News
news The world as we know it is about to end
news Witnesses See 40 UFOs Over a Beach in the UK
news Mysterious and Chilling Photographs of Unidentified People
news Canada's Best-Documented UFO Encounter Celebrates Its 50th
news California Broadcast Interrupted With Ominous Announcement
news Mystery of sonic weapon attacks at US embassy in Cuba deepens
news Is the US Navy Trying to Catch UFOs?
news No, We Can't Control Hurricanes from Space
news This Guy Has Been Tirelessly Documenting the Ghost in His Apartment
news Earth May Be Under Surveillance by Nine Alien Civilizations
news CIA informant claimed Hitler survived WWII



Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Teflon The Killer In Your Kitchen
titanic1
Registered User
User ID: 417739
05-19-2017 09:42 PM

Posts: 9,725



Post: #1
Teflon The Killer In Your Kitchen
Advertisement




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDCaAgTIDdw





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMpVtFUtKng

DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. must tell shareholders before next week’s merger vote that they may face exposure to costly potential damages from claims that a chemical used to make Teflon caused cancer and other ailments, community activists told the companies.

While DuPont is the named target of the 3,500 lawsuits filed by people living near a Teflon plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, the company has claimed that Chemours Co., a spinoff it created last year, is required to pay any damages. Chemours indicated last week that it may fight efforts to force payment, saying it “retains legal defenses” to DuPont’s claims of indemnification.

DuPont and Dow should tell shareholders before they vote July 20 on the $59 billion merger that the combined companies could end up getting stuck with the bill, Action Fund Network and Keep Your Promises DuPont wrote. The merger partners must also share updated federal guidance on how much of the Teflon chemical people can safely be exposed to and the potential liability at 19 polluted sites, the activists wrote in a letter published in DuPont regulatory filing Friday.

The undisclosed items “are substantial, material liabilities that DuPont faces as a result of its decades-long contamination caused by PFOA, which Dow shareholders stand to inherit,” the groups said in the letter, referring to perfluorooctanoic acid.

Required Disclosures

DuPont said in the filing that it has disclosed all the information necessary under federal law. The Wilmington, Delaware-based company remains “committed to fulfilling all our legal and environmental obligations as it relates to PFOA,” spokesman Dan Turner said in an e-mail.

Potential payments related to health claims from exposure to the Teflon chemical could reach $1.9 billion, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. DuPont last week was ordered by an Ohio jury to to pay more than $5.5 million to a man who developed testicular cancer after drinking water polluted with PFOA. It was the sixth case to be resolved, with 40 more scheduled for next year.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...groups-say

PFOA was an essential ingredient in DuPont’s Teflon cookware for decades. It’s also used in hundreds of other non-stick and stain-resistant products. PFOA is now the subject of about 3,500 personal injury claims against DuPont
Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) used to create non-stick, stain-resistant, and water-repellant surfaces are toxic and highly persistent, both in your body and in the environment
The Madrid Statement, signed by more than 200 scientists from 40 countries, presents the scientific consensus on the harms of PFAS chemicals, both old and new
Whooping Cough Vaccine Not as Effective as Thought and Spreads Through Those Vaccinated
Polluters Invent New Way to Catch Fish for Dinner
By Dr. Mercola

If you’re still using non-stick cookware, you may want to seriously reconsider. Ditto for using stain- and water-repellant clothing, and opting for stain-resistant carpets and fabrics.

All of these products — and many more — contain perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8), which has been revealed to be far more dangerous than previously thought.

For 50 years, DuPont used PFOA to make Teflon. Throughout that time, the company has defended the safety of PFOA, and still resists accountability for health problems resulting from exposure to this day. However, the truth has finally come to light.

I started warning people about the potential hazards of Teflon over 15 years ago. As a result, I was legally threatened by DuPont many times.

The evidence is now crystal clear for everyone to see, just as I have warned of for the last decade and a half. The dangers have become undeniable, and DuPont’s connection to this pernicious poison is starting to receive attention in the mainstream media.

The New York Times recently published an in-depth exposé1 on the legal battle fought against DuPont for the past 15 years over PFOA contamination and its toxic effects. I highly recommend reading through it; it’s an excellent read.

Last year, The Intercept also published a three-part exposé2 titled “The Teflon Toxin: Dupont and the Chemistry of Deception,” detailing DuPont’s history of covering up the facts.

