I'm soldering-up a variety of heavy-duty gator-clip to banana jack cables using older computer cords. Is this stuff just talc inside? Quite naturally I'm curious, since lately there is talk of Johnson&Johnson's talc containing asbestos..
I think it's talc. I don't see how there could be asbestos present given its reputation.
since lately there is talk of Johnson&Johnson's talc containing asbestos..
IMO it's BS to sue J&J for money. First they tried to prove in court that talc causes cancer. When that fell through, they started speculating it was contaminated with asbestos. No hard evidence for presence of asbestos was ever provided.
It's talc. Why on earth would someone put asbestos in talc? It would defeat the purpose of reducing friction. Did you get this from a Trump tweet?
It's talc. Why on earth would someone put asbestos in talc? It would defeat the purpose of reducing friction. Did you get this from a Trump tweet?
Where are you hiding? At least on this side of the pond, a few people want to split 4.7 billion in claims.
I side with wraper.
Not even in my wildest imagination could I imagine where in the production talc could get in contact with asbestos. And why? It makes no sense.
Apart from that, I'm certain you cables were not produced using baby powder. Far too expensive.
It's talc. Why on earth would someone put asbestos in talc?
It isn't added to talc intentionally. It is because you find talc and asbestos minerals near each other in the ground when you mine it. The lawsuit is claiming that there is significant contamination because of this and it was known by J&J for decades. I've no clue if the claims are valid or not.
Definately talc, I think it stops the PVC sticking together when they manufacture the cables. Sometimes I've seen string used in mostly rubber insulated cables but I think it's there to keep the cable bundle round. Talc and asbestos are both part of the serpentine group of minerals. Chrysotile Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 is the only asbestos mineral in the serpentine group but it's also used in the manufacture of talc. I can see how people can make the talc contamination connection because of Chrysotile. This is probably where you need an electron microscope. The same mineral, Chrysotile, is used both for asbestos and talc production, all depends on the grade or purity of the Chrysotile, the chemistry and the manufacturing process I guess.
Talc is added inside the cable to reduce friction. Rubber gloves are usually dusted on the inside for the same reason.
Talc by itself may be irritating enough to the body to cause cancer and there have been
several lawsuits about this after questions were raised even before the asbestos allegations.
So introducing ground up inorganic rock into the body may be bad; who could have guessed that? Next you will tell me that inhaling the smoke from burning vegetation is the breath of life.
It isn't added to talc intentionally. It is because you find talc and asbestos minerals near each other in the ground when you mine it. The lawsuit is claiming that there is significant contamination because of this and it was known by J&J for decades. I've no clue if the claims are valid or not.
I would bet money it's a matter of someone spotting deep pockets and scheming for a settlement.
Thanks all, the job's done.
Only a few had paper/nylon wrap, and some will get saved since they're stackable types.
Where are you hiding? At least on this side of the pond, a few people want to split 4.7 billion in claims.
How on Earth does asbestos get into an ovary, anyway? Even if it did it has no chemical toxicity. The concern with it is physical, in that the fibres are completely insoluble and hence stay in the lungs as an irritant for a long time.
Where are you hiding? At least on this side of the pond, a few people want to split 4.7 billion in claims.
How on Earth does asbestos get into an ovary, anyway? Even if it did it has no chemical toxicity. The concern with it is physical, in that the fibres are completely insoluble and hence stay in the lungs as an irritant for a long time.
Has anyone actually brought forth scientific evidence to back this claim?
It's talc. Why on earth would someone put asbestos in talc? It would defeat the purpose of reducing friction.
Well both is a mineral, although one comes in form of a fibre. Wikipedia (german:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbest#Entdeckung_der_Gesundheitsgefahren) states that talc containing asbest was at least some time used in cables and tire manufacturing and refers to TRGS 517 (also german, just listing talc containing asbest in cable-, tire and rubber goods manufacturing as possibly used).
Anyway the claim was that the baby powder caused ovary cancer. In case of asbest, the long time from exposure to development of cancer can be 20 years and usually you´d assume that there has to be a carcinogen. On the other hand... you can find the asbest fibres (which the body can not dissolve, therefore getting fibrous) in the middle of the tissue, i consider that a simple proof, maybe it just failed to proof that it was part of that powder.
How big the problem is, depends on the length of the fibre, because asbest < 5µm length, > 3µm diameter and length/width < 3:1 are not counted as asbest fibres per WHO, but rather asbest mineral. So the method of how this powder is ground probably also plays a role, as there are some ambigous definitions on which type of rock can contain asbest fibres because not all forms contain it.
I personally like to filter all this through the filter of my cigarette and try not to lick or inhale cables.
Where are you hiding? At least on this side of the pond, a few people want to split 4.7 billion in claims.
How on Earth does asbestos get into an ovary, anyway? Even if it did it has no chemical toxicity. The concern with it is physical, in that the fibres are completely insoluble and hence stay in the lungs as an irritant for a long time.
Has anyone actually brought forth scientific evidence to back this claim?
The closest I’ve found is this article, which includes a statement that asbestos and talc particles were found in the ovarian tissue:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/13/johnson-johnson-ordered-to-pay-47bn-in-talc-powder-claimIt's talc. Why on earth would someone put asbestos in talc? It would defeat the purpose of reducing friction.
Well both is a mineral, although one comes in form of a fibre. Wikipedia (german: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbest#Entdeckung_der_Gesundheitsgefahren) states that talc containing asbest was at least some time used in cables and tire manufacturing and refers to TRGS 517 (also german, just listing talc containing asbest in cable-, tire and rubber goods manufacturing as possibly used).
Anyway the claim was that the baby powder caused ovary cancer. In case of asbest, the long time from exposure to development of cancer can be 20 years and usually you´d assume that there has to be a carcinogen. On the other hand... you can find the asbest fibres (which the body can not dissolve, therefore getting fibrous) in the middle of the tissue, i consider that a simple proof, maybe it just failed to proof that it was part of that powder.
How big the problem is, depends on the length of the fibre, because asbest < 5µm length, > 3µm diameter and length/width < 3:1 are not counted as asbest fibres per WHO, but rather asbest mineral. So the method of how this powder is ground probably also plays a role, as there are some ambigous definitions on which type of rock can contain asbest fibres because not all forms contain it.
I personally like to filter all this through the filter of my cigarette and try not to lick or inhale cables.
I had the same thought as you: the fact that asbestos fiber was found in the ovary doesn’t prove that it came from the talc.
P.S. In English it’s “asbest
os”, not “asbest” as in German.
P.P.S. Make sure that cigarette isn’t an antique from the mid-50s, since they used to
make ciggie filters out of asbestos, too!!
(And not just any asbestos, it was blue asbestos, which is even worse than the common white one...
)
How on Earth does asbestos get into an ovary, anyway? Even if it did it has no chemical toxicity. The concern with it is physical, in that the fibres are completely insoluble and hence stay in the lungs as an irritant for a long time.
Consider where women might apply baby powder to themselves.
How on Earth does asbestos get into an ovary, anyway? Even if it did it has no chemical toxicity. The concern with it is physical, in that the fibres are completely insoluble and hence stay in the lungs as an irritant for a long time.
Consider where women might apply baby powder to themselves.
I'm no MD but from there to the ovaries? what were they doing?
I'm no MD but from there to the ovaries? what were they doing?
You don't need to be an MD to read about the anatomy. There is no parietum (i.e., wall) between a female's ovaries, her vagina, or her skin. Ovaries --> fallopian tubes --> uterus --> vagina --> (you guess the rest) Or, just think of how babies and made and reverse it.
