Chris James Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 ...and other precious parts. I was stunned after reading this article. Baby powder has been used on dozens of generations and only now we are told it is dangerous? Something is wrong at J & J if they have known of this for years and covered it up. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/jandj-must-pay-dollar72-million-for-cancer-death-linked-to-talcum-powder/ar-BBpSa8v?ocid=spartandhp So before you powder your body after a shower look at the bottle and think twice. I guess this means you don't have to have ovaries to be worried. I recall the days when people used corn starch instead of talc. Link to comment
Cole Parker Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Man, that seems wrong to me. Talc? Why? What's carcinogenic about talc? It's just a rock. A very soft rock. Number 1 on Mohs hardness scale. How many millions of babies have been powdered up with the stuff? Talc is a hydrated magnesium silicate. Asbestos is closely related, being a calcium or iron magnesium silicate. Asbestos is also frequently found with talc deposits. The difference is the shape of the asbestos structure—the crystals are needlelike. It's the shape that makes it dangerous. Talc isn't like that at all. If testing of talc samples were shown to be toxic, my guess was those samples contained a small amount of asbestos. I'm suspicious of the plaintiff's science. J&J probably switched to corn starch not because it was less dangerous, but because it's cheaper and comes from a renewable source. There are only so many deposits of talc in the world. C Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now