5 ms·

It's sad that I'm not surprised that a company would put profit over life. I'm saddened by the fact but not surprised. What really gets me is that baby powder

It's sad that I'm not surprised that a company would put profit over life. I'm saddened by the fact but not surprised. What really gets me is that baby powder is marketed towards young mothers and babies. That's a hardcore attitude towards money over life. How can they ever defend that?

duncan-donuts 8y ago
There’s absolutely no way to justify or defend it. Makes you wonder what types of shit go on every day that we’re not aware we’re exposed to.
- gammateam 8y ago
  You’ll find out in some college kid’s Netflix documentary in 2050
robertAngst 8y ago
>How can they ever defend that? So you didn't read the article? They didn't mention deliberately shipping products with asbestos, but rather than even with their testing, they could not find/remove the trace amounts. It's sad that I'm not surprised that a HN user would go for low hanging anti-coporate karma over real discussion.
- na85 8y ago
  The anti-corporate attitude is a natural consequence of the pervasive culture of CEO hero-worship among a great deal of HN commenters. It's counterculture.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    I'm sure all that attitude has nothing to do with the fact that corporations do bad things.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  Thirty years of actively hiding the ongoing problem from the public is more than enough to count as "deliberate".
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    They only killed a few thousand babies. And babies are small, and a drag on the economy! They're like tiny little immigrants who don't pay taxes, then grow up to take our jobs. Anyway, just because it's labeled "Baby Powder" doesn't necessarily mean you should put it on babies. I mean, I like babies just as much as the next guy, but I just can't eat a whole one.
    - avs733 8y ago
      If the babies were that worried about it they would have just switched to a competitor.
    - treis 8y ago
      >Pediatric MPM is an extremely rare disease. To the best of our knowledge, there are less than 300 published cases [1]. The disease appears to be a different entity than its adult counterpart, as it is not associated with asbestos or radiation exposure [1], https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221357661500113X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221357661... So even if there were asbestos in the talc and even if asbestos caused cancer in kids, there's still not thousands of reported mesothelioma cases in kids.
      - DonHopkins 8y ago
        Wow, you out-apologized me! Very classy. I've got some more dirty water I'd love for you to carry. Do you take rubles? PM me.
        treis 8y ago
        I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
- mikeash 8y ago
  They knew it was there. They didn’t (couldn’t) remove it. They shipped it anyway. How is that not deliberately shipping products with asbestos?
- krick 8y ago
  To be fair, that's precisely the kind of article 80% of people will discuss without reading: pseudo-poetic babbling over 6000 words under a yelling headline instead of delivering the actual information. The worst kind of "journalism" possible.
  - eightpercent 8y ago
    OMG how can they do this killing babies!!! What's that? There was an article?
- mirimir 8y ago
  > They didn't mention deliberately shipping products with asbestos, but rather than even with their testing, they could not find/remove the trace amounts. Sure, But TFA did go into their efforts to downplay third-party evidence, and slander critics. And it mentioned questions about the sensitivity of J&J's asbestos testing. And about removing it, TFA argues that they currently use Chinese talc, which contains much less asbestos. So they could have sought other sources decades ago, instead of stonewalling. Or maybe better yet, they could have stopped using talc.
nameisu 8y ago
nestle
austincheney 8y ago
> What really gets me is that baby powder is marketed towards young mothers and babies. Why does that increase the significance of this issue?
- ohyes 8y ago
  Culturally we value the women and children over men and older people. This is likely due to the reproductive drive that makes babies cute and men more expendable than women.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Big tears and all. If people put that aside and simply looked at the numbers and product composition this problem wouldn't have been a mystery. Qualifying our failed perception with the implicit bias that allowed this failure doesn't ring of a resolution.
    - honestoHeminway 8y ago
      No more tears, more money.
  - johnisgood 8y ago
    But people from the same culture insist on the existence of "systematic sexism". Are they not mutually exclusive? I am genuinely interested in this. I do not understand how you can believe that people value women more than men, and at the same time say that there is "systematic sexism", "male oppression (against women)", etc. And on top of that surprisingly it is only men who are at fault, at least according to the people whom I have asked. Please if you down-vote, do give me some sort of a feedback. It helps me learn and it helps me to not make the same mistake twice. :)
    - forkLding 8y ago
      I think its more about trust and trust of products, historically we've believed women and children to be weaker and more vulnerable as people which is in turn why we depict them as so in sexist attacks: "Women are not good enough" and men are depicted traditionally as "strong, tough and burly" which I would say is also a wrong and stereotyped point making it harder for many men who are not like that or might need a break but can't because they have to maintain their "tough" image. Thus Johnson & Johnson breaking that delicate trust over the issue of vulnerable women and children shows them as profiting from the "weak" and "precious" using products they knew were wrong. Society does not look well upon harmful exploitation at the profit of a few but expense of many, especially when you buy talc powder to use for children trusting that it won't harm you.

