3 ms·

3M knowingly poisoned every single person in the world for decades. Let them burn, and salt the earth where they fall. These fuckers don’t deserve a second cha

3M knowingly poisoned every single person in the world for decades. Let them burn, and salt the earth where they fall. These fuckers don’t deserve a second chance. How could they have done it better? Acknowledge the science when the problem was discovered in the 70s, publish the findings, let the scientific community study the problem and let people make informed decisions about the dangers. Had they done that PFAs might still be in use in very controlled circumstances. They certainly wouldn’t be used as waterproofing on our paper plates.

coryrc 1y ago
> Let them burn Who is "them"? The scientists at the time? The managers at the time? The managers now? The stockholders who have already sold and made their profits?
- hobs 1y ago
  If we can have a murder investigation and assign partial blame for people that are just there while the crime is being committed, why cant we do it for something that harms the entire human race? Just because we don't have a great framework for something today doesn't mean we should not have it, just that incentives have been against it up to this point.
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    >If we can have a murder investigation and assign partial blame for people that are just there while the crime is being committed, why cant we do it for something that harms the entire human race? Check the bank balance of the people being convicted for being present when a crime is committed. Compare it to the bank balance of the people who harm the entire human race.
    - hobs 1y ago
      Yeah, see my second sentence - throwing up your hands and claiming inaction isn't the way to solve anything. Saying "but the billionaires don't want it!!" sure, let me pre-give up so its super easy for them to keep winning.
    - titzer 1y ago
      > Compare it to the bank balance of the people who harm the entire human race. Yet another reason why we don't need billionaires. No one should have enough money that they can just pay their way through crime after crime.
  - coryrc 1y ago
    We won't get there by just saying "they" should be punished; most people can agree on that. Be specific on who and how.
- Zigurd 1y ago
  Isn't one of the answers found in the dubious concept of corporate personhood?
- lm28469 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - naldb 1y ago
    [flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  A recent article in The Atlantic said that one scientist would know it's harmful to humans and another would know it's in all human blood and 3M made sure they'd never meet. So the scientist who knew it was harmful didn't know it was everywhere and the scientist who knew it was everywhere didn't know it was harmful. Point is that it's possible to silo scientists in this way so they can't see the big picture.
doug_durham 1y ago
[flagged]
- SirMaster 1y ago
  So when the chemicals get into our biological bodies, they hurt us mechanically, not chemically?
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    Yes. They repel water, fats and oils. Having waterproof kidneys or a fatproof liver isn’t great for normal functioning of said organs.
- filoeleven 1y ago
  They are endocrine disruptors. The levels are not subclinical. > Hormones work at very small doses (part per billion ranges). Endocrine disruption can thereby also occur from low-dose exposure to exogenous hormones or hormonally active chemicals such as bisphenol A. [...] Furthermore, since endogenous hormones are already present in the body in biologically active concentrations, additional exposure to relatively small amounts of exogenous hormonally active substances can disrupt the proper functioning of the body's endocrine system. Thus, an endocrine disruptor can elicit adverse effects at much lower doses than a toxicity, acting through a different mechanism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor > Between 2016 and 2022, the agency worked off an advisory health limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOS and PFOA, two compounds commonly produced and used for decades. Last year, after science showed virtually no level of exposure to drinking water is safe, the EPA set non-enforceable “advisory health limits” of 0.02 ppt and 0.004 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, respectively. > The new legal limits for PFOS and PFOA is 4 ppt each, levels that science shows are still dangerous to drink. Public health advocates say the discrepancy is likely the result of industry pressure on the EPA and an inability of PFAS tests that regulators use to check water for the chemicals at levels as low as 0.02 ppt. https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/epa-sets-limits-on-6-toxic-pfas-or-forever-chemicals-in-drinking-water https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TheRealNGenius 1y ago
[dead]

coryrc 1y ago

> Let them burn Who is "them"? The scientists at the time? The managers at the time? The managers now? The stockholders who have already sold and made their profits?

hobs 1y ago
If we can have a murder investigation and assign partial blame for people that are just there while the crime is being committed, why cant we do it for something that harms the entire human race? Just because we don't have a great framework for something today doesn't mean we should not have it, just that incentives have been against it up to this point.
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  >If we can have a murder investigation and assign partial blame for people that are just there while the crime is being committed, why cant we do it for something that harms the entire human race? Check the bank balance of the people being convicted for being present when a crime is committed. Compare it to the bank balance of the people who harm the entire human race.
  - hobs 1y ago
    Yeah, see my second sentence - throwing up your hands and claiming inaction isn't the way to solve anything. Saying "but the billionaires don't want it!!" sure, let me pre-give up so its super easy for them to keep winning.
  - titzer 1y ago
    > Compare it to the bank balance of the people who harm the entire human race. Yet another reason why we don't need billionaires. No one should have enough money that they can just pay their way through crime after crime.
- coryrc 1y ago
  We won't get there by just saying "they" should be punished; most people can agree on that. Be specific on who and how.
Zigurd 1y ago
Isn't one of the answers found in the dubious concept of corporate personhood?
lm28469 1y ago
[flagged]
- naldb 1y ago
  [flagged]
2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
A recent article in The Atlantic said that one scientist would know it's harmful to humans and another would know it's in all human blood and 3M made sure they'd never meet. So the scientist who knew it was harmful didn't know it was everywhere and the scientist who knew it was everywhere didn't know it was harmful. Point is that it's possible to silo scientists in this way so they can't see the big picture.

doug_durham 1y ago

[flagged]

SirMaster 1y ago
So when the chemicals get into our biological bodies, they hurt us mechanically, not chemically?
- cluckindan 1y ago
  Yes. They repel water, fats and oils. Having waterproof kidneys or a fatproof liver isn’t great for normal functioning of said organs.
filoeleven 1y ago
They are endocrine disruptors. The levels are not subclinical. > Hormones work at very small doses (part per billion ranges). Endocrine disruption can thereby also occur from low-dose exposure to exogenous hormones or hormonally active chemicals such as bisphenol A. [...] Furthermore, since endogenous hormones are already present in the body in biologically active concentrations, additional exposure to relatively small amounts of exogenous hormonally active substances can disrupt the proper functioning of the body's endocrine system. Thus, an endocrine disruptor can elicit adverse effects at much lower doses than a toxicity, acting through a different mechanism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor > Between 2016 and 2022, the agency worked off an advisory health limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOS and PFOA, two compounds commonly produced and used for decades. Last year, after science showed virtually no level of exposure to drinking water is safe, the EPA set non-enforceable “advisory health limits” of 0.02 ppt and 0.004 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, respectively. > The new legal limits for PFOS and PFOA is 4 ppt each, levels that science shows are still dangerous to drink. Public health advocates say the discrepancy is likely the result of industry pressure on the EPA and an inability of PFAS tests that regulators use to check water for the chemicals at levels as low as 0.02 ppt. https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/epa-sets-limits-on-6-toxic-pfas-or-forever-chemicals-in-drinking-water https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

TheRealNGenius 1y ago

[dead]