Talk:DuPont and C-8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
DuPont and C-8 is part of WikiProject Delaware, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Delaware. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[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 14:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
134.102.3.20 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Ok, but this does not conflict with the contents of the article. As we have C8 in our veins, the general opinion (including U.S. EPA) is that we should not wait till it is too late. I therefore deleted the Disputed Sign, because the allegiation of inaccuracy was uncorrect. --Olaf g
- Actually, the article stated that PFOA is a proven carcinogen (see the statement in the History section, "In West Virginia June 1999, the Tennant family sued DuPont for accidentally killing 280 Hereford cows with C-8, a proven animal carcinogen."). While there are certainly health concerns about PFOA, and many groups use the precautionary principle to argue that it shold be banned, as far as I know no one ever proved that it is a carcinogen. If someone did find that, cite a reputable, unbiased source that shows a peer reviewed article. Polonium 18:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- You're right, it has never been proven to be a carcinogen. However internal DuPont studies indicated that it was a carcinogen. I changed the text to reflect this, and removed the notice. By the way, the {{totallydisputed}} tag should only be used when you allege both biased statements and factual errors. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV fork?
Why is this article split off from the main article on DuPont? 129.241.11.201 13:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misleading?
The DuPont settlement was in fact the largest civil administrative penalty ever by the EPA. However, this might seem misleading, because environmental crimes are usually prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice. Specifically, the DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). Criminal settlements have reached amounts much larger than the DuPont penalty. For example, on June 13, 2007, the DOJ announced a $60.7 million Clean Air Act settlement with Nevada Power Company.