Chemical Defense Attorney Became DuPont’s Greatest Nemesis
For the past 15 years, Rob Bilott — an environmental attorney and partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister — has waged a legal battle against DuPont. He’s an unlikely nemesis for a chemical company, as the firm specializes in defending corporate clients, including chemical companies.

How he came to take on DuPont on behalf of a West Virginia farmer is detailed in the featured New York Times article. The farmer had reluctantly sold 66 acres of land to DuPont in the early 1980s, for the establishment of a company landfill.

The tract of land sold to DuPont had a creek running through it, which meandered down to the area where the farmer grazed his cows.

Not long after the sale, his cattle “began acting deranged” and developed mysterious ailments. More than 150 of his cattle had died by the time the farmer, Wilbur Tennant, contacted Bilott.

In response to Bilott’s initial suit, filed in 1999, DuPont offered to commission a study of Tennant’s property, with the help of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The study was conducted by three veterinarians selected by DuPont, and three chosen by the EPA.

As reported in the featured article:

“Their report did not find DuPont responsible for the cattle’s health problems. The culprit, instead, was poor husbandry: ‘poor nutrition, inadequate veterinary care and lack of fly control.'

In other words, the Tennants didn’t know how to raise cattle; if the cows were dying, it was their own fault.”

However, a letter sent by DuPont to the EPA mentioned a substance found at the landfill that Bilott had never heard of before, despite his chemical industry expertise. That substance was “PFOA.”

The chemistry expert retained for the case recalled reading about “PFOS” in a trade journal, used in the manufacturing of Scotchgard.

Since he couldn’t find any details about PFOA, Bilott asked DuPont to share what it knew about the substance. When the company refused, he requested a court order to force the release of the documentation, which was granted.

Internal Documents Revealed DuPont’s Guilt
By the end of 2000, he stood in receipt of more than 110,000 pages of material relating to PFOA, some of which dated back 50 years. Among the documents were private internal memos, medical reports, and confidential studies conducted by scientists at DuPont. As reported in the featured article:

"I started seeing a story' Bilott said. ‘I may have been the first one to actually go through them all.

It became apparent what was going on: They had known for a long time that this stuff was bad’ ... The story that Bilott began to see ... was astounding in its breadth, specificity and sheer brazenness.

‘I was shocked,’ he said ... Bilott could not believe the scale of incriminating material that DuPont had sent him.

The company appeared not to realize what it had handed over. ‘It was one of those things where you can’t believe you’re reading what you’re reading,’ he said. ‘’That it’s actually been put in writing ...

But the crucial discovery for the Tennant case was this: By the late 1980s ... [Dupont] decided it needed to find a landfill for the toxic sludge ... Fortunately they had recently bought 66 acres ... that would do perfectly.

By 1990, DuPont had dumped 7,100 tons of PFOA sludge into Dry Run Landfill. DuPont’s scientists understood that the landfill drained into the Tennants’ remaining property, and they tested the water in Dry Run Creek. It contained an extraordinarily high concentration of PFOA.

DuPont did not tell this to the Tennants at the time, nor did it disclose the fact in the cattle report that it commissioned for the Tennant case a decade later — the report that blamed poor husbandry for the deaths of their cows. Bilott had what he needed ...

In August 2000, Bilott called DuPont’s lawyer, Bernard Reilly, and explained that he knew what was going on. It was a brief conversation. The Tennants settled ...”

PFOA was an essential ingredient in DuPont’s Teflon cookware for decades. It’s also used in hundreds of other non-stick and stain-resistant products. PFOA is now the subject of about 3,500 personal injury claims against DuPont
Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) used to create non-stick, stain-resistant, and water-repellant surfaces are toxic and highly persistent, both in your body and in the environment
The Madrid Statement, signed by more than 200 scientists from 40 countries, presents the scientific consensus on the harms of PFAS chemicals, both old and new


If you’re still using non-stick cookware, you may want to seriously reconsider. Ditto for using stain- and water-repellant clothing, and opting for stain-resistant carpets and fabrics.

All of these products — and many more — contain perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8), which has been revealed to be far more dangerous than previously thought.

For 50 years, DuPont used PFOA to make Teflon. Throughout that time, the company has defended the safety of PFOA, and still resists accountability for health problems resulting from exposure to this day. However, the truth has finally come to light.

