TheManInThePub

What an inane response. Perhaps I can counter with

Alcohol -> Cancer.

Safe amount = 0.

Alcohol content of fresh bread > 0

If people could explain why they are down voting honest questions I would appreciate it.

I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.

Cyanide occurs naturally in apple cores. It is the dose that makes the poison.

The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts are using and I appear to have come up against group think. I did not expect this on HN.

I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.

> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos

And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking.

I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.

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.

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer.

So no evidence, just suspicion?

I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have.

EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?

*sigh*

Here we go again.

The GDPR has no problem AT ALL with cookies. Use as many as you like with no need for popups. However, if you are using cookies to track or personally identify me (advertisers take a bow), then you need to ask my permission to do so. And so you should.

I am unaware of how a browser may possibly be used to block only personally identifying cookies, and besides, putting the onus to do so onto the data owner is against the principle of the GDPR; that personal data is MINE and you must ask my permission to use it.

> It took another fifty years for the definition of a gentlemen to change to exclude people who got roaring drunk and pissed in the fireplace in the name of hospitality.

On the contrary, providing the above is done with panache it would pass quite well here..... *Never* whilst wearing White Tie though.

I'm British if you hadn't guessed :-)

> Can you recommend a chair

No.

I'm going against the grain of most replies here. It isn't a specific chair you need (perfectly good, bog standard office chairs are fully adjustable and ten a penny) but to instead take regular stretch breaks and don't slouch.

If I was a Silicon Valley geek, I'd recommend regular 10 minute yoga breaks, but since I'm British I find frequent walks around the garden with a cup of tea do the job just as well :-)

> I truly wonder why people still believe they have any privacy, any right to privacy, or, that they could do anything about it.

The GDPR (very good legislation forming one of our rights to privacy), and a host of UK/Europe national Data Protection Acts preceding it would take issue with this statement.

> It’s increased regulation around a subject that I was not doing in the first place

Maybe you were handling personal data correctly. Very many were not (witness numerous data breaches and private data exploited that was held for no reason). Therefore regulation was needed.

> We need more competition

Competition is good. A race to the bottom is not.