How on Earth does asbestos get into an ovary, anyway? Even if it did it has no chemical toxicity. The concern with it is physical, in that the fibres are completely insoluble and hence stay in the lungs as an irritant for a long time.
Consider where women might apply baby powder to themselves.
I'm no MD but from there to the ovaries? what were they doing?
Well, when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much, the daddy puts...
Via the Vagina -> Uterus -> Fallopian tubes -> vicinity of the Ovaries. Ectopic pregnancy, for instance, is when the egg gets fertilized [Edit: and implants] in a Fallopian tube, there is a 'navigable' route right the way to the Ovaries. The journey could take decades - remember how much baby powder used to get thrown around before disposable nappies (still does?).
That's probably a first for eevblog!
P.S. Damn, jpanhalt beat me to it!
J&J have a long history of tainted products and medical device recalls,
a couple a year on average!!
i could believe just about anything if they are involved.
J&J have a long history of tainted products and medical device recalls,
a couple a year on average!!
i could believe just about anything if they are involved.
With an outrageous claim like that, please present your evidence for the last 5 years. That is, 10 recalls for serious matters. NB: Medical devices are particularly prone to recalls for such things as typos and blurred printing on labels. I some cases, the products can just be relabeled.
I'm no MD but from there to the ovaries? what were they doing?
You don't need to be an MD to read about the anatomy. There is no parietum (i.e., wall) between a female's ovaries, her vagina, or her skin. Ovaries --> fallopian tubes --> uterus --> vagina --> (you guess the rest) Or, just think of how babies and made and reverse it.
Without wanting to get into too deep into anatomy, there is no natural migratory path for foreign substances like talc to get from the outside to the inside of the female reproductive apparatus. The vagina is a self-cleaning system with a constant flow of mucus sweeping foreign objects like microbes, dirt or bacteria from the inside to the outside.
Any supposed connection between the external application of feminine hygiene products and a pathology of the ovaries has to be tenuous at best.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...
I'm no MD but from there to the ovaries? what were they doing?
You don't need to be an MD to read about the anatomy. There is no parietum (i.e., wall) between a female's ovaries, her vagina, or her skin. Ovaries --> fallopian tubes --> uterus --> vagina --> (you guess the rest) Or, just think of how babies and made and reverse it.
Without wanting to get into too deep into anatomy, there is no natural migratory path for foreign substances like talc to get from the outside to the inside of the female reproductive apparatus. The vagina is a self-cleaning system with a constant flow of mucus sweeping foreign objects like microbes, dirt or bacteria from the inside to the outside.
Any supposed connection between the external application of feminine hygiene products and a pathology of the ovaries has to be tenuous at best.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...
I didn't say it was likely. I said there is no physical barrier. I don't know if you have ever witnessed an American trial with dueling "expert witnesses." That is, a plaintiff or defendant can find an "expert" who will testify to anything. A general consensus among trial attorneys is that you have to have those witnesses, but ultimately they have little influence on the jury's decision. And in most cases involving strong emotion (like a disabled child) the jury's decision is based on emotion and a bias against the "big, rich companies." Of course, those cases get appealed and the final outcome is usually a negotiated settlement.
Now as for "cleansing," how do sperm get all the way from the vagina to the ovaries to cause an occasional tubular or ovarian pregnancy?
OK they found asbestos in a cancerous tissue. That is one step in proof, but there are several more needed. A small one is establishing carcinogenic properties in that tissue. It is credible, but proof means you have evidence. Such as examining huge numbers of ovaries and measuring amount of asbestos in both non-cancerous and cancerous ones and showing a statistical relationship. Tying it to the talc is another step. Showing that asbestos existed in some quantities in some talc at some time establishes plausibility, but is not proof. Perhaps the ladies in question had relations with brake repairmen or insulation installers who had poor hygiene practices. Or used strange sex toys.
But as said before, proof in the American legal system is a very flexible concept, administered by juries of people who score poorly on world comparisons of education and knowledge.