Continued.....
Quote this message in a reply

titanic1
Registered User
User ID: 417739
05-19-2017 09:42 PM

Posts: 9,725



Post: #2
RE: Teflon The Killer In Your Kitchen
I started warning people about the potential hazards of Teflon over 15 years ago. As a result, I was legally threatened by DuPont many times.

The evidence is now crystal clear for everyone to see, just as I have warned of for the last decade and a half. The dangers have become undeniable, and DuPont’s connection to this pernicious poison is starting to receive attention in the mainstream media.

The New York Times recently published an in-depth exposé1 on the legal battle fought against DuPont for the past 15 years over PFOA contamination and its toxic effects. I highly recommend reading through it; it’s an excellent read.

Last year, The Intercept also published a three-part exposé2 titled “The Teflon Toxin: Dupont and the Chemistry of Deception,” detailing DuPont’s history of covering up the facts.

Chemical Defense Attorney Became DuPont’s Greatest Nemesis
For the past 15 years, Rob Bilott — an environmental attorney and partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister — has waged a legal battle against DuPont. He’s an unlikely nemesis for a chemical company, as the firm specializes in defending corporate clients, including chemical companies.

How he came to take on DuPont on behalf of a West Virginia farmer is detailed in the featured New York Times article. The farmer had reluctantly sold 66 acres of land to DuPont in the early 1980s, for the establishment of a company landfill.

The tract of land sold to DuPont had a creek running through it, which meandered down to the area where the farmer grazed his cows.

Not long after the sale, his cattle “began acting deranged” and developed mysterious ailments. More than 150 of his cattle had died by the time the farmer, Wilbur Tennant, contacted Bilott.

In response to Bilott’s initial suit, filed in 1999, DuPont offered to commission a study of Tennant’s property, with the help of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The study was conducted by three veterinarians selected by DuPont, and three chosen by the EPA.

As reported in the featured article:

“Their report did not find DuPont responsible for the cattle’s health problems. The culprit, instead, was poor husbandry: ‘poor nutrition, inadequate veterinary care and lack of fly control.'

In other words, the Tennants didn’t know how to raise cattle; if the cows were dying, it was their own fault.”

However, a letter sent by DuPont to the EPA mentioned a substance found at the landfill that Bilott had never heard of before, despite his chemical industry expertise. That substance was “PFOA.”

The chemistry expert retained for the case recalled reading about “PFOS” in a trade journal, used in the manufacturing of Scotchgard.

Since he couldn’t find any details about PFOA, Bilott asked DuPont to share what it knew about the substance. When the company refused, he requested a court order to force the release of the documentation, which was granted.

Internal Documents Revealed DuPont’s Guilt
By the end of 2000, he stood in receipt of more than 110,000 pages of material relating to PFOA, some of which dated back 50 years. Among the documents were private internal memos, medical reports, and confidential studies conducted by scientists at DuPont. As reported in the featured article:

"I started seeing a story' Bilott said. ‘I may have been the first one to actually go through them all.

It became apparent what was going on: They had known for a long time that this stuff was bad’ ... The story that Bilott began to see ... was astounding in its breadth, specificity and sheer brazenness.

‘I was shocked,’ he said ... Bilott could not believe the scale of incriminating material that DuPont had sent him.

The company appeared not to realize what it had handed over. ‘It was one of those things where you can’t believe you’re reading what you’re reading,’ he said. ‘’That it’s actually been put in writing ...

But the crucial discovery for the Tennant case was this: By the late 1980s ... [Dupont] decided it needed to find a landfill for the toxic sludge ... Fortunately they had recently bought 66 acres ... that would do perfectly.

By 1990, DuPont had dumped 7,100 tons of PFOA sludge into Dry Run Landfill. DuPont’s scientists understood that the landfill drained into the Tennants’ remaining property, and they tested the water in Dry Run Creek. It contained an extraordinarily high concentration of PFOA.

DuPont did not tell this to the Tennants at the time, nor did it disclose the fact in the cattle report that it commissioned for the Tennant case a decade later — the report that blamed poor husbandry for the deaths of their cows. Bilott had what he needed ...

In August 2000, Bilott called DuPont’s lawyer, Bernard Reilly, and explained that he knew what was going on. It was a brief conversation. The Tennants settled ...”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...ngers.aspx
Quote this message in a reply








Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication