Talk:DuPont and C-8

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	Delaware portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Delaware.

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

POV fork?

Why is this article split off from the main article on DuPont? 129.241.11.201 13:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Problems iwth the article

First, references 5-9 which are the basis for the WHOLE cover-up and settlement sections are missing (or maybe improperly referenced) from the references section.

Second, it is unfair and not a neutral POV to not give DuPont and Environmental Working Group equal balance in this argument. I am trying to figure out how to say this without making it sound worse than I mean it. EWG is a pronatural products group who often voices opinions on the side of if it is synthetic it isn't safe unless proven so or if there is the slightest chance something synthetic is unsafe then it should be banned until proven safe (instead of being proven unsafe). DuPont is a synthetic company who has understandably opposite view. Which is the better view is a judgment call, and hence not a neutral POV. On top of this, the title of the EWG article is HIGHLY sensationalistic, showing their bias (just as DuPont has a bias) "EPA Fines Teflon Maker DuPont for Chemical Cover-Up Largest Administrative Fine in Agency's History Shows Seriousness of Polluting Babies' Blood and Drinking Water". This bias means that each side skews the data in their favor, meaning each side deserves equal weight.

Third there is a mention that PFOA is INDESTRUCTIBLE. Tgat is a hardcore statement. EVERYTHING is destructible given the right conditions and a sufficient length of time. To say it is highly-stable or does not decompose appreciably in a period of years would be better or choose your own more correct phrase on the matter.

Now I am not contesting the issue of whether PFOA is toxic, just that the way the article is written is very sensationalist. Instead of taking the time to properly explain its toxicity in a rational manner, which INCLUDES addressing the opposing arguments. If the perspective of toxicity is truly correct then the argument will stand even with all of the evidence and arguments shown, provided the arguments are proper and not based on faulty logic or faulty science(a common one is comparing aspartame to barbituates based on its formula alone, note I said FORMULA not structure).

I honestly do not know enough to know whether the compound is toxic or not and have no real care on the matter, other than I want to see wikipedia better and as a neutral observer, this article, as many controversy articles do, comes across as VERY one-sides, partly due to the missing references and the but also partly due to the fact that very little to no time is spent on covering DuPonts view in the controversy and lastly there is no real discussion on the toxicity of the compound in question (which should be part of this controversy as it sort of revolves around this, once again toxicity examples should be fair and proper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroDaGr8 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]