I'm pretty sure the scientists who dealt with these chemicals even warned against using it, but some higher ups still let it pass
Edit: Figuratively not literally, haha!
"One Man Invented Two of the Deadliest Substances of the 20th Century" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-man-two-deadly...
It's also still used in most every prop engine that flies over my house everyday at a normal schedule, so we still haven't solved the problem of leaded gas. We never will (in my lifetime).
Only the smallest GA planes like Cessna 172s still use leaded fuel. Turbodiesel alternatives are present aftermarket but they need to be replaced every once in a while unlike the old gas engines which can be revisioned. Unlike a car engine an aircraft engine spends a lot of its life at 100% power which makes them age quicker.
Do you know why? I was under the impression that avgas (aka leaded gas for airplanes) was being forced out (albeit slowly) by EPA
Unless you want planes falling from the sky.
Maybe a little more on the table than releasing something to prod and finding a speling mistake.
And to be clear: I don't want the dozens of airplanes that fly over me daily to be running leaded gas. Politics is gunna politics I guess.
Multiple companies knew about the health dangers of certain "forever chemicals" including PFAS and intentionally did nothing because money. It's a repeat of the cigarette debacle.
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p...
It's the same with oil companies having studies on climate change privately, while discounting climate scientists publicly.
Profits over People is the way of Capitalism!
Certainly the scientists and analysts at 3M who collected and analyzed the data would have thereafter known of it's extremely harmful effects.
And I don't mean to open this up to "heh yea well they made bank!" I don't think they did relatively speaking.
My main question, is that certainly those scientists would have been advising their friends and families to stay away from X, Y, and Z products because they contain PFAS?
This is why analyzing clinical trial data is so obscenely hard. There are bad actors, there are liars, and there are scientists who are really, really hoping to achieve a breakthrough. All of them are liable to end up putting forth bad information.
Is it easy to turn a blind eye, when factory workers in your own company were dying, or is what we're describing called at best criminal, and at worst psychotic?
They were literally just dumping these chemicals down the river. They were fined a small fraction of their profits (of billions) and told pretty please to not do it again. This is obvious corruption on so many levels.