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This discussion has been archived.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) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @07:51PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @07:51PM (#664632) Journal

    You mean other than baby powder containing a known carcinogen.

    In other words. no evidence to support your position.

    Even after 1976, the harmful component must be actively removed.

    Ok, so what again is the point of your post?

    Use corn starch. Unlike talc, it doesn't naturally have asbestos in it.

    Talc which has had its asbestos removed doesn't naturally have asbestos either.

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 09 2018, @09:13PM (1 child)

    by sjames (2882) on Monday April 09 2018, @09:13PM (#664682) Journal

    You remind me of the Kinks. Left is right, black is white, back to front and I'm all uptight!

    SHOO

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:18AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:18AM (#664826) Journal
      Run out of reasoning? Maybe you ought to load up on some more before continuing this discussion? Let's look at a key statement you made a couple posts back.

      You mean other than baby powder containing a known carcinogen.

      Merely containing known carcinogens is not good enough. Lots of things contain or produce carcinogens, but we use them anyway because they're more useful than the very slight (if even measurable) risk of increased cancer that results. Let's do some risk analysis here rather than discontinuing products on remarkably pathetic grounds.