Talk:DuPont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

This article, in my opinion needs cleanup and is not very neutral. Samuel 15:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)



[edit] playing hardball

".. the DuPonts played hardball with publisher Prentice-Hall .. " What does "playing hardball" mean ? Is it a phrase ? Why did they have to do anything with P-H ? Was the book against the DuPonts ? Jay 08:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Playing hardball with is a colloquial figurative phrase meaning getting tough with.
H Padleckas 11:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Didn't they have also some involvement in the (re?)criminalization of marijuana in the United States? I could be mistaken... Jeff 8:80, May12 2005

The two paragraphs toward the bottom about CFCs and the Tennant family could use some rewriting. Parag, 10:30, 6 August 2005

[edit] Removed huge section

I commented out a large section towards the end for just sounding biased and not being sourced. If someone can rewrite the tone or find sources I missed it's still there for re-addition.

Thanx 68.39.174.91 06:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim that they invented CFCs is supported by thier own website [1]. The same site supports the claim that the move away from CFCs is only happening in developed countries:
"In 1991, DuPont commercialized its first family of CFC alternative refrigerants under the Suva® brand in response to the changing needs and priorities of societies around the world. These low- or nonozone-depleting products, HCFCs and HFCs, have enabled an economical, nondisruptive global transition away from CFCs -- a transition still underway in some developing economies."
Note the cute in response to the changing needs and priorities of societies around the world, kinda like, having an ozone layer is a lifestyle choice.
See also [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
See also C-8

I'm going to remove the comment tags. If there is really some doubt, spell it out and put them back on. Mwanner 01:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content of article

It concerns me that the largest single part of this article, comprising maybe half the article, is criticism of the company in question. It seems that some people have an anti-corporation axe to grind??? I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not going to edit it immediatly, but I intend to do a bit of research and balance the article a bit.

Of all the corporations in the world I feel that DuPont are far from the worst, with the reputation they have for being one of the safest companies around and for their focus on safety and the environment. Sure there are accidents, leaks and seepages but I think if you take the time to do your research you'll find that the frequency of such occurances is far below the frequency in almost any other comparable company.

[edit] NPOV in this article

I took out a paragraph describing DuPont's connections with Nazi Germany because the first sentence really betrayed the point of putting it in this article and made me doubt that its inclusion upheld NPOV...

"Charles Higham's book on the subject of DuPont connections to Nazi Germany, "Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949," is highly recommended."

Wikipedia is not a book club. Books are to be used as sources for information. At least that is my understanding. If whoever it is would like to rewrite this section, making it more relevant to a critcism of DuPont specifically (Higham's book, as far as I know, was not JUST about the subject of DuPont's connections to Nazi Germany), I would have no problem with it. Just remember not to quote from the book but rather to give a general idea of the point and then source it properly (and of course list the book itself in the sources section).

"Du Pont's anti-Semitism "matched that of Hitler" and, in 1933, the Du Ponts "began financing native fascist groups in America . . ." one of which Higham identifies as the American Liberty League: "a Nazi organization whipping up hatred of blacks and Jews," and the "love of Hitler". "Financed . . . to the tune of $500,000 the first year, the Liberty League had a lavish thirty-one-room office in New York, branches in twenty-six colleges, and fifteen subsidiary organizations nationwide that distributed fifty million copies of its Nazi pamphlets." "Between 1932 and 1939, bosses of General Motors [DuPont was a major shareholder] poured $30 million into I.G. Farben plants . . ." Further, Higham informs us that by "the mid-1930s, General Motors was committed to full-scale production of trucks, armored cars, and tanks in Nazi Germany." It is worth noting, however, that this was accomplished through its German carmaking subsidiary, Adam Opel AG which, along with most other manufacturing companies, was conscripted into building up the Wehrmacht for the Nazis."

As it stands this section clearly has a POV and also includes information about things that have no relevance to DuPont.

