Basically, teflon consists just of long chains of carbon atoms saturated with fluorine. They are extremely chemically resistant, and they appear to be biologically inert. Even if you heat the teflon past its decomposition temperature, you simply get pieces of the hydrocarbon chain as a result. They are nasty, but they are not persistent pollutants.

PFAS are different. They also consist of a chain of carbons with fluorine atoms attached to them. But they also have a hydrophilic "head" attached to them at the beginning of the chain. This hydrophilic head allows PFAS to function as surfactants, and it also makes them biologically active. The body can't do anything with the hydrocarbons saturated with fluorine, but the head provides a "handle" that can be used to absorb the PFAS into cell membranes where it can stay and cause all kinds of issues.

In the J&J case, the subsidiary had the right to draw at least ~$60B in order to pay off future lawsuits if the initial subsidiary's assets ran out, so there was never any real risk that it would leave suitholders unpaid. The switch into bankruptcy court is a way to arbitrate and organize the lawsuits, which was overturned because given the right to draw money from the J&J parent co the subsidiary wasn't actually at risk of bankruptcy.

Either way it's a transfer of wealth from the current business owners (stockholders) to claimants, just a matter of how that transfer happens.

- it removes only a fraction of it from your body, so it gives only a fraction of it to the recipient.

- if you need a donation, this dose compared to what you get in exchange is usually a very good deal

- some blood don't actually go to people, but is used for manufacturing drugs, science tests or expires

- hopefully people don't get blood transfusions very often and have a blood level of PFAS close to the average and the given blood. Hopefully.

They literally could not cover the interest charges on a $143B judgment, let alone pay it off in 3 years.

It is strange that intersection of 'I'm angry at stuff and want to make people pay', and 'I own guns and I'm going to use them' seems to consistently result in rage and violence against society at large, rather than bad actors in particular.

It's almost as if there's a kind of slant to the propaganda that pushes people into those buckets. Not a lot of unhinged, violent anti-3M/Purdue/Kaiser/DuPont rhetoric on the *chans and in the Q-sphere...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Certainly. Clearly so.

As to my point, how do we change things? How do we put that into place?

> The blame game gives the politicians and bureaucrats a nice excuse for inaction, and not much else.

I didn't make my point clear enough.

The blame game results in "much else" - corporate profit. Enough profit they can fund efforts to tilt the system in their favor.

It's not just inaction. The Supreme Court is actively weakening, for example, EPA power to enforce Clean Water Act. Even something like Ryan Zinke's order to lift the ban on lead bullets in national wildlife refuges was an active action which increased lead pollution in the environment, to favor of cheaper bullets.

I'm not sure what the solution is to these problems (or this particular problem) but "nationalizing" producers certainly isn't one of them. Destroying 3M isn't one either.

I don't understand the approach to difficult problems that starts with thinking "the government" is effectively a magic wand.

Consider J&J's (failed) attempt to spin out a new company to hold their liability over the talcum powder case. It was attacked and shot down because it was so clearly a post-hoc maneuver. If they had merely spun out that child company earlier, would it have been ok?

What if the new playbook is:

- spin out a new company for every potentially risky product line. A parent company may hold a large stake, but other investors can hold shares too.

- sell, grow revenue, but keep few assets in the company; pay out dividends aggressively

- drag out or quash or deny any research or evidence suggesting your product is dangerous, or being sold in an irresponsible way

- when you're finally sued and lose, the company has very little money left in it; plaintiffs get relatively little compensation for their harm, but you don't care because you're busy growing your next dangerous company

If that works, it sounds like a broken system. If you're doing something you should expect will cause large liabilities to crop up later, it seems abusive to pay out dividends to shareholders today and become insolvent tomorrow.

If you paid $100 for a share after the damage was done, who should pay? You, or the shareholder who sold to you?

If you're just talking about dissolving a company and selling off the tangible assets, not selling off functional business units then I agree, liability doesn't follow material Goods. This generally isn't considered breaking up a company.

Breaking up a large company into smaller ones during bankruptcy does not by default absolve the smaller companies of liability. Courts can add bankruptcy settlement terms that absolve a company of liability moving forward, but these can be applied to the company at all as a whole or the smaller businesses if it is broken up.

The nature of the liability depends on what is being sold off and the terms of the bankruptcy settlement

Companies don't need to prove the safety of things like this.

Look at bpa free. Most people don't even know that bpa free plastic tends to be just as bad, or potentially worse than bpa. The press doesn't give a shit I guess. Society went through its giant bpa panic and now it's tired of dealing with this so let's just ignore it and move onto the next thing. Ignorance is bliss.

I doubt very much that they're the only ones able to manufacture this stuff

Looking at it, I think thats pretty good and hope the possibility for future lawsuits means they continue to pay, but knowing that case is an unusual outlier and that none of the other people involved like the CEO or other executives have had any consequences makes it feel a little underwhelming.

I'm glad government is going after bad companies more and I hope they continue, but it does seem like our legal system is just not equipped to correctly hold people responsible in these cases.

Its been seen across the centuries and countries alike. Colonialism, MegaCorps, Hague Invasion Act and countless examples that prove that morals matter very less in the long run.

There can and will be others. Esp. if there is a legal precedent.

You're just throwing around the word "nationalize" because it feels empowering and edgy, not because it solves any problems.

>Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt.

It's not good politics, unfortunately. The political actors that have the will to do such a thing would get trounced by the next "pro business" candidate, and a lot of Americans would back such a candidate no matter how obvious the problem is. Job losses (albeit temporarily) as well as the temporary supply shock if 3M is the sole producer of any chemical or material that is of strategic importance. Voters who aren't the smartest lot would eat that sort of candidate up, and that candidate would also be backed heavily by other corporate wrong-doers who might also be in the crosshairs down the road. It's a tough situation.

