Please go see the movie "Dark Waters" and take a neighbor

[Ohioboy]

I'm afraid this important movie will quietly go away for lack of attendance. Our theater was nearly empty when my wife and I saw it over the weekend.

It's the true story of Robert Bilott's legal battle against DuPont when they polluted Parkersburg, West Virginia's water supply. Everyone needs to see it, especially any of your friends that might think corporations in America can do no wrong. This true story is proof that self- regulation will never work when it comes to corporations. It also shows how slow the process is to get a corporation to do the right thing.

[Mike 03]

1. It looks great.

It's unlikely to screen in a local theater, but the second it comes to Amazon or DVD I'll see it one way or another. Thanks for the recommendation.

[dewsgirl]

2. I have wanted to see it since the summer, I love Mark Ruffalo

as an actor. And it looks like a very important movie.

[appalachiablue]

13. Great acting & activism; Ruffalo helped get this movie made. Reviews:

Trailer. Mark Ruffalo is an attorney trying to punish the DuPont chemical corporation for dumping toxic waste in West Virginia, is a lone-crusader-against-the-corrupt-system film, in the tradition of "The Insider," "A Civil Action," and "The Verdict." Director Todd Haynes embraces that lineage, giving viewers the sense of what a long, tedious, spiritually draining process this can be. Ruffalo stars as Robert Billott, a Cincinnati, Ohio attorney for Taft Stettinius & Hollister, a firm that defends major corporations, including DuPont, one of the world's most powerful chemical manufacturers.

Through personal ties, and against the wishes of his own colleagues, Billott decides to help a lowly cattle farmer from Parkersburg, WV named Wilbur Tennant. Wilbur's cows have been getting sick, going insane, and dying off at an alarming rate, and he's convinced it's because DuPont poisoned the nearby water supply. He's right, of course, but proving it won't be easy, nor will establishing a chain of intentionality that might make DuPont liable for cleanup and restitution. What follows is a detective story with a nice guy lawyer at its center... https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dark-waters-movie-review-2019

*'The Atlantic' Review, A Chilling True Story of Corporate Indifference
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/11/dark-waters-review-mark-ruffalo-robert-bilott/602434/

*NYT Magazine, The Lawyer Who Became Dupont's Worst Nightmare, Jan. 2016,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html

*TIME, The True Story of the Lawyer Who Took Dupont to Court and Won,
https://time.com/5737451/dark-waters-true-story-rob-bilott/

[dewsgirl]

14. Thank you, I'm going to watch it as soon as I can.

[dewsgirl]

46. I went last night. Such an excellent movie. As soon as I started

watching it struck me, Mark Ruffalo also played the Olympic brother that was killed by John DuPont, with Steve Carrel and Channing Tatum, Foxcatcher, which was also a good movie. I have tried to research any link, I didn't really find anything. Thank you for posting, I doubt I would have seen it so soon, if not for your post.

[appalachiablue]

47. 'Foxcatcher' sounds interesting from their Wiki and John DuPont

was an heir. The French family goes way back in America. They fled the French Revolution and the company founder, chemist and industrialist E.I. DuPont first established the factory works for gunpowder near Wilmington, Delaware. The company expanded more into chemicals and in 2017 it merged with giant Dow Chemical. ~ I still haven't had a chance to see the film yet, but hope to soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont_(1802%E2%80%932017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxcatcher

[dewsgirl]

48. He was nuts, I haven't watched since it came out. Powerhouse

acting, quite depressing. I enjoyed it though, I adore Steve Carell and love to see him in different roles.

[llmart]

3. "This true story is proof that self- regulation will never work when it comes to corporations."

Some of us learned that from Love Canal and Erin Brockovich.

Some people in Flint feel the same way about government (GOP led government).

[Ohioboy]

5. Bilott was able to prove that DuPont knew the stuff they were dumping was toxic,

even though it hadn't been officially regulated by the EPA at the time. Otherwise, DuPont would have hidden behind the lack of EPA regulation. If fact, that was one of DuPont's first lines of defense-was to twist it all around and blame the government for not regulating what they knew they were doing. Thanks to Bilott's hard work, they weren't able to do that.

[Dustlawyer]

6. You just have to look at TPC's plant explosion last week to understand that it continues.

The regulatory agencies are headed by industry insiders, under-budgeted and staffed to the point they cannot even inspect these plants unless there is an incident of large proportions.

Once again greed to precedence over safety!

[Funtatlaguy]

4. I saw it. Was great. Horribly depressing too.

[IronLionZion]

7. Job creators are being punished for success by jealous liberals

Liberals are always passing these job killing regulations because they hate America and want to turn us into a socialist shithole.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

8. Our local newspaper in Sarasota did a

front page story on the film because Bilott went to New College. When my friend and I went to an early morning screening on Saturday the theater was over half full.

[ancianita]

9. Florida's problems with the Everglades' pollution makes this movie of particular interest.

[Johnny2X2X]

10. Cost transfer

These corporations know the costs associated with their poison, and they choose to pass those costs to the public so they can get richer. This is evil, choosing money over human lives makes you evil.

[shadowmayor]

11. Infuriating

But a great movie. Should be piped into every living room.

[Catch2.2]

12. Great movie!!!

It definitely is a must see for everyone. Makes we wonder, where's the outrage??

[smirkymonkey]

15. K&R

On my list! I love Mark Ruffalo and the subject sounds fascinating.

[IcyPeas]

16. BBC also did a documentary which was also devastating

highly recommended - watch this too. I haven't seen Dark Waters yet, but I will.

[appalachiablue]

18. Looks good, important. Tx for posting.

[lame54]

17. I want to see it but...

It's just a movie
Not a historical document

the best it can do is inspire you to do your own digging

[IcyPeas]

19. see the BBC post I just posted above, its a documentary

[Drahthaardogs]

20. I have worked almost exclusively with these compounds

For the last seven years. The point made about them being in everyone and everything is true. How toxic they actually are (if at all), is still unknown.

