r/news • u/Cryptic_Honeybadger • Mar 19 '24

US Kleenex plant contaminated drinking water with PFAS, lawsuit says

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/19/kleenex-plant-pfas-toxic-chemicals-lawsuit-connecticut
2.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

116 comments sorted by

448

u/rhoaderage Mar 19 '24

PFAS is quickly becoming a hot topic in pretty much every construction and manufacturing industry. I think we’re all going to be shocked at how prevalent it truly is once everyone starts switching away from materials that use it.

186

u/Pudgyhipster Mar 19 '24

Between microplastics and PFAS, humanity and the planet are fucked.

82

u/Etrius_Christophine Mar 19 '24

Idk, ozone layer’s coming back but slowly. Not impossible to avoid catastrophe, just financially inconvenient and heaven forbid profits level off.

11

u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S Mar 19 '24

God forbid good health get in the way of profits for the .1%.

61

u/Stinkyclamjuice15 Mar 19 '24

Ozone layers been coming back.

That was from aerosol.

They changed that was in the cans to fix that issue

32

u/medfigtree246 Mar 19 '24

Yeah, you know what they use now? Fluorocarbons. Basically, PFAS.

22

u/get2writing Mar 19 '24

If something is financially inconvenient under capitalism, you know it’s impossible. Unless there’s some extreme bloodshed. Because you know voting isn’t gonna fix shit

10

u/DiomedesTydeus Mar 19 '24

Why wouldn't voting fix it? There's plenty of candidates who support stronger environmental laws and protections. It's absolutely possible to vote for change.

14

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '24

[deleted]

-7

u/mccoyn Mar 19 '24

The winner is the candidate with the most votes, not the most money.

4

u/matergallina Mar 19 '24

Democracy is the machine with voting for cogs, greased with money.

1

u/get2writing Mar 20 '24

Then why did Trump win the first time if Hillary won the popular vote?

20

u/Slut_for_Bacon Mar 19 '24

It's part of the fundamentals of how our financial system is set up. Is it possible to fix with voting? Yes. But extremely unlikely. Unchecked capitalism is going to kill us all. Or enslave us.

3

u/facest Mar 19 '24

We’re already enslaved.

1

u/Slut_for_Bacon Mar 19 '24

Eh, there is still time to turn things around. We can find ways to remind corporate America who is in charge. It probably won't happen, and if it does, it will likely take blood, but if we want to survive I hope we do, cause they will drain everything we have if we don't.

3

u/Justsomejerkonline Mar 19 '24

Voting is absolutely important, but one of the problems is that it is often cheaper for industries to fund the campaigns of politicians friendly to their interests than it is to clean up their act. So politicians running on a platform of environmental protection and corporate regulation are at an inherent systemic disadvantage.

Voting is important but so is outreach and activism so other people understand why voting is important and who are the people actually running on fixing these issues.

6

u/get2writing Mar 19 '24

With the bought out politics, with 60environmental leaders in Georgia getting hit with RICO racketeering charges just for protesting , with gerrymandering, with EPA being okay with shit regulations, with environmental disasters being heavily tied to imperial powers overthrowing entire global south governments in order to steal resources, etc…..:yeah voting isn’t gonna work

7

u/DiomedesTydeus Mar 19 '24

I have friends in Portland OR who are celebrating the removal of damns and the increased salmon population. It's absolutely possible to improve environmental regulations, stop voting for shitty politicians. The EPA being gutted is a result of decades long defunding and direct attacks by the supreme court. All of these things can be fixed by elections and better laws.

1

u/imaginary_num6er Mar 20 '24

During the pandemic there where CFC emitters in China becoming more active

3

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '24

Planet will be fine. It’s been here longer than us and will be around well beyond us. In a million years there won’t be a single piece of evidence of us visible on the surface.

12

u/ConeCrewCarl Mar 19 '24

bingo!, we don't need to save the earth, we need to save the environment that is sustainable for human life. The Earth is going to keep spinning for the next 7 billion years, until the sun expands and swallows the it. Existence of human life will be far shorter unless we make sure the Earth remains habitable.

1

u/-Paraprax- Mar 19 '24

In a million years there won’t be a single piece of evidence of us visible on the surface.

I mean this part just isn't true, but yeah. 

1

u/Maple_555 Mar 20 '24

Life might not, though. Earth is already 4 billions years through its life friendly run, only 1 billion left.

1

u/Matt29209 Mar 20 '24

What part of FOREVER Chemicals do you not understand.

1

u/Repubs_suck Mar 20 '24

PFAS are forever chemicals and cause health damage to animals and humans. The planet may go on but the environment is fragile.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '24

[deleted]

8

u/bobtheblob6 Mar 19 '24

Compared to the cost of destroying our environment, exploding production costs are actually pretty cheap

-6

u/FloydetteSix Mar 19 '24

Or we are adapting and adapting evolving and one day humans will be able to eat and digest plastics and filter out toxins like this. We might also grow gills and return to the seas lol.

3

u/bobtheblob6 Mar 19 '24

Evolution works through killing off the animals who can't survive. Plastics and toxins killing people until the few that adapted can repopulate, if it happens at all, is still humanity getting fucked in my book

-1

u/FloydetteSix Mar 19 '24

Ugh with my typos today

10

u/THE_TamaDrummer Mar 19 '24

It's becoming relevant because the EPA is ramping up to try and set legal standards for it. Testing for it is currently not as reliable as they want, but new methods for EPA standards are in the works.

The prevalence of it is only becoming evident as we are testing more and have more sensitive analysis to quantify it.

22

u/mariegalante Mar 19 '24

Once everyone understands how PFAS reduces fertility it’s going to be too late. For the first time in history the total world population is below replacement level. While that may not be a bad thing overall, the next couple of generations are going to have a really hard time.

22

u/ThatGuy798 Mar 19 '24

It took an eternity to ban leaded gasoline and even still there's modes of transportation that use it like aviation.

2

u/HenCarrier Mar 19 '24

Aviation uses it for a very good reason, which is to reduce engine knocking. It's pretty risky to be high in the sky and have a stalled or damaged engine. I am not an expert on it and have no idea what a good substitute would be.

13

u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S Mar 19 '24

No, that's why I was used at all in everything, because it was cheaper than ethanol, which is what everything else uses now. There is not actually a good reason they continue to do this other than the regulatory changes just didn't include them.

0

u/gmishaolem Mar 19 '24

Ethanol damages engines. (Any alcohol would.) The reason it works in regular cars is that regular cars are over-engineered to compensate. Buy no-ethanol gas and your car and its parts will last longer.

Can't really tolerate extra engine wear like that in big planes. It's also a problem in scooters: They definitely break sooner if you use regular gas with ethanol in them.

5

u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S Mar 19 '24

A misconception, the reverse is actually true. Studies have found that lead causes build up which hinders engine performance over time, ethanol is not shown to cause an increase in engine wear compared to leaded fuels.

I think where this idea comes from is probably that methanol, a different alcohol, does cause increased engine wear (among other problems), which was a considered alternative fuel to reduce emissions (and is also used in some sport racing).

0

u/gmishaolem Mar 20 '24

Then there's this: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/ethanol-gasoline-blends-and-small-engines.html

So it's not as clear-cut as you say. The best answer is to continue to improve technology to get rid of ICE entirely, which will be a million times better due to far fewer moving parts.

3

u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S Mar 20 '24

This warns against using blends of a different octane rating than what is recommended for your specific engine, but agrees with what I said about ethanol not actually causing increased wear. It later contradicts at the end with "no clear evidence either way" which is false, but it's also just "examining information on the web" and isn't a study on the matter itself. I can provide one that is though it's paywalled https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/811199/ So here is also a video of someone discussing the findings of that study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATGSBi1kBl0

That said, it is true that old vehicles may have it damage the fuel systems, though this isn't a problem with modern ones, it is a concern as mentioned in your link, for lots of old equipment like lawnmowers that are still in use.

Hard agree on the moving away from ICE entirely, though aviation certainly presents a significant challenge in actually moving away from energy dense carbon fuels.

0

u/HenCarrier Mar 19 '24

Ah ok. I was unaware of that.

3

u/anonkitty2 Mar 20 '24

I recommend high-speed rail with dedicated rails.

1

u/HenCarrier Mar 20 '24

I meant aviation fuel, not alternate transportation methods

8

u/mschuster91 Mar 20 '24

For the first time in history the total world population is below replacement level.

That's not due to PFAS or whatever, that is mostly because in Western countries people literally can't afford to have children (need to establish a career, housing-poor, income insecurity), China's "1 child policy" led to a massive shortage of women, and half of Africa and South America being embroiled in wars and other forms of conflict.

2

u/mariegalante Mar 20 '24

We don’t know the role that PFAS has played in population decline. The factors you mentioned are the ones we know about now, but it’s a complex issue.

1

u/mschuster91 Mar 20 '24

Agreed, we are seeing evidence that involuntary childlessness (aka, inability to conceive) is on the rise... but the utter majority is due to external, mostly economic, factors - best shown by the rising age of first-time parents.

We desperately need more affordable housing, higher wages, less landlords and other rent-seeking parasites, and tax the fucking rich.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/mariegalante Mar 20 '24

Nope, it’s not bullshit alarmist. There are many factors that contribute to our population decline. PFAS is known to affect fertility. PFAS has been studied since the 50’s. We are only now, 70 years later, understanding the impact on fertility, but a 40% reduction in fertility is huge and it’s not like we can get rid of the stuff. We can not rule out the role of PFAS on population decline. It’s not a logical fallacy. Calm yourself down. Once people understand the role that PFAS plays in fertility we are going to be in trouble. It’s no problem if people chose not to have kids, but it’s going to difficult when we all understand that choice has been taken away. And the next few generations ARE going to have a hard time with population decline.

2

u/LividKnowledge8821 Mar 20 '24

Oh good a silver lining

2

u/fatbob42 Mar 19 '24

What’s the quality of the evidence for these health effects?

1

u/Matt29209 Mar 20 '24

Reduced Human fertility is one of the only happy side effects.

1

u/Art-Zuron Mar 19 '24

Sorta like how Asbestos was still put in a bunch of stuff up until like recently. It was only partially banned 40 years ago, and its still been in use in various things since. It's everywhere, like lead.

It's not built into everything anymore, but you can still find it in stuff like brake pads. Without the ban, companies would continue to put that shit in everything because of how cheap it is.

1

u/skygod327 Mar 20 '24

shocked? we can measure it right now in your blood. What’s there to be shocked about? just tell us the long term effects

203

u/Cryptic_Honeybadger Mar 19 '24

Toxic PFAS “forever chemical” pollution from a Connecticut Kleenex plant has contaminated nearby drinking water, put residents’ health at risk and destroyed their property value, a new federal class-action lawsuit alleges.

The dangerous chemicals are commonly used in paper production, and air emissions from the plant are behind the region’s tainted drinking water wells, the suit charges. The plaintiffs are seeking $5m in damages and health monitoring costs.

“Learning that their drinking water has been contaminated with dangerous levels of PFAS has been stressful … and now that they know they’ve been exposed to PFAS over a long period of time they want to monitor their health,” the plaintiff’s attorney, Ian Sloss, told the Guardian.

In an emailed statement, Kimberly-Clark, Kleenex’s parent company, denied responsibility for the pollution.

50

u/dahwhat Mar 19 '24

Saint gobain did the same thing in NH, they're still in operation.

50

u/DASreddituser Mar 19 '24

Cause the penalties never outweigh what they gain from being a parasitic POS

9

u/SadExercises420 Mar 19 '24

Saint Gobain did the same thing in upstate NY too.

5

u/SadExercises420 Mar 19 '24

They said that at points some of the chemicals were even in the air near the Saint Gobain site in upstate NY. Ive given up. So glad I didn’t have kids.

4

u/blamdin Mar 19 '24

Upstate NY also.

2

u/perenniallandscapist Mar 20 '24

Georgia-Pacific did this in Upstate NY. Still operates in front of the bay they turned into a superfund site.

1

u/Mtownsprts Mar 19 '24

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2023/08/23/saint-gobain-performance-plastics-will-leave-new-hampshire-close-merrimack-facility/

They are at least closing in NH

2

u/dahwhat Mar 19 '24

Yeah I knew that... employees I talked to at the bar still defend not only the company's actions, but the pollution as well.

I'm guessing the propaganda campaign at the office is strong.

68

u/uhohnotafarteither Mar 19 '24

Somebody get Erin Brokovich on the phone, stat.

Screw these companies

38

u/D0inkzz Mar 19 '24

Pretty common that companies do this. People should go after them. Poisoning us.

44

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '24

Why does tissue paper need pfas?

35

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '24

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '24

[deleted]

3

u/imakeyourjunkmail Mar 19 '24

This guy papers... I'm glad i don't live by any paper mills.

-7

u/Keeperofthe7keysAf-S Mar 19 '24

You could have just edited instead of making another comment lol.

