• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ban on Silicone Breast Implants Lifted

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 0
Originally posted by: Amused
The lawyers and plaintiffs of the Dow Chemical lawsuit should be forced to pay back, with interest AND damages, the proceeds of that frivolous, hysteria induced lawsuit that bankrupted Dow.

It was actually Dow Corning, a completely different company. Dow was never bankrupted or did it get sued. It was Dow Corning.

🙂

Opps, my bad. 😱
That's not exactly correct. Dow Chemical was sued several times and lost (I believe). It doesn't make much sense to me since Dow Chemical had nothing to do with it. However, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning are indeed different companies.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
The lawyers and plaintiffs of the Dow Chemical lawsuit should be forced to pay back, with interest AND damages, the proceeds of that frivolous, hysteria induced lawsuit that bankrupted Dow.

No, I think we should just start a class action suit composed of strip club goers and porn watchers against them because they forced us to watch saline bewbies instead of silicon.
 
Originally posted by: BornStar18

That's not exactly correct. Dow Chemical was sued several times and lost (I believe). It doesn't make much sense to me since Dow Chemical had nothing to do with it. However, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning are indeed different companies.

Yep That's true. Dow Chemical was the parent company of Dow Corning, though.

October 1995
Mahlum vs Dow Chemical, Reno. This is the first case where Dow Chemical, the parent company of Dow Corning, is the sole defendant. Charlotte Mahlum is awarded $3.9 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. About 13,000 breast implant lawsuits are pending against Dow Chemical.

But it was Dow Corning that was bankrupted. I was incorrect in my OP.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BornStar18

That's not exactly correct. Dow Chemical was sued several times and lost (I believe). It doesn't make much sense to me since Dow Chemical had nothing to do with it. However, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning are indeed different companies.

Yep That's true. Dow Chemical was the parent company of Dow Corning, though.

October 1995
Mahlum vs Dow Chemical, Reno. This is the first case where Dow Chemical, the parent company of Dow Corning, is the sole defendant. Charlotte Mahlum is awarded $3.9 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. About 13,000 breast implant lawsuits are pending against Dow Chemical.

But it was Dow Corning that was bankrupted. I was incorrect in my OP.
Dow Corning was founded by Dow Chemical along with Corning. Dow was no more responsible than Corning was but you didn't see any lawsuits against Corning.
 
Originally posted by: BornStar18
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BornStar18

That's not exactly correct. Dow Chemical was sued several times and lost (I believe). It doesn't make much sense to me since Dow Chemical had nothing to do with it. However, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning are indeed different companies.

Yep That's true. Dow Chemical was the parent company of Dow Corning, though.

October 1995
Mahlum vs Dow Chemical, Reno. This is the first case where Dow Chemical, the parent company of Dow Corning, is the sole defendant. Charlotte Mahlum is awarded $3.9 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. About 13,000 breast implant lawsuits are pending against Dow Chemical.

But it was Dow Corning that was bankrupted. I was incorrect in my OP.
Dow Corning founded by Dow Chemical along with Corning. Dow was no more responsible than Corning was but you didn't see any lawsuits against Corning.

Um, huh? Dow Corning was bankrupted by a multibillion dollar class action lawsuit.

Oh wait, I think I see what you're saying. Sorry, that confused me.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BornStar18
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BornStar18

That's not exactly correct. Dow Chemical was sued several times and lost (I believe). It doesn't make much sense to me since Dow Chemical had nothing to do with it. However, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning are indeed different companies.

Yep That's true. Dow Chemical was the parent company of Dow Corning, though.

October 1995
Mahlum vs Dow Chemical, Reno. This is the first case where Dow Chemical, the parent company of Dow Corning, is the sole defendant. Charlotte Mahlum is awarded $3.9 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. About 13,000 breast implant lawsuits are pending against Dow Chemical.

But it was Dow Corning that was bankrupted. I was incorrect in my OP.
Dow Corning founded by Dow Chemical along with Corning. Dow was no more responsible than Corning was but you didn't see any lawsuits against Corning.

Um, huh? Dow Corning was bankrupted by a multibillion dollar class action lawsuit.

Oh wait, I think I see what you're saying. Sorry, that confused me.
I'm trying to watch football at the same time so my English seems to be suffering. My original sentence stated that Dow Chemical was founded by Dow Corning and Corning. Luckily I correct that before posting. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: BornStar18

I'm trying to watch football at the same time so my English seems to be suffering. My original sentence stated that Dow Chemical was founded by Dow Corning and Corning. Luckily I correct that before posting. 🙂

LOL!!! Yeah, watching football is enough to make even the smartest man lose his language skills. 😉 😀
 
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Is it so hard to just be happy with who you are?

sometimes what we are is inferior and defective, thank god we can fix a lot of things now.
 
silicone feels and looks much more natural than saline. the "gummy bear" implants looked better than saline, but not as good as silicone.
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
Just because the FDA says they are safe really doesn't mean squat these days, since like other govt. agencies, politics prevails.

I'm not ready to believe silicon is safe inside the body when one of these suckers burst for whatever reason, but at this point if a woman chooses silicon, its her problem imo if she has issues later.

Way to be ignorant. Silicone implants haven't had a danger of leaking for years. Modern silicone implants are known as cohesive gel. They're not liquid.
 
The rupture issue persists: The implants do not last a lifetime, and eventually they must be removed or replaced, according to the FDA. A 2000 Institute of Medