they actually are liable. I get that they could face a barrage of legitimate and fiscally damaging claims if they admit liability...but that's the name of the game. I'm tired of the "we're not technically liable" bullshit. You, the corporation, knowingly created a product that you know contained harmful chemicals, and didn't disclose it. Now that it's been proven that 1. you knew they were harmful, and 2. you sold it anyway, you give up all claims to limited liability. It's just mind-bogglingly dumb to claim that you're not liable. Of course you are.
I run a small business that serves an edible product. If a consumer gets sick and my product is 100% provably the culprit, I don't get to say "we're not liable" in court and dictate the terms of the settlement. If the settlement is too high, I'm out of business and ethically speaking, I'm still on the hook for damages. Why do corporations not get the same treatment?
Corporations MUST admit liability if they actually are liable. I get that they could face a barrage of legitimate and fiscally damaging claims if they admit liability...but that's the name of the game. I'm tired of the "we're not technically liable" bullshit. You, the corporation, knowingly created a product that you know contained harmful chemicals, and didn't disclose it. Now that it's been proven that 1. you knew they were harmful, and 2. you sold it anyway, you give up all claims to limited liability. It's just mind-bogglingly dumb to claim that you're not liable. Of course you are.
I run a small business that serves an edible product. If a consumer gets sick and my product is 100% provably the culprit, I don't get to say "we're not liable" in court and dictate the terms of the settlement. If the settlement is too high, I'm out of business and ethically speaking, I'm still on the hook for damages. Why do corporations not get the same treatment?
A big slap on the wrist. Still, the same people stay in charge with the same incentives in place. Instead of paying engineers to solve the problems, they can simply hire better lawyers and focus on fine minimisation in the future.
And once that 10 billion is divided up between all the victims, it will hardly be worth anything at all to them either. So many victims, so much harm, it's barely a drop in the bucket.
And once that 10 billion is divided up between all the victims, it will hardly be worth anything at all to them either. So many victims, so much harm, it's barely a drop in the bucket.
102 years ago General Motors started poisoning the entire planet with lead [1] (being helped by DuPont, the same DuPont which manufacture PFAS, to manufacture tetraethyllead-TEL, and in collaboration with Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, now known as ExxonMobil, the same ExxonMobil that predicted very accurately climate change 50 years ago, in the 1970s [2]).
Today, in 2023, General Motors has a market cap of $55B with $156B revenue in 2022; DuPont, $32B market cap, $13B revenue 2022; ExxonMobil $417B market cap, $413B revenue 2022.
These planetary-scale terrorists are killing you, your children, and any possible future for a few trillions, and you have been conditioned to sustain, maintain, defend, extend this criminal system.
These world-destroyers thinly masked as "companies" should have been dissolved literally 100 years ago. But in the words of the contemporary ponderer, George W. Bush, after receiving "$1.5 million from the oil industry for his 2000 presidential campaign, at the time, the largest donation from the industry to a single political candidate" [3], and asked by Manmohan Singh, India's Prime Minister, why must ExxonMobil approve India's largest state-owned oil company to buy into the Sakhalin-1 energy project in Russia and "why don't you just tell them [Exxon] what to do?" Bush replied: "Nobody tells those guys what to do."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#Leaded_gaso...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994
[3] https://www.desmog.com/2015/04/21/george-w-bush-elected-pres...
Today, in 2023, General Motors has a market cap of $55B with $156B revenue in 2022; DuPont, $32B market cap, $13B revenue 2022; ExxonMobil $417B market cap, $413B revenue 2022.
These planetary-scale terrorists are killing you, your children, and any possible future for a few trillions, and you have been conditioned to sustain, maintain, defend, extend this criminal system.
These world-destroyers thinly masked as "companies" should have been dissolved literally 100 years ago. But in the words of the contemporary ponderer, George W. Bush, after receiving "$1.5 million from the oil industry for his 2000 presidential campaign, at the time, the largest donation from the industry to a single political candidate" [3], and asked by Manmohan Singh, India's Prime Minister, why must ExxonMobil approve India's largest state-owned oil company to buy into the Sakhalin-1 energy project in Russia and "why don't you just tell them [Exxon] what to do?" Bush replied: "Nobody tells those guys what to do."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#Leaded_gaso...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994
[3] https://www.desmog.com/2015/04/21/george-w-bush-elected-pres...
Next step: tweak enough chemical bonds to give it a different acronym and dodge litigation for another 20 years
It's getting better: the settlement are big enough for hurting their bottom line.
Now let's get on prison sentencing as well, so that individuals feel concerned.
Now let's get on prison sentencing as well, so that individuals feel concerned.
I do wonder exactly what level of corporate malignancy is needed to result in jail sentences. Outside of financial misconduct I can't think of more than a couple (and I'd have to check they actually resulted in custodial sentences).
Union Carbide did I think? I'm off to google it later.
And that Korean Shopping Center that collapsed.
Union Carbide did I think? I'm off to google it later.
And that Korean Shopping Center that collapsed.
Has anyone made an attempt at accounting for all the harms and benefits of PFAS? Something I feel is often missed in reporting about similar issues is that the products in question have tremendous benefits. Yes, they have caused significant harm. But so have fire, the wheel, and the automobile. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to forget that we used these things in so many places for good reasons.
Perfluorinated chemistry is very nasty and not benign at all.
The issue is not teflon, or similar plastics, but byproducts and precursors of their manufacture. They're chemically super-stable (since, like teflon, they are perflorinated) and super unreactive. That means that they persist for a very long time (until enough UV deteriorates them).
However unreactive doesnt mean harmless. Sure, they have very low acute toxicity, but they still take up volume. Therefore, they interfere with the chemical reaction rates and pathways in your body.
Its called steric interference, which is a fancy way of saying "something is in the way". Think of a very busy line kitchen and some guy is randomly and blindly walking into things and people.
The issue is not teflon, or similar plastics, but byproducts and precursors of their manufacture. They're chemically super-stable (since, like teflon, they are perflorinated) and super unreactive. That means that they persist for a very long time (until enough UV deteriorates them).
However unreactive doesnt mean harmless. Sure, they have very low acute toxicity, but they still take up volume. Therefore, they interfere with the chemical reaction rates and pathways in your body.
Its called steric interference, which is a fancy way of saying "something is in the way". Think of a very busy line kitchen and some guy is randomly and blindly walking into things and people.
That's not the issue. These chemicals -they're not just teflon- were put into basically everything, like asbestos was. Cleaning products, spray grease, fabrics, paper, shampoo and cosmetics, stain-resistant coatings. They've already been phased out but the damage is done.
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm
> They've already been phased out but the damage is done.
Have they really been phased out in food packaging (say, in Europe)?
I thought PFAS is what is used to give grease and water resistance to food packaging (boxes, wrappers, bags, cups, etc).
If so, what have they been replaced with?
Have they really been phased out in food packaging (say, in Europe)?
I thought PFAS is what is used to give grease and water resistance to food packaging (boxes, wrappers, bags, cups, etc).
If so, what have they been replaced with?
3M will stop manufacturing them in 2025, but others currently manufacture them, and I assume they will continue for many more years.
Historically they were replaced with other, poorly understood, but similarly bad materials.
For instance, PFAS replaced PFOA’s, and now they are considering replacing PFAS with PFAS [not a typo]:
https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-t...
Historically they were replaced with other, poorly understood, but similarly bad materials.
For instance, PFAS replaced PFOA’s, and now they are considering replacing PFAS with PFAS [not a typo]:
https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-t...
PFOAs are a type of PFAS in the same way as squares are rectangles. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS). PFAS is a higher level category of chemical compounds of which perfluorooctanoic acid is a member of. Like a mouse is a mammal.
Time for a "California-Prop-65"-like warning on those products?
> But so have fire, the wheel, and the automobile
Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel, but the harms of fire and combustion engines are currently world-class problems, such as the climate. Very much "if we knew then what we know now" situations, and with PFAS and the like, we have the opportunity to act before it becomes an issue.
Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel, but the harms of fire and combustion engines are currently world-class problems, such as the climate. Very much "if we knew then what we know now" situations, and with PFAS and the like, we have the opportunity to act before it becomes an issue.
History is full of examples of acting without evidence, with disastrous results. Thankfully, in this case, we can have high confidence that the absence of PFAS is not a health risk. So the cost of action without evidence is purely financial. It’s not clear to me the global economic impact of banning these chemicals, but I’m struggling to forecast anything large enough to care. For this reason, I support banning these chemicals. The case for historical claims is murkier without evidence.
Problem here is not a product, but ammount of it. Corporate greed and obsession of maximalisation of income, driven by whole ad industry needs to be addressed.
We certainty all do not need teflon pans. Or cars. Without massive production, such problems would be "just" local anomaly.
We certainty all do not need teflon pans. Or cars. Without massive production, such problems would be "just" local anomaly.
> Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel
Many people in history has been crushed, sometimes lethally, under various wheels.
Many people in history has been crushed, sometimes lethally, under various wheels.
That seems a big stretch, especially for the purposes of lumping it in with fire and combustion engines. Being crushed under a wheel has more to do with circumstance than the wheel itself, whereas fire and combustion engines (though the more I say that, the more I realize they're both the same thing) are a negative impact by their very usage.
