These paragraphs suggest Reuters' big scoop is bullshit. Reading the documents confirms it. But hardly anyone reading has the background to understand why.pic.twitter.com/vljrgy0zTL
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
i agree, the evidence is not very convincing. relevant source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5017565-1972-through-1992-lab-reports.html … google "site:http://documentcloud.org janet roberts" for more source documents
Skimming the supposed smoking gun reports from the early 70s, it looks like they were experimental tests with little credibility.
yep, most evidence is bs. however, the most damning piece of evidence is the 2018 report where they tested musueum samples from 1970s - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5080806-2018-lab-report-on1978-Baby-Powder-sample-from-J.html … and that gave me some pause
Unclear to me what the fiber count means in terms of total contamination.
Doesn't talc by itself already contribute to increased cancer risk? I thought it was *any* inhaled particulate substance
My extremely cursory search suggested there wasn't any clear evidence of cancer hazard from talc. Surprisingly, even fiberglass doesn't seem to be a significant cancer hazard.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.