11 ms·

Genuinely serious and ignorant question: What grief?

bragr 4y ago
As a huge chemical conglomerate with a long history, they've been involved in their fair share of pollution incidents and other controversies. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-3m-pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-europe/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-3m-pfas-toxic-foreve... https://www.reuters.com/business/3m-agrees-pay-98-mln-resolve-suits-over-forever-chemicals-2021-10-19/ https://www.reuters.com/business/3m-agrees-pay-98-mln-resolv...
swader999 4y ago
Management by post it notes comes to mind.
exmadscientist 4y ago
3M products are great because they always do what they say they're going to do. They usually even overperform by a large margin. They're one of my suppliers of choice for industrial applications or anything R&D where we don't quite know how good it has to be yet. 3M toxic chemical waste is also a core 3M product, and overperforms too. Some of their Superfund sites, particularly the C8/PFOA/fluorinated crud ones, are among the worst around. (I grew up on the other side of the city from their worst one! Yay!) And, like any company in the fluorinated chemicals business, 3M has overperformed at ozone depletion and greenhouse forcing. I can give them a pass on that particular one, since society as a whole didn't care much about that stuff until recently. I can't, however, give them a pass for how nasty Scotchgard was/is and how much of it was sprayed on/near me as a child. If you remember Scotchgard, don't look up what it really was or you might regret your parents' life choices.
- hinkley 4y ago
  I recall once researching superfund distribution on some sort of thesis that the West Coast is Better, only to discover that Washington State is top ten for a superfund sites, and in large part because of all of the nasty ways we’ve come up with to preserve lumber over the years. Well, shit. It’s no PFOAs but it’s a class of chemicals specifically selected for preventing decay so it’s up there. We really should know better by now.
  - b112 4y ago
    People get mad at concrete re:co2, but compare its lifespan to wood, without preservatives. How many houses, without preservatives in the wood, would rot and be rebuilt, compared to 100% concrete/rock housing? And with each rebuild, comes all the wiring, plumbing, which is rarely recycled well, and recycling isn't environmentally cost free. ICF seems a good idea to me.
    - LgWoodenBadger 4y ago
      Probably very few since interior wood is not pressure treated.
    - SECProto 4y ago
      > How many houses, without preservatives in the wood, would rot and be rebuilt, compared to 100% concrete/rock housing? This isn't a great comparison, as unreinforced concrete is not used for structures. If you're speaking about steel reinforced concrete, they usually have a lifespan in the 100 year range for something protected from the elements like structural walls (assuming the aggregate is well chosen to avoid sulphate attack). For comparison, much of the housing stock in my area is stick framed and is of a similar age - ~70 years.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      You’re not wrong, but there are also any number of rules about building code that try to prevent water infiltration, which makes the wood last many times longer. For instance, wood laid horizontally in water doesn’t wick water as far as wood standing vertically in water. If you look at deck and house designs you see a lot of horizontal pieces. Especially in new construction. That said, letting water pool at the corner of your house can eat your foundation too. Water is bad. Get rid of it.
      - b112 4y ago
        Preservatives aren't to prevent rot, but instead, to prevent insect, mould, fungus, etc from eating/rotting the wood. Moisture can come from the air, and damaged/poor air separation. Insects are, well, they're insects. And of course, there are mice, ground squirrels, and other critters which chew on wood relentlessly. If I didn't kill 100+ mice a year, and a few ground squirrels, I'd be up to my elbows in critters, not to mention, dead from the hantavirus, and my house burned down from wire damage.
- stevespang 4y ago
hinkley 4y ago
Scotchguard is the biggest black eye I know of. I don’t know what’s in it now but it used to be cancer in a can.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Old formula Scotchguard had PFOS in it from the 1950’s until sometime in the last decades. People sprayed it on their furniture, indoors. We’re worried about off gassing from pans, and here was a can of the stuff in aerosol form. Maybe ask instead of downvote?
markdown 4y ago
You (and most Americans... maybe most humans), have PFOA's (forever chemicals) in your blood that came from 3M. https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/12/PFOA_blood_test_result_Qs%26As_07_20_2016.pdf https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/... https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p...

