Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Small WV Town, Monsanto Faces Class-Action Suit Over Agent Orange Chemical

Posted by timothy on from the don't-drink-the-water-don't-breathe-the-air dept.

eldavojohn writes "Agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto is now at the receiving end of a lawsuit from representatives of anyone who lived in the small town of Nitro, WV from 1949 on. This suit alleges that Monsanto spread chemical toxins all over town — most notably the carcinogenic dioxins. The plant in question produced herbicide 2,4,5-T, which was used in Vietnam as an ingredient for 'Agent Orange.' [Note: link contains some disturbing images; click cautiously.] From the article: 'Originally the suit called for Monsanto to both monitor people's health and clean up polluted property. The court rejected the property claims last year, leaving just the medical monitoring.' Strange that the suit is only allowed to address the symptom and not the root cause."

40 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dihydrogen monoxide. They should really ban the stuff....

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    1. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're an idiot.

      To clarify, I don't think that the herbicide 2,4,5-T is safe, or not dangerous. The point is that calling it "an ingredient in Agent Orange" is designed for emotional rhetoric, not reasonable inquiry.

      Forget that it was used in Agent Orange, which was an unhealthy mix of numerous toxic chemicals, and rather, focus on the specific effects of 2,4,5-T itself... like "the herbcide 2,4,5-T, which is a known carcinogen".

      This avoids hype and emotional rhetoric, while at the same time educates the person about how the substance is dangerous in its own right, without resorting to mentioning that it was just one part of a large concoction of toxic chemicals. ... and now that I've explained my joke, it's no longer funny...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by Garth+Smith · · Score: 2

      This plant specifically made chemicals for Agent Orange. Yes they made herbicides too but production was done here with the specific intent to make chemical weapons. (Hint: The town's name is NITRO.) This gives the reader an idea how bad these chemicals are. They are bad enough for warfare. Considering we are a nation at war, it is good to be reminded of the collateral damage that war brings back home.

    3. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In defense of the article: Agent Orange was a 50:50 mix of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D.

      In your defense: 2,4,5-T is only moderately toxic, as long as it is not contaminated with TCDD.

      It was legal in the U.S. to use it on crops until 1970. Even the 1970 ban had an exception: It could be used on rice crops.

      In 1985, it was finally completely outlawed.

      Basically, the lawsuit is saying that even though Monsanto had the right to make the chemical, sell the chemical, and use the chemical until 1970, the damage done to the land is bad enough that they should be sued anyway.

      I think that the sentence should require the current Monsanto CEO to purchase a ticket to use a time machine, and go back and tell the previous CEO not to pursue 2,4,5-T.

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
    4. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by thrich81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A quick check on Wikipedia shows that 2,4,5-T made up about 50% of Agent Orange (the other 50% was another herbicide), and 2,4,5-T is considered the more hazardous of the two, so in this case the reference as a component of Agent Orange seems quite legitimate and so is linking the emotional connotations of Agent Orange to the compound in question.

    5. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but 2,4,5-T is only moderately toxic and is not a dioxin. The greater problem is that it often is contaminated with the dioxin TCDD, which is highly toxic. TCDD is thought to be responsible for most of the ill effects of Agent Orange.

      While mentioning Agent Orange here is a certainly an emotional appeal, it's not entirely inappropriate. Agent Orange was a mixture of two herbicides, used as an herbicide. It caused health problems in people. Here, one of the two herbicides that made up Agent Orange is being used as an herbicide. It's the one that was, more or less, responsible for Agent Orange's health problems. The lawsuit is about health problems as a result of the use of this chemical. The comparison to Agent Orange is apt.

    6. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 2

      While mentioning Agent Orange here is a certainly an emotional appeal, it's not entirely inappropriate. Agent Orange was a mixture of two herbicides, used as an herbicide. It caused health problems in people. Here, one of the two herbicides that made up Agent Orange is being used as an herbicide. It's the one that was, more or less, responsible for Agent Orange's health problems. The lawsuit is about health problems as a result of the use of this chemical. The comparison to Agent Orange is apt.