--IRelayer 23:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stock Ticker

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but in the category description box, there is a link to Dow's stock instead of DuPont's. I don't have the spare moment to edit it right now, but hopefully someone else can fix this.

--Dpraedan 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

DD is the correct symbol. You have to click on the link arrow at the end to get the quote-- if you click on DD, you get a blank NYSE page. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I probably should have specified, but I meant at the bottom of the page. There it has the link to DOW.
--Dpraedan 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on NPOV

This article is yet another example of the "negative" writings that dominates many Wikipedia articles. The "criticism" is longer than all other parts of the aricle when in fact, the conduct of the DuPont company, its employees, and family members epitomizes a history of integrity that is filled with earned respect. This is in FACT a company with an outstanding reputation spanning more than two hundred years. To point out a few minor and allegedly negative incidents, or portray what happened years ago in the context of today's knowledge, is nothing less than a disservice to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is ever going to have credibilty, this type of unbalanced writing has to end. - Ted Wilkes 17:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


From User talk:Mwanner:

This article is certainly not balanced as you claim it should be, not even remotely close to that. If you (or others) have serious intent to create credible articles, then do as you state and ensure "balance." It is not "contributing" by inserting only real or alleged "criticsm". There are, many, mamy, many, such crap articles at Wikipedia. You may have lived in Wilmington, but it means little and Wikipedia:No original research means "No personal opinions" as were there. Some insertion about about North carolina "leeks" is pure crap until it is placed in precise context with Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And please don't tell me what edits you will "let stand". I spelled out the reasons for my deletions fully in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy. You, or anyone else are free to add, reinsert etc. them in the same Policy manner - and when you do, you have an obligation to provide balance. This article as it stood (still) is a disgrace. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Your references are non-scientific. They are all either personal websites Wikipedia:No original research) and activist groups which don't provide scientific facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and sources must be unimpeachable -- lobby or special interest groups are not acceptable as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia policy requires: "Cite peer-reviewed scientific journals." And in Court cases, you need to provide a Court and court case number for referencing and the judgment details - Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) does not quote allegations in frivolous cases. Also, one case you refer to was thrown out of court as being without foundation but the link to the article doesn't work on the Activist Group page you linked to. As to CFC's, what is the purpose of quoting this? Did DuPont deliberately create a product to harm the environment? Did they conspire to hide facts so they could sell them? They did not - ever. DuPont was one company of many around the world who made a product that later turned out "might" be harmful to the ozone layer. So what? Scientists haven't even agreed on that, or the effects, unlike say Thalidomide, which was withdrawn from sale after it was discovered to cause severe birth defects because it inhibits angiogenesis. There are millions of products that we later learned caused harm (or might have) but an encyclopedia doesn't devote its content to these unless the company knowingly created a harmful product and hid the facts - a criminal act. DuPont is in fact one of the best corporate citizens in American history with family members and corporate personnel demonstrating a history of the highest integrity. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 12:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As well, comments taken out of context and without citing the verifiable source are not acceptable.

  • "On April 27, 1992 DuPont announced that "we will stop selling CFC's as soon as possible," but only in the "US and other developed countries."

- Ted Wilkes 12:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ted, there is currently a worldwide agreement in effect (first coming into force in 1989) known as the Montreal Protocol to phase out CFC production completely by the year 2006. 189 countries are party to the agreement, including the United States (No major country is not a signatory except for Iraq), and it is being administered by international institutions such as the World Bank. I don't think this would happen if there was any credible doubt about the harmful effects of CFCs on the ozone layer. What are your authoritative references for your statement that there is no scientific consensus about this matter (Rush Limbaugh and shills for the refrigerator industry don't count) Bwithh 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


My objection here has zero to do with the effects of CFC's on the ozone. It is why are we referring to this in DuPont? Please read what I said above. It isn't up to me to provide rebuttals to ozone claims. It is only up to whoever inserts something to meet Wikipedia policy and provide reliable sources from scientific journals and in the appropriate article. - Ted Wilkes 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the reasons for notable inclusion here are that 1) CFC impact on the ozone layer is a priority global environmental issue 2) Dupont invented CFCs 3)Dupont has been/is the world's leading producer of CFCs and will be the leading producer of the refrigerant chemicals which replace them. 4) This is a major issue for the company. Allegations that the company attempted to stall or stop anti-CFC legislation need to be referenced properly, but I don't see why this issue shouldn't be included.