As a huge chemical conglomerate with a long history, they've been involved in their fair share of pollution incidents and other controversies. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-3m-pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-europe/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-3m-pfas-toxic-foreve... https://www.reuters.com/business/3m-agrees-pay-98-mln-resolve-suits-over-forever-chemicals-2021-10-19/ https://www.reuters.com/business/3m-agrees-pay-98-mln-resolv...

swader999 4y ago

Management by post it notes comes to mind.

exmadscientist 4y ago

3M products are great because they always do what they say they're going to do. They usually even overperform by a large margin. They're one of my suppliers of choice for industrial applications or anything R&D where we don't quite know how good it has to be yet. 3M toxic chemical waste is also a core 3M product, and overperforms too. Some of their Superfund sites, particularly the C8/PFOA/fluorinated crud ones, are among the worst around. (I grew up on the other side of the city from their worst one! Yay!) And, like any company in the fluorinated chemicals business, 3M has overperformed at ozone depletion and greenhouse forcing. I can give them a pass on that particular one, since society as a whole didn't care much about that stuff until recently. I can't, however, give them a pass for how nasty Scotchgard was/is and how much of it was sprayed on/near me as a child. If you remember Scotchgard, don't look up what it really was or you might regret your parents' life choices.

hinkley 4y ago
I recall once researching superfund distribution on some sort of thesis that the West Coast is Better, only to discover that Washington State is top ten for a superfund sites, and in large part because of all of the nasty ways we’ve come up with to preserve lumber over the years. Well, shit. It’s no PFOAs but it’s a class of chemicals specifically selected for preventing decay so it’s up there. We really should know better by now.
- b112 4y ago
  People get mad at concrete re:co2, but compare its lifespan to wood, without preservatives. How many houses, without preservatives in the wood, would rot and be rebuilt, compared to 100% concrete/rock housing? And with each rebuild, comes all the wiring, plumbing, which is rarely recycled well, and recycling isn't environmentally cost free. ICF seems a good idea to me.
  - LgWoodenBadger 4y ago
    Probably very few since interior wood is not pressure treated.
  - SECProto 4y ago
    > How many houses, without preservatives in the wood, would rot and be rebuilt, compared to 100% concrete/rock housing? This isn't a great comparison, as unreinforced concrete is not used for structures. If you're speaking about steel reinforced concrete, they usually have a lifespan in the 100 year range for something protected from the elements like structural walls (assuming the aggregate is well chosen to avoid sulphate attack). For comparison, much of the housing stock in my area is stick framed and is of a similar age - ~70 years.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    You’re not wrong, but there are also any number of rules about building code that try to prevent water infiltration, which makes the wood last many times longer. For instance, wood laid horizontally in water doesn’t wick water as far as wood standing vertically in water. If you look at deck and house designs you see a lot of horizontal pieces. Especially in new construction. That said, letting water pool at the corner of your house can eat your foundation too. Water is bad. Get rid of it.
    - b112 4y ago
      Preservatives aren't to prevent rot, but instead, to prevent insect, mould, fungus, etc from eating/rotting the wood. Moisture can come from the air, and damaged/poor air separation. Insects are, well, they're insects. And of course, there are mice, ground squirrels, and other critters which chew on wood relentlessly. If I didn't kill 100+ mice a year, and a few ground squirrels, I'd be up to my elbows in critters, not to mention, dead from the hantavirus, and my house burned down from wire damage.
stevespang 4y ago

hinkley 4y ago

Scotchguard is the biggest black eye I know of. I don’t know what’s in it now but it used to be cancer in a can.

hinkley 4y ago
Old formula Scotchguard had PFOS in it from the 1950’s until sometime in the last decades. People sprayed it on their furniture, indoors. We’re worried about off gassing from pans, and here was a can of the stuff in aerosol form. Maybe ask instead of downvote?

markdown 4y ago

You (and most Americans... maybe most humans), have PFOA's (forever chemicals) in your blood that came from 3M. https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/12/PFOA_blood_test_result_Qs%26As_07_20_2016.pdf https://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/... https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/ https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p...