Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some perspective on pollution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    DuPont loses first trial over toxic Teflon-making chemical

    NEW YORK/COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct 7 (Reuters) - A cancer patient prevailed in her lawsuit against DuPont on Wednesday, when a jury awarded her $1.6 million and found the company liable for leaking a toxic chemical used to make Teflon into the drinking water near one of its plants.
    Following a three-week trial, jurors in Columbus, Ohio, deliberated for a few hours before finding for plaintiff Carla Marie Bartlett. Hers was the first trial out of about 3,500 plaintiffs who said they contracted one of six diseases linked to perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C-8.
    Jurors declined to award punitive damages, finding DuPont had not acted maliciously. While DuPont is the named defendant, a recent spin-off of its performance chemicals segment, Chemours Co, will cover DuPont's liability.
    While the outcome of this trial is not binding on the other cases, it is seen as an early test of potential liability for a leak that allegedly lasted decades. A second trial is slated to begin later this year.
    The lawsuits center on DuPont's Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, where the company used C-8 as a processing aid to make products including Teflon nonstick cookware. Plaintiffs said DuPont started using C-8 at the plant in the 1950s and continued even after learning it was potentially toxic and had been found in nearby drinking water.
    In 2001, residents brought a class action against DuPont over C-8 exposure. DuPont settled in 2004 and agreed to convene a scientific panel to determine whether any diseases were linked to C-8 exposure.
    The panel concluded there was a probable link between C-8 and six diseases, including kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis and thyroid disease. Class members with one of those diseases then individually sued the company.
    Bartlett's lawsuit said she developed kidney cancer from C-8. DuPont said it believed her cancer may have been caused by other factors.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reu...-chemical.html

    Remember kids, Corporations are there for your benefit...


    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • #17
      Oh, but ...

      ... I NEED my teflon coated frying pans to prevent my foods from sticking, especially now that they say frying in butter is bad for me, and will reduce my life expectancy. Problem solved - instead, I'll buy cheap teflon coated pans made by low-cost labour in non-regulated Asia. What's more my retirement savings will be managed in funds that invest heavily in the companies that produce those frying pans, for an awesome return for my investment - healthy financial returns, long life and retirement, win-win for me!

      Waddya mean I'm losing MY job?




      Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
      NEW YORK/COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct 7 (Reuters) - A cancer patient prevailed in her lawsuit against DuPont on Wednesday, when a jury awarded her $1.6 million and found the company liable for leaking a toxic chemical used to make Teflon into the drinking water near one of its plants.
      Following a three-week trial, jurors in Columbus, Ohio, deliberated for a few hours before finding for plaintiff Carla Marie Bartlett. Hers was the first trial out of about 3,500 plaintiffs who said they contracted one of six diseases linked to perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C-8.
      Jurors declined to award punitive damages, finding DuPont had not acted maliciously. While DuPont is the named defendant, a recent spin-off of its performance chemicals segment, Chemours Co, will cover DuPont's liability.
      While the outcome of this trial is not binding on the other cases, it is seen as an early test of potential liability for a leak that allegedly lasted decades. A second trial is slated to begin later this year.
      The lawsuits center on DuPont's Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, where the company used C-8 as a processing aid to make products including Teflon nonstick cookware. Plaintiffs said DuPont started using C-8 at the plant in the 1950s and continued even after learning it was potentially toxic and had been found in nearby drinking water.
      In 2001, residents brought a class action against DuPont over C-8 exposure. DuPont settled in 2004 and agreed to convene a scientific panel to determine whether any diseases were linked to C-8 exposure.
      The panel concluded there was a probable link between C-8 and six diseases, including kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis and thyroid disease. Class members with one of those diseases then individually sued the company.
      Bartlett's lawsuit said she developed kidney cancer from C-8. DuPont said it believed her cancer may have been caused by other factors.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reu...-chemical.html

      Remember kids, Corporations are there for your benefit...


      "I am Groot"
      - Groot

      Comment


      • #18
        https://www.lodgemfg.com/

        Cast iron skillets, Accept no substitutes, made in America.
        Credo quia absurdum.


        Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • #19
          The sentiment is there, ...

          Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
          https://www.lodgemfg.com/

          Cast iron skillets, Accept no substitutes, made in America.
          ... very admirable, but did you know that Lodge's top of the line, non-stick enameled cast iron "go-to cookware", actually comes from China??

          https://www.lodgemfg.com/prodcat/enameled-cast-iron.asp

          "Our enameled cast iron is made to our strict specifications by our partner foundry in China."