      After reading a bit, it would be reasonable to say "2,3,4-T is one of the two herbicides of Agent Orange, and that when heated it can produce TCDD, which is extremely toxic." However, no one actually says that they, just kind of say the vague "it's a chemical in Agent Orange!" Which again, gives no background or information about how dangerous it is in its own right.

      Nothing about my statement required 2,3,4-T to be safe and inert or even anything less than the most dangerous chemical of Agent Orange. Rather, I was simply noting that saying "it was a part of Agent Orange!" is done for rhetorical effect, and devoid of any meaningful information.

      If I have to pull up Wikipedia, and read about it in order to have any idea of how toxic it is, why it's usually even more toxic than the chemical all by itself, the article isn't providing any useful information about why I should care about 2,3,4-T, beyond rhetoric, and that's simply unconvincing to any skeptical person. All it takes is a sentence to explain why 2,3,4-T is so bad, (and then a parenthetical aside as to why that made Agent Orange so bad).

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    7. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They used the land, they made a product there, they made a profit. Now the people who lived or worked there suffer and die and your "legal thinking" precludes redress?

      The money went into the coffers of Monsoto the death and misery should be absorbed by someone else?

      I not talking negligence or guilt I just think economic crimes like this one always deserve swift and clean restitution.

    8. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 2

      But 2,4,5-T is one of only two active ingredients.

      Which the article never says.

      Dihydrogen monoxide is not an active ingredient.

      Not the point that it's an inactive ingredient. The article never explained by 2,3,4-T alone is dangerous.

      Both active ingredients, on their own, are harmful.

      I already noted that, but "harmful" is a gradient. Things can be more harmful than others. There is no explanation in the article about why 2,3,4-T is so harmful on its own. It's just "it's a chemical in Agent Orange!"

      The entire suit is about ingredients being manufactured specifically for use in Agent Orange. It is perfectly reasonable, and contextually accurate, to refer to it as an Agent Orange Chemical.

      I agree, it's totally poignant to mention that it was one of the two active ingredients in Agent Orange, and that when it breaks down under heat it turns into TCDD, which is many times more toxic than either of the two intentional active ingredients. ... But the article didn't explain any of this. It just says "It's a chemical from Agent Orange!" Which is just emotional rhetoric.

      As I've already explained in the comment you replied to: my issue is not with their argument being counterfactual, but rather that the presentation is uninformative, and meaningless rhetoric.

      In fact, to leave out that fact would be somewhat misleading, since the actions that spawned the lawsuit had little to do with herbicides, and lots to do with chemical warfare.

      Agent Orange was not chemical warfare. It was a defoliant, which we even occasionally sprayed it on our own troops, because we didn't expect it to be as dangerous as it turns out it was. If Agent Orange were a chemical weapon, then we would not have ever used it where it could expose our troops to harm.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    9. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 2

      A quick check on Wikipedia shows that 2,4,5-T made up about 50% of Agent Orange (the other 50% was another herbicide), and 2,4,5-T is considered the more hazardous of the two, so in this case the reference as a component of Agent Orange seems quite legitimate and so is linking the emotional connotations of Agent Orange to the compound in question.

      But the article doesn't EXPLAIN any of this. That's the issue I had with the article. It doesn't explain why it's harmful on its own, and just relies upon "it's a part of Agent Orange" to establish that it is harmful. Well, big fucking whoop. I want to know why the chemical itself is harmful, you know, like if it were any other chemical in the world, the press about the chemical would be explaining just why the chemical is toxic, and why it's dangerous. Instead, this article sees a shortcut, and just jumps on it: "It's a part of Agent Orange!"

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    10. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 2

      Gr... NO! That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if this were an article about ANY OTHER CHEMICAL, there would be a short sentence IN THE ARTICLE (which I've already read... SCARY ME! I RTFA'ed) explaining why the chemical is harmful and why it is harmful. This article short-circuits all of that with: "it's a part of Agent Orange!"

      Of course herbicides are toxic, they're kind of designed to be. But just how toxic is it? What makes it such a big deal? Why is it that this chemical made Agent Orange so toxic in the first place?

      We're not all fucking chemical experts who understand and know everything about Agent Orange before we even read the article. Give us BACKGROUND, give us EXPLANATIONS. It takes one god-damn sentence out of an entire article to explain this shit to someone who has never actually learned anything about Agent Orange beyond "it was used in Vietnam to defoliate, and ended up causing serious harm to our soldiers."

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    11. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Incorrect; Agent Orange was a herbicide, and was used to defoliate forests in VietNam to make it harder for the Viet Cong to hide. Its danger wasn't known publicly then, and it's not a direct poison like "drop it from a plane and everybody dies."They used carpet bombing munitions, mortars, grenades, and M-16 rifles for that.

      Dioxin, Agen Orange's effective ingredient, was used commercially in the US as a herbicide for decades until its danger became known and it was banned.

      The Agent Orange was dropped on our own soldiers as well as the Vietnamese. I used to know several combat veterans from that war who died in their 30s from cancers that chemical caused.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    12. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by anotheryak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Huh?

      First of all, Agent Orange was not a chemical weapon. It was a nasty chemical and it injured my father-in-law and his children--my wife included--but that was collateral damage from what was intended as a defoliant. It was intended to clear tree cover and/or destroy food crops (though that was more Blue than Orange).

      The really nasty chemical in Agent Orange was actually a contaminant; ,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. It was not supposed to be there at all.

      Agent Orange was supposed to be a 50:50 mixture of (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid and (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid.

      I agree with snowgirl, the article title was for emotional impact. It's like saying "KNOWN CHEMOTHERAPY INGREDIENT "NORMAL SALINE" FOUND DUMPED NEAR SCHOOL!"

    13. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      No! You can't ban dihydrogen monoxide! I'm addicted to the stuff so badly that withdrawal would certainly be fatal!

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    14. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by snowgirl · · Score: 2

      Doesn't that give enough info for a summary though? The average reader knows it was harmful - caused cancer. Most people don't know a whole lot about chemistry or Agent Orange. So by linking it to Agent Orange (and its a good link not a bogus link) people understand that its dangerous and can go look up if they want details.

      But just because it was "a part of Agent Orange" does not mean that it was the reason why Agent Orange was so toxic in the first place. Water is "a part of Agent Orange", and thus my satirical comment that kicked off this thread. The fact that Agent Orange was so toxic and dangerous does not mean that each and every individual part of Agent Orange were harmful.

      Explaining that it is the principle reason WHY Agent Orange was so toxic, would have been far better, and would have just been a few more words additional, rather than even the whole sentence that I've called for earlier.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    15. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 2

      They used the land, they made a product there, they made a profit.

      Actually, if you read the lawsuit, you'll find that this isn't true. Part of "Old Monsanto" used the land, made a product there, and made a profit. That part of Old Monsanto split off as Solutia, and continued to make products under that name for 6 years, and eventually filed Chapter 11.

      The agricultural part of "Old Monsanto" never used the land, and never made a profit off of Agent Orange. It is currently called Monsanto, and is actually unconnected to all this. They are the ones being sued.

      Now the people who lived or worked there suffer and die and your "legal thinking" precludes redress?

      Wrong again. The class action lawsuit identifies 9 families who are affected. Added together, there are 9 counts of "property damage" and 9 requests for "medical monitoring". This means that no one has gotten sick. No one is suffering adverse effects. No one has died. But, their property has probably lost value, due to its location. The chemical plant closing probably hurt their value as much the chemicals.

      The money went into the coffers of Monsoto the death and misery should be absorbed by someone else?

