9 ms·
The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare
- FreedomToCreate 11y agoThere are a lot of things in this world that we have because somewhere a big sacrifice is being made. This case with DuPont is one of many, where chemical companies have taken the liberty to sacrifice something they don't have to right to, so that they can profit but also so things can be made. So many of the products we use everyday are most likely tainted in hidden scandals. Just google what Unilever has been doing in India with mercury. We have to make these companies accountable and stop using there products until better methods to produce it are developed. Its equivalent to me saying "Hey give up oil, it damages everything."
- hdabrows 11y agoWhat if instead DuPont followed proper disposal practices like recommended by the supplier of the chemical? > Though PFOA was not classified by the government as a hazardous substance, 3M sent DuPont recommendations on how to dispose of it. It was to be incinerated or sent to chemical-waste facilities. DuPont’s own instructions specified that it was not to be flushed into surface water or sewers. There's nothing noble here, just a company being greedy. We could still have those things you are referring to but without the costs to the public.
- tamana 11y agoAnd 3M people made the chemical without caring if it would be handled safely.
- twistedpair 11y ago3M also had the wherewithal to stop making the chemical when the effects became official, so DuPont went out and started making it themselves. Nice work, DuPont.
- dexwiz 11y agoI did an undergraduate in Chemistry, and I occasionally get the question of, "Is X bad for me," or "Will Y give me cancer?" My response is always that our modern world is bad for you. There are millions (maybe billions) of chemicals produced by thousands of companies. Most are probably harmless. But it only takes one or two being really bad for you to get sick. PFOA is one more to add to this list of shit that's not good for you. Most people are lucky enough to not be Wilbur Tennant and live right next to a chemical dump that poisons their water. But most people do get low doses of chemicals like PFOA. And they probably get low doses of another thousand things that are just as deadly, but unknown. We live in a poisoned world, but its not poisoned enough to kill the people that make the decisions, yet.
- sohkamyung 11y agoIn other words, "The dose makes the poison".
- ori_b 11y agoThis is always the case. The concern here is that the people who profit from being able to dispense harmful doses are also the ones that are responsible for monitoring its safety.
- cschmidt 11y agoOr more positively, "dilution is the solution"
- cbd1984 11y agoDilution is a solution (in a figurative sense) if you know you won't want the substance later on. In some ways, though, pollution is a materials technology problem, in that we don't know enough about materials technology to either use the pollutant directly or cheaply reprocess it into something we can use.
- kefka 11y agoUnless it's bioaccumulative. Just look at the wonders of methylmercury.
- xlayn 11y agoIt makes me really sad how big corporations use the power they have to cover, fight and (sometimes) get away with practices that translate into money for them at the expense of everything else. We have been told since always how we humans will once destroy earth, how one day clean air will be sold as a luxury. Now we can see it happening everywhere, I remember have read that the most contamination California gets it is from China. China effectively destroyed the environment for making money. And then you are remembered how this money doesn't go to the everyday Joe, but to the 1%, who doesn't pay taxes (which are by definition a way of wealth redistribution) therefore destroying preventing Joe again for getting a better life, who also has a worst life because his environment has been destroyed.
- danharaj 11y ago"The Earth isn't dying, it's being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."
- mirimir 11y ago"The Earth" isn't being killed. Human activity (emissions of CO2, toxic metals, persistent organic toxics and so on, and deforestation, soil depletion, etc) is changing evolutionary selection parameters in myriad ways for myriad lifeforms. That is indeed unprecedented for a single species. However, it's happened before. For example, the emergence of photosynthesis profoundly altered the atmosphere. That brought extinction for most existing species (anaerobic bacteria). But it obviously set up the game for multicellular life. Anyway, my point is that change is normal. Maybe we humans will drive ourselves extinct. But I rather doubt that. Most other species won't be so lucky, however.
- ionforce 11y agoNot that I disagree with you but I don't think we, collectively, are convinced that we're destroying the Earth. Some people are really dense and will continue to deny well into their graves.
- Nutmog 11y ago
- dmckeon 11y agoPFOA was only one of more than 60,000 synthetic chemicals that companies produced and released into the world without regulatory oversight. ... Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, the E.P.A. can test chemicals only when it has been provided evidence of harm. This arrangement, which largely allows chemical companies to regulate themselves, is the reason that the E.P.A. has restricted only five chemicals, out of tens of thousands on the market, in the last 40 years. Staggering. This is regulatory theater that makes the TSA version look like a pre-school play.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoThe way the government regulates them is ridiculous, too. They do it in such a way that simply adding an O-H group here or there avoids the regulation. See, for example, the FDA action against BPA.
