211–220 of 309 posts
Most numerous listed: Neutrogena, CVS brand, Banana Boat.
If numerous Dell laptop variants and MacBook Pro were affected by some vulnerability, could still mean that the majority of the vulnerable laptops are MacBook Pros. The interesting thing to me would be the ratio of shipped products by a brand that are affected. And maybe the total number of affected units.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking. I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
If this gets another “shame on you” edit, I’d reflect on we people are downvoting you. Fwiw, I haven’t voted on your comments either way.
I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
benzene is not one of those
One molecule of benzene will guarantee a cancer case?
From the original article: "The toxicity of benzene in humans has been well established for over 120 years. The hematotoxicity of benzene has been described as early as 1897. A study from 1939 on benzene stated that “exposure over a long period of time to any concentration of benzene greater than zero is not safe,” which is a comment reiterated in a 2010 review of benzene research specifically stating “There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the parent comment's link: > A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to di…
> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking. I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One is accepting the risk of not knowing almost infinite amount of chemical interaction of human bodies vs some novel chemistry but still maximizing the safety as its simply the right thing to do for everybody long term, including J&J. The other is accepting the usage of highly-questionable-at-best compounds as part of baby care products, because current bonuses take priority above everything else. Evil comes in many…
agreed on all points, except the assumption of evil. There is certainly evil in the world, yet "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Malice or stupidity, they both should be held accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable using this fund. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't even downvote myself, but my guess is that it's related to the extremity of your position. It sounds a lot like you're saying since we know cyanide is poisonous by itself, it's very strange to be able to win a lawsuit if you find significant amounts of cyanide in your bread. Most bread is fine, right? So merely finding cyanide in it should only count as suspicion of a problem and not count as evidence... seems…
Cyanide occurs naturally in apple cores. It is the dose that makes the poison. The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts are using and I appear to have come up against group think. I did not expect this on HN. I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.
Safe amount = 0.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply. The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointi…
We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often found together in mines. J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures.. https://www.reuters.com/investigates…
https://www.theasbestosinstitute.com/2020/05/27/asbestos-in-... https://www.autoserviceworld.com/jobbernews/growing-threat-a...
So, if you happen to still do your own brake work, remember to spray down the parts with a water mister before you handle them to keep the dust from getting into the air. Vacuuming up any brake dust left behind is probably a bad idea too, wetting it down and handling as a liquid is safer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking. I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. From the above Reuters article "The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later." https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
I think we are getting to the bottom of this :-)
The UK Health and Safety Executive state...
"The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible."[1]
Maybe this is where the differences arise. The UK are comfortable with a minimum practical level where risks are very low, whereas the US state none at all.
Thank you for helping answer a question and not mindlessly clicking on down vote. HN is beginning to turn into Reddit rather than seeking inquisitive technical/scientific conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't even downvote myself, but my guess is that it's related to the extremity of your position. It sounds a lot like you're saying since we know cyanide is poisonous by itself, it's very strange to be able to win a lawsuit if you find significant amounts of cyanide in your bread. Most bread is fine, right? So merely finding cyanide in it should only count as suspicion of a problem and not count as evidence... seems…
Cyanide occurs naturally in apple cores. It is the dose that makes the poison. The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts are using and I appear to have come up against group think. I did not expect this on HN. I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.
If you phrased it the way you phased this response, I think you would have gotten a better response.
You didn't phrase it as "I have reason to believe certain levels are not a problem, and I am unaware of the levels recorded in the lawsuit. Where they high enough to be a problem?"
You instead phrased it far more absolute terms that stated that 'merely' finding a dangerous substance in a product was not evidence of it being dangerous. It absolutely is evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence on it's own, but each piece of evidence does not need to be sufficient to prove the case entirely on it's own. Your statements have also carried the extremely strong implication - and that's being generous - that the US courts were definitely wrong. I don't think anybody read your posts and thought you were requesting information and not stating a strong position in defense of J&J.
People have limited time and effort. You made it as difficult as possible to get the information you wished. I wouldn't blame this one on HN groupthink.
Neutrogena is owned by Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders [1]. Combined with Neutrogena being more or less _very high_ in benezine content and J&J having a very deep suite of cancer treatment drugs [2]... This seems like a horrific story of a self-fulfilling product pipeline. I know they're a giant organization and suggesting conspiracy is a bit insane but I can'…
From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM street car consipiracy). Companies aren't as overt as they used to be, but I think they still do it. One example I'm curious about is investment firms ownership in US car companies prior to the spike in oil prices and great recession.
And much like the GM street car conspiracy it's just that, a conspiracy theory: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetc...