Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Monsanto court case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Exfarmer" data-source="post: 5287530" data-attributes="member: 1951"><p>This is an interesting case. Firstly must point out that they have already been fined in California about 500 million dollars but that was later kicked out by a higher court and we can expect this one to go further.</p><p>It is very difficult to argue that Talcum is not Asbestos, it is chemically identical.</p><p>however this is white asbestos and there is little strong science to indicate white asbestos is harmful and is unlikely would have been banned, if the material had not been given the same name as two different materials Brown and blue, which are both know to be strong carcinogens.</p><p>however it is banned although still large quantities are used in Russia and China.</p><p>With there courts ruling that white asbestos is banned it is difficult for J&J to fight this.</p><p>The next question is the actual cause of the cancer that these women suffered and proving that it was caused by the asbestos. </p><p>With mesophelioma it is relatively easy to detect asbestos particles in the lungs thus a fair bet it caused the issues as it does not appear unless asbestos is found.</p><p>However these women sadly died or suffered from ovarian cancer. Asbestos has not yet been shown to be able to be absorbed by the body by conventional means of ingestion. However I believe the case is that they used talc as a means of refreshing certain delicate parts.</p><p>It is important to remember this is not a conventional criminal court , J&J have not been convicted. The evidence level in a civil court is lower and cases are judged on likelihood rather than actual proof of guilt. </p><p>J&J will have a very difficult time to prove they are innocent of causing the issue as they will be trying to prove a negative</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Exfarmer, post: 5287530, member: 1951"] This is an interesting case. Firstly must point out that they have already been fined in California about 500 million dollars but that was later kicked out by a higher court and we can expect this one to go further. It is very difficult to argue that Talcum is not Asbestos, it is chemically identical. however this is white asbestos and there is little strong science to indicate white asbestos is harmful and is unlikely would have been banned, if the material had not been given the same name as two different materials Brown and blue, which are both know to be strong carcinogens. however it is banned although still large quantities are used in Russia and China. With there courts ruling that white asbestos is banned it is difficult for J&J to fight this. The next question is the actual cause of the cancer that these women suffered and proving that it was caused by the asbestos. With mesophelioma it is relatively easy to detect asbestos particles in the lungs thus a fair bet it caused the issues as it does not appear unless asbestos is found. However these women sadly died or suffered from ovarian cancer. Asbestos has not yet been shown to be able to be absorbed by the body by conventional means of ingestion. However I believe the case is that they used talc as a means of refreshing certain delicate parts. It is important to remember this is not a conventional criminal court , J&J have not been convicted. The evidence level in a civil court is lower and cases are judged on likelihood rather than actual proof of guilt. J&J will have a very difficult time to prove they are innocent of causing the issue as they will be trying to prove a negative [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Monsanto court case
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top