If we go by circumstance, anything can be a danger, or a non-danger. And the solution is to be more mindful of our circumstances. What we're trying to identify in this thread are the practices that, while being immediately beneficial, are also immediately negatively impactful, even if it took us years (dozens, hundreds, or thousands thereof) to learn about the negative impacts. And following that, to be more mindful of which practices may have similar negative impacts, and be forward thinking about that possibility rather than reflectively regretful.
If we go by circumstance, anything can be a danger, or a non-danger. And the solution is to be more mindful of our circumstances. What we're trying to identify in this thread are the practices that, while being immediately beneficial, are also immediately negatively impactful, even if it took us years (dozens, hundreds, or thousands thereof) to learn about the negative impacts. And following that, to be more mindful of which practices may have similar negative impacts, and be forward thinking about that possibility rather than reflectively regretful.
That's the price you pay for having giant stone coins like Yap island.
Fire and wheel has a 'little' more benefit than an artificial, proprietary, lied to be unharmful, avoidable substence manufactured for huge profit and not for an overwhelming benefit and demand from the society. It could have been substituted with something else perhaps, with clearly know risks like fire or automobiles, in all or in almost all use cases, and in many many cases in marginally important use cases (cookware, packaging, water repellence, etc.).
Not the same. Really not the same, overwhelmingly not the same.
Not the same. Really not the same, overwhelmingly not the same.
Pfas are non-stick coatings? I'm going to say it's not on same level of utility as fire, wheel or internal combustion engines.
They’re used for:
- lab equipment since they’re extremely non reactive
- semiconductor manufacturing for the same reason as above
- coatings inside engines/hot, high wear areas, far prolonging their lives
- rubber seals preventing chemical leaks (oil, gas, antifreeze, etc)
… the list goes on. Yeah they’re a non stick coating for pans but they’re also used in an incredible number of other places.
- lab equipment since they’re extremely non reactive
- semiconductor manufacturing for the same reason as above
- coatings inside engines/hot, high wear areas, far prolonging their lives
- rubber seals preventing chemical leaks (oil, gas, antifreeze, etc)
… the list goes on. Yeah they’re a non stick coating for pans but they’re also used in an incredible number of other places.
Justifying the damage caused by their production and use by pointing to the usefulness of the final product seems very risky. There are plenty of ends we might value, but they don't inherently justify the means.
I'd argue though that the customers are just as guilty/responsible as the company making the product that they demand/buy and maybe they should share in the financial burden of damages if that is the path we are on.
This would be true if the products were clearly labelled, and safer existing alternatives weren’t pulled off the market by centralized decision makers at large companies.
As it is, if you buy a “ceramic” pan, you get some teflon knockoff instead of Le Creuset style stuff.
As it is, if you buy a “ceramic” pan, you get some teflon knockoff instead of Le Creuset style stuff.
I'm not sure how that would work exactly, but sure if customers were properly informed and knew what they were buying had such bad side effects some of the blame would land on them.
That'd be a hard sell though since it seems like part of the issue was manufacturers burying research and denying any knowledge of problems while selling these chemicals as a miracle cure of sorts
That'd be a hard sell though since it seems like part of the issue was manufacturers burying research and denying any knowledge of problems while selling these chemicals as a miracle cure of sorts
Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives. Some industries really dont have alternatives.
How about we get rid of nonstick pans, gore Tex jackets and significantly reduce fluorine chemisty?
How about we get rid of nonstick pans, gore Tex jackets and significantly reduce fluorine chemisty?
> Most applications, even industrial, that need perfluorinated plastics have more expensive alternatives.
Like what? I don't think you can turn PEEK or UHWMPE into a rubber like substance...
Like what? I don't think you can turn PEEK or UHWMPE into a rubber like substance...
None of the materials you listed are fluorinated polymers.
EDIT:
If you meant that I cant turn PEEK into a plastic (as in having plasticity) - sure.
But read my comment carefully. Im not saying fluorinated polymers don't have their use cases. Im just saying that for many (but not all!) applications of perfluorinated polymers, there are alternative ways of doing things. For example wool and stainless steel make excellent alternatives for jackets and frying pans.
Should nuclear (re)processing plants ditch teflon when dealing with UF6? Probably not. Should my gas fittings need teflon tape? No, alternatives exist.
EDIT:
If you meant that I cant turn PEEK into a plastic (as in having plasticity) - sure.
But read my comment carefully. Im not saying fluorinated polymers don't have their use cases. Im just saying that for many (but not all!) applications of perfluorinated polymers, there are alternative ways of doing things. For example wool and stainless steel make excellent alternatives for jackets and frying pans.
Should nuclear (re)processing plants ditch teflon when dealing with UF6? Probably not. Should my gas fittings need teflon tape? No, alternatives exist.
Not even- Teflon breakdown is a much smaller source, you just happen to maybe eat it. PFAS have been phased out of use already.
These chemicals were put into basically everything, like asbestos was. Cleaning products, spray grease, fabrics, paper, shampoo and cosmetics, stain-resistant coatings.
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm
These chemicals were put into basically everything, like asbestos was. Cleaning products, spray grease, fabrics, paper, shampoo and cosmetics, stain-resistant coatings.
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/pfas.htm
PFAS have been phased out of use? Where? You have to hunt for PFAS-free ski or bike lubrication, it's in your contact lenses, and on all of your non-stick pans.
Hi. Irrelevant with this thread, but can you please reply to me here if you got the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35955336
Search for my username and you will find my question! Thanks!
Sure - the *Client would be a class or library intended for import/use by consumers of a resource exposed by a service. The exposed API should be viewed as usable independently, but it can sometimes be useful to add a layer of abstraction via a Client to would hold any logic required for interacting with a specific API.
Say you have an API that lets you bulk fetch an Item (`getItems(Collection<UUID> itemIds, int pageNumber, int pageSize)`), but the API enforces pagination and also requires authentication. A Client could require instantiation with whatever is required for authentication (`ic = new ItemClient(authToken)`), and provide a method to retrieve a huge list of Items without worrying about pagination (`ic.getItems(itemIds)`).
Say you have an API that lets you bulk fetch an Item (`getItems(Collection<UUID> itemIds, int pageNumber, int pageSize)`), but the API enforces pagination and also requires authentication. A Client could require instantiation with whatever is required for authentication (`ic = new ItemClient(authToken)`), and provide a method to retrieve a huge list of Items without worrying about pagination (`ic.getItems(itemIds)`).
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were talking about something else in the original comment.
[deleted]
According to the article, the source of the PFAS in most of these lawsuits is firefighting foam.
Der_Einzige(3)
Same with microplastics. With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful.
Which studies are you reading?
Every PFAS study I read seems to be pointing to ever increasing accumulation and harm. It's not hard to imagine a phase shift to a PFAS effect pandemic if we don't seriously consider PFAS curtailment as a regulatory priority.
Every PFAS study I read seems to be pointing to ever increasing accumulation and harm. It's not hard to imagine a phase shift to a PFAS effect pandemic if we don't seriously consider PFAS curtailment as a regulatory priority.
There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems.
Please provide some links to the studies.
It’s a good thing that claims be sourced, but we should put in a minimum of effort to a conversation. Especially one with a large body of evidence.
If person A claims “the earth is round”, person B can find sources to prove it faster than it takes to write a comment. If person B did search and found the studies lacking, they should open with that and ask for clarification. Otherwise it looks like they’re waiting for person A to do all the work so they can nitpick every source and derail the conversation away from the broader, productive, important points.
I searched for “microplastics marine ecosystems” (taken directly from your parent post) and my engine returned more studies than I know what to do with. The first five links:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/
https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257
https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1
If person A claims “the earth is round”, person B can find sources to prove it faster than it takes to write a comment. If person B did search and found the studies lacking, they should open with that and ask for clarification. Otherwise it looks like they’re waiting for person A to do all the work so they can nitpick every source and derail the conversation away from the broader, productive, important points.
I searched for “microplastics marine ecosystems” (taken directly from your parent post) and my engine returned more studies than I know what to do with. The first five links:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927104/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21742351/
https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5257
https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-01961-1
That's not how sources work. You can't just google a few and copy/paste.
I can tell you didn't even read your "sources" since the one I randomly picked, the 2nd one, has the conclusion "Bioavailability and the efficiency of transfer of the ingested POPs across trophic levels are not known and the potential damage posed by these to the marine ecosystem has yet to be quantified and modelled."
It basically says the harm is unknown.
I can tell you didn't even read your "sources" since the one I randomly picked, the 2nd one, has the conclusion "Bioavailability and the efficiency of transfer of the ingested POPs across trophic levels are not known and the potential damage posed by these to the marine ecosystem has yet to be quantified and modelled."
It basically says the harm is unknown.
I didn’t claim these were sources of either point, I said these were the first five links. Not even the first five studies, but the first five results. Thus illustrating how a minimum of effort can be employed to engage in good faith with another’s point. It was a deliberate choice to not editorialise what was returned.
Rest assured I am aware of the conclusion of each, just as I am aware of which ones are the best choices to nitpick.
Rest assured I am aware of the conclusion of each, just as I am aware of which ones are the best choices to nitpick.
But you said "There is abundant evidence that microplastics are destroying marine ecosystems."
"Destroying". So clearly your position is based on studies. Why would you just share search results and not the studies that prove microplastics are "destroying" ecosystems.
"Destroying". So clearly your position is based on studies. Why would you just share search results and not the studies that prove microplastics are "destroying" ecosystems.