EPA, ASTDR, States, and DoD are currently studying them and their effects on organisms and the environment.

[Ohioboy]

21. DuPont found them to be toxic in their own studies

DuPont's own workers were showing toxic side effects, especially birth defects, which prompted DuPont to pull women off the production line. Don't you hate it when the American people are used as guinea pigs?

[Ohioboy]

23. It was more than just birth defects

[Ohioboy]

24. Not sure of what your definition of "toxic" is

Mine is anything that shows to be dangerous and cause damage to the environment and the life in it.

[Ohioboy]

27. What is the technical definition of toxicity?

[Ohioboy]

29. Doesn't your definition of toxic cover at least 4 of the other measures you have mentioned?

If the definition of toxic = poisonous substance that can cause harm up to death through ingestion, injection, inhalation, or adsorption; then birth defects are harm, damage to tissue is harm, changes in DNA are possible harm, and cancer is definitely harm.

By that definition it seems all of the others are measures of toxicity.

[Blue_true]

32. Generally, effective Threshold Limit Values for chemicals cover almost the exact wording you just

gave. I view the other poster as an expert level person who is going a little too deep into the weeds. TLV wording should be all inclusive in regards to all side effects and easy for a lay level person to understand. The other poster seem to be getting into the investigative and lab level terminology that leads to the setting of effective TLVs for chemicals. I don't think that the poster is trying to be disengenuous or in any way argumentative, but the posts as written seem to miss the point, IMO.

[Ohioboy]

33. I was suspecting that

That's why I was trying to put it more in my own layman terms. I mean, can something not be toxic until the officials say it is? What about all the stuff we knew was toxic before the EPA came into existence?

[Blue_true]

38. There has been a number of cases where chemicals were not considered to be toxic, but

more detailed studies showed them to be. In fact, that list is pretty long.

The poster that you responded to appears to have considerable expertise in this area, I don't know whether it is regulatory or with a large corporate unit (chemical, pharmaceutical, cosmetics, food and drink, ect) that deals with local, state and EPA regulators.

[Ohioboy]

36. Sorry, didn't mean to make you mad

Let me ask you a question so I can learn. Are teratogenicity, corrosivity, reactivity, mutagenic properties, and carcinogenic properties measures of toxicity? I'm sorry I upset you, but I would really like to know so I can learn.

[Ohioboy]

39. Thank you for your response

Now I know. I've always considered anything that caused harm or death when ingested, inhaled or absorbed to be poisonous, but now I'll look at things differently. Thank you.

[Blue_true]

40. The problem may be in how you as an expert defines toxic, and how

lay people define it. I am sure that the typical lay person would consider anything that adversely affects people or animals, including causing birth defects or miscarriages as toxic, you as an expert would not. The experience that I have with TLV wording from my time as a corporate engineer who dealt with chemicals is that the wording was inclusive for every human risk, including birth defects and miscarriages.

[Drahthaardogs]

42. Yes, you're right.

Toxic = harmful to most people. I was too hard on the guy.

[Ohioboy]

44. Well, Webster doesn't do a whole lot to clear up any confusion

Don't worry. You weren't too hard on me, a little technical maybe, but that doesn't hurt.

[Drahthaardogs]

45. Well, technically ANY adverse effect could be toxic

E.g. radiation burns could be considered toxic effects

I guess we start breaking them down into specifics, so toxic means something different to me when I mean the toxic effects.

So, for example elevated cholesterol, and increased liver weights ARE effects of PFAS. I would call those toxic effects.

I would classify birth defects as teratogenic.

I would call testicular cancer carcinogenic effects.

However, you could group them (as the poster said) all together as "toxic effects", but we break them out a little differently.

[Blue_true]

30. Have TLV been set for the chemicals, or are those being developed?

A lot of chemicals, through lax regulation (typically at the state level, but often at the federal level under republican administrations) don't have those values in place. A TLV should cover every possible impact upon human beings, to include all conditions that you listed. California has some of the best regulation in the country, any business person that cares about what his or her companies chemicals can do to people and the environment should look of the California REGs on the chemicals then work to those, even if their state is not as strict.

[Drahthaardogs]

35. No, the EPA has developed a Lifetime Health Advisory

Of 70 parts per trillion for pfos and pfoa combined in drinking water. It is not a CERCLA hazardous substance, has no MCL, etc.

There are over 1000 conengers associated with these compounds and almost no toxicity data. No ecological values exist. A cancer slope does exist, but it's supported by weak evidence.

[Kurt V.]

26. K&R

[Stuart G]

31. "Self Regulation does NOT WORK"..CORRECT.... please read the history of a book called "The Jungle"

by Upton Sinclair..1906..what went on before and after publication. Yes you will have to read some support information, about what happened after publication of that book.

Oh, and read the book please...Easy read..ends ok, and helped to change legislation on meat packing

It ain't pleasant reading but proves exactly what is said above.."Self Regulation does NOT work

[LAS14]

41. Thanks for this. I tried to get a thread rolling but it didn't catch. Yes, the...

... very slowness/somberness of the film encapsulates the message of how hard and long people have to work to even begin to take on the 1%. It was both depressing and inspiring and needs to be more widely known. I remember hearing about "flourocarbons" in some vague way, but it sure didn't make the impact I would have expected.

[Ilsa]

43. Looks a bit like A Civil Action,

but that movie was about two smaller companies in Massachusetts poisoning water supply and causing a cluster of childhood leukemia cases. Travolta played the lawyer. His successful firm was driven bankrupt by the polluters.

I love love love Mark Ruffalo! Can't wait to see it.