6 ms·

I live in a scandinavian country and PFOS was first found in extremely alarming amounts at various locations where cows have been raised, to such an extent that

I live in a scandinavian country and PFOS was first found in extremely alarming amounts at various locations where cows have been raised, to such an extent that the local population is effectively poisoned and need life long screening if they have eaten any of the meat. This has started year long tests and PFAS (+pfos, pfoa) has sadly been found in large amounts in most sectors. Even in just the tap water. The latest finding - today actually - is in organic eggs because of fish bonemeal in their diets, but this is just because these items were tested, apparently it's everywhere. Rain samples collected recently showed amounts exceeding the EU safe thresholds. Point is, it's really, really bad and who knows what effects it will have. Counter point is that we've been swimming in a sea of inorganic chemicals for a long time and have just begun to test for them lately. Effects on fertility, cancer, alzheimers, and the ecosystem in general is the joker.

arcticbull 4y ago
I for one look forward to the check from DuPont that will surely cover all this.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  They’ll do what J&J pioneered and spin off a subsidiary that owns only the liabilities. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are-using-a-quiet-tactic-to-block-lawsuits-bankruptcy https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are... > Here's how the maneuver worked. First, last October, J&J spun off a subsidiary in Texas called LTL. > Then, using a wrinkle in Texas state law, J&J was able to transfer all of the potential liability linked to the tsunami of baby powder asbestos claims into the shell of the new company, while keeping valuable assets separate. > LTL then quickly filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina. That move immediately halted the baby powder cases, which could remain on hold for months or years.
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    You'd hope a judge would go "nice try" and apply the intent of law to them anyway.
    - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
      It's a loophole in the law, it seems. I mean if law was simple and I was in charge, I'd just be like "yeah this was done by J&J at the time, nice try" and sue them anyway. But apparently it's not that easy.
  - ebiester 4y ago
    Isn't that the purpose of Chemours?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Eventually, perhaps. Right now it's got assets and revenue.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  It is absolutely disgusting that DuPont knew that these chemicals are harmful and accumulative in the body. The spin they put on this is that "it is possible for these chemicals to be used safely", but the parameters for safe use are not realistic in the real world. The fine print on your frying pan or waterproofing contains legal get outs that are unrealistic. Nevermind the fact most paper straws, fast food wrappers (McDonalds) and others are lined with these chemicals. They knew. They knew they don't break down, bio-accumulate and cause health issues, but still tell the world they can be safely used. Jail them all.
  - flavius29663 4y ago
    > Nevermind the fact most paper straws, fast food wrappers (McDonalds) and others are lined with these chemicals. I knew something was off about those paper straws...but they put PFAS in them?? It's like we're saying: copper is too damaging when mined, let's replace our water pipes with lead.
    - sirsinsalot 4y ago
      The insides are PFAS lined so the straw doesn't go soggy and become unusable. Plastic doesn't seem so bad now eh?
    - gruez 4y ago
      >but they put PFAS in them Not sure about paper straws specifically, it's put in paper based fast food containers as a waterproofing/greaseproofing agent.
      - sirsinsalot 4y ago
        This was done when public perception turned against polystyrene containers. Then McDonalds and many others, via packaging companies, greenwashed to paper looking containers lined with PFAS type materials. The paper degrades and leaves the sealant in the environment. Sickening really, given they know this happens. But if you can't see it happen, hey, better than polystyrene because it is easier to get away with. At least my burger box seems greener.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  You mean the company that caused the deaths of 4000 people in Bhopal in night and didn’t have a single consequence?
  - matthewmacleod 4y ago
    While Bhopal was a terrible tragedy and absolutely criminal, it was Union Carbide who were responsible and not DuPont.
    - ramraj07 4y ago
      Point still stands, and importantly, Dow and DuPont merged in 2015.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  Mine comes next month - about $4,000 out of the class action - because through the 70s-90s, Wolverine dumped contaminated leather scraps and chemical drums in a swamp uphill of the well I've been drinking from for more than a decade. Now every well in town has 50-200 mg/L of PFAs. It's only $4,000 because the court saw clear evidence that the value of my home was damaged, but couldn't assign damages based on an increased risk of cancer; I would have had to actually get cancer to sue successfully for damages there.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I think that mcg/L, right? 200mg/L would be insane!
    - LeifCarrotson 4y ago
      You're correct, yes, micrograms or ug/L. Nanograms per milliliter. Parts per trillion. For context, the old USDA/EPA threshold for health hazards was 70 ppt, new June 2022 directives say "negative health effects may occur with concentrations of PFOA or PFOS in water that are near zero and below EPA’s ability to detect at this time." Too late to edit...
      - giantg2 4y ago
        No problem. I just couldn't help but picture in my mind someone drinking a slurry of PFAS. I was like, that can't be right lol.
- sbierwagen 4y ago
  DuPont had US$1.79 billion cash on hand as of September 2022. If ten million people have been negatively affected by PFOS (surely an undercount) then that's a fat US$179 per person. "Okay, so force them to pay a portion of future profits." Ah, the Purdue Pharma solution. But is everything else that DuPont making known to be harmless? If we discover a PFOS-2 in ten years, should they be required to keep making it in order to pay off the victims of PFOS-1? The problem with taking over a company to operate it in the national interest is that a country can be tempted to continue operating it in the national interest. In 1947, the UK nationalized all its coal mines. In 1966, a coal mining waste pile collapse and killed 116 children and 28 adults. Nobody was ever prosecuted, and no person ever went to jail. What was the government going to do, punish itself? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster
mschuster91 4y ago
> Counter point is that we've been swimming in a sea of inorganic chemicals for a long time and have just begun to test for them lately. Per/polyflouride compounds are not naturally occurring, this is all stuff that humans brought onto the planet in the last few decades - neither nature nor humans have had the time to evolve adaptations for exposure to them. We as a species are in for a real wild ride the next centuries.