duncan-donuts 8y ago

There’s absolutely no way to justify or defend it. Makes you wonder what types of shit go on every day that we’re not aware we’re exposed to.

gammateam 8y ago
You’ll find out in some college kid’s Netflix documentary in 2050

robertAngst 8y ago

>How can they ever defend that? So you didn't read the article? They didn't mention deliberately shipping products with asbestos, but rather than even with their testing, they could not find/remove the trace amounts. It's sad that I'm not surprised that a HN user would go for low hanging anti-coporate karma over real discussion.

na85 8y ago
The anti-corporate attitude is a natural consequence of the pervasive culture of CEO hero-worship among a great deal of HN commenters. It's counterculture.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  I'm sure all that attitude has nothing to do with the fact that corporations do bad things.
crooked-v 8y ago
Thirty years of actively hiding the ongoing problem from the public is more than enough to count as "deliberate".
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  They only killed a few thousand babies. And babies are small, and a drag on the economy! They're like tiny little immigrants who don't pay taxes, then grow up to take our jobs. Anyway, just because it's labeled "Baby Powder" doesn't necessarily mean you should put it on babies. I mean, I like babies just as much as the next guy, but I just can't eat a whole one.
  - avs733 8y ago
    If the babies were that worried about it they would have just switched to a competitor.
  - treis 8y ago
    >Pediatric MPM is an extremely rare disease. To the best of our knowledge, there are less than 300 published cases [1]. The disease appears to be a different entity than its adult counterpart, as it is not associated with asbestos or radiation exposure [1], https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221357661500113X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221357661... So even if there were asbestos in the talc and even if asbestos caused cancer in kids, there's still not thousands of reported mesothelioma cases in kids.
    - DonHopkins 8y ago
      Wow, you out-apologized me! Very classy. I've got some more dirty water I'd love for you to carry. Do you take rubles? PM me.
      - treis 8y ago
        I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
mikeash 8y ago
They knew it was there. They didn’t (couldn’t) remove it. They shipped it anyway. How is that not deliberately shipping products with asbestos?
krick 8y ago
To be fair, that's precisely the kind of article 80% of people will discuss without reading: pseudo-poetic babbling over 6000 words under a yelling headline instead of delivering the actual information. The worst kind of "journalism" possible.
- eightpercent 8y ago
  OMG how can they do this killing babies!!! What's that? There was an article?
mirimir 8y ago
> They didn't mention deliberately shipping products with asbestos, but rather than even with their testing, they could not find/remove the trace amounts. Sure, But TFA did go into their efforts to downplay third-party evidence, and slander critics. And it mentioned questions about the sensitivity of J&J's asbestos testing. And about removing it, TFA argues that they currently use Chinese talc, which contains much less asbestos. So they could have sought other sources decades ago, instead of stonewalling. Or maybe better yet, they could have stopped using talc.

nameisu 8y ago

nestle

austincheney 8y ago

> What really gets me is that baby powder is marketed towards young mothers and babies. Why does that increase the significance of this issue?

ohyes 8y ago
Culturally we value the women and children over men and older people. This is likely due to the reproductive drive that makes babies cute and men more expendable than women.
- austincheney 8y ago
  Big tears and all. If people put that aside and simply looked at the numbers and product composition this problem wouldn't have been a mystery. Qualifying our failed perception with the implicit bias that allowed this failure doesn't ring of a resolution.
  - honestoHeminway 8y ago
    No more tears, more money.
- johnisgood 8y ago
  But people from the same culture insist on the existence of "systematic sexism". Are they not mutually exclusive? I am genuinely interested in this. I do not understand how you can believe that people value women more than men, and at the same time say that there is "systematic sexism", "male oppression (against women)", etc. And on top of that surprisingly it is only men who are at fault, at least according to the people whom I have asked. Please if you down-vote, do give me some sort of a feedback. It helps me learn and it helps me to not make the same mistake twice. :)
  - forkLding 8y ago
    I think its more about trust and trust of products, historically we've believed women and children to be weaker and more vulnerable as people which is in turn why we depict them as so in sexist attacks: "Women are not good enough" and men are depicted traditionally as "strong, tough and burly" which I would say is also a wrong and stereotyped point making it harder for many men who are not like that or might need a break but can't because they have to maintain their "tough" image. Thus Johnson & Johnson breaking that delicate trust over the issue of vulnerable women and children shows them as profiting from the "weak" and "precious" using products they knew were wrong. Society does not look well upon harmful exploitation at the profit of a few but expense of many, especially when you buy talc powder to use for children trusting that it won't harm you.