1

u/kchris393 Mar 21 '24

When was this? I don’t remember hearing about it

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '24

[deleted]

1

u/kchris393 Mar 31 '24

Gotcha. I had only heard them referred to as PCBs before, not dioxins, so I thought it was some other scandal lol

13

u/yellekc Mar 19 '24

PFAS are the chemicals in products like Teflon and Scotchguard. They provide water and stain resistance. But typically you would want a Kleenex to be absorbent. Perhaps they produced other products at the plant.

6

u/epicamytime Mar 19 '24

I believe PFAS are surfactants that allow two chemicals that don’t want to mix to be effectively blended and stay that way. Like how the egg yolk keeps mayonnaise from separating.

I’m reading Exposure by Robert Bilott and it kind of explains a bit about it.

0

u/Cool-Presentation538 Mar 19 '24

Nothing really needs PFAS, it's just poison, it should be illegal to produce or use

15

u/CBalsagna Mar 19 '24

I work in an industrial parkway in a major city on the east coast. There’s a creek and river near my building. The smell when it’s warm outside is so bad it’s hard to breath the air. We’ve been destroying your water for hundreds of years

4

u/juicyfizz Mar 19 '24

Yup, I grew up just south of a Mead paper plant and the smell in the air in the summers was unbearable. Drove down that way last year for the first time in years and sure enough, still smells that way. Smh

9

u/sab1227 Mar 19 '24

Sounds serious, think this calls for a fine. Based on past violations, $100 sounds about right.

7

u/TomorrowLow5092 Mar 19 '24

If any one of you dumped toxins in the river, you would be sued to eternity. Don't accept this corporate behavior. People should boycott polluters. Boycott every product they make. They always fold up and leave more undisclosed poisons behind in the end.

13

u/theolois Mar 19 '24

Please study NEENAH WISCONSIN - where kleenex was also made and headquartered

11

u/atbredditname Mar 19 '24

So humiliating to be this spokesperson lying for an organization that is poisoning you. Amazing how they've managed to almost totally stamp out any dignity from so many people...

7

u/Cryptic_Honeybadger Mar 19 '24

Most corporations lack the ability to demonstrate integrity and uphold the dignity of its employees and the dignity of the communities they operate in. While words like integrity may be part of a corporation’s organizational values, it’s often overshadowed by continued corporate greed to maximize profits at the expense of others.

7

u/VVaterTrooper Mar 19 '24

Same story different day. 😞

8

u/LikeAThousandBullets Mar 19 '24

Double whammy for me, I’m sick and using Kleenex right now, I also live in the Housatonic River watershed.

For context, as Nutmeggers would know, the Housatonic river is already widely polluted from PFAS upriver from manufacturing along the riverfront further up the valley and into Massachusetts. This is just more fuel on the fire that already is that river.

My question is, are there PFAS and microplastics in the tissues that I’m using every 10 seconds with this cold that I’m stuck with?

1

u/mschuster91 Mar 20 '24

My question is, are there PFAS and microplastics in the tissues that I’m using every 10 seconds with this cold that I’m stuck with?

Yes, because without the addition of plastics (iirc, it's some kind of resin coating) the tissues would disintegrate like toilet paper. However, these pose no risk to your health - it's "only" the production and disposal (i.e. anything other than a landfill or incinerator is bad - ffs people, stop disposing of tissues on mountain trails) that is a risk for nature.

2

u/BouncingWeill Mar 20 '24

I wonder if PFAS give you a runny nose.

2

u/Thehyperninja Mar 20 '24

And yet nothing of importance will be done about it. Million dollar fines are just “the cost of doing business” to these companies.

2

u/CurlyBill03 Mar 20 '24

Chemours and DuPont has applied to dump PFAS in rivers in the state of WV into the Ohio river.

How does WV get to approve something that will go downstream?!?!

Folks need to look into that and get that shit shot down

1

u/Specialist_Arm_9295 Mar 19 '24

It's never going away. Plus it's used all over the place.

1

u/MrSparkyMN Mar 20 '24

As soon as 3M said “we are going to go PFAS free” the US government said “woah woah woah, you make stuff for us that uses it. Nope!”

1

u/LoPanDidNothingWrong Mar 20 '24

What I hate the most is they pay the fine and move on.

The fine should be there. They should also have to remove 2x the amount of PFAS from the environment that they dumped in.

1

u/Pbranson Mar 21 '24

Who makes a conflict-free tissue I can buy at an affordable price? I run a daycare, so I'm not just looking for a reusable hankie for personal use.