OT, pretty much
Talc is chemically but not physically the same as asbestos. There is a
3rd substance like the two of them but I forget which it is.
If baby powder has caused ovarian cancer in women (presumably because some asbestos is mixed in with the talc), does that mean the women had used the powder near their genitals? Do women do that? How near? In their genitals?
Does that mean that the powder is not dangerous if used on boys? Especially wrt diaper rash? Isn't that one of its major uses?
Or even girl babies if kept away from their genitals?
Do any of the plaintiffs say their harmful exposure to baby powder was when they were babies? I haven't read that any say that.
Sales have fallen off, but it's typical afaik when there is bad press about something for the public to lose interest even when most of an item's uses have nothing to do with the bad press. There are some famous examples but I can't think of any right now. But in this case, did sales fall off even though most of talcum powder's uses are safe?
Even if used near a woman's genitals, but outside her body, how it could get to her ovaries, I don't know. I don't know if that amazing feat means it's only slightly more difficult to get to the ovaries all the way from her tush, or it's the other way around: How much more difficult it is if only used on her tush when she was a baby and had diaper rash.
There is also diaper cream, and there are cornstarch based products.
I don't have a baby, the questions just seem interesing to me. Why should this matter for a boy baby, and how and for whom (when and how was it used) does it cause ovarian cancer.