4 ms·

I never said asbestos was never used. I said no company, knowing what we know today, would continue to use it and that a regulation preventing its use would the

I never said asbestos was never used. I said no company, knowing what we know today, would continue to use it and that a regulation preventing its use would therefore be pointless. Are there instances in the past where it has been used? Ok, sure. Are there instances where companies and people have flat out lied to regulators, both US and EU? I’m sure we can all think of at least one, there were criminal charges recently. Clearly simply having a law doesn’t make it so.

fzeroracer 7y ago
I gave you an example of a company, knowing what we know today about the dangers of asbestos, continuing to sell their product despite knowing it contained asbestos. They were concerned about the dangers internally and proceeded to cover it up. This is an example which directly contradicts your first paragraph.
- chrismeller 7y ago
  Even according to your link it stopped almost 20 years ago (2000), and you ignored the second paragraph, so... ball’s in your court.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    No, it didn't stop in 2000. To quote the article directly: >A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public. >A third verdict, in St. Louis, was a watershed, broadening J&J’s potential liability: The 22 plaintiffs were the first to succeed with a claim that asbestos-tainted Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc, a longtime brand the company sold in 2012, caused ovarian cancer, which is much more common than mesothelioma. And to address your second paragraph directly: That is literally why laws and regulations exist. There will be companies that break them yes, and laws exist in order to ideally punish them for doing so. What you're essentially saying is that 'murders still happen even though there are laws against it, therefore laws are useless' but applied at a company scale.

fzeroracer 7y ago

I gave you an example of a company, knowing what we know today about the dangers of asbestos, continuing to sell their product despite knowing it contained asbestos. They were concerned about the dangers internally and proceeded to cover it up. This is an example which directly contradicts your first paragraph.

chrismeller 7y ago
Even according to your link it stopped almost 20 years ago (2000), and you ignored the second paragraph, so... ball’s in your court.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  No, it didn't stop in 2000. To quote the article directly: >A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public. >A third verdict, in St. Louis, was a watershed, broadening J&J’s potential liability: The 22 plaintiffs were the first to succeed with a claim that asbestos-tainted Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc, a longtime brand the company sold in 2012, caused ovarian cancer, which is much more common than mesothelioma. And to address your second paragraph directly: That is literally why laws and regulations exist. There will be companies that break them yes, and laws exist in order to ideally punish them for doing so. What you're essentially saying is that 'murders still happen even though there are laws against it, therefore laws are useless' but applied at a company scale.