          That's not unusual, sadly "made in America" often doesn't mean what it use to.
          Last edited by Marmat; 08 Oct 15, 11:51.
          "I am Groot"
          - Groot

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            I'd put that differently. The non-Left and particularly the Right have fought stricter pollution regulations rather vigorously. The problem is that the Left / Environmental movement uses an emotional appeal and various logical fallacies that sound good to push more regulation.
            Yeah, like trying to control the weather.
            “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
            --Salmon P. Chase

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Savez View Post
              Yeah, like trying to control the weather.
              Only on a planetary scale. They haven't made too much of daily or local weather...

              I guess if you're going to fail horribly at something you should go really big and spectacular at it...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                Yup, they could do a great job and cutting their problem in half it wouldn't cost them hardly anything compared to what it would cost us to reduce another part per million.

                We can't have diesels that get 50mpg in this country, but Europe can because their regs aren't as insane as ours.
                I wonder if anyone is Europe is upset that the Obama Gang-Green crew is about to destroy VW over this petty BS?
                I doubt Obama would recognize a VW if it ran over him, but since they are deceitful polluters, he'll go after them with huge fines because he needs the money.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #23
                  As Doc pointed out the question is how much pollution is acceptable. It's not really a question science can answer but is inherently an emotional issue. Cost benefits don't really persuade anyone but they should and we have not addressed how to make them emotionally appealing.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    As Doc pointed out the question is how much pollution is acceptable. It's not really a question science can answer but is inherently an emotional issue. Cost benefits don't really persuade anyone but they should and we have not addressed how to make them emotionally appealing.
                    The problem is threefold...
                    1. Emotional aversion to the word "pollution."
                    2. Scientific illiteracy.
                    3. Economic illiteracy.


                    The EPA and most government entities are overflowing with people who were educated (indoctrinated) to be scientific & economic illiterates with strong emotional aversions to the word "pollution."

                    The EPA doesn't even try to perform genuine cost-benefit analyses. The cost estimates are laughably off to the low side and 99% of the benefits range from totally unverifiable to totally fictitious.

                    The "Social Cost of Carbon" is the culmination of the Federal Government's scientific & economic illiteracy and aversion to the *word* pollution... Apart from carbon monoxide and carbon dust.... Carbon is not even a real pollutant.
                    Last edited by The Doctor; 09 Oct 15, 04:46.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      Dust from deserts is just as dangerous to human lungs as any other particulate matter... Which means that most sources of anthropogenic PM are insignificant compared to natural sources.

                      Just like CO2...
                      My reference referred to man made pollution as your chart showed all sources of particulate pollution.

                      Some very severe cases of natural CO2 and methane pollution have occurred where volcanic lakes have popped like a shaken soda can. The resulting cloud of CO2 laden air killed thousands in the valley below.

                      Of course, nothing compares to the London fog of the 1800s or the current brown smog poisoning thousands in major industrial cities in China.
                      “Breaking News,”

                      “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        EXCERPT:
                        Ozone /ˈoʊzoʊn/ (systematically named 1λ1,3λ1-trioxidane and catena-trioxygen), or trioxygen, is an inorganic molecule with the chemical formula O

                        3
                        . It is a pale blue gas with a distinctively pungent smell. It is an allotrope of oxygen that is much less stable than the diatomic allotrope O

                        2
                        , breaking down in the lower atmosphere to normal dioxygen. Ozone is formed from dioxygen by the action of ultraviolet light and also atmospheric electrical discharges, and is present in low concentrations throughout the Earth's atmosphere(stratosphere). In total, ozone makes up only 0.6 ppm of the atmosphere.
                        Ozone's odour is sharp, reminiscent of chlorine, and detectable by many people at concentrations of as little as 10 ppb in air. Ozone's O3 formula was determined in 1865. The molecule was later proven to have a bent structure and to be diamagnetic. In standard conditions, ozone is a pale blue gas that condenses at progressively cryogenic temperatures to a dark blue liquid and finally a violet-black solid. Ozone's instability with regard to more common dioxygen is such that both concentrated gas and liquid ozone may decompose explosively.[3] It is therefore used commercially only in low concentrations.
                        Ozone is a powerful oxidant (far more so than dioxygen) and has many industrial and consumer applications related to oxidation. This same high oxidising potential, however, causes ozone to damage mucous and respiratory tissues in animals, and also tissues in plants, above concentrations of about 100 ppb. This makes ozone a potent respiratory hazard and pollutant near ground level. However, the ozone layer (a portion of the stratosphere with a higher concentration of ozone, from two to eight ppm) is beneficial, preventing damaging ultraviolet light from reaching the Earth's surface, to the benefit of both plants and animals.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone


                        So if ozone is 0.6 ppm of the air, that equals 600ppb. Talking a target range of 70-75ppb is already below natural levels by several factors and would seem to be reducing something of benefit at the higher altitude.


                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X