Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#31

Post by XorNot »

snek wrote: post #28
lordnacho wrote: post #14

We shouldn't be surprised that this sort of thing happens from time to time. What are the incentives? If you're an exec in charge of some product, you want to sell the product. You don't want to be pulling it, you'll never get promoted like that. And you know more about how to move product than about asbestos testing results, that's for sure. And chances are nothing will be discovered. And if it is discovered it will…

> you want to sell the product but if it has a carcinogen in it? do you really still want to? i fail to understand how humans can behave like this.

"It's probably not that bad" "The results weren't conclusive" "Look, this product was used by millions, we'd know if there was a problem..."

Never depend on a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#32

Post by foolrush »

ekianjo wrote: post #10
foolrush wrote: post #6

Makes these stories more relevant. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/business/johnson-talc-can... Almost as if the “free market” doesn’t regulate itself and generate ethical results...

Don't forget to include the regulators in your argument, since they were also heavily involved. So much for "the free market".

That is somewhat of my point; the market actually dictates this abusive behaviour and endorses it.

All that matters is profit at all costs. Even if hit with fines, the entity can likely carry on existing because profit permits survival. Regulation needs to require prison for the white collars involved.

If we stop to think about what people are serving time in prison for at this moment, and comparative impact, it is shameful. The people who willingly perpetuated this in the name of profit will continue to have the right to vote, while someone in prison for marijuana may not.

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#33

Post by snek »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22

Everybody knew? Talc deposits often occur near asbestos deposits. There's a govt standard for 'cosmetic' talc that addresses asbestos content, that's been around since 1973.

I doubt the average consumer is aware of the way that talc and asbestos deposit, but moreover, this article is claiming that J&J went above that limit.

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#34

Post by Swizec »

rasengan wrote: post #20
r_singh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big corps who can do anything to capture market share and have some sort leverage over the Government cannot be trusted. I guess people just forget about all ethics when huge debt / investment / incentive is involved. Leverage over media and governments along with an army of lawyers and bean counters just makes this whole thing possible. Meanwhile globalisation has arguably made it more difficult for SMEs to market /…

Any government that is susceptible to leverage outside of the POWER OF THE PEOPLE needs to go to jail/be impeached if they succumb to said leverage. Their only duty, their only fiduciary, their only constituent is WE THE PEOPLE as a collective. It is not Johnson and Johnson. That said, we live in an odd time. Supposedly we don’t negotiate with terrorists and let hostages die, but we are sending millions of weapons to…

> Their only duty, their only fiduciary, their only constituent is WE THE PEOPLE as a collective

But their re-election hinges on campaign funds and big companies contribute way more than we the people.

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#35

Post by learc83 »

lordnacho wrote: post #14

We shouldn't be surprised that this sort of thing happens from time to time. What are the incentives? If you're an exec in charge of some product, you want to sell the product. You don't want to be pulling it, you'll never get promoted like that. And you know more about how to move product than about asbestos testing results, that's for sure. And chances are nothing will be discovered. And if it is discovered it will…

Will it make money? Will it kill people?

If the answers are yes, and not too many, most companies will go ahead.

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#36

Post by lordnacho »

cabalamat wrote: post #26
lordnacho wrote: post #14

We shouldn't be surprised that this sort of thing happens from time to time. What are the incentives? If you're an exec in charge of some product, you want to sell the product. You don't want to be pulling it, you'll never get promoted like that. And you know more about how to move product than about asbestos testing results, that's for sure. And chances are nothing will be discovered. And if it is discovered it will…

> Not saying I have an answer The answer must involve making the risks outweigh the benefits, through both an increased probability of being caught and a higher level of punishment.

That's the target, but how do you reach it without creating more issues?

Say you have a stringent approval process run by a government agency. Well that takes time. If the product actually works fine you've lost out on the benefits in the meantime.

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#38

Post by dpau »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22

Everybody knew? Talc deposits often occur near asbestos deposits. There's a govt standard for 'cosmetic' talc that addresses asbestos content, that's been around since 1973.

Yes, everyone knew, especially the ceramics community. Back in 2006 a potter successfully sued Vanderbilt for contracting mesothelioma due to his use of Nytal, a talc widely used in the pottery community [1]. As of last year this brand of talc is no longer available due to the issue of asbestos contamination. It's widely known that many talcs contain asbestos or "asbestos-like" minerals and can be damaging to the lungs. It's a wonder that those old cartoons show mothers liberally applying clouds of baby powder to babies, those fine particulates hang around in the air for a very long time.

[1]: https://www.levylaw.com/talc-asbestos-mesothelioma/

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#39

Post by thegabez »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22

Everybody knew? Talc deposits often occur near asbestos deposits. There's a govt standard for 'cosmetic' talc that addresses asbestos content, that's been around since 1973.

Not the millions of mothers who've put it on their infants.

Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

#40

Post by schaefer »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22

Everybody knew? Talc deposits often occur near asbestos deposits. There's a govt standard for 'cosmetic' talc that addresses asbestos content, that's been around since 1973.

Yep, here in Nevada, we have naturally occurring asbestos near some of our most popular water recreation areas [1]. I know one gov. employee that is required to wear a full hazmat suit to go to the beach if they're on the clock.

On the weekends, they wear a regular swimsuit...

"Asbestos" is a scary word to some, just like "radiation" is to others. but unless the discussion includes concentration levels we're not discussing risk, we're discussing fear.

[1] http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/airquality/announcements/Pages/...

Post reply on HN