      I not talking negligence or guilt I just think economic crimes like this one always deserve swift and clean restitution.

      I can understand frustration and anger. This land was probably perfectly fine for living on with the minimal amount of chemical pollutants, but it will be impossible to sell (partially because of the EPA, and partially because of fears of buyers). It makes sense that the people who decided to start the chemical plant could be sued, but most of those people are retired, if not dead today. The company they worked for has already been sued out of existence. So, now they're pulling at straws, trying to find someone else with money to pay for the damages.

      TBH, I understand why the lawsuit was filed. It's frustrating to see your property lose value for reasons outside your control (just ask all the property owners of Wetlands, who lost all value when FEMA declared them unusable). If your property suddenly loses value, it makes sense to sue anyone you can think of that has money (it's how our lawyer-driven society operates). Unfortunately, I don't see any easy answers here. I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere (for reasons mentioned above).

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
    16. Re:What else was an ingredient in Agent Orange? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      "The money went into the coffers of Monsoto the death and misery should be absorbed by someone else?"

      Of course. It's Monsanto. Monsanto does not absorb anything other than profits.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  2. You know what ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Those fucks recently applied to whatever regulatory agency that regulates those stuff in the u.s., to permit usage of base elements used in agent orange, for agricultural pesticide applications again.......... it seems superbugs adapting to afflict their genetically modified corps have come too much for them. (was in slashdot news recently too)

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:You know what ? by prefect42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A couple of points:
      I thought the claimed reduction in use of pesticides with GM crops was widely questioned. http://www.pan-uk.org/archive/Projects/Food/gmobriefing.html
      Some people object to GM partly on the basis that crops end up being patented. While I agree that's tangling two issues, that still could be a reasonable objection to GM in its current form.

      --

      jh

    2. Re:You know what ? by Rary · · Score: 3, Informative

      'GMO' and 'organic' are not two mutually exclusive categories of food.

      In order to be certified organic in the United States, food cannot be genetically modified. This is true of most (although not all) countries.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  3. If we would just allow free market by Are+You+Kidding · · Score: 3, Interesting

    to function without interference, we would not have such problems. Right? Maybe Ron Paul, or one of his disciples will explain how that works in a case like this.

    1. Re:If we would just allow free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From what I understand, Ron Paul believes that any laws passed by the congress by the people, for the people, should be enforced. He has never stated that any laws that the public deems necessary should go unenforced in the name of the free market. The kind of rhetoric you blindly parrot is what's damaging our nation, not people like Ron Paul. If you honestly believe that Ron Paul is on the same side of the equation as Monsanto, you've been horribly misled and should probably take a break from CNN and Fox News for a while to detox.

    2. Re:If we would just allow free market by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well it's quite simple, if Monsanto releases dangerous chemicals over a town, the residents will boycott the Monsanto chemicals they were never buying, and when news of this boycott gets to the megacorps using these chemicals, they will stop using them and the shareholders will absorb the higher operating costs out of the goodness of their hearts, then Monsanto will go out of business.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:If we would just allow free market by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free Market includes Courts to address grievances exactly like this. In a Free Market, a company such as Monsanto would and could be sued in perpetuity for hazards it created either intentionally or unintentionally. If bad enough, the entire company could be liquidated to pay for damages, leaving shareholders nothing. Additionally, in MY version of the free market, the CEO (all of them) and anyone sitting on the Board of Directors would be criminally liable for any criminal activity condoned or sanctioned by them.

      In this case, if found guilty, Monsanto would be forced to pay for cleanup, health monitoring and medical bills of all people damaged by their product or the process used to create that product.

      Free market works if the right application is applied. Don't blame the free market when we have no such thing to blame. There is no "free market", because we have government involved in too many places telling businesses how to do business.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:If we would just allow free market by forkfail · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't have it both ways.

      Courts are by definition a part of the government. And courts are supposed base their decision on law, not Solomon-esque declarations of wisdom off the cuff.