Depends on which compounds you're talking about, but yeah they might just cause reproductive collapse of our species...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob...
Probably not a huge problem based on the fact that I don't like thinking about it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob...
Probably not a huge problem based on the fact that I don't like thinking about it.
From your article:
>Meanwhile, the total fertility rate worldwide has dropped by nearly 1 percent per year from 1960 to 2018.
That can't possibly be also due to demographic changes[1]? Fertility in the west started to drop way before the invention of PFAS compounds, and the worldwide rate dropping can easily be explained by the rest of the world experiencing the same demographic transition.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
>Meanwhile, the total fertility rate worldwide has dropped by nearly 1 percent per year from 1960 to 2018.
That can't possibly be also due to demographic changes[1]? Fertility in the west started to drop way before the invention of PFAS compounds, and the worldwide rate dropping can easily be explained by the rest of the world experiencing the same demographic transition.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes.
Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count?
We don't need to be looking for a singular answer here. Yes there are obviously demographic, cultural, and economic components. But we also know that PFAS are hormone-disrupting and they're all over our food, water, and material supply.
Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count?
We don't need to be looking for a singular answer here. Yes there are obviously demographic, cultural, and economic components. But we also know that PFAS are hormone-disrupting and they're all over our food, water, and material supply.
>Do the demographic changes also explain plummeting sperm count?
About that... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936
tl;dr the data does show a vague decline, but it's also very noisy so it's hard to know whether it's really happening. Also, it's not clear that "plummeting" sperm count would lead to "plummeting" fertility. A 50% drop in sperm count doesn't equate to a 50% drop in fertility, as long as there's "enough" sperm. So far even with the drop it looks like there's "enough".
> Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes.
From the GP:
>With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful.
The claim that isn't that there's zero harm from PFAS, it's that the harm is negligible. However, the article you linked seems to suggest that PFAS is single handledly cutting the world fertility rate by half.
About that... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34830936
tl;dr the data does show a vague decline, but it's also very noisy so it's hard to know whether it's really happening. Also, it's not clear that "plummeting" sperm count would lead to "plummeting" fertility. A 50% drop in sperm count doesn't equate to a 50% drop in fertility, as long as there's "enough" sperm. So far even with the drop it looks like there's "enough".
> Of course it can possibly, and almost certainly is at least in part, caused by demographic changes.
From the GP:
>With all the inconclusive studies it compels me to believe that even if it's harmful, it's no so harmful.
The claim that isn't that there's zero harm from PFAS, it's that the harm is negligible. However, the article you linked seems to suggest that PFAS is single handledly cutting the world fertility rate by half.
We have mechanistic knowledge of PFAS’ impact on human health though! It’s not like we’re looking at (noisy) sperm count or fertility data and then looking at what’s in our environment and randomly picking out PFAS and other EDCs. They’re being named because we know that they disrupt reproductive systems and we know that they’re everywhere.
Looking at those two pieces of information alone, it’s naive to say “well we haven’t conclusively drawn a causal population-scale link between cause and effect.” It is incredibly difficult to eliminate all confounders at that scale and time horizon, which would be really dooming to the hypothesis if we didn’t already have separate knowledge of the mechanics.
The Bayesian priors are: PFAS are poisonous to humans (known). PFAS are everywhere in our environment (known). We are seeing population-scale effects similar to what you’d expect to see from population-scale PFAS poisoning (noisy).
The difficulty of finding sound causal links at generational, population scales cannot prevent us from taking action on things — again — we already know are poisonous to people and to which people are frequently exposed.
Looking at those two pieces of information alone, it’s naive to say “well we haven’t conclusively drawn a causal population-scale link between cause and effect.” It is incredibly difficult to eliminate all confounders at that scale and time horizon, which would be really dooming to the hypothesis if we didn’t already have separate knowledge of the mechanics.
The Bayesian priors are: PFAS are poisonous to humans (known). PFAS are everywhere in our environment (known). We are seeing population-scale effects similar to what you’d expect to see from population-scale PFAS poisoning (noisy).
The difficulty of finding sound causal links at generational, population scales cannot prevent us from taking action on things — again — we already know are poisonous to people and to which people are frequently exposed.
>The Bayesian priors are: PFAS are poisonous to humans (known). PFAS are everywhere in our environment (known). We are seeing population-scale effects similar to what you’d expect to see from population-scale PFAS poisoning (noisy).
It's a leap in logic to go from "PFAS impairs reproductive health" to "PFAS is a significant contributor to fertility decline". Your bayesian logic does not make sense. We know of dozens of other factors that are also casually known to lower fertility, and are pervasive in our society/environment. They can be contributors, but they can't all be significant contributors.
Again, repeating my prior comment: I'm not claiming PFAS generate zero effects on fertility. I claiming that there isn't good evidence that it's a significant factor in fertility decline.
It's a leap in logic to go from "PFAS impairs reproductive health" to "PFAS is a significant contributor to fertility decline". Your bayesian logic does not make sense. We know of dozens of other factors that are also casually known to lower fertility, and are pervasive in our society/environment. They can be contributors, but they can't all be significant contributors.
Again, repeating my prior comment: I'm not claiming PFAS generate zero effects on fertility. I claiming that there isn't good evidence that it's a significant factor in fertility decline.
Hmm okay welp yeah I guess until we prove (somehow?) that they’re a significant (how significant?) cause, then it’s reasonable to continue to expose everyone to known-harmful chemicals. Right now we only know that they hurt individuals and we’re probably seeing population-scale harm similar to what we see in individuals. But yeah it could be like weddings are too expensive and millennials like their lattes too much to reproduce — let’s not act on known toxins in our food supply until we rule out those hypotheses.
Makes a lot of sense!
Makes a lot of sense!
I mean yeah? If we think that declining fertility rates is a serious problem, but there are dozens of equally plausible explanations, why would we prioritize your pet cause (ie. PFAS) above all others? How does it going to work when everyone says that their pet cause is responsible for 50% (or whatever significant fraction) of the fertility decline?
Note, this doesn't necessarily mean that we should do nothing about PFAS. We just have to be honest about the potential impacts. In other words, instead of gesturing that PFAS is the primary cause for fertility decline in the past few decades (like the linked scientific american article), you admit that the impact is unclear/low, but we should still work to remove it just in case.
Note, this doesn't necessarily mean that we should do nothing about PFAS. We just have to be honest about the potential impacts. In other words, instead of gesturing that PFAS is the primary cause for fertility decline in the past few decades (like the linked scientific american article), you admit that the impact is unclear/low, but we should still work to remove it just in case.
> why would we prioritize your pet cause (ie. PFAS) above all others?
Because it's the best available theory and even if it's wrong we're eliminating known toxins from our environment?
What other theories have an established mechanism of action and established population-scale exposure? That's why this one should be prioritized above others (at least any that I'm aware of?). Which other theory has these?
Another reason: if any portion of decline is due to these, the damage builds across generations. If this is any problem at all, it will grow to a big problem.
We’re talking about future generations not just getting poisoned during their lifetimes, but being born poisoned, too.
This is either not a problem at all or it should be extremely high priority, and I think the former position is completely non-viable at this point.
Because it's the best available theory and even if it's wrong we're eliminating known toxins from our environment?
What other theories have an established mechanism of action and established population-scale exposure? That's why this one should be prioritized above others (at least any that I'm aware of?). Which other theory has these?
Another reason: if any portion of decline is due to these, the damage builds across generations. If this is any problem at all, it will grow to a big problem.
We’re talking about future generations not just getting poisoned during their lifetimes, but being born poisoned, too.
This is either not a problem at all or it should be extremely high priority, and I think the former position is completely non-viable at this point.
Is this going to be used to solve this problem?
Not sure, it's not nearly enough money for that.
Okay but are they gonna do anything to clean it from the water…?
Is that _money_ going to be used to clean it from the water?
It concerns me we’re not trying to fix the actual health danger to us
Is that _money_ going to be used to clean it from the water?
It concerns me we’re not trying to fix the actual health danger to us
The article says a lot of the money is going to be used for monitoring, and then that monitoring, if it found pollution, would be allocated to better fitlering systems.
"That's it?" is my immediate reaction.
Maybe per year? Paid out by all former executives from the point PFAS were manufactured?... after all, if they claim responsibility and the associated bonuses for the good stuff, they should be held accountable for the bad too, right?
Maybe per year? Paid out by all former executives from the point PFAS were manufactured?... after all, if they claim responsibility and the associated bonuses for the good stuff, they should be held accountable for the bad too, right?
A charitable reading suggests this is paid out to just one city, which would seem to be about right (If you value a house at $100K, then $1B would cover ruining the water supply of 10,000 houses. A city could easily contain 100,000 such buildings.
A less charitable reading is that it covers 300 cities. Maybe they can filter the municipal water supply of that many cities in perpetuity with currently unavailable commercial filter technology?
If it is nationwide, then $10b is a bad punchline.
A less charitable reading is that it covers 300 cities. Maybe they can filter the municipal water supply of that many cities in perpetuity with currently unavailable commercial filter technology?
If it is nationwide, then $10b is a bad punchline.
We need to have something on the order of a fiduciary responsibility of executives for externalities. It’s tough to find a basis for harm in these cases, as so many people were responsible over so long of a time.