arcticbull 4y ago

I for one look forward to the check from DuPont that will surely cover all this.

ceejayoz 4y ago
They’ll do what J&J pioneered and spin off a subsidiary that owns only the liabilities. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are-using-a-quiet-tactic-to-block-lawsuits-bankruptcy https://www.npr.org/2022/04/02/1082871843/rich-companies-are... > Here's how the maneuver worked. First, last October, J&J spun off a subsidiary in Texas called LTL. > Then, using a wrinkle in Texas state law, J&J was able to transfer all of the potential liability linked to the tsunami of baby powder asbestos claims into the shell of the new company, while keeping valuable assets separate. > LTL then quickly filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina. That move immediately halted the baby powder cases, which could remain on hold for months or years.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  You'd hope a judge would go "nice try" and apply the intent of law to them anyway.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    It's a loophole in the law, it seems. I mean if law was simple and I was in charge, I'd just be like "yeah this was done by J&J at the time, nice try" and sue them anyway. But apparently it's not that easy.
- ebiester 4y ago
  Isn't that the purpose of Chemours?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Eventually, perhaps. Right now it's got assets and revenue.
sirsinsalot 4y ago
It is absolutely disgusting that DuPont knew that these chemicals are harmful and accumulative in the body. The spin they put on this is that "it is possible for these chemicals to be used safely", but the parameters for safe use are not realistic in the real world. The fine print on your frying pan or waterproofing contains legal get outs that are unrealistic. Nevermind the fact most paper straws, fast food wrappers (McDonalds) and others are lined with these chemicals. They knew. They knew they don't break down, bio-accumulate and cause health issues, but still tell the world they can be safely used. Jail them all.
- flavius29663 4y ago
  > Nevermind the fact most paper straws, fast food wrappers (McDonalds) and others are lined with these chemicals. I knew something was off about those paper straws...but they put PFAS in them?? It's like we're saying: copper is too damaging when mined, let's replace our water pipes with lead.
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    The insides are PFAS lined so the straw doesn't go soggy and become unusable. Plastic doesn't seem so bad now eh?
  - gruez 4y ago
    >but they put PFAS in them Not sure about paper straws specifically, it's put in paper based fast food containers as a waterproofing/greaseproofing agent.
    - sirsinsalot 4y ago
      This was done when public perception turned against polystyrene containers. Then McDonalds and many others, via packaging companies, greenwashed to paper looking containers lined with PFAS type materials. The paper degrades and leaves the sealant in the environment. Sickening really, given they know this happens. But if you can't see it happen, hey, better than polystyrene because it is easier to get away with. At least my burger box seems greener.
ramraj07 4y ago
You mean the company that caused the deaths of 4000 people in Bhopal in night and didn’t have a single consequence?
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  While Bhopal was a terrible tragedy and absolutely criminal, it was Union Carbide who were responsible and not DuPont.
  - ramraj07 4y ago
    Point still stands, and importantly, Dow and DuPont merged in 2015.
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
Mine comes next month - about $4,000 out of the class action - because through the 70s-90s, Wolverine dumped contaminated leather scraps and chemical drums in a swamp uphill of the well I've been drinking from for more than a decade. Now every well in town has 50-200 mg/L of PFAs. It's only $4,000 because the court saw clear evidence that the value of my home was damaged, but couldn't assign damages based on an increased risk of cancer; I would have had to actually get cancer to sue successfully for damages there.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I think that mcg/L, right? 200mg/L would be insane!
  - LeifCarrotson 4y ago
    You're correct, yes, micrograms or ug/L. Nanograms per milliliter. Parts per trillion. For context, the old USDA/EPA threshold for health hazards was 70 ppt, new June 2022 directives say "negative health effects may occur with concentrations of PFOA or PFOS in water that are near zero and below EPA’s ability to detect at this time." Too late to edit...
    - giantg2 4y ago
      No problem. I just couldn't help but picture in my mind someone drinking a slurry of PFAS. I was like, that can't be right lol.
sbierwagen 4y ago
DuPont had US$1.79 billion cash on hand as of September 2022. If ten million people have been negatively affected by PFOS (surely an undercount) then that's a fat US$179 per person. "Okay, so force them to pay a portion of future profits." Ah, the Purdue Pharma solution. But is everything else that DuPont making known to be harmless? If we discover a PFOS-2 in ten years, should they be required to keep making it in order to pay off the victims of PFOS-1? The problem with taking over a company to operate it in the national interest is that a country can be tempted to continue operating it in the national interest. In 1947, the UK nationalized all its coal mines. In 1966, a coal mining waste pile collapse and killed 116 children and 28 adults. Nobody was ever prosecuted, and no person ever went to jail. What was the government going to do, punish itself? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster

mschuster91 4y ago

> Counter point is that we've been swimming in a sea of inorganic chemicals for a long time and have just begun to test for them lately. Per/polyflouride compounds are not naturally occurring, this is all stuff that humans brought onto the planet in the last few decades - neither nature nor humans have had the time to evolve adaptations for exposure to them. We as a species are in for a real wild ride the next centuries.