Here are a couple of links which put the Dupont company's involvement in the ozone layer debate in a good light ("Dupont showed responsibility and took the lead in proving that CFCs were harmful to the ozone layer" kind of stories) : http://www.thetech.org/nmot/detail.cfm?id=116&st=awardDate&qt=2002&kiosk=Off http://www.siam.org/siamnews/mtc/0195111.htm

I suggest these positive perspectives be entered onto the page and balanced with critical perspectives with proper referencing Bwithh 15:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


For the third time: What is the point for a comment on the CFC's possible problem? They made a product that turned out to possibly have problems, one out of hundreds of thousands created by many companies over the centuries that years later revealed there were problems with. It's only material if they developed a "widget" with the intent of causing harm etc. "Allegations" by activists with a $2 website aren't "sources." Hence, if a comment is made on CFC's, it starts with the actual product, its uses and value to society then ---- x number of years later scientific research by ????-source and ????-source suggested the possibility etc. As a result, by 2005 (whenever), DuPont and other CFC producers have done ....

Again, I repeat. Scan though Wikipedia and you will find numerous negative remarks about people and companies. It is an attitude that must be stopped. Go to the John E. du Pont article and all it said of him was he shot someone and gave some convoluted mention of guilty but mentally ill. Not a word on his academia, nor his major stamp collecting, only that he shot someone. An Anonymous user read a few of these types of crap biographies and then decided Wikipedia was the place to add his own negative BS and conspiracy theory about John Seigenthaler. This DuPont company article, before I deleted it, was fifty percent or more filled with garbage negatives and innuendo and without the required sources. - The response was to then give unacceptable sources and more unsubstantiated statements detrimental to the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for activists views, hate literature, or character (personal or corporate) assassination. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. Balanced NPOV writing is essential but for an encyclopedia, CFC's are infinitesimal to a 200 year corporate history of a company that developed many, many products that bettered the lives of everyone and set an example for integrity in dealing with employees, suppliers and the community. - Ted Wilkes 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"It's only material if they developed a "widget" with the intent of causing harm"?! So the Exxon Valdez oil spill can't be mentioned in the Exxon page, the Bhopal Disaster can't be mentioned on the Dow Chemical page, the fact that Exxon is one of the few energy companies to actively fight the Kyoto Protocol can't be mentioned, Three Mile Island can't be mentioned in the Babcock and Wilcox article? I think, just maybe, your point of view is showing here.
The best way to deal with negative items is to refute or balance them. If we omit information that everyone knows about, it is clear that we have glaring gaps. If we cover information like the EPA suit against DuPont, and include responsible sources (if any) that suggest that the suit was ill-founded, we have done the company a favor. Why is suppressing this info better than explicating it? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


You still don't get it. Not only did I not say such things should not be in the article, I even wrote what to say about CFC's in the article. REPEAT - BALANCED NPOV. Exxon Valdez is not a comparison: it was the result of alcoholism by an employee who was deliberately reckless, knowing full well he should not be piloting a tanker when drunk. Nonetheless, Exxon did not tell him to do it, nor did they condone it. The accident at Bhopal was not because the company unknowingly invented a product -- with Bhopal there is absolute proof of a double set of standards by the company - one for India (and other 3rd World countries) and one for the U.S. As to the Kyoto Protocol, are you suggesting everyone should just go along and no one should suggest alternatives? Exxon NEVER opposed it, they only said there were better ways and Americans voted in a president who agreed with Exxon. All of which is irrelevant, anyway. My point is not that Wikipedia editors cover up or not mention such things, (I suggest you look at my 600+ articles and you will see I readily do bring out such things), it is that its context must be both proper, factual, balanced, and referenced in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy. AND, no article on any company, except possibly a special case like I.G. Farben, should be dominated by criticsm when a company makes a product to better society in good faith that later proves to be a problem. I could make a list a mile long. Dupont is an outstanding corporate citizen and its family members are great benefactors who have demonstrated great integrity. - Ted Wilkes 20:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