This would defeat the entire purpose of incorporation. Not to say you're wrong, but incorporation exists to prevent this.
I see your point, but the whole purpose of an LLC is, yes, to prevent undue liability on those acting on the behalf of corporations, but at the same time, there needs to be a point where as a society we say "well, you can't claim limited liability because you knew directly what you were doing, and the negative effects of your actions, and you admitted as such in writing, so yes, you are liable".
Because otherwise, I could incorporate as XYZ LLC and say that any blatantly illegal act that causes real harm is just a byproduct of me doing business, and that I'm not actually liable for anything that happens to anyone else during me committing said illegal acts.
The slope here is so slippery it's effectively made of banana peels.
Because otherwise, I could incorporate as XYZ LLC and say that any blatantly illegal act that causes real harm is just a byproduct of me doing business, and that I'm not actually liable for anything that happens to anyone else during me committing said illegal acts.
The slope here is so slippery it's effectively made of banana peels.
It does make one wonder why the people vs hitman LLC isn’t a case before the Supreme Court.
Because we know, and have known, murder is illegal, and is illegal under a criminal statute.
PFAS wern't always known to be bad, and even after knowing chances are everyone reading this has some in their blood -- and most of you are doing just fine. Maybe 0.01% crappier than if you didn't have it in you, but it's a far cry from getting stabbed to death by a hired goon.
PFAS wern't always known to be bad, and even after knowing chances are everyone reading this has some in their blood -- and most of you are doing just fine. Maybe 0.01% crappier than if you didn't have it in you, but it's a far cry from getting stabbed to death by a hired goon.
It’s a tricky legal ground. Companies DO make decisions which they know will kill people. Sometimes, they downplay the risks in less than ethical ways- sometimes they actively cover up the risks/reality.
I don’t think that it is so far fetched that a corporation should be held criminally liable, and that executives should be criminally liable when they discover one of these risks and do not accurately disclose it and mitigate the risk.
It doesn’t strike me as intrinsically different to hit an LLC provided that the company knew about the impact of PFAS.
I don’t think that it is so far fetched that a corporation should be held criminally liable, and that executives should be criminally liable when they discover one of these risks and do not accurately disclose it and mitigate the risk.
It doesn’t strike me as intrinsically different to hit an LLC provided that the company knew about the impact of PFAS.
Yeah I don't get why people think holding LLC's and top ranking execs liable is problematic. If you work for an LLC and hold any sort of professional license you are held liable, but the executives who make all the policy decisions around you are not, even if the issue you are held liable for is really their fault.
Are you claiming that value of any home in one of these towns with PFAS in the water is now $0? This seems straightforwardly untrue, people are happily buying those homes. Whatever penalty 3M should pay ought to be based on actual damages PFAS causes.
What are the actual damages of millions of gallons of water? What about in 30 years?
How can you accurately estimate any of this?
What they should be made to do is provide free filters to all of the governments to filter PFAS until a time when no PFAS is detected. Or if that's not possible, R&D until some form of it is possible then do that.
But that would probably damage the company forever, and that's bad.
How can you accurately estimate any of this?
What they should be made to do is provide free filters to all of the governments to filter PFAS until a time when no PFAS is detected. Or if that's not possible, R&D until some form of it is possible then do that.
But that would probably damage the company forever, and that's bad.
> But that would probably damage the company forever, and that's bad.
If they don't wanna do it they could just spin off a 'water filter' division and then bankrupt it. Problem solved!
If they don't wanna do it they could just spin off a 'water filter' division and then bankrupt it. Problem solved!
The J&J case over talcum powder showed that you cannot in fact do that. But to your credit, even they thought they could until a judge said otherwise.
We don’t know yet the actual, long term damages. Maybe this is like leaded gasoline - very bad for everyone, but it takes long term accumulation to really show the effect.
My layman’s suspicion is that they are responsible for the obesity crisis.
We have a meme in Europe that a visit to the US means you will gain a few pounds of extra body fat that’s harder to lose than usual. That’s just anecdotal, of course. But as a result, my suspicion is that dietary compounds (mainly HFCS) are the culprit.
Generally my experience as well. Working in Asia and Australia I lost weight, and then ballooned when I got back to the US. Especially noticeable when I got back to the East Coast.
Instead of the most obvious, that most US food contains far too much sugar?
HFCS is sugar, yes, an especially unhealthy form. Probably pushed for political/economical reasons in the US because it can be made domestically from corn, it’s way less prevalent in other areas. Eg in Germany, it has to be declared as glucose-fructose-syrup starting at 5% fructose, and as fructose-glucose-syrup starting at 50% fructose. The overwhelming majority of products I‘ve encountered contains just „glucose-syrup“ or plain sugar (usually from sugar beet, which is grown domestically).
Fructose is ok to consume in amounts that are typical for fruit (which is less than you‘d think), but is a metabolic disruptor in higher amounts. Liver cells have to do a lot of work to metabolize fructose, compared to glucose which needs quasi no conversion. As to health effects of fructose, I‘ve found it hard to determine which studies are reliable, because there is just so much money in this industry, and high interest to influence research. But the metabolic complexity it brings is undeniable, and one could argue that fructose is kinda like a poison we have adapted to - if we lack key enzymes, we can’t metabolize it.
Glucose is harder on the pancreas and chronic high insulin seems to be really bad, so I‘d avoid that too of course. But a reasonably healthy liver can quickly buffer excess glucose (hepatocytes) and rather easily convert to glycogen and store it, in big amounts.
Fructose is ok to consume in amounts that are typical for fruit (which is less than you‘d think), but is a metabolic disruptor in higher amounts. Liver cells have to do a lot of work to metabolize fructose, compared to glucose which needs quasi no conversion. As to health effects of fructose, I‘ve found it hard to determine which studies are reliable, because there is just so much money in this industry, and high interest to influence research. But the metabolic complexity it brings is undeniable, and one could argue that fructose is kinda like a poison we have adapted to - if we lack key enzymes, we can’t metabolize it.
Glucose is harder on the pancreas and chronic high insulin seems to be really bad, so I‘d avoid that too of course. But a reasonably healthy liver can quickly buffer excess glucose (hepatocytes) and rather easily convert to glycogen and store it, in big amounts.
Market value != worth, unless you believe that market capitalism is the only way to determine worth
The value of those houses (as a place to live) is $0 to anyone who cares about not consuming PFAS, and thus should be $0 until the problem is fixed. I guess you can rent them out to people you don’t care about, which would make them worth >$0, but also clearly unethical.
In a society that’s functioning correctly, sane people would pass a law prohibiting consumption of water with PFAS; those houses would be declared uninhabitable, the same way a fire marshal now can declare a building uninhabitable as it violates a fire code.
The value of those houses (as a place to live) is $0 to anyone who cares about not consuming PFAS, and thus should be $0 until the problem is fixed. I guess you can rent them out to people you don’t care about, which would make them worth >$0, but also clearly unethical.
In a society that’s functioning correctly, sane people would pass a law prohibiting consumption of water with PFAS; those houses would be declared uninhabitable, the same way a fire marshal now can declare a building uninhabitable as it violates a fire code.
You don't have to drink the water where you live. Where I L
live everyone drinks bottled water.
Yes but you still use tap water for cooking I presume. And it's used for agriculture. So you'd still end up ingesting PFAS if the water supply is contaminated, since it does not break down with heat.
I personally use bottled water for cooking. Agriculture mostly doesn't happen where my house is so is unrelated to the house price.
lol like there isn't PFAS in the plastic that houses that bottled water. esp. if it sat in the sun for a while, since plastics don't biodegrade they photodegrade.
Doesn't mean there are no PFAs in the bottled water.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/bottled-water/pfas-in...
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/bottled-water/pfas-in...
No, true, but that's separate to the issue of PFAS in my drinking water making my house worthless. Presumably if there are PFAS is bottled water then everyone's water is contaminated as I'm not aware of anywhere people don't drink bottled water.
If that's a result of some organization contaminating the local water supply, then I'd call it "secondary damage" and vote billing said org for it.
Otherwise, you either live in an unusual location that makes any kind of water-related infrastructure projects very expensive - like, idk., a small settlement at a summit of a mountain, or in the middle of a desert - or something is very much broken about that place.
Otherwise, you either live in an unusual location that makes any kind of water-related infrastructure projects very expensive - like, idk., a small settlement at a summit of a mountain, or in the middle of a desert - or something is very much broken about that place.
Do you brush your teeth with bottled water? Do your kids?
Yes. In plenty of places people use bottled water even to brush their teeth.
bro I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but your answers make it seem like you're living in a contaminated hellhole and terrified of contact with the local water
it's not a good defense for indiscriminate contamination of water, if that's what you're trying for
it's not a good defense for indiscriminate contamination of water, if that's what you're trying for
I'm not defending anything. Just saying that drinkable tap water doesn't exist in many countries, bro. And many people don't even have taps.
> bottled water
You do understand that that’s worse for you, right?
You do understand that that’s worse for you, right?
You're suggesting that bottled water is worse for me than non-drinking water from the tap? Billions of people in the world don't have access to clean drinking water. You're lucky if you do.
> Market value != worth, unless you believe that market capitalism is the only way to determine worth
When someone sells their house, the price is an agreed upon valuation by buyer and seller. It’s probably the closest to true value we’ll ever get.
How do you propose to value better?