The issue then becomes - if they don't have enough money to pay the fine, who is on the hook for the remaining damages? Think about it - if the company's market cap, assets, C-Suite/board combined net worths, etc.. is worth $N, and the total fine is $X (and N is less than X), who picks up the remainder of the cost to fully help those affected by the toxic chemicals? It's a tough question.

On a personal level, I fully agree with you - burn the company down and punish their board and C-Suite. Those who play by the rules get to participate in the free market, and those who don't need to suffer (and have their golden parachutes shot down). Skirting the rules is hubris at the end of the day, and hubris is not good.

>I don't understand. You think the taxpayer cannot be on the hook, yet you also think we are obligated to bail out the business by nationalizing it? What do you think nationalizing a business entails? It would literally place the taxpayer on the hook for that business. Nationalizing it would not imply any guarantee the business remains profitable, and future losses would be owned by the public.

Fair point. This is where things become difficult - because as I said above, who ultimately bears the responsibility if the company cannot afford to pay the full cost of damages? My solution would essentially be placing the company into a trust owned by the government - and the trust would be responsible for conducting a sale of the company's assets in a timely fashion.

The problem is that the taxpayer eventually foots the bill in one way or another. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

>I do agree that execs should be punished more severely though. We are absolutely on the same page there. And I don't care if the current execs are not the original execs responsible. As far as I can tell, they've allowed the problem to continue if not get worse.

Fine them all. Old and new.

But it's hard to see how the particular people who brought this case to bear would be motivated by the small slice of the increase in federal funding that would redound to them. And it's not consistent with most of the government's behavior -- it doesn't spend as many resources extracting judgments from big corporations as would be likely if its profit motive loomed large.

https://www.scanpan.com/haptiq-8-inch-fry-pan-40141-configur...

Plastic has a bad reputation because of its longevity, but that also makes it a good material for containers. That - in turn - makes it bad for throwaway packaging of course. I might have missed something, that's why I ask.

My dad has made pancakes for my entire life without ever using, or owning, a non-stick pan.

I had a few “ceramic” pans but inevitably they become scratched (and useless) after a year or two in everyday use

You oil it (with any cooking oil) and then wipe it all off. It needs to look and feel like it hasn't been oiled. Any visible oil or stickiness will burn to black shit that isn't seasoning. There is still oil there. The invisible, microscopic residue is what you want. When you heat it (in the oven around 180C) it will generate a faint smell around the cooker, not fill your home with burning oil smoke. Do the whole thing 3-5 times.

But for a skillet this is just a kick start. It is neither necessary nor sufficient. The real seasoning comes from use and is way better than anything you can do by explicit seasoning. Use it frequently. Fry in it. FREQUENTLY. And when you do use use oil, ffs. While it's newish, clean it promptly, dry it thoroughly and give it a thin wipe of oil before you put it away to prevent rust and help it season.

(If you're the sort that thinks never letting a single fat molecule enter your digestive system is a virtue, don't buy cast iron. It won't work for you. It'll rust and stick. Use teflon. It's the only thing you'll ever be able make a "fried" egg on. It might give you cancer but at least you won't accidentally ingest some butter. Also, if you cook once every 6 months, don't use cast iron. It needs use. Weekly at least, if not daily.)

One of our four cast skillets spent last night in the sink, full of water (see my other comment). We treat them how we please, scrubbing and washing them with detergent if needed, leaving them dirty if we want. They cook wonderfully, don't stick and will probably survive the death of the sun.

I bought a couple carbon steel pans I had to season myself and they're a constant nightmare.

You may want to try again with a different brand.

I have maybe 60-70 or so glass food containers that get very regular use from being used for leftovers, to being put in the deep freezer for 6mo and then warmed up.

We handle at least half a dozen of these a day on average from filling/cleaning/removing portions and putting back into the fridge.

I've broken dozens of the plastic lids for them. I can't remember a single case (although I'm sure it's happened) of breaking a glass container in the past decade. They have survived more than a few rather large drops. These are the Pyrex brand glassware with the new glass that is more drop but less heat shock resistant.

Luckily Snapware also sells lids, since the glass containers far outlast the plastic lids and we end up replacing 3-4 of those a year as wear items. That doesn't bother me much since very little food gets in contact with them.

I expect my Snapware/Pyrex food storage sets to largely outlast my lifetime, but without lids to match once they stop manufacturing them.

The plastic lids always break way more quickly than the glass containers IME. Can't remember the last time I broke a glass one, actually. Plus, they actually stay in good condition. An abused plastic container will cloud, warp, gouge, and release god knows what into your food the whole time.

- Humans who discovered the toxicity lie, bribe, bully, and cheat to stop anyone else from finding out. The solution is delayed by decades and deaths go through the roof.

There's no reason for there to be years between discovery and action. It doesn't matter how quickly the discovery ripples through lay society. Once it's known that something is harming and/or killing people, it should be stopped.

In my opinion is is a problem not of science and engineering, but of human greed.

We do not need these products, we want them. As a species we did fine without them but suddenly in the last 100 years we need the so desperately?

Adding, no one can give me a response, just downvotes. Why is the aversion to speaking about greed so strong here on hacker news?

Source: Been cooking exclusively on carbon steel, cast iron and stainless for years.

Edit: In fact we had scrambled eggs as part of dinner this evening (with rice, chilli crisp, garlic mushrooms and bak choi) and the pan is currently in the sink full of water, where it will remain until tomorrow morning because it's Friday night, dammit, and it will be fine.