(no title)
jrsdav | 1 year ago
Talc is used extensively in low-mid fire clay bodies as well as an additive to increase plasticity (makes clay easier to work with), and is an excellent source of MgO for fluxing glazes. In short, it's a great material to have in our cabinet [1]. But now there are essentially no more talc sources in the US and the ripple effect seen in our suppliers and manufactures has been a big shock (we are ever at the mercy of big industry!).
But I honestly just don't get the link to ovarian cancer. Chronic exposure to asbestos causing lung cancer, sure, if it were present in talc in high amounts (which is somewhat dubious in the case of talcum powder). Ultimately I have to conclude that J&J, with all of its billions of dollars and army of lawyers, couldn't find a way out of this. So either the research is dated and needs to be reviewed because there is something going on with talc that we don't understand (unlikely, imho), or I'm left speculating that there is something else motivating them to avoid closer scrutiny of their products.
NovemberWhiskey|1 year ago
gen3|1 year ago
wolverine876|1 year ago
What does that mean and what does it signify? Do you know enough about cancer, microbiology, the female reproductive system, etc. that you would 'get' it and that you trust your intuition?
I don't 'get' much of advanced mathematics, but that doesn't at all invalidate it in my mind, or represent evidence to others.
Is your post more than, 'I kinda wish I didn't know the facts here' - a human reaction to bad news.
legitster|1 year ago
Your body has no way to expel fine asbestos fibers, and so they collect in your lungs and shred up the insides. When your body tries to respond by healing, it instead forms growths that constantly re-cut and heal themselves. So it's a type of cancer, but it's unique in that it's not based on malformed DNA.
So the idea that just being in the presence of asbestos is enough to form self-propagating cancers like it's some sort of radioactive isotope... doesn't make any sense. Asbestos on it's own is completely inert.
It's an improbably claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
Bjartr|1 year ago
hedora|1 year ago
The last time I looked, it was being sold as though it was a controlled substance alongside laboratory grade ethanol, etc.
On the one hand, baby powder causes ovarian cancer (there is evidence that this is true for talc that is not contaminated with asbestos, despite J&J’s long disinformation campaigns).
On the other, if you want to use it in an application where it is perfectly safe, it’s essentially impossible to buy an appropriate product.
ryandrake|1 year ago
Workaccount2|1 year ago
coryrc|1 year ago
TremendousJudge|1 year ago
bsder|1 year ago
As I understand it, J&J executives moved to bury data rather than investigating. In addition, J&J specifically targeted minorities proclaiming dubious "benefits" at the same time they were burying anything to the contrary.
Consequently, it doesn't really matter whether there is or isn't a link. The optics are so terrible that J&J is going to lose badly if brought to trial.
This is the whole "silicone breast implants" thing all over. In the end, the silicone implants were not at fault, but the behavior of the responsible company was sufficiently reprehensible that they were going to lose no matter what.
legitster|1 year ago
[deleted]