- awakeasleep 11y agoI think about this every day. It really fills me with a sense of wonder. In a lab, in a meeting room, somewhere in the chemical industry, someone basically said "Now that BPA is banned, we need something with the exact same chemical properties" and boom they made a clone of it, skipped human testing despite knowing it has literally the same properties, and called the job finished because the job was to circumvent the law and the law has been circumvented! Just imagine that kind of attitude in your life. It's hard to imagine an analogy. It's like if you were dropping red bricks off a building onto people on the sidewalk and the judge was like 'you are no longer allowed to drop red bricks onto people' so you switched to chicago bricks. The analogy sounds childish or ridiculous. But as far as I can tell it's a perfect match for BPA/BPS
- ZeroGravitas 11y agoThe only bit you missed is that they get paid for every brick they drop. It all suddenly seems more horrifically, humanly possible.
- technotony 11y ago
- hdabrows 11y agoSo the total amount paid by DuPont was less than $100 million? Even with thousand of personal-injury cases pending this sounds like pocket change to a company with over $30 billions in revenues. How is this supposed to deter others?
- themartorana 11y agoThe (very low) cost of doing business.
- mhuangw 11y agoFascinating read - long, but worth it. It's always interesting to see how far people are willing to go for financial gain.
- guardiangod 11y agoOut of the article, I was most impressed by the tenacity of the lawyer in question, Bilott, and his law firm, Taft, for their willingness to keep him as a partner. Thank you. A few good men, indeed.
- ossreality 11y agoDisappointed that this was upvoted and not The Intercept's longform articles? They're more detailed and a better read. In fact, it's kind of tacky how soon this was written after The Intercept.
- eevilspock 11y agoRelated story and comments, 5 months ago: The Teflon Toxin (firstlook.org) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10045156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10045156
- mirimir 11y agoRob Bilott is indeed a hero. But damn, "PFOA was only one of more than 60,000 synthetic chemicals that companies produced and released into the world without regulatory oversight". Consider breast cancer. One of the risk factors is nulliparity (having borne no children). There's also an inverse association between breast cancer risk and parity (number of children). One of the mechanisms for that, it seems, is that lipophilic organic pollutants are mobilized from womens' fat during pregnancy and lactation. People are born with ~20% of typical lifetime doses of such pollutants. Human breast milk cannot be sold commercially. One reason is that it's too contaminated with organic pollutants. Life is funny.
- anotherhue 11y agoCorporations are notional entities, granted rights by a government. The government owes them little in the way of human rights, so how is it so difficult for a government to impose sanctions on a misbehaving corporation? The US is in poor company as a country that has a death penalty for humans, where is the list of corporate offences that justify a dissolution of this notional entity? Only Bankruptcy?
- apsec112 11y agoThe US sanctions corporations all the time, by levying fines and imposing restrictions. Dissolving DuPont would mean firing 60,000 people - most of whom did nothing wrong - as well as screwing every manufacturer which relies on a DuPont product, most of which are safe when relevant handling guidelines are followed. DuPont makes a huge number of things; from Wikipedia, it's the inventor of "Vespel, neoprene, nylon, Corian, Teflon, Mylar, Kevlar, Zemdrain, M5 fiber, Nomex, Tyvek, Sorona and Lycra", and I'm sure a ton of other stuff.
- anotherhue 11y agoI didn't mean to suggest calling for their dissolution, apologies; but the possibility of it should be a factor in the risk-management and risk/reward decisions the executives make.
- marcoperaza 11y agoIf a civil judgement is severe enough, it is an effective death penalty for the corporation.
- mirimir 11y agoI do think that there should be a "death penalty" for corporations. Back in the day, before the railroads etc bought off the Supreme Court, incorporation required demonstration of public benefit. Violation of corporate charter was grounds for dissolution.
- enlightenedfool 11y ago
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoMeanwhile the European Commission dropped plans to regulate endocrine-disrupting substances after corporate pressure.
- MrBuddyCasino 11y agoInteresting, got a source?
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoThere was a documentary on the subject entitled Endocrination.
- ErikVandeWater 11y agoThe title of this piece does not reflect its contents. So far, according to the article, DuPont has been forced to pay less than $100 million in damages for a chemical that resulted in $1 billion plus annual profits. Personal injury suits are ongoing, but "At the rate of four trials a year, DuPont would continue to fight PFOA cases until the year 2890." The lawyer sounds incredibly and understandably frustrated with the situation: "The thought that DuPont could get away with this for this long," Bilott says, his tone landing halfway between wonder and rage, "that they could keep making a profit off it, then get the agreement of the governmental agencies to slowly phase it out, only to replace it with an alternative with unknown human effects — we told the agencies about this in 2001, and they’ve essentially done nothing." A better title would be: "Through effective legal strategy, DuPont delays outlays for pollution effects"
- stefs 11y agothat wouldn't have been a catchy enough title to make me read the story.
- marcoperaza 11y agoHere's a great clip of Milton Friedman answering a question from a young Michael Moore about a similar issue, the exploding Ford Pinto debacle. The uploader put a childish title, but the video itself is good. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VdyKAIhLdNs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VdyKAIhLdNs It's not a directly analogous situation, but it's easy to forget that there is a level of toxins that we prefer, over paying a lot more or not being able to have certain goods at all. Trying to deceive the public about the risks, however, is inexcusable.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago>but it's easy to forget that there is a level of toxins that we prefer, over paying a lot more or not being able to have certain goods at all // Profit motive is the part you've missed out there. Often we could have the goods, with less toxic effluent produced, at the same price but with less profit to the capital holders. So yes whilst the poor could forgo more "luxuries" it would in general be far easier for those who are richer to forgo relatively extreme luxuries. The greatest impact is probably made from the top end. I can refuse to buy Nestle products forever but it doesn't make a difference to Nestles terrible production and marketing practices at all - yet if one major shareholder takes the same stand then the ethics of the company can be changed rapidly. In the UK we've seen some companies who appeared to be acting not only for profit taken over by larger international corporations that seem to seek nothing else - I'm thinking Cadbury taken over by Kraft - with [my perception being:] an immediate reduction in quality of produce, apparent manipulation of product weights (thinner bars of chocolate look the same size on the shelf; differently moulded bars have less chocolate but look the same size), apparent reduction in use of Fairtrade ingredients, increased prices. None of that needed to happen, Cadbury were profitable already. It's not just down to the consumer; Kraft have after all reduced consumer choice with their takeover. In general if companies with poor ethics get more profit (eg by abusing the environment) then those companies can forceably takeover companies with better ethics.
- marcoperaza 11y agoA company that's willing to make a product for a 20% margin might not be willing to make that same product for a 5% margin. Would you put all of your savings in an account with 1% interest and zero-risk? The opportunity cost is important too. Also, remember that your pay as an employee depends on the success of the company, just as much as the dividends for the owners do. Not to mention that the owners include just about all of society, through mutual funds, pension funds, and retirement accounts. The more you raise burdens to business and profit, the poorer your society gets. That's not to say we shouldn't regulate pollution, but we can't ignore the trade-offs involved. It's not just a matter of the rich taking less of a cut; that's not how it works.
- Zardoz84 11y agoThis is worst that the situation with asbestos. My grand father died by a lung cancer, probably related to asbestos. He worked on a factory, many years, using it without any kind of protective suit. Far as I know, nearly all co-workes that he had, has been dying like flys this lasts decades. I hope that DuPont's get sued to the oblivion.
- jacquesm 11y agoThis is quite interesting next to the kind of exposure that VW is getting and the kind of fines involved there.
- themartorana 11y agoThat's because VW explicitly bypassed regulations that the government is allowed to place on vehicle emissions. How we got to a place where chemical regulations are near impossible to create and enforce is the maddening part.
- jacquesm 11y agoExhaust gases are chemistry.
- mipapage 11y agoAnother great reason to buy from small, local companies. Keep it simple, be wary of over-specialization.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y agoWhat I found interesting with this article is the payout from the class action suit. The lawyers received $21.7 million dollars, while 70,000 plaintiffs all received $400 a piece. 70,000 * 400 is 28 million dollars. So out of approximately $50 million dollars, the lawyers kept over 40% and split the rest 70,000 ways resulting in each plaintiff getting just a little over a week's worth of work at minimum wage.