7 ms·
“ Fermilab irradiated these samples with the electron beam and shipped them back to 3M. 3M sampled both the headspace—the air at the top of the container—and t
by navi0 3y ago
“ Fermilab irradiated these samples with the electron beam and shipped them back to 3M.
3M sampled both the headspace—the air at the top of the container—and the liquid to verify that the PFAS of concern had been destroyed without releasing hazardous products to the air.”
I think this is what we call fox guarding the henhouse. 3M has EVERY incentive to declare this whiz bang treatment effective because of the legal liability and financial incentives involved.
I’d want independent test results and a full accounting of the byproducts of this treatment before putting any faith in it.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y agoYeah. "The fact that we were working with 3M, a world expert in PFAS" Lol, lmao even. Wonder how they became an expert.
- LoganDark 3y agoWorld expert in creating pollution
- thfuran 3y ago>3M has EVERY incentive to declare this whiz bang treatment effective because of the legal liability and financial incentives involved. That sounds entirely incorrect. It seems to me that they'd want to avoid a second round of public flogging and lawsuits when it's later discovered that they falsified efforts to remediate their original catastrophe.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoI'm not too sure about that. When profit is the main goal, guaranteed savings(not doing the necessary spending to actually clean up) in the short term often take priority over possible long term avoidance of fines and lawsuits. In the short term, actually cleaning up and only appearing to clean up probably give the same return in terms of PR and so on, but the former is cheaper. Not to say I condone them misleading the public, not at all.
- thfuran 3y agoI don't think they're doing any cleanup in the first place, so they can't save money by skimping.
- eru 3y ago> When profit is the main goal, guaranteed savings(not doing the necessary spending to actually clean up) in the short term often take priority over possible long term avoidance of fines and lawsuits. The interest rate is the mediator between the short term and the long term. Lower interest rates mean that the long term is comparatively more important.
- 7thaccount 3y agoWhy? As long as the fine is a fraction of the profits, it's just the cost of doing business.
- worik 3y ago> Why? As long as the fine is a fraction of the profits, it's just the cost of doing business. Yes, a problem Times are changing. It is upto us, but firms are grappling with the concept of social license Clearly in democracies care must be taken not end up in endless fights with stakeholders But even in China the authorities care about social attitudes
- thfuran 3y agoHow would they profit from falsifying lab reports on research into methods for remediation of pfas contamination?
- 7thaccount 3y agoThey say there is a solution to the problem so regulators let them pollute more and make more money. Eventually we all figure out they lied and it doesn't work or they don't use it and then they get a tiny fine. Business as usual.
- eru 3y agoHuh? You could say that about any cost at all. Yet, companies are constantly on the look out for ways of cutting costs. Use less material, use less labour, pay lower fines, find a way to optimize taxes, etc.
- andrewflnr 3y agoThe next round of flogging and lawsuits will come long after most of the people involved are gone, having already received their accolades and bonuses for "solving" the problem. Incentives for a corporation are not the same as the incentives for the people, and the corporation's decisions are made by people who follow their own incentives.
- eru 3y agoYes, but it's the job of people who have fiduciary duties to the shareholders to design the incentives in such a way that they align. That's eg why top executives get so many shares (or call options on shares).
- andrewflnr 3y agoYeah, it's their job. What's your point? Are they actually doing it? Signs point to no. But maybe the real problem is that most of today's shareholders will be gone by then, too. They benefit from juicing the stock and selling high, leaving the cost for some other sucker down the road. They have no incentive to find uncomfortable truths either. I think short-term ownership is one of the roots of a lot of today's economic ills.
- eru 3y ago> Yeah, it's their job. What's your point? Are they actually doing it? Signs point to no. The share price today already reflects the long term outlook for the stock. If you can 'juice' the stock and sell it high, that's a job well done. > I think short-term ownership is one of the roots of a lot of today's economic ills. Why? A change in ownership doesn't affect how stock are valuated. If it's eg widely know that a company is going down in five years (because eg their industry is declared illegal), the price will already drop today. It's just a standard backwards induction argument. Btw, with the stratospheric rise of passive index investing, truly long term ownership has never really been more widespread than today.
- andrewflnr 3y ago
- jeroenhd 3y ago3M has misled and twisted the truth regarding PFAS before. I trust their word as much as I trust BP's when they come up with excuses for oil spills.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoIt doesn't matter either way. There are multiple problems with PFAS - one of which is how toxic it is to the body, and how long it stays in the body. "We can destroy it with electron beams" doesn't mean shit when kids are getting a huge dose of PFAS from their happy meal french fries.
- dham 3y ago3M, an entire company built because people couldn't figure out how to cook with butter anymore.
- blibble 3y agothe F in PFAS is for fluorine if it wasn't in the liquid and wasn't in the air... where did it go?