      You argue that the courts are a required part of the free market.

      You then say that free markets don't currently function properly because there's too much government involved in the process.

      Your argument is absolutely contradictory to itself.

      Aside from this, it also ignores the fact that the folks with the money can always influence decision makers, including the justices or judges of a court. So, no, in your case, the little guys suing the big guy would be even more screwed.

      Finally, arguments like this always ignore the fact that power abhors a vacuum. Government may be in some ways fundamentally evil, but it is the bulwark that our societies build against even more evil (private and unaccountable) entities filling that niche. Taking government away will not stop power from being exercised; all it will do is ensure that the people of the land have no protections against that power.

      --
      Check your premises.
    5. Re:If we would just allow free market by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What good is a court to address grievances when your kids were already born deformed, you've been burned by the agent, and your crops have all failed due to some careless disposal of toxic chemicals? Will you have the money to pay for the court fees before judgment is handed down? Will your kids ever be supported enough by the company to make up for the fact that they were born fully disabled and in permanent pain? If the company is liquidated, who pays for the medicals bills?

      Libertarians never think these things through. To them, a check in the mail is the most that they see necessary to right a wrong. Somehow, I'm convinced that behind every hardcore libertarian is a white male who hasn't had a debilitating accident happen to them, or hasn't gotten shafted hard by someone more powerful than them.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:If we would just allow free market by Vaphell · · Score: 2

      and the problem with state level EPAs is what exactly? If I am not mistaken many states have their own regulations that are stricter than the federal ones.

      RP is pretty much the only guy who plays by the rules written in the constitution. Everybody else bends it to suit his needs because after all it's for the greater good and it's the right thing to do. It's not. Well intentioned ends don't justify the means of wiping the ass with the constitution.
      If you want federal level EPA, amend the fucking law of the land to be crystal clear and be done with it. Same thing with education, healthcare and whatnot. Don't hide your ass behind the ambiguous general welfare and commerce clauses.

    7. Re:If we would just allow free market by forkfail · · Score: 2

      Let's say I'm a factory owner. I make widgets. My factory dumps poison into the sky and into the water. After all, it's my air and water, too, right? And it's next to my factory. If you stop me from dumping the waste, you are imposing on my property rights; you are decreasing the value of my factory. If I change this, I will have to cut back payment of my workers, thus impacting their property rights.

      Now, let us switch positions. Let's say that I'm the guy who lives downwind and downstream. The factory has destroyed my farm. My kids are sickly. You are imposing on my property rights (my farm), and also, upon other inalienable rights (I don't own my kids, but the factory has absolutely done them permanent harm).

      In order to protect your property rights, the factory would need to be left to continue to operate as it is. In order to protect mine, it needs to clean up after itself.

      This is why we need set laws and limits. This is why we need to be able to say, here is the law that determines how much person A's rights are allowed to impose on person B's.

      Furthermore, having laws that determine where your rights end and mine start allow me to prevent you from doing harm before hand. If I have to wait until my children have birth defects and my land and health are ruined, it is really too late. You cannot make up for that with money or property.

      Finally, yes, let us look at China. They've poisoned their air, their water and their land. Yes, they have a massive concentration of power in their government, which is one and the same with their private enterprise for the most part (though, this is changing to some extent). However, here's the bit you're still missing: power will be exercised no matter what.

      In China, there are no controls on power. Our government is in many ways designed to be a control on power - on it's own, on private power. If you remove those controls, then you have no justice. But you won't make the exercise of power go away. Corporations will continue to exercise power, and there will be no way to mitigate the results. And so, to return back to our original example of a factory and a river, the factory will continue to dump its poisons; the factory owner would be the sole exerciser of power, and the folks downstream could do nothing enforceable about it. It would be just like China, but it would be a corporation instead of a government exercising power.

      In closing, you will never stop the exercise of power. All you can do is ensure that you chose the lesser of evils, that there is no single, overbearing concentration of power, and that power is structured so that it cannot act in its own interests without at least some benefit to the people. It is naive and dangerous to think that removing government will stop the wielding of power in harmful ways; quite the opposite.

      --
      Check your premises.
    8. Re:If we would just allow free market by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Out here in the real world the rich can afford better lawyers than we can; y'know, /free market/.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  4. war museums in Viet Nam are incredibly depressing by commodore73 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As an American, I don't think we can ever repay our debt to Viet Nam. They're still dealing with the toxins and other leftovers now (especially the children), and they can't sue anyone. The things that are done in the name of our country, our ethnic heritage, our historic religion, our "democracy", our capitalism...sometimes it's hard to live with ourselves.

  5. I grew up across the river from there by Xian97 · · Score: 2

    in Saint Albans. That entire Charleston area is full of chemical plants - the nickname for the area is the Chemical Valley. Dow, Dupont, FMC, Bayer, Rhone Poluenc, and many others to name some present and past companies that have been there. The biggest was Union Carbide with several locations - the Institute plant was where MIC was produced in the US, the gas involved in the Bhopal tragedy.

    I knew a lot of people that had or developed cancer that lived in the area and I remember seeing a study showing the rate was noticeably higher than the national norm.

  6. Re:WV?? by Xian97 · · Score: 2

    WV has been the 2 letter designation for West Virginia since the post office went to 2 letter state abbreviations in 1963.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_abbreviations

  7. Re:war museums in Viet Nam are incredibly depressi by Noughmad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As an American, I don't think we can ever repay our debt to Viet Nam.

    No, you can't. However, you can come close by using the same chemicals in your country, so at least you can share the pain.

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  8. Long dead . . . 1949 & corporate personhood by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, I can pretty much guarantee that anybody who was involved in Monsanto's decisions 63 years ago is no longer at the company and, in fact, may no longer be alive. Why does it make sense to sue the current company and injure its current stockholders for something that those people did all that time ago?

    The answer? The legal fiction that the company is a 'person' that, among other things, has to be responsible for its actions.

    All the people complaining about companies not being 'persons' in regard to free-speech rights should be careful, because if they're not persons, then they're just collections of people. And in the US, we only hold people liable for things they're personally responsible for. For example, if your parents die owing a lot of money, you don't inherit their debt. If corporations are just collections of persons, then there's no sense in suing Monsanto for this today -- they weren't involved. At most, you could find out who made all the decisions and go back and sue their estates.

    1. Re:Long dead . . . 1949 & corporate personhood by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the people complaining about companies not being 'persons' in regard to free-speech rights should be careful [. . .] at most, you could find out who made all the decisions and go back and sue their estates.

      Why?

      The idea that if a corporation isn't a person that it's nothing at all is a false dichotomy. A corporation is a legal construct. We can attach whatever we want to that construct (and technically we do -- corporations exist explicitly to serve the public good in most states, as an example). If we want to cease the illusion of it being a person and yet still attach legal liability for its actions, we can do that.

  9. Re:So You're a COMPLETE Idiot? by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay you're really an idiot. It is one of the two active ingredients in agent orange. Jesus fucking christ people are stupid ... it is half of agent orange ... you don't even produce evidence that water is one of the ingredients of agent orange, you just speculate to make your joke. And you call this fucking hype? Seriously?

    Nothing I said was about the content of their argument, but rather just the presentation of the argument. The article explains NOTHING about how dangerous 2,3,4-T is, and simply replies upon "it's a part of Agent Orange" to assert the harmfulness of the chemical.

    If the article had included any of what you included as information (that it's one of two chemicals in Agent Orange, and that it breaks down into TCDD which is crazy harmful when heated) then there would have been no issue at all with the article.