And by the way, those who inserted the crap negatives and innuendo in this article? Check out their other edits. Or, look at the anti-semitism comment above. Too bad, the Jewish Bronfman kid wanted to mingle with the movie stars and sold the family's major position it held for years in DuPont following the Conoco deal. - Ted Wilkes 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well for starters, the anon who inserted the "crap" we're talking about here [11] has no other contributions other than a graf in the IG Farben article. And while I have barely 100 articles to my credit, if you look at them you will find that none of them is written from a frothing-mouthed environmentalist pov, as you seem to assume is the case.
Your version of the EPA suit ("DuPont is an inventor of CFCs and the largest producer of ozone depleting chemicals in the world. Developed at a time when their dangers were unknown to the scientific community, the industry plans to replace CFCs with a new generation of chemicals, such as HCFCs and HFCs"[12]) seems, to me, just a bit short of the complete story.
It seems to me that you could make this problem go away a lot faster if you would write less on the Talk page and more on the article. In stead of deleting, help create a reasonably balanced account, and we'll go away. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned criticism subsection title

Ted Wilkes hello sir. Sorry to bother you, but I find this so funny.

I have been in the middle of this argument with this anon (left wing) and another user (right wing) for months. This left wing anon did the same thing you did, he deleted the criticism section and refuses to allow any criticism on the page. I brought this up to him here: Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation#anon

Can you explain why you didn't just delete the entire criticism section, why leave the header but delete several paragraphs. Why not just delete the criticism header too? Travb 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I removed the following because it is false:

  • "A science advisory board convened by the EPA found C-8 to be a likely human carcinogen."

The actual statement in the Washington Post was:

  • "The EPA is considering whether PFOA is a health risk to humans and should be regulated. The chemical has been linked to cancer and possible birth defects in animals, and the agency's scientific advisory board is to announce soon whether it considers it a possible or likely human carcinogen."

- Ted Wilkes 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I removed the following personal opinion:

  • "although it was of minor import to the company, given their earnings" - Ted Wilkes 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


While the "criticsm" might be warranted, the space allocated to a minor matter leaves the article unbalanced in that out of a 200 year history as one of the most important companies in world history, this criticism on a minor matter is out of proportion to the entire article. This is not encyclopedic. - Ted Wilkes 15:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So you are talking about three sentences out of several paragraphs--why not just rewrite the paragraphs? Can the the article be "unbalanced" with no criticicm section?Travb 19:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Before and after, I lost OVER 20 pounds, err...sentences with the Dupont weight loss plan!

Thank you Dupont weight loss plan!

BEFORE:

==Criticisms==

DuPont is an inventor of CFCs and the largest producer of ozone depleting chemicals in the world. DuPont sells $3 billion in CFCs worldwide. In 1987, Du Pont campaigned against effective controls on the use of CFCs. On April 27, 1992 Du Pont announced that "we will stop selling CFC's as soon as possible," but only in the "US and other developed countries." The chemical industry plans to replace CFCs with a new generation of chemicals, such as HCFCs and HFCs.

