Toxic Gaslighting: How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human

Thanks - I marked that but have not read yet. Looks very disturbing

 

Also, thanks. This is quite interesting.

The scientist conducted her analysis on liquid samples, mainly blood. Methods are being developed for determining PFAS in solid matrices.

I’m on the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) subcommittee on compostable plastics, which is working on methods for determining PFAS in plastic and paper products. One issue is distinguishing man-made organic fluorine from inorganic, naturally occurring fluorine. Many existing test methods only look at total fluorine.

Fluorine is widespread in the earth’s crust and leeches into groundwater, which is then used in paper production. So paper products can test positive for total fluorine, without necessarily having PFAS in them.

This case illustrates an issue that shows up frequently with man-made products. Materials are developed that have desirable properties. Fluorinated organic compounds are some of these, as well as other things like PCBs and pesticides. Overtime, two negative things can occur. Sometimes the desirable property becomes undesirable, such as long-lasting plastics never breaking down in the environment. The material can also exhibit undesirable side effects, such as the health effects of PFAS.

The challenge is understanding the negative effects as early as possible when developing something for positive effects. The challenge also is to recognize the negative effects when found and walk away from the profits that could otherwise be earned from the products’ desirable properties.

 

Corporate America striving to produce substances which are beneficial to mankind is laudable. Amazing results have been achieved. Having said that, I don’t have much faith in corporate America turning away from huge profits. I hope my skepticism is unfounded.

 

I think if the negative effects are discovered at the same time as the positive characteristics are being developed, the company is probably more likely to pass on production.

The problem is when the material is in production and the benefits are being enjoyed by consumers and the company is making large profits, and then the negative effect is discovered. At that point, the company has to take the step to walk away from the moneymaker, which in human nature is much harder to do.

I think there’s also the reality that once a company admits a successful product has negative effects, the lawsuits start happening. I think the defensiveness against that causes a lot of the foot dragging. This is not to say that lawsuits are never warranted.

 

Ha. I think you underestimate the lengths corporations will go to protect their self interest, especially for a cash cow product or something existential to its existence.

“Cigarettes are good for you”. “Climate change is a hoax”. Hell, Exxon has admitted they lied and yet certain folks are still pushing their lie!

When you look at some of the darker histories of oil companies or the diamond trade, even straight up murder is not off the menu. Governments have been toppled to get those drilling rights. It all depends on the human decision makers of course (not all individuals have the same ethics), but people with ethics are easily replaced. Unless the laws/regs are in place you can expect the worst.

 

If you watch the movie Dark Waters on Netflix, it's about a lawsuit against DuPont on this same issue. It actually mentions 3M in it.

 

The May 27 issue of the New Yorker has a similar story on Hansen and 3M and PFAS and “forever chemicals”. Just finished. They also mentioned Dark Waters as a parallel case.

 

Here is some great news on these forever chemicals that are nearly impossible to breakdown. I have to admit, the video I saw about these chemicals made me uncomfortable for a long while. Now... I feel much better after reading this short article. Help is on the way.

Scientists discover microbes that eat 'forever chemicals'