Thanks for that. A lot of interesting details:
> “The purpose of the creation of [the Combat Arms earplugs] was to collaborate with the military to solve one of the longest-standing problems they have had, that soldiers won’t wear their hearing protection around loud noises and in combat,” Rucker said.
> Rucker said the plugs were designed in collaboration with the U.S. military and tested by the Air Force, Army, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and others.
> “3M has purposefully skewed this data by relying on hearing standards that do not measure frequencies most affected by noise, concealing the hearing damage suffered by veterans,” said Bryan Aylstock and Chris Seeger, co-lead counsel for the service members and veterans, in a joint statement.
> 3M disagreed with those claims, telling CNBC: “The data support what 3M has maintained throughout this litigation: the Combat Arms Earplugs version two were safe and effective to use. This has been confirmed by every independent, third-party organization that has tested the product, including the Army Research Lab, the Air Force Research lab, NIOSH, and others.”
Ultimately, whose job should it be to determine whether or not they're defective? If the military tested them in advance and determined they met standards, and they were manufactured identically to what the military approved, should 3M be the one held responsible?
> “The purpose of the creation of [the Combat Arms earplugs] was to collaborate with the military to solve one of the longest-standing problems they have had, that soldiers won’t wear their hearing protection around loud noises and in combat,” Rucker said.
> Rucker said the plugs were designed in collaboration with the U.S. military and tested by the Air Force, Army, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and others.
> “3M has purposefully skewed this data by relying on hearing standards that do not measure frequencies most affected by noise, concealing the hearing damage suffered by veterans,” said Bryan Aylstock and Chris Seeger, co-lead counsel for the service members and veterans, in a joint statement.
> 3M disagreed with those claims, telling CNBC: “The data support what 3M has maintained throughout this litigation: the Combat Arms Earplugs version two were safe and effective to use. This has been confirmed by every independent, third-party organization that has tested the product, including the Army Research Lab, the Air Force Research lab, NIOSH, and others.”
Ultimately, whose job should it be to determine whether or not they're defective? If the military tested them in advance and determined they met standards, and they were manufactured identically to what the military approved, should 3M be the one held responsible?