Thank you for being the first person to post an informative reply rather than down voting a question. HN is turning into reddit.
> I'm not sure how you could believe
Though this is unnecessarily insulting.
> the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking!
> The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer,
This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.
> I'm not sure how you could believe
Though this is unnecessarily insulting.
> the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking!
> The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer,
This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.