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/special-report/johnsona...
It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer.
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.
So no evidence, just suspicion?
I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have.
EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?
> 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 disclose it to regulators or the public.
I think you're being downvoted for not RTFA, not for asking a question.
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.
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.
> I'm not sure how you could believe
Though this is unnecessarily insulting.
> the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking!
> The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer,
This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.
