Australia court alleges 3M hid harm risks for over 50 years
Australian government court documents allege 3M knew for more than five decades that its products, including PFAS chemicals, could harm human health but failed to disclose the risks. The claim is part of a broader lawsuit seeking compensation for environmental and health damage. This matters because it could set a major legal precedent for corporate accountability.
Sources (1)
Related stories
Keisha Lance Bottoms becomes first Black woman elected governor
Keisha Lance Bottoms has won election as governor, making her the first Black woman elected to a governor's office in U.S. history. The result is a landmark in American politics and a significant breakthrough for Black women in executive leadership.
Al Jazeera 3 links · 2 video, 1 text
US midterms: Ecstatic scenes and historic firsts so far
The US midterm elections have produced jubilant scenes and historic milestones as results continue to come in. Control of Congress and key state races are at stake, with outcomes set to shape national policy and politics.
US contractor 'gave Ethiopia secrets to target Tigray fighters'
A BBC investigation reports that a US contractor allegedly provided intelligence to Ethiopian forces to help target and kill Tigray fighters during the conflict. The allegation raises serious questions about American involvement and accountability in a war marked by widespread atrocities.
North Korea fires multiple missiles, denies US claims over Binance hack
North Korea launched multiple missiles while denying US allegations that it was involved in the Binance hack. The missile firings raise regional security tensions, while the denial highlights continuing disputes over cybercrime attribution.
AUKUS is Australia’s worst and riskiest defence decision, inquiry says
A public inquiry into Australia’s AUKUS submarine deal found it is the country’s worst, riskiest, and most costly defence decision ever. The finding challenges the multibillion-dollar nuclear-powered submarine agreement with the UK and US. It matters because it raises serious doubts about the deal’s costs, strategic risks, and rationale amid major defence spending.