In June 1999, in West Virginia, the Tennant family sued DuPont for accidentally killing 280 Hereford cows with C-8, a proven animal carcinogen. DuPont was dumping the chemical in a landfill for nonhazardous waste. The chemical leaked into Dry Run Creek, where the cows drank it. The Tennants settled. As part of the settlement, the Tennants were forbidden to discuss the case. The local drinking water was also contaminated with the C-8. Up to 50,000 residents of the mid-Ohio Valley started a class-action lawsuit against DuPont. They claim that DuPont knew that C-8 was in the public water supply since 1984, but never informed the community. DuPont says the amount of C-8 is too low to raise health concerns, and that they met their reporting obligations.

The EPA is researching how C-8 has entered the bloodstream of much of the country’s population. Blood-bank samples from across the U.S. are being looked at. This investigation seeks to determine if DuPont violated federal law by not informing the EPA years ago.

On May 26, 2003, ammonium perfluorooctanoate or APFO (used to produce Teflon and similar products) was found in groundwater near a North Carolina DuPont plant. The chemical leaked from a cement cistern the company wasn't using.

Based on the revelations made by Smedley Butler in 1933, the DuPont corporation has also been implicated in the Business Plot, or The Plot Against FDR. This alleged failed coup attempt was said to be a conspiracy of moneyed interests intended to strip President Franklin D. Roosevelt of his political power as a reaction against the New Deal

Some conspiracy theorists surmise that cannabis sativa was made illegal because the fibres from the hemp plant, used for fabrics and ropes, were in strong competition with DuPont's nylon, a newly develloped fiber at the time. Since hemp cannot be used as a drug, but was made illegal along with cannabis sativa, it has been said that the inclusion of cannabis sativa into the same category of substances as heroin was made purposefully in order to destroy the hemp industry, therefore promoting nylon production. These allegations had no foundation in fact since the characteristics of hemp fiber and nylon are entirely dissimilar and were therefore non-competitive.

AFTER:

==Criticisms==


Thank you weight loss plan! ;-) Travb 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It didn't amount to much without citing sources. --Chroniclev 22:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent point, who is responsible for citing sources?Travb 19:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] How the criticisms that were deleted got onto this page

Here is the source of the criticism section which was deleted. This criticism section was created by an anon...Travb 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1987 Associated Press report on Senatorial pressure on Dupont CFC issue

This article excerpt is from a commercial news database. I fully recognize the copyright of Associated Press and Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC , and will gladly take down this article if so requested by either company. I am reproducing this here, believing I have reasonable fair use protection - I am reproducing it here as historical evidence in a public discussion of public issues.

I will try to find an equivalent news article link which is actually on the internet, but am pasting this here for now to support the CFC section of article Bwithh 23:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have now excerpted this article below . The full article, I believe, is available from a link provided by another editor in the main article (difficult for me to confirm due to firewall issues). Please see that link for the full text Bwithh 23:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Senators Ask DuPont to Stop Making Ozone-Destroying Chemicals

GUY DARST


4 March 1988

The Associated Press

English

(Copyright 1988. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

(AP) _ Three senators have asked the DuPont Co. to redeem a 13-year-old promise to stop making chemicals that destroy the ozone layer if health damage were shown, but the company said Friday it has declined.

"It is our judgment that there is no longer an credible dispute that Freons do, and will continue to, damage human health and inflict injury to the enviroment," wrote Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Dave Durenberger, R-Minn., and Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt., to DuPont's chairman on Feb. 22.

[...]

The senators asked that DuPont "commit itself to cease the production and sale of all Freons that result in ozone depletion. We hope that this commitment will be immediate and, if necessary, unilateral" and complete within a year for most of the compounds in question.

They said "DuPont has a unique and special obligation" as author of public assurances of safety of the compounds and as the developer, along with General Motors Corp., of CFCs in the first place.

In his reply, Heckert said the senators' proposal "calls for more drastic action than the scientific evidence justifies" and "would reduce U.S. CFC supplies by almost 50 percent at a time when safe alternatives in many areas do not exist." He noted that a recent study showed small declines in ultra-violet rays reaching the United States from 1974 to 1985.

"We believe DuPont clearly has assumed leadership in hastening the development of substitutes," the result of development work begun "in advance of scientific proof," Heckert said.