    This is not a substance argument, it is a FORM argument, and thus attacking me with "but it really is dangerous!" is completely beside the point, because that's not what I was arguing. I knew 2,3,4-T was harmful, the point was that the article doesn't establish WHY it is harmful in its own right.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  10. Washington Lawyers by Tokolosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Agent Orange and its emotive supporters want to keep the revenue pump primed. Together with asbestos, this is productive government teat:

    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_HR_812.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_SN_1629.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_2254.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_637.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_3491.html
    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_972.html
    etc., etc.

    Regarding free markets. My city used to dump raw sewage in the river, until it was sued in 1925 by a downstream town for polluting the water. After a court case, a treatment plant was built - no EPA or federal government required, common law is sufficient.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  11. I grew up in Nitro by Bryan_Casto · · Score: 4, Informative

    The sad part is that this is barely news in WV. Oh, there have been numerous lawsuits over the years challenging each of the companies mentioned above for various abuses, often with commercials and mailers asking you to contact Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, attorneys at law or some such nonsense. I moved away six years ago and I still get mailers today for class-action suits from my time there.

    I played baseball at the parks across Viscose Road from the industrial park mentioned in the story. My mom worked in Nitro along that same road where there was an EPA Superfund cleanup site for Fike Chemical. They found all kinds of junk there, including hydrogen cyanide and methanethiol. There was also a tremendous tire warehouse fire about five years ago near the industrial park mentioned in the story. The story goes on and on, and has ever since the nitrocellulose plant was built in 1917 for World War I.

    It's unfortunate, but coal and chemicals (and medical services for those dealing with coal and chemicals) are the only kind of work that is generally available in that area. It provided a good living for the time, but left a pretty awful legacy now that those jobs are packing up and leaving.

    --

    Bryan J. Casto
    bryan.casto(a)gmail.com
  12. I grew up in and still live in Nitro by asherlev · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since we're besting each other, I also have a box full of my grandfather's diaries after he found FMC(right down the street from the Monsanto plant in question) dumping barrels of cyanide in the Kanawha River in the 70's. The management threatened to kill him and his daughters.
    You're right though, it's no better now. Despite the fact that the Nitro area(don't even get me started on Manilla Creek) had one of the highest concentrations of marker cancers in the world before the plants closed down, if you say anything negative about the chemical industry in town you're immediately attacked.

  13. Re:So You're a COMPLETE Idiot? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2

    "The article explains NOTHING about how dangerous 2,3,4-T is, and simply replies upon "it's a part of Agent Orange" to assert the harmfulness of the chemical."

    Well according to almighty wikipedia the oral LD50 of 2,4,5-T is 389 mg/kg in mice and 500 mg/kg in rats. That struck me as not being especially hideous, and on a whim I looked up the LD50 of aspirin: 250 mg/kg in mice and 200 mg/kg in rats. By this measure 2,4,5-T is less toxic than aspirin!. It's more complex than that however. It doesn't include low dose/persistent exposure effects of the compound and doesn't include degradation products or side products of synthesis, which could have different levels of toxicity. It's the synthesis byproducts that are a major issue with 2,4,5-T. As others have commented on, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) is a side product of synthesis, and according to wikipedia modern synthesis can knock its levels down to about 0.005 ppm (I've seen 0.1 ppm elsewhere in my quick search), but in earlier batches could be up to 60 ppm. The LD50 of TCDD is 1,000 times lower than 2,4,5-T; a few hundred micrograms ingested per kilogram of body weight was enough to kill rats (sorry about age of study). Nasty effects other than death naturally occur at lower amounts. Also keep in mind that we're just making rodents eat the stuff. I'm not a chemical engineer, but you do have to wonder what sort of waste products (TCDD included) were flushed out by that chemical plant and where it went, and how long TCDD and other nasties might persist in the environment. TCDD is unfortunately pretty resistant to biodegradation, one study in Italy I found gave a half-life in soil of 9.1 years. I've just spent a little bit of time working on insecticide development so these are some of the things I think about, although being a biochemist this is not a core area of expertise.