> Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.
I think we are getting to the bottom of this :-)
The UK Health and Safety Executive state...
"The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible."[1]
Maybe this is where the differences arise. The UK are comfortable with a minimum practical level where risks are very low, whereas the US state none at all.
Thank you for helping answer a question and not mindlessly clicking on down vote. HN is beginning to turn into Reddit rather than seeking inquisitive technical/scientific conversation.
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.
> Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders
I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply.
The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks to worry about [2].
Given the above, what is the hype about? Is this because the US is so insanely litigious?
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.
White Tie is formal dress; attending opera, meeting royalty, heads of state and the like. Gentlemen wear tailcoat (with medals), shirt with winged collar and white bow tie, or military dress uniform.
Black Tie ("Tuxedo" to use the Americanism) is semi-formal. A dinner jacket and a black bow tie *never* with a winged collar.
Whilst White Tie events are very formal, at a Black Tie event, one may still drink, puke and shag, provided it is done with style.
> 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 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.
Your link contained no evidence for this. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks to worry about [2].
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, then you need to ask my permission to do so. And so you should.
The amount of misinformation (some of it wilful) circulating about the GDPR on HN (a technical forum!) is shocking. If you consider yourself a professional developer then I strongly suggest you read a GDPR primer. There is no excuse not to. Following the GDPR will simply make your code safer when handling personal data.
The censorship you refer to happend 30-40 years ago under Thatcher [1]. Sense prevailed and these were promptly overturned.
I'm not sure what mentioning such old events brings to the conversation, any more than a discussion of modern US censorship would benefit from discussing the Satanic Panic under Reagan.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
[1] Many quipd that the reason she was cremated was that a burial grave would have needed a ballroom to be built above it.
Its probably also worth pointing out to our American audience that the beauty of double entendres is that any "blue" meaning is clearly in the mind of those hearing them, nowhere else!
After all "Miss Shillings Orifice" is simply a carburettor part named after Miss Shilling. Any association with bodily orifices (and that one in particular) is in the mind of the listener who should hang their head in shame for having such a dirty mind :-) What *would* your mother think!
Alcohol -> Cancer.
Safe amount = 0.
Alcohol content of fresh bread > 0