[edit] 1987 New York Times article on DuPont's dramatic turnaround in CFC policy

This article is from a commercial news database. I fully recognize the copyright of the New York Time Co. and Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC , and will gladly take down this article if so requested by either company. I am reproducing this here, believing I have reasonable fair use protection - I am reproducing it here as historical evidence in a public discussion of public issues.

I will try to find an equivalent news article link which is actually on the internet, but am pasting this here for now to support the CFC section of article

I will add further detail from this news report to the WP article later, to clarify/amend some points already in the text. Bwithh 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Financial Desk; 1 Behind Du Pont's Shift On Loss of Ozone Layer By WILLIAM GLABERSON

26 March 1988 The New York Times Late City Final Edition English Copyright 1988 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved. On March 4, Richard E. Heckert, chairman of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, wrote the kind of combative letter Du Pont executives have been writing for years. Answering three Senators who had sharply criticized the company, he said there was no reason for Du Pont to stop making chlorofluorocarbons, the useful compound that critics say destroys the earth's protective layer of ozone.

On March 4, Richard E. Heckert, chairman of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, wrote the kind of combative letter Du Pont executives have been writing for years. Answering three Senators who had sharply criticized the company, he said there was no reason for Du Pont to stop making chlorofluorocarbons, the useful compound that critics say destroys the earth's protective layer of ozone.

Two days ago, just 20 days after he had dismissed the concerns of the latest critics, Mr. Heckert announced a dramatic turnaround. Du Pont, he said, would get out of the chlorofluorocarbon business entirely. After years of criticizing the company for dragging its heels, many politicians and environmentalists hailed the decision. Du Pont executives promptly began to call for new worldwide controls on the substance, of which they are the world's leading producer, with about 25 percent of the market. Taking Science into Account

In interviews yesterday, Du Pont executives said the change of heart was not an outgrowth of all the years the company had battled environmentalists about the ozone layer. It was a result of pure, hard, cold science making its points in a company where, they said, science has always mattered as much as business.

Once they decided to turn the huge company around on the controversy, the executives said, the ozone issue took on a life of its own at the company's headquarters in Wilmington, Del. For 10 days this month, scientists, senior managers and communications specialists worked virtually around the clock to communicate the company's policy change clearly and quickly - to do it right, as Mr. Heckert had ordered.

The rethinking at Du Pont began on Tuesday, March 15. A panel of scientists assembled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued new findings that day on the chlorofluorocarbons, known as CFC's. The panel said that it had detected a significant reduction in the thickness of the ozone layer that might be linked to CFC's. It also said that whatever caused a previously detected hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic seemed to be thinning the layer in other parts of the atmosphere. Abrupt Change in Course

Within hours of the panel's news conference in Washington, the huge company began to change course.

For years, Du Pont had said that it was as concerned about the ozone layer as anyone, but that it did not see any proven connection between CFC's and the thinning of the ozone layer. In the 1970's, the company took out full-page newspaper ads to assure the public that it would end CFC production if the chemical posed a threat to public health.

Some scientists were convinced years ago that CFC's were the main cause of what they said was an alarming deterioration of the ozone layer, which shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun. A thinning of the layer is believed to increase vastly the risk of skin cancer and might permanently alter the earth's ecological system.

In 1978, the Government banned aerosols containing CFC's, but American production of CFC's was still permitted for refrigeration and other uses.

Du Pont, and much of the rest of the chemical industry, contended that the criticism was not based on authoritative evidence, and it was sticking to that position early this month. At the moment, scientific evidence does not point to the need for dramatic CFC emission reductions, Mr. Heckert wrote in his March 4 letter to Senators Robert Stafford, Republican of Vermont, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and David F. Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota. Top Experts on Panel

But the NASA panel, Du Pont's people felt, was different. The space agency had put together the top experts in the field and they had gone through all the data, recomputing much of it with new methods.