If they are selling for more than $0, then someone values them.
When someone sells their house, the price is an agreed upon valuation by buyer and seller. It’s probably the closest to true value we’ll ever get.
How do you propose to value better?
If they are selling for more than $0, then someone values them.
… I already proposed a better system. Let the government adjust market values via passing laws as needed.
Obviously humans aren’t rational actors, so assuming as much would be dumb to use as the basis of an economic system. People generally are shortsighted- they build on flood plains, for example, or use toxic building materials that cause damage long term (ex: asbestos), or whatever.
Nor should humans be expected to be rational actors. (!) You shouldn’t need a PhD in biochemistry in order to evaluate water quality impact to health, in order to buy a home. If we require people like software engineers to be full blown doctors just to rationally evaluate a place to live, we have failed as a society.
Allowing the government to declare homes uninhabitable is clearly better than a pure market based system.
Obviously humans aren’t rational actors, so assuming as much would be dumb to use as the basis of an economic system. People generally are shortsighted- they build on flood plains, for example, or use toxic building materials that cause damage long term (ex: asbestos), or whatever.
Nor should humans be expected to be rational actors. (!) You shouldn’t need a PhD in biochemistry in order to evaluate water quality impact to health, in order to buy a home. If we require people like software engineers to be full blown doctors just to rationally evaluate a place to live, we have failed as a society.
Allowing the government to declare homes uninhabitable is clearly better than a pure market based system.
taosx(1)
Their net income per year is $5b. This plus the ear plugs settlement is a disaster for them.
for those wondering: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/3m-ea...
> The federal district judge [...] has ordered the parties to begin mediation in an attempt to facilitate a settlement and avoid overwhelming the federal judicial system
I didn't realize even judges go out of their way to try to make parties settle out of court.
I didn't realize even judges go out of their way to try to make parties settle out of court.
They definitely do. I know a judge personally and he's very proud of his 'settlement rate', the fraction of all cases he sees that end up being settled without a judgment rendered.
What's the motivation for them? Is it risk avoidance?
Trials burn a large chunk of the judge's time. The more cases settled out of court, the faster the judge can move through cases, and the less delay between bringing a case and the case being resolved.
That's absurd, and tantamount to a judge not doing their job, which is to oversee the proper discovery and application of precedent. I'd even make the contention that this fundamentally deprives people of their right to due process, and if it is the case that the judiciary cannot handle case loads, we need to start talking about the structural reasons resulting in that.
> That's absurd
No, it isn't.
> and tantamount to a judge not doing their job
No, it isn't.
> ... which is to oversee the proper discovery and application of precedent.
That is an extremely limited and narrow view of a judge's job. That's part of their job, but very far from all of it.
> I'd even make the contention that this fundamentally deprives people of their right to due process
No, it doesn't. People are encouraged to settle; they aren't forced to. If you insist on a trial, you can get one.
> and if it is the case that the judiciary cannot handle case loads
It takes a long time to bring a case to trial. I think that at least part of the bottleneck is the judges' time, but I cannot prove that.
> we need to start talking about the structural reasons resulting in that.
I would agree with that.
No, it isn't.
> and tantamount to a judge not doing their job
No, it isn't.
> ... which is to oversee the proper discovery and application of precedent.
That is an extremely limited and narrow view of a judge's job. That's part of their job, but very far from all of it.
> I'd even make the contention that this fundamentally deprives people of their right to due process
No, it doesn't. People are encouraged to settle; they aren't forced to. If you insist on a trial, you can get one.
> and if it is the case that the judiciary cannot handle case loads
It takes a long time to bring a case to trial. I think that at least part of the bottleneck is the judges' time, but I cannot prove that.
> we need to start talking about the structural reasons resulting in that.
I would agree with that.
>It takes a long time to bring a case to trial. I think that at least part of the bottleneck is the judges' time, but I cannot prove that.
By and large, it takes as long as it does, especially based on cases between actors with drastically different resource pools from which to pool to acquire legal representation, because of fundamental limitations on the ability of information to be unambiguously extracted by a legal team (defendants team in finding docs that match criteria for discovery), the plaintiffs team (to comb through the discovered docs for meaning; thos is where malicious compliance or poorly worded queries can be disasterous for the amount of work it takes to sift through paper), transformed (arranged into a cross ref'able set of docs to be used in further proceedings), and loaded (brought before a jury).
The work of a trial is simple given good faith on the parts of all parties. I wager that happens much less frequently than we'd all like to believe.
When the prime arbiters of the judiciary start resorting to "just bypass us" there is a terrible, terrible problem here.
By and large, it takes as long as it does, especially based on cases between actors with drastically different resource pools from which to pool to acquire legal representation, because of fundamental limitations on the ability of information to be unambiguously extracted by a legal team (defendants team in finding docs that match criteria for discovery), the plaintiffs team (to comb through the discovered docs for meaning; thos is where malicious compliance or poorly worded queries can be disasterous for the amount of work it takes to sift through paper), transformed (arranged into a cross ref'able set of docs to be used in further proceedings), and loaded (brought before a jury).
The work of a trial is simple given good faith on the parts of all parties. I wager that happens much less frequently than we'd all like to believe.
When the prime arbiters of the judiciary start resorting to "just bypass us" there is a terrible, terrible problem here.
Efficiency.
Wow, the forbes cookie UI minigame is the hardest one I've played so far.
How do I get this cookie ui minigame?
chromium-browser --temp-profile or the equivalent for your distro to get a fresh browser without any extensions. You'll enjoy glorious game after that.
Them? The employees? The executives have *nothing* to worry about.
Or them, meaning us? These fines will find their way to the market and we will be the ones paying.
This is simply the pseudo cost of doing business for these multi-nationals.
Or them, meaning us? These fines will find their way to the market and we will be the ones paying.
This is simply the pseudo cost of doing business for these multi-nationals.
There are loads of valuable businesses inside 3M, it will continue operating no matter what, so probably not all employees will be affected by a bankruptcy. The responsible executives have probably already taken their profits and bailed. Focusing on that might feel good, but it's not what needs to happen.
What needs to happen is that shareholder value is eradicated. Pension funds, banks, hedge funds, retail investors, they should all lose their money. Every last cent of it. Only if shareholder value is eradicated will shareholders start demanding executives follow procedures that prevent disasters like this from happening.
Holding the executives responsible is fun, but we all know the next executive is gonna be ruthless and try and get away with it anyway.
What needs to happen is that shareholder value is eradicated. Pension funds, banks, hedge funds, retail investors, they should all lose their money. Every last cent of it. Only if shareholder value is eradicated will shareholders start demanding executives follow procedures that prevent disasters like this from happening.
Holding the executives responsible is fun, but we all know the next executive is gonna be ruthless and try and get away with it anyway.
Putting executives in jail will be a much better deterrent than what we're doing currently. Fines aren't even a slap on the wrists. It's a cost of doing business. A cost the company does not pay, the market does.
Not to mention that 3M in a conglomerate and doesn't only make PFAS. This likely wiped out all of their PFAS related profits decades back.
Which is good. You can't poison half the planet knowingly for generations, dump the stuff you know is toxic into the rivers for decades, and then expect to walk off with a tiny slap on the wrist.
I mean thats how it often ends up, but extremely happy its not happening now. Maybe they will make sure form now on they don't do this highly amoral and criminal stuff, and maybe other companies will notice too. Jail time for CEO at that time would be a bonus, but we are not there yet.
I mean thats how it often ends up, but extremely happy its not happening now. Maybe they will make sure form now on they don't do this highly amoral and criminal stuff, and maybe other companies will notice too. Jail time for CEO at that time would be a bonus, but we are not there yet.
For comparison, DuPont alone saw around $1 billion in annual profits from its PFOA products back in 2016.[0] It's unlikely that 3M saw its PFOA/PFAS profits wiped out by this settlement alone, although you might very well get there if some of the estimates of the company's liability--up to $30bn--are anywhere close to accurate. There are dozens of additional cases out there, and likely many more to follow. Even though many will probably get dismissed, the ongoing litigation costs alone are going to be a pain. Then there's political pressure, damage to 3M's brand, and more. It's all going to add up to a truly massive number.
Not sure if it'll do much to dissuade any companies from embarking on the next massive environmental fuckup, but one can hope.
0. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
1. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pfas-project/companies-face-bi...
Not sure if it'll do much to dissuade any companies from embarking on the next massive environmental fuckup, but one can hope.
0. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
1. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pfas-project/companies-face-bi...
For comparison, DuPont alone saw around $1 billion in annual profits from its PFOA products back in 2016.[0]
That claim seems suspect. Dupont booked around 4 billion in profits in 2016[1]. If the claim was true, it would mean PFOA made up around a quarter of their business. However, if you look at their net sales/profit by business segment[2] along with segment descriptions[3], there's basically no way that PFOA made up a quarter of their profits. They make too much other stuff for that to be the case.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/540512/net-income-of-dup...
[2] https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive...
[3] https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive...
That claim seems suspect. Dupont booked around 4 billion in profits in 2016[1]. If the claim was true, it would mean PFOA made up around a quarter of their business. However, if you look at their net sales/profit by business segment[2] along with segment descriptions[3], there's basically no way that PFOA made up a quarter of their profits. They make too much other stuff for that to be the case.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/540512/net-income-of-dup...
[2] https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive...
[3] https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive...
