Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the H2Mg3(SiO3)4-or-Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 dept.

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.

Also at CNN and USA Today.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @07:48PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @07:48PM (#664629) Journal
    And now the linear no-threshold model. It'd be helpful, if you actually understood what you were speaking of. Dose makes the poison still applies.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Redundant=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 09 2018, @09:33PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday April 09 2018, @09:33PM (#664693) Journal

    I know enough to understand that quote is not referring to a model.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @10:56PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @10:56PM (#664729) Journal

      I know enough to understand that quote is not referring to a model.

      Uh huh. I've seen this game played before. Let's look at the quote in question:

      “All levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-related disease…there is no level of exposure below which clinical effects do not occur.”

      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:

      • Lead [epa.gov]:

        The MCLG for lead is zero because there is no level of exposure to lead that is without risk.

      • Generic carcinogenic materials [illinois.gov]:

        This conservative, "nonthreshold" concept is used because it is presumed that there is no level of exposure to a carcinogen that does not pose a certain level of risk.

      • Radiation [illinois.gov]:

        A 2007 version of the same document stated that no level of radiation is safe, concluding: "The current body of scientific knowledge tells us this."

      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).