3 ms·
More context: https://www.asbestos.com/companies/johnson-johnson/ https://www.asbestos.com/companies/johnson-johnson/ The kicker: "Court documents have reveale
by ImHereToVote 2y ago
More context: https://www.asbestos.com/companies/johnson-johnson/ https://www.asbestos.com/companies/johnson-johnson/
The kicker: "Court documents have revealed that Johnson & Johnson knew its talc contained asbestos as early as the 1950s"
- ImHereToVote 2y ago[flagged]
- 23B1 2y agoWhat an odd comment. How are you defining 'success' and 'market edge' in this scenario? EDIT: just saw the sarcasm tag, sorry
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoI think they’re satirizing the kind of attacks used to dismiss those who document and complain about these safety issues. But I’m not sure.
- 23B1 2y agome big dumb
- legitster 2y agoI don't know why knowing the geological fact that talc contains trace amounts of asbestos is supposed to sound so guilty. My children's school district contains way more than a trace amount of asbestos. The administrators there know it. They aren't in federal court for failing to slap a warning label on the schools.
- calfuris 2y agoI'm not going to weigh in on the J&J issue, but that's a bad comparison. Asbestos can't do any harm if it doesn't get inside your body. Powdered asbestos (as would be found in talcum powder) can very easily do that, but asbestos bound up in building materials can't do that if left undisturbed. Most things that could disturb asbestos are planned in advance, and as long as the presence of asbestos is known it can be worked around, so asbestos in building materials is not particularly hazardous.
- autoexec 2y ago> My children's school district contains way more than a trace amount of asbestos. They should probably be warning people of the danger and if they are in violation of the laws concerning asbestos the school district should be taken to court. One thing is clear, don't grind up your children's school district and then rub it all over a baby's genitals.