I don’t know anything about biology, so could someone explain the mechanism by which this powder could have caused ovarian cancer?
(Genuine question, not rhetorical, not intending to make any point with it)
(Genuine question, not rhetorical, not intending to make any point with it)
In nature, the majority of talc deposits also contain asbestos. Even worse, the form of asbestos in those deposits is the most cancerous form of it.
So basically what was happening was that women were using baby powder as a absorbent to keep their lady parts feeling fresh, but were introducing a whole bunch of asbestos in the process. This is on top of the dubious idea of putting talc on your hoo-haa to begin with.
Not so uncommon where I live. BTW, baby girls ALSO have ovaries, and they use talc for prolonged periods of time.
I also use talc in my groin. Not often, but still. Prostate cancer is not a concern for older males (we all develop it some time), but testicular cancer is a thing (mostly in children)
I’m sorry? What?
Prostate cancer is definitely a concern in males, and in no-way is it expected or an inevitability.
I remember reading somewhere that if you biopsied those that died of 'old-age' then it would be present in some form. So it's not a question of if, but when, and when, whether it'll be the thing that gets you before something else gives out.
Prostate cancer, as others have mentioned, is guaranteed, like death. But it is not something that affects most men's life beyond the worry of getting it.
Going offtopic: Colorectal cancer is a more pressing matter for older adults. Correct Screening saves lives.
An urologist whom I helped with typesetting of his PhD thesis (in LaTeX, funny guy) told me once that in patients over 70, basically everyone has some cancerous cells in his biopsy samples, but that these usually aren't actually dangerous to the patients.
Looks like there are also suspicions towards talc itself, but it might be hard to prove that J&J was negligent in that regard. Unless there's been some cover-up that I/we don't know about.
Abestos is not harmful just by touching it, you get cancer from it by breathing it in significant quantities over time (or ingesting it).
It’s not too far fetched since the uterus and lungs are both lined with similar types of epithelial and mucosal cells.
It was allegedly contaminated beyond a couple of confirmed samples that contained very low levels. It was never demonstrated that the issue was widespread or that any plaintiff had ever purchased a contaminated product.
That isn't to say that there isn't/wasn't a problem, but "sourcing was riddled with asbestos" is a gross overstatement.
And the correlation here is really weak - all women who developed ovarian cancer and also happened to use talc at some point in their lives.
> One of these, published in 1993, was a US National Toxicology Program report, which found that cosmetic grade talc containing no asbestos-like fibres was correlated with tumor formation in rats
Thats a lot different than applying it to your body. If I inhale sand for 6 hours a day for 113 weeks I would not be surprised to get tumors as well, I still go to the beach.
Most things around us we touch could cause tumors if we inhaled them constantly over time.