They have liability insurance that covers a portion of this.
Does insurance cover things you knew were bad? Like, can I use my car in a bank robbery and after it being totaled by cop bullets and crashing into a pole get insurance to pay for it?
Depends on the insurance contract. But also, insurance is more likely to cover liability for your acts, even if knowing, than to cover your self-inflicted damages.
Fines? We've been issuing such fines for decades and the behaviour persists. Why? Because ultimately the companies and insurance companies don't pay those fines...we do. Sooner or later. One way or another. Those costs find their way to us. Simply put, we - the market - pays those fines.
Unless executives lose freedoms (i.e., go to jail) nothing is going to change. The problem is, that wealthy ruling class can buy freedom when they need to. Those that miraculously lose freedom go to country clubs. On the other hand, if you or I rob the local convenience store (using a fire arm?) we will likely go to jail.
When they endanger the health and welfare of a child...millions of them...we pay the fine. Anyone who calls that justice is a fool.
Unless executives lose freedoms (i.e., go to jail) nothing is going to change. The problem is, that wealthy ruling class can buy freedom when they need to. Those that miraculously lose freedom go to country clubs. On the other hand, if you or I rob the local convenience store (using a fire arm?) we will likely go to jail.
When they endanger the health and welfare of a child...millions of them...we pay the fine. Anyone who calls that justice is a fool.
Even without a firearm if you rob anyone you go to jail buddy. Also if you or I dumped forever chemicals into public water supply, knowingly doing so, we'd be called terrorists. Probably rightfully so.
re: Terrorist
Funny, I say similar about tobacco. That is, if a terrorist said, "I'm going to come to your country,and I'm going to sell an addictive carcinogen..." There would be protests in the streets demanding that terrorist be drone-strike'd to hell and then some.
As it is, the state and federal governments allow the product, *and* profit from it (via taxes). Talk about a page right out of an Orwellian novel.
Funny, I say similar about tobacco. That is, if a terrorist said, "I'm going to come to your country,and I'm going to sell an addictive carcinogen..." There would be protests in the streets demanding that terrorist be drone-strike'd to hell and then some.
As it is, the state and federal governments allow the product, *and* profit from it (via taxes). Talk about a page right out of an Orwellian novel.
There are no insurance towers with over $2b of limit. As a consequence this is going to seriously hurt 3M. In addition this will drastically increase the cost of their (and their peer's) insurance policies over the next 10 years.
PG&E had a 26b$ insurance tower IIRC. It was completely blown by the wildfires.
Do you have a source for this? Is this not based on reinstatements? Which insurers could between them put out that kind of limit?
I didn’t remember correctly. PG&E had just above a billion tower. 21bn is the total capacity of the new California Wildfire Fund, that provides liability insurance to the California utilities.
https://www.guycarp.com/insights/2020/05/california-wildfire...
https://www.guycarp.com/insights/2020/05/california-wildfire...
[deleted]
Consider watching Dark Water movie.
Real life story of lawyer who goes after Duport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)?useski...
Real life story of lawyer who goes after Duport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)?useski...
jlmorton(9)
Lets dig those people out of their graves and punish them, considering how old the decisions are
What is the point of this URL exactly ?
The company's damage starts in the 1960's and wast most actively protected by states, in the 80s. Your link barely covers only to 2012.
The company's damage starts in the 1960's and wast most actively protected by states, in the 80s. Your link barely covers only to 2012.
The point of this URL:
- They lobby the government
- Their lobbyists go to work to the government, and then go back to work to the company and so on
The government won't touch them.
- They lobby the government
- Their lobbyists go to work to the government, and then go back to work to the company and so on
The government won't touch them.
Settling for almost twice their net annual income (and similarly large lawsuits against Dupont's subsidiaries) does not strike me as the government not touching them.
This is certainly a better result than the Purdue opioid lawsuit where the Sackler family received immunity and in exchange for a $6B settlement.
This is certainly a better result than the Purdue opioid lawsuit where the Sackler family received immunity and in exchange for a $6B settlement.
The real damage is going to be so much more to the US and world populace. 3M (along with Dupont) should get the corporate death penalty and their boards/C-levels should never be allowed to work or advise in industry again.
That's the bare minimum we should set. China/USSR had a more severe consequence for officers of the company that isn't likely feasible here in the US but is probably the real deterrent to this behavior in future criminal endeavors.
That's the bare minimum we should set. China/USSR had a more severe consequence for officers of the company that isn't likely feasible here in the US but is probably the real deterrent to this behavior in future criminal endeavors.
>That's the bare minimum we should set. China/USSR had a more severe consequence for officers of the company that isn't likely feasible here in the US but is probably the real deterrent to this behavior in future criminal endeavors.
Completely agree. In China, it's pretty straightforward - you become the nail that sticks out. If you fuck with the population at large and make people sick, or you rob them blind, etc... it doesn't matter if you have or you haven't given The Party their cut of the action - your C-Suite will all disappear. A few will be lucky enough to be re-educated.
Whereas in America if you beat the regulators or catch them sleeping on the job, you'll have one side of the political aisle cheering you on no matter how many people you kill.
Completely agree. In China, it's pretty straightforward - you become the nail that sticks out. If you fuck with the population at large and make people sick, or you rob them blind, etc... it doesn't matter if you have or you haven't given The Party their cut of the action - your C-Suite will all disappear. A few will be lucky enough to be re-educated.
Whereas in America if you beat the regulators or catch them sleeping on the job, you'll have one side of the political aisle cheering you on no matter how many people you kill.
> This is certainly a better result than the Purdue opioid lawsuit where the Sackler family received immunity and in exchange for a $6B settlement.
Nothing of note was accomplished. People just switched to fentanyl.
Nothing of note was accomplished. People just switched to fentanyl.
>The government won't touch them.
That's clearly not true, as evidenced by this settlement.
That's clearly not true, as evidenced by this settlement.
There are some actions (e.g. killing people, poisoning entire communities, getting thousands addicted to drugs, etc) that if perpetrated by an individual, society generally either puts the perpetrator's lives on pause for decades by imprisonment, or actually ends them altogether. Yet companies do the same things and are fined a few months' worth of revenue (and the shareholders who received profits due to the crimes keep them anyway) due to limited liability.
Sorry. Who is "they" or "them" ?
Corporation board members, top stockholders and lobbyists.
I was surprised to learn that PFAS are in dental floss, used to help in glide between teeth easily. This study linked using such floss and higher blood concentrations of PFAS: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y It's not strong enough evidence to suggest we should stop flossing, but they do make plain floss without PFAS, ex: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005IHMXEQ/
> 3M said its participation in the settlement "is not an admission of liability"
These kind of statements always crack me up, like "oh, really, so you just decided to give away X millions/billions of dollars out of the goodness of your hearts?". Would love to see some kind of policy that ends this kind of absurd post-settlement spinning.
These kind of statements always crack me up, like "oh, really, so you just decided to give away X millions/billions of dollars out of the goodness of your hearts?". Would love to see some kind of policy that ends this kind of absurd post-settlement spinning.
It's not spinning: it's a legal message.
It's almost always part of the settlement, because it limits future liability on the matter.
Yet news sources always report it as though it's something the company voluntarily says.
It's almost always part of the settlement, because it limits future liability on the matter.
Yet news sources always report it as though it's something the company voluntarily says.
That doesn't make it any less absurd. Legal hoop-jumping is not so different from spin. The law itself is often silly.
The law is the law.
Saying it's silly is like an architect saying that gravity is silly.
Yes, but... it's the system you're operating in.
Saying it's silly is like an architect saying that gravity is silly.
Yes, but... it's the system you're operating in.
The difference is that law is a human construct
We recently celebrated the end of slavery in my country.
Laws can be silly.
Laws can be silly.
If they admitted liability, people could sue for individual damages on top of the settlement. It's a buy-out, water under the bridge kinda thing, because individual lawsuits would cost years, would cost each individual thousands, and could cost 3M even more once all added up. It's a legal logistical nightmare.
Instead, people are offered a one time payment to basically drop the case. I think a lot are happy to take it because it means they don't have to fight a tedious legal battle.
Instead, people are offered a one time payment to basically drop the case. I think a lot are happy to take it because it means they don't have to fight a tedious legal battle.
When its only a financial fine, nothing will change. Things will change when criminal charges would apply to the ceo's.
Is that the real amount or the headline grabbing amount before they spend years fighting it?
Surely, lot of words about how these chemicals don't degrade naturally, but none about the actual impact. Same like microplastics. Not denying that PFAS can't be harmful, but how can we prosecute just on the basis of the fact that these chemicals exist, when the evidence of harm is inconclusive? Stuart Ritchie is my favorite health journalist to refer to whenever it comes to things like these [1]:
> Some of the evidence comes from animal studies: studies have claimed that exposing rats and mice to the chemicals has negative effects on their ability to reproduce. The problem—aside from the inherent problem with comparing non-human animals to human ones—is that the concentrations of the chemicals are normally far, far higher in the animal studies than they are for humans in everyday life. As with all “toxins”, the dose makes the poison: something that is harmful to health at high levels could be entirely safe if the average person never has very much of it in their system.
> The Guardian – which has published dozens of articles about these “dangerous”, “potentially toxic” chemicals in the last few years – called the new research “the first known study on the effects of PFAS on female fertility”. That’s a little odd, since earlier this year a review study put together 13 previous such studies, drawing the conclusion that “increased levels of PFAS exposure are associated with reduced fertility in women”.
