Johnson & Johnson's baby powder has been linked to mesothelioma for the first time in court, with the plaintiffs being awarded at least $37 million (70% to be paid by J&J, and 30% by Imerys SA):
A New Jersey man who sued Johnson & Johnson and other companies after getting cancer he says was caused by asbestos in baby powder has been awarded $30 million by a jury.
A jury of seven women sitting in New Brunswick also decided Thursday that Kendra Lanzo, the wife of Stephen Lanzo III, must be paid an additional $7 million as a result of the mesothelioma contracted by her husband. The jury will decide next week whether to also award punitive damages to the Lanzos.
[...] Johnson & Johnson is responsible for 70 percent of the damages, while France-based Imerys SA must pick up the rest of the tab. Imerys supplied the talc used to manufacture the baby powder.
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417m in Latest Talc Cancer Case
$417 Million Talc Cancer Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson Tossed Out
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @07:48PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 09 2018, @09:33PM (1 child)
I know enough to understand that quote is not referring to a model.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @10:56PM
Uh huh. I've seen this game played before. Let's look at the quote in question:
Notice the use of the phrase "there is no level of exposure below which...". This is a phrase used in the US to declare that the toxic material in question follows the linear no-threshold model. For other examples:
The language varies a little, but it's the same. The "no threshold" part of the model is emphasized, while the lack of harm from extremely low doses is not. Some even go as far as to claim it's not "safe" even though, assuming the model is valid, you can get doses low enough that you can expose the entire human race, from the dawn of time to its final extinction, and still not see a measurable effect (the "clinical effects" claim is bunk).