SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Johnson & Johnson's stock slammed after report it knew of asbestos in baby powder
Shares of Johnson & Johnson tumbled Friday, after a Reuters report that the drug and consumer-products company knew for decades that its baby talcum powder was contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen, that is alleged to have caused cancer in thousands of its customers.
The stock ended 10% lower on Friday, marking its largest one-day percentage decline in 16 years and lowest close in nearly four months, according to FactSet data. It led decliners on the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 on the day, and accounted for about 101 points of the Dow's 497-point loss.
[...] Reuters said an examination of internal company memos and other documents found the New Jersey–based company was aware of the presence of small amounts of asbestos in its products from as early as 1971 but failed to disclose that fact to regulators or to the general public.
Reuters stands by J&J report, says it was based 'entirely' on Johnson & Johnson documents
Reuters reporter Lisa Girion stands by her report that Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos was in its baby powder. "Our report on the fact that J&J was aware of small amounts of asbestos in its talc, in its baby power, in the ore that it mined in Vermont to make baby power, is based entirely on their documents," Girion told CNBC's "Power Lunch" on Friday.
The Reuters story sent J&J shares down 9 percent on Friday and prompted a response from the health-care company that called the article "one-sided, false and inflammatory." "Simply put, the Reuters story is an absurd conspiracy theory, in that it apparently has spanned over 40 years, orchestrated among generations of global regulators, the world's foremost scientists and universities, leading independent labs, and J&J employees themselves," the company said in a statement.
See also: Asbestos Opens New Legal Front in Battle Over Johnson's Baby Powder
Those J&J Baby-Powder Lawsuits Aren't Going Away
Johnson & Johnson loses $39.8 billion in market value in one day after report claims it knew about asbestos in its 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
Johnson & Johnson Loses New Jersey Talc Cancer Case
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Blymie on Monday December 17 2018, @08:00AM (2 children)
Part of the problem is the difference between the laboratory and implementation.
For example, asbestos used in insulation? Well, it *is* safe, but only if used precisely and without deviation from instructed installation and maintenance procedures. And here's another thing. It's replacement?
It's not just as bad, but it's bad! You are firmly recommended to wear a mask when installing. You will end up with skin issues, with repeated contact. Blown-in insulation has issues as well! There is literally nothing as a replacement, that works well, that isn't a health risk.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/30/fiberglass-causes-cancer.aspx [mercola.com]
Story at-a-glance
- Fiberglass is one of the most widely used insulating materials in the world, despite concerns that it may cause cancer
- The National Toxicology Program first ruled that fiberglass is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” then revised the ruling to include only certain glass wool fibers (those that are inhalable), which excludes fiberglass;
- Consumer groups are challenging the revised label, claiming the formula the EPA and NIH used to determine carcinogenicity diluted the results, making them look like fiberglass is safe when it really isn’t
- Animal studies have shown that certain glass fibers can cause tumors in animals’ lungs and other tissue sites, while cell studies have shown that certain fiberglass fibers may cause damage to DNA
- When working with fiberglass, choose only formaldehyde-free varieties and wear protective clothing and a respirator; even better, opt for non-toxic insulation materials made from sheep’s wool, recycled blue jeans, newspapers or other natural materials
Does the above sound like asbestos, or like its replacement? Because it is its *replacement*.
Yet, asbestos, fibreglass, and that blown in insulation all have one thing in common. Safe when used and not-deviated from, in terms of installation. And in terms of reaction to maintaining it.
I'll step back, and point at something that is very similar. Teflon.
Here's the thing.. teflon *is* perfectly safe, but only if used .. again, as it was approved by the FDA and other such agencies around the world.
Yet.. real world? Well, let's start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety [wikipedia.org]
--
Pyrolysis of PTFE is detectable at 200 °C (392 °F), and it evolves several fluorocarbon gases and a sublimate. An animal study conducted in 1955 concluded that it is unlikely that these products would be generated in amounts significant to health at temperatures below 250 °C (482 °F).[31]
While PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures, it begins to deteriorate after the temperature of cookware reaches about 260 °C (500 °F), and decomposes above 350 °C (662 °F).[55] The degradation by-products can be lethal to birds,[56] and can cause flu-like symptoms[57] in humans—see polymer fume fever. Meat is usually fried between 204 and 232 °C (399 and 450 °F), and most oils start to smoke before a temperature of 260 °C (500 °F) is reached, but there are at least two cooking oils (refined safflower oil at 265 °C (509 °F) and avocado oil at 271 °C (520 °F)) that have a higher smoke point.
--
And look here:
https://www.petcoach.co/article/teflon-toxicity-ptfe-toxicosis-in-birds-signs-and-preventio/ [petcoach.co]
--
Birds are susceptible to a respiratory condition called "teflon toxicity" or "PTFE poisoning/toxicosis." Deaths can result from this condition, which is due to the noxious fumes emitted from overheated cookware coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
--
I assure you, this gas isn't good for humans. At all. It's just we're too big, and not quite as susceptible as a little bird -- so a tiny pan won't kill us, when it releases a toxic gas.
Here's the thing. You're NEVER EVER supposed to, for example, let your teflon get too hot. *That* is what causes problems with toxic chemicals. That is what makes teflon unsafe. It is 100% harmless otherwise.
But who here has not been cooking, and accidentally let their pan get to hot? You ever have your oil smoke? Or have you ever used pork / animal fats, which have a much higher smoke point?
Or have you cooked, but kept the food moving constantly, so it browns but doesn't burn? The pan is much hotter in that case, but you're not letting the food (because you keep stirring it) get as hot.
Teflon is 100% safe via FDA tests and regs. Yet those tests do not even remotely taking real-world usage cases into account. They also assume that people are 'ever vigilant'.
And once the gas is released? Once the teflon is damaged? It's forever toxic, the chips of teflon that may break off are no longer inert, but toxic.
So go back to asbestos. Same thing. In fact, if you examine most of the issues with chemicals these days, it's all about usage.
I'm not saying the consumer is at fault, but that part of the paradigm is the same issue you have in a computing environment!! Look at it from this angle.....
Software engineers are notorious for needing UX/UI rules, otherwise the 'average user' won't understand how to use the program. Nor the casual user. Why? Well, because when an expert designs an interface, it is more difficult to put themselves in place of the user, especially when the expert was probably very skilled at using computers at the age of 10!
Same for scientists of whatever stripe. Here you have FDA scientists, thinking "Why would anyone let their pan get too hot, when the fine print on the package says to be wary of teflon", or "Why would people use something they haven't read about?"
Well.. because some people aren't analytical, and some frankly aren't all that smart, and it's just a damned pan...
I guess what I'm saying here is that, that baby powder was probably safe when not inhaled. When it went on the diaper, and only there.
But is that what's really going to happen all the time? Every single day, over all the years in a house? No dropped bottles of it? No tops falling off, and the contents flying out? No kids getting a hold of it, and making fun white clouds in the air?
Whether a programmer, or an FDA scientist.. learn about the real world people!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @09:31AM
FTFY. Next time try a little truth in advertising;-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 17 2018, @11:54AM
I self installed 2400 square feet of 6" fiberglass encapsulated batts, they were pretty benign compared to the standard stuff, and less than $100 more expensive for the job IIRC. Sure, if you tore into them carelessly you expose the nasty stuff, but 99% of the job was itch free, and after installation they covered the old insulation in the attic which I believe also reduced airborne fibers.
The whole damn construction industry is structured around shaving the last possible percentage point out of materials cost. Most of the materials decisions are made by contractors, not the sub-contractors who work with the material and not the owners who live with the material, but the contractors who profit directly from material cost reduction. Every single thing I have ever failed to specify, in writing, or supply to a contractor has consistently been provided as the absolute cheapest garbage imaginable - stuff that fails after a year or two instead of the twenty or fifty years that would have been possible for a 10% increase in materials cost. Sure, I don't recommend or use those assholes again after they pull that stunt on me, but they're not hurting for work.
🌻🌻 [google.com]