> As with all such reviews, that conclusion is dependent on the quality and consistency of the underlying 13 studies. Unfortunately, the studies we have are all over the place: even though on average they point to an association of PFAS with lower fertility, the estimate of the size of the association varies a great deal from study to study.
[1]: https://inews.co.uk/news/forever-chemicals-fertility-study-l...
> Some of the evidence comes from animal studies: studies have claimed that exposing rats and mice to the chemicals has negative effects on their ability to reproduce. The problem—aside from the inherent problem with comparing non-human animals to human ones—is that the concentrations of the chemicals are normally far, far higher in the animal studies than they are for humans in everyday life. As with all “toxins”, the dose makes the poison: something that is harmful to health at high levels could be entirely safe if the average person never has very much of it in their system.
> The Guardian – which has published dozens of articles about these “dangerous”, “potentially toxic” chemicals in the last few years – called the new research “the first known study on the effects of PFAS on female fertility”. That’s a little odd, since earlier this year a review study put together 13 previous such studies, drawing the conclusion that “increased levels of PFAS exposure are associated with reduced fertility in women”.
> As with all such reviews, that conclusion is dependent on the quality and consistency of the underlying 13 studies. Unfortunately, the studies we have are all over the place: even though on average they point to an association of PFAS with lower fertility, the estimate of the size of the association varies a great deal from study to study.
[1]: https://inews.co.uk/news/forever-chemicals-fertility-study-l...
I cannot claim to understand the state of research ... But I think we _can't_ wait for the harms to be fully measured if we're to compensate those impacted. Suppose that drinking PFAS contaminated water decreased your life expectancy -- but to measure that effect with certainty, a meaningful number of people who were impacted would necessarily already be dead and therefore unable to be compensated for the harm done to them. Suppose a fetus whose mother drinks contaminated water has a higher risk of some form of dementia late in life -- only many decades later would the harm be fully understood and the company might no longer even exist (and IANAL but perhaps there are also statutes of limitation?) Waiting to _fully_ characterize the harm seems like a recipe for injustice.
In the mean time, "the water in my district has an extra chemical in it, which doesn't need to exist in any amount, and no one's sure whether or not it's dangerous at this concentration" seems like it's already a form of damage. No one wants to drink it, the land is less valuable, etc etc. Similarly, if sewage contaminated your water, you'd be rightly upset even if that particular sewage doesn't cause a cholera outbreak.
In the mean time, "the water in my district has an extra chemical in it, which doesn't need to exist in any amount, and no one's sure whether or not it's dangerous at this concentration" seems like it's already a form of damage. No one wants to drink it, the land is less valuable, etc etc. Similarly, if sewage contaminated your water, you'd be rightly upset even if that particular sewage doesn't cause a cholera outbreak.
I would go further and argue the parent comment is being deliberately disingenuous. Medical statistics are always circumstantial and clouded by uncertainty. That’s why we have rigorous study designs in people and a shit load of mice studies.
There is a lot of money that is interested in making PFAS look not bad (for very obvious reasons if someone gets sued $10B) so its not unreasonable to assume they would pay people to post disinformation on hacker news.
There is a lot of money that is interested in making PFAS look not bad (for very obvious reasons if someone gets sued $10B) so its not unreasonable to assume they would pay people to post disinformation on hacker news.
Yeah, sure! Someone bribed a 11y old account, from India, risked everything just to post on a forum no one in the general public cares about. Typical HN brains! When you can't fight with facts, just paint it with an idiotic conspiracy.
These chemicals accumulate over long periods of time in you body, reaching ever higher levels. They are silent killers. But, isn't a large part of the scandal that these companies knew for decades from their own studies there was a huge concern about health safety for employees and the environment? They never shared the alarming results to any authorities. So, they themselves knew very well about detrimental effects decades before they were discovered independently by academic research leading to revised standards and law.
> They are silent killers.
Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence.
Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence.
You think that ''chemicals that your body cant dispose of is a bad thing'' is an extraordinarily claim? Do you also still drink water from lead pipes, and huff a piece of asbestos every day?
Those are toxic. There are no known negative health effects from pfas or microplastics.
They are toxic because your body can't deal with them, microplastics are -maybe counterintuitively- still large enough to only cause smaller issues like indigestion. For the problems with pfas, read any source from the rest of this thread.
In the end if your body could get rid of X, X generally isn't a problem. Sometimes it's chemical (i.e. lead/carbonmonoxide/etc) sometimes it's physical (i.e. asbestos/microplastics), accumulating enough of anything not meant to be processed/disposed in your body will be a problem.
In the end if your body could get rid of X, X generally isn't a problem. Sometimes it's chemical (i.e. lead/carbonmonoxide/etc) sometimes it's physical (i.e. asbestos/microplastics), accumulating enough of anything not meant to be processed/disposed in your body will be a problem.
the bigger issue with micro plastics is that they are very good ways for transporting other, more toxic, chemicals, into your body.
lol. imagine having a device capable of searching through the sum of humanity’s knowledge at your fingertips, and making a statement like this.
I thought the detrimental effects of pfas on immunity was accepted fact by now? Even the mechanism of toxicity is well understood. Surely, we can agree that you don't need instant dead effects to establish a compound to be accepted as detrimental for your health? And not only your health, but that of your offspring as well. The internal documents of 3m and Dupont actually acknowledge as much. That's what the actual outrage is about, they already knew for decades, then tried to hide it because liability costs.
You are totally neglecting the difficulty of conducting a 40-year randomized trial that is able to control for all other factors.
By which I merely meant, "you don't drop dead, like arsenic poisoning". But that makes them even more dangerous imo. All seems fine, while they accumulate in the evenvironment, foods, people, their offspring,... And when the disastrous effects slowly manifest themselves we already have epidemic levels of impact radious. But, I accept you point.
Water is a forever chemical.
Not in the sense that it accumulates in your body (concentration keeps increasing over time). Water is in steady state with your body, its concentration over time is practically constant.
The burden of proof should be on the seller to demonstrate the safety, not otherwise.
The issue with this topic largely has to do with political & financial interest.
(1) who benefits financially?
(2) who benefits politically from the finances & who’s potentially at legal risk?
(3) who’s career is advanced / harmed?
Ultimately, with this topic (as with many others), there are no neutral observers. There are multiple camps competing for influence - which these studies benefit.
Recall doctors and studies were supporting tobacco and cocaine as good for you. They even had doctors / PhDs advertising and publishing it as such. Many argue the same with climate change (lots of political & financial interest), Covid, etc.
Study of PFAs have a similar challenge because it was heavily & widely used. Similar to DDT, it takes time for these things to roll through and change. PFAs are generally understood to be toxic & lead to endocrine disruption. Most of the papers I’ve read conclude as much
(1) who benefits financially?
(2) who benefits politically from the finances & who’s potentially at legal risk?
(3) who’s career is advanced / harmed?
Ultimately, with this topic (as with many others), there are no neutral observers. There are multiple camps competing for influence - which these studies benefit.
Recall doctors and studies were supporting tobacco and cocaine as good for you. They even had doctors / PhDs advertising and publishing it as such. Many argue the same with climate change (lots of political & financial interest), Covid, etc.
Study of PFAs have a similar challenge because it was heavily & widely used. Similar to DDT, it takes time for these things to roll through and change. PFAs are generally understood to be toxic & lead to endocrine disruption. Most of the papers I’ve read conclude as much
Surprisingly, some of the most convincing studies indicating the dangers of PFAS come from 3M themselves[1][2]. These studies were of course never intended for public release:
> In 1961, company lab tests linked C8 exposure to enlarged livers in rats and rabbits. DuPont scientists then conducted tests on humans, asking a group of volunteers to smoke cigarettes laced with C8. “Nine out of 10 people in the highest-dosed group were noticeably ill for an average of nine hours with flu-like symptoms that included chills, backache, fever and coughing,” the researchers noted. “Concerns about the potential toxicity of C8 had been raised internally within DuPont by at least 1954, leading DuPont’s own researchers to conclude by at least 1961 that C8 was toxic and, according to DuPont’s own Toxicology Section Chief, should be ‘handled with extreme care,'” Bartlett’s February 2013 suit against DuPont alleged.
> In one study, for instance, Olsen looked at blood tests of 3M employees at the company’s plants in Antwerp, Belgium, and Decatur, Alabama, both of which made PFOA and PFOS, among other products. By the late 1990s when Olsen was embarking on this research, these chemicals were known within the company to accumulate in humans and alter cholesterol levels in lab animals. Because the workers had undergone three separate rounds of blood tests, Olsen was able to trace the levels of the chemicals in workers’ blood over time. And by combining his results with various clinical measures the company had been tracking in its workers, he was able to see whether there was a relationship between the chemical and these health outcomes. Olsen’s findings, written up in an draft report in October 2001, were clear. There was a positive association between the amount of PFOA in workers’ blood and their levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, states the report, on which Olsen is listed as the principal investigator.
They've also taken some... drastic measures regarding which factory workers are allowed to be exposed to certain PFAS despite publicly denying any connection with birth defects[3]:
> In a November 1982 memo, DuPont's chief medical director, Dr. Bruce Karrh, expressed concern over employee exposure to C8. The company then barred women of child-bearing age from working around C8.
Far be it from me to condemn an abundance of caution, but the timing seems odd when you consider what happened a year prior[3]:
> When Bailey returned to work in 1981, she discovered a memo on a bench in the women's locker room. It detailed a study by 3M, which sold C8 to DuPont, that detailed eye deformities in lab animals whose mothers were fed C8 during pregnancy. Bailey went to the plant's medical doctor and asked if this is what happened to [her child born with an eye deformity]. The doctor denied a connection, according to Bailey, but arranged an appointment at Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore.
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p... [2]: https://www.ecowatch.com/teflons-toxic-legacy-dupont-knew-fo... [3]: https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/02/c8-susp...
> In 1961, company lab tests linked C8 exposure to enlarged livers in rats and rabbits. DuPont scientists then conducted tests on humans, asking a group of volunteers to smoke cigarettes laced with C8. “Nine out of 10 people in the highest-dosed group were noticeably ill for an average of nine hours with flu-like symptoms that included chills, backache, fever and coughing,” the researchers noted. “Concerns about the potential toxicity of C8 had been raised internally within DuPont by at least 1954, leading DuPont’s own researchers to conclude by at least 1961 that C8 was toxic and, according to DuPont’s own Toxicology Section Chief, should be ‘handled with extreme care,'” Bartlett’s February 2013 suit against DuPont alleged.
> In one study, for instance, Olsen looked at blood tests of 3M employees at the company’s plants in Antwerp, Belgium, and Decatur, Alabama, both of which made PFOA and PFOS, among other products. By the late 1990s when Olsen was embarking on this research, these chemicals were known within the company to accumulate in humans and alter cholesterol levels in lab animals. Because the workers had undergone three separate rounds of blood tests, Olsen was able to trace the levels of the chemicals in workers’ blood over time. And by combining his results with various clinical measures the company had been tracking in its workers, he was able to see whether there was a relationship between the chemical and these health outcomes. Olsen’s findings, written up in an draft report in October 2001, were clear. There was a positive association between the amount of PFOA in workers’ blood and their levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, states the report, on which Olsen is listed as the principal investigator.
They've also taken some... drastic measures regarding which factory workers are allowed to be exposed to certain PFAS despite publicly denying any connection with birth defects[3]:
> In a November 1982 memo, DuPont's chief medical director, Dr. Bruce Karrh, expressed concern over employee exposure to C8. The company then barred women of child-bearing age from working around C8.
Far be it from me to condemn an abundance of caution, but the timing seems odd when you consider what happened a year prior[3]:
> When Bailey returned to work in 1981, she discovered a memo on a bench in the women's locker room. It detailed a study by 3M, which sold C8 to DuPont, that detailed eye deformities in lab animals whose mothers were fed C8 during pregnancy. Bailey went to the plant's medical doctor and asked if this is what happened to [her child born with an eye deformity]. The doctor denied a connection, according to Bailey, but arranged an appointment at Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore.
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p... [2]: https://www.ecowatch.com/teflons-toxic-legacy-dupont-knew-fo... [3]: https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/02/c8-susp...
> DuPont scientists then conducted tests on humans, asking a group of volunteers to smoke cigarettes laced with C8.
This is definitely not my area, but ... was this a good experiment to do? I don't just mean from an ethical standpoint (though that seems super sketch), but purely as an experiment to understand how this chemical impacts the human body, this seems not great?
(a) if you smoke a cigarette, isn't the actual dose of C8 taken in by each subject likely to be both variable and hard to measure? Different subject would have just exhaled vs absorbed different amounts of C8, right? So it seems like you get a less precise dosing than most other means of getting it into the body?
(b) couldn't this have been toxic in the lungs in a way which wouldn't have been relevant to other/more typical means of exposure? Does reacting badly to something inhaled as smoke really imply anything about the impact of touching or ingesting it? I'm pretty sure e.g. that cayenne smoke would cause you problems that touching or eating that same substance would not cause.
This is definitely not my area, but ... was this a good experiment to do? I don't just mean from an ethical standpoint (though that seems super sketch), but purely as an experiment to understand how this chemical impacts the human body, this seems not great?
(a) if you smoke a cigarette, isn't the actual dose of C8 taken in by each subject likely to be both variable and hard to measure? Different subject would have just exhaled vs absorbed different amounts of C8, right? So it seems like you get a less precise dosing than most other means of getting it into the body?
(b) couldn't this have been toxic in the lungs in a way which wouldn't have been relevant to other/more typical means of exposure? Does reacting badly to something inhaled as smoke really imply anything about the impact of touching or ingesting it? I'm pretty sure e.g. that cayenne smoke would cause you problems that touching or eating that same substance would not cause.
It was the 50’s. Just be glad they didn’t also give them surprise syphillis or inject them with plutonium.
Amazing how you can just pay some money and get away with destroying countless lives.
The Soviets at least had the decency to send some people to the gulag.
The Soviets at least had the decency to send some people to the gulag.
Not sure what you’re romanticizing here, but Soviets were not sending the people who would be at fault here to the gulags. It was political prisoners, counterculture agitators (artists, satirists, etc), criminals, rich people who wouldn’t go along, etc. Politically connected people wouldn’t end up there.
It’s a joke about the upside down interpretation of law in either of the systems. In Soviet Russia, you sent your underlings to the gulag. In America, you just pay a fine. Neither of which is proper justice.
Not to mention a fine that is not an existential threat. 3M has grown massively in comparison to $10B. Recently 50% of the US tap water supply was found to be tainted with PFAs <link pending>
> The Soviets at least had the decency to send some people to the gulag.
First people on the train would be the victims that made the fuss.
First people on the train would be the victims that made the fuss.
[deleted]
Sheesh, these kind of environmental pollution problems can have a detrimental effect on entire populations of hundreds of millions of people. It doesn't seem like a fine is the correct category of punishment here. Doesn't it seem like prosecutors should be considering life in prison, or something more severe, for the 3M executives and lawyers involved?
Why is 3M getting all the blame?
From TFA, a big reason for the high concentrations in waterways is due to firefighter training exercises. Did 3M have any oversight into how much firefighting foam firefighters dump into the waterways with their training exercises? Seems like culpability is more with the user of the product than the producer of the product.
From TFA, a big reason for the high concentrations in waterways is due to firefighter training exercises. Did 3M have any oversight into how much firefighting foam firefighters dump into the waterways with their training exercises? Seems like culpability is more with the user of the product than the producer of the product.
There is a difference in knowledge that a fire department Vs a company producing the material have. First, it's a choice to include these in the product. Second, it's a choice whether to appropriately inform fire departments on how to handle such material. Third, an individual fire department cannot invent removal/capture methodologies, this is again something that would need to be offered by the producer.
I'm astonished how easily the narrative is shifted to blaming the little guy. Is a customer expected to re-verify the toxicity of the products they buy and set up their own recycling system?
Honestly hard to imagine the many comments here spreading doubt on the well-established dangers of pfas and arguing how innocent 3m is are disinterested comments.
I'm astonished how easily the narrative is shifted to blaming the little guy. Is a customer expected to re-verify the toxicity of the products they buy and set up their own recycling system?
Honestly hard to imagine the many comments here spreading doubt on the well-established dangers of pfas and arguing how innocent 3m is are disinterested comments.
I can buy a giant load of bleach today and dump it into my local river. Is Clorox to blame for any negative impacts that result? No, that is 100% on me.
Now I admit this isn't a perfect analogy, but I definitely don't think it's on the other end of the spectrum from this case (where 3M seems to be getting 100% of the blame).
Now I admit this isn't a perfect analogy, but I definitely don't think it's on the other end of the spectrum from this case (where 3M seems to be getting 100% of the blame).
no because the effects of bleach are well known?
what kind of dumb analogy is this.
imagine if you sold utensils made of a new material you invested that was 100% compostable. and you tested it and observed it was toxic to rats. but it didn’t seem to kill humans at first glance. so you sold it to restaurants to use as a better alternative to plastic utensils. but over time they are toxic.
now replace utensils with pots, and the material with teflon/teflon precursors (ptfe/pfoa) and you now you have reality.
what kind of dumb analogy is this.
imagine if you sold utensils made of a new material you invested that was 100% compostable. and you tested it and observed it was toxic to rats. but it didn’t seem to kill humans at first glance. so you sold it to restaurants to use as a better alternative to plastic utensils. but over time they are toxic.
now replace utensils with pots, and the material with teflon/teflon precursors (ptfe/pfoa) and you now you have reality.
I don't think you understand analogies either. That's not an analogy, that is what happened.
A better analogy is that you sold bleach tablets as safe to dump in rivers, while knowing they were unsafe. The people who bought them aren’t at fault here, because you misled them.
Bleach does end up in the water, but it's highly reactive and breaks down into harmless stuff. Chlorox would be to blame if it was causing long term harm and they knew it. Even without customers deliberately dumping it into the water.
both should be punished.
I think that's missing a 0.
Does it also stop them from polluting with the PFAS alternatives like GenX?
Letter of indulgence.
That should cover it ?
>"The result is that millions of Americans will have healthier lives without PFAS in their drinking water"
"If I stop punching you in the face, you'll have much less facial trauma - that's a win for you"
"If I stop punching you in the face, you'll have much less facial trauma - that's a win for you"
[deleted]