Perhaps most important was Mack McFarland. The 40-year-old atmospheric scientist, who was a member of the NASA panel, had spent nearly a decade studying the ozone layer at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since 1983, he had been Du Pont's chief scientist in charge of keeping track of the latest research and monitoring the company's own ozone findings.

Though Dr. McFarland had known for some time that the panel's report might mean a change of policy for his company, he had been sworn to secrecy, like the rest of the panel members, and could not discuss the report until it was released.

Dr. McFarland was asked by company executives whether they should believe the report, The answer he gave, on the day the report was released, was that Du Pont's policy has always been to be responsive to the best scientific information available, and this is the best scientific information as of March 15.

Until the NASA report, he said, there did not seem to be any deterioration of the ozone layer and existing scientific models were not predicting any. All that was different now, Dr. McFarland told his bosses in Wilmington. The report even indicated CFC's might be responsible. Top Management Consulted

One of the first people Dr. McFarland spoke to was Joseph P. Glas, the director of Du Pont's Freon products division since 1985. After studying the report, it did not take Mr. Glas long to decide what to do. This is something that has got to have the attention of senior management, he said. It was Wednesday, March 16.

Through Thursday, Dr. McFarland and Mr. Glas briefed their superiors. On Friday, Du Pont's executive committee convened to hear the evidence on the ninth floor of the DuPont building. On the committee sit Mr. Heckert, Edgar S. Woolard Jr., the company's president, and four executive vice presidents.

They listened to a lengthy presentation, pressing, Dr. McFarland said, to understand why the scientific conclusions were different now than they had been for years. At least until he left, Dr. McFarland said, the discussion was limited to scientific, not business, concerns. (Although CFC production has been symbolically important to Du Pont as a leader in chemicals, it accounts for only about 2 percent of earnings, or about $35 million last year. Plus, the company has spent tens of millions of dollars in recent years on alternative compounds that will probably serve the same purposes in five or 10 years.) A Complex Task

Mr. Glas had been visiting a client that Friday in Georgia. Shortly after he returned home at 9:15, Elwood P. Blanchard, Du Pont's group vice president in charge of chemicals, was on the phone. The executive committee, he said, had decided to change the company's CFC policy. By the turn of the century, CFC production would no longer be a Du Pont business, and the company wanted to announce that to the world now.

The task was a complex one. The company wanted to notify customers, competitors and regulators before it went public. It did not want its 2,000 CFC workers all over the world - or its 145,000 other workers - to hear the news from press reports. And the specific terms of the policy were still to be worked out.

All day Saturday, Mr. Glas communicated by a personal-computer network with other Du Pont managers who also have PC's in their homes. These executives met at 2 P.M. Sunday in Wilmington. On Monday and Tuesday, the growing cadre of people involved in the CFC project worked 15-hour days. On Wednesday, Du Pont told its major competitors. On Thursday morning, employees were notified and then the press.

Some of the company's longtime critics said the decision would be carried out too slowly. But some of those who had helped to change the policy said it was a significant step. Mr. Glas said he went home and told his wife and six children what the company had decided to do. They said, 'Dad, that's fantastic,' he recalled. I know I'm doing something that's important, and it felt good.

Photos of Joseph P. Glas, director of Du Pont's Freon products division; Mack McFarland, a scientist at Du Pont and member of the NASA panel (The New York Times/Chuck McGowen)

[edit] Disputed

C8, or PFOA is not a proven animal carcinogen. It is true that there are some health concerns about the compound, but it has never been proven to cause cancer in humans or other animals (see Perfluorooctanoic acid health concerns section). Polonium 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I have already integrated your concern into the article two days ago and deleted the disputed-sign. This is only marginal critique on the article though, as many would agree that the precautionary principle is even demanding active protection against suspected cancerogenic substances, at least if they are persistent organic pollutants. So should be still worth writing about health issues, even if there is no clear proof yet. --Olaf g 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presidents and CEOs of DuPont

This section is a mess. I am moving it here

==Presidents and CEOs of DuPont==
*[[Eleuthère Irénée du Pont]] (1771-1834) 1802 through 1834
*[[Alfred V. du Pont]] (1798-1856) 1834 through 1850
* ??
*[[T. Coleman du Pont]], [[Pierre S. du Pont]] (1870-1954) and [[Alfred I. du Pont]] 1902 through ?
*[[Crawford H. Greenewalt]] 1948-1962
*[[Charles O. Holliday]] 1998- current

Where it should be cleaned-up before restoration to the article. —12.72.69.237 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DuPont and DuMont

Are these companies related at all? They use practically the same logo.

[edit] Some criticisms have unscientific merit

Upon browsing the article, I'm surprised that more controversies are not included, particularly the flap over C-8 (a report concerning which DuPont placed on its Chinese site: http://www.dupont.com.cn/english/news/eng_2005_04_20.html). Obviously the report has some bias, as it was sponsored by DuPont and not undertaken independently, and documented debates like this are deserving of Wikipedia entries.

Part of NPOV is that if a company is in the news, then it might just be news- (and Wiki-) worthy. Whether it's good or bad (and yes, DuPont has received good press as well, and deserves mentions of that). But winning an award for vague terms, such as "2006 Employer Support Freedom Award" can't really carry the same weight as serious debates between interested parties, such as "Indian government sues DuPont for Damages", especially when the issues are (potentially) life-threatening.

At some point you must include some of the "crazy environmental groups" for article content if you are trying to be balanced. Not everything which is included on Wikipedia must be backed up by research. For instance, if there were nothing against DuPont but groups of environmentalists, and DuPont releases a study to show that C-8 is safe, it is absolutely appropriate to discuss how advocacy groups caused a stink that caused DuPont to do undertake the study, regardless of the merits of that advocacy groups research. It is not appropriate to cite unscientific research when discussing research, but this is not a science journal entry on the merits of DuPont - a thorough entry should also address DuPont's interactions with society, and when discussing those terms calling it a "model corporate citizen" will be judged not by us but by history. - IstvanWolf 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link removal - for discussion

I've removed the external link shown below from the article

Is an external link to a single one of the dozens (hundreds) of subdivisions of DuPont helpful to the reader? If the division were mentioned in the article in a notable manner, it might warrant inclusion, but as a stand alone external link, I don't think it belongs in the article.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DuPont during WWI

Does anyone have any information about DuPonts business dealings with Germany during WWI?  I remember hearing something about DuPont providing aid/chemicals/training to Germany. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about world war one, but I wouldn't be suprised. DuPont did however supply chemicals to the Germans in WWII - personal acount from family members who were in concentration camps. I was told to never forget. Nic McBride

[edit] Hemp

Although DuPont denies any involvement with hemp prohibition, their 1937 Annual Report hints that somebody may have done something in their favor:

"With respect to taxation, of which the direct burden upon your company in 1937 was approximately $18,900,000, the future is clouded with uncertainties, not only as to the amount and form of future imposts but also as to the extent to which the revenue-raising power of government may be converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization."

("DuPont, Annual Report 1937," Page 25, as photocopied on page 166 of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes," 1991 edition, by Jack Herer)

The "Marihuana Tax Act" of 1937 imposed a prohibitive tax on hemp growers, putting them out of business.

Herer's book also states that DuPont's banker, Andrew Melon of the Melon Bank, was also Secretary of the US Treasury at the time and his nephew-in-law was Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which was originally organized under the Treasury Department. Conspiracy or coincidence?

The fact remains that if industrial hemp were legalized tomorrow, DuPont's sales of tree-paper chemicals would eventually suffer. Whether or not DuPont had anything to do with hemp prohibition, they certainly benefit from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apryason (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/p/Talk%7EDuPont_5ae4.html"