Earlier quoted context omitted.
3% of other (minerals?) than talk. Not 3% asbestos to make that clear.
And even then, without a dangerous threshold level, the number is meaningless.
1% is the legal limit in the US
Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
91–94 of 94 posts
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cause they will always say "i didn't know" and you can't prove anything
Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Not knowing that an employee of a company broke the law and you're a director or more senior manager probably shoots down any chance of a due diligence defence.
Im not sure i understand what u say. I just meant it might just be really hard to prove.. nothing more
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
> Regulation needs to require prison for the white collars involved. You are completely missing the point. Here regulators were aware and judged it was fine to continue selling the product.
We can debate that we both are or aren’t, given it is a cyclical relationship of chicken egg.
The regulators are, in the USA, frequently installed lobbyists with profit-at-all-costs ideologies in place. It is clear that the USA’s concept of “oversight” is complicit in this.
Hard to shift those underlying ideologies.
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Regulation needs to require prison for the white collars involved. You are completely missing the point. Here regulators were aware and judged it was fine to continue selling the product.
We can debate that we both are or aren’t, given it is a cyclical relationship of chicken egg. The regulators are, in the USA, frequently installed lobbyists with profit-at-all-costs ideologies in place. It is clear that the USA’s concept of “oversight” is complicit in this. Hard to shift those underlying ideologies.
> The regulators are, in the USA, frequently installed lobbyists with profit-at-all-costs ideologies in place
Then what is the alternative you suggest if you do not even trust the concept of having regulators?