Your Water Was Poisoned – The Dupont Chemical Scandal

Have you ever been to your grandparents’ house and looked in their kitchen cabinets? As you dove through the clutter, maybe you found an old pan or pot made by Dupont that totes itself on being non-stick. This seemingly inconspicuous kitchenware harbors a dark secret though.

 

See these ‘Teflon’ pans were part of the many products Dupont produced using Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8). PFOA makes up only one of around 4,700 similar compounds known as Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) or forever chemicals. Starting in the 1950s, Dupont began leaking these chemicals into surrounding water basins across their factory locations in West Virginia and Ohio.

 

No one knew how serious the damage these chemicals could cause would be until the lawsuits from cattle farmers and local citizens revealed rotten teeth, removed colons, and a high level of cancer diagnosis from those most affected by the PFAS pollution. 

 

What about PFAS chemicals’ structure makes them so dangerous though, and was this a case of Dupont not knowing better or was this a sinister cover-up years in the making? 

 

Let’s dive in.

 

The Structure of Forever

PFAS chemicals have the special properties of being non-stick, oil-repellent, and water-repellent, which led to their use in a wide array of consumer products such as Teflon non-stick pans, rain jackets, furniture, cleaning liquids, makeup, cars, pesticides, etc.

 

These special properties stem from their chemical structure: long chains of carbon-fluorine bonds, one of the strongest chemical bonds in existence. C-F are polar covalent bonds, where due to the high electronegativity of fluorine, electrons are unevenly shared between the carbon and fluorine. This uneven electron sharing creates an electrical dipole moment that increases the force of attraction between the two atoms thereby also increasing the energy needed to break the chemical bond apart. Because of this, only extreme heats are able to remotely possess the chance of tearing apart a PFAS. For example, in their documentation, GHD Group recommended 1100 °C (or 2012°F) for 2 seconds to break down fluorinated organic compounds.

 

What happens when you mix a forever chemical with human beings?

Starting in 2005, the C8 Science Panel began a study of possible health effects Mid-Ohio Valley communities suffered from Dupont C8 pollution into the waters of Parkersburg, West Virginia. The study concluded strong probable links between high C8 exposure:

  • diagnosed high cholesterol
  • ulcerative colitis
  • thyroid disease
  • testicular cancer
  • kidney cancer
  • pregnancy-induced hypertension 

 

Many workers from the Dupont factories suffered from multiple of these diseases, with many female workers also giving birth to children with multiple birth defects during their time with the company.

 

You don’t have to be directly exposed to these factories though to have PFAS in your system. Because of its incredible resistance to chemical breakdown, PFAS lasts in water for years and there are few treatment plants that can fully filter the chemical from their drinking water. And like many other toxins, PFAS chemicals also bioaccumulate (increase in concentration) in the body as individuals drink more contaminated water and eat more contaminated fish/animals. Once a PFAS is in the water, it stays in the water and bioaccumulates across seas, lakes, and rivers. Levels of PFAS have even been found in the breast milk samples of women from Indonesia, India, and the Philippines, showing just how widespread the issue is and how many people might one day be at a serious risk.   

 

Just a Mistake or a Malicious Cover-Up? 

In the 1960s, Dupont scientists ran multiple tests on the effect of PFOA on the health of mice, dogs, and monkeys and proved that PFOA was an animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen. However, these toxicology reports were never shown to the EPA until the class action lawsuits in the 2000s forced these documents out of the shadows. 

 

Even more disturbing though is that additional internal reports were later discovered from the 1980s showing that Dupont had by then fully proved that PFOA was a human carcinogen that caused infant birth defects for their female workers and needed up to 1.5 years to clear up only half of the C8 built up in the body. Dupont executives knew without a doubt for over 20 years that they were sabotaging the health of their workers and the surrounding communities, yet it took them their victims fighting tooth and nail just to so much as release this sensitive data to the public.

 

Yet at the time of the initial lawsuits, many Dupont workers and nearby communities still supported Dupont and did not believe they could purposely ignore such ominous health warnings as they saw the company as benevolent bringing jobs and prosperity to their towns. Blindness to a company’s intent can hinder reality though. Big companies such as Dupont and 3M are out to make a profit first and can hide data if that might hinder it. Dupont stole the act of choice for the consumer when their scientists and businessmen actively refuse to acknowledge that content with the public.

 

Sources:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/pfas-are-everywhere-what-can-we-do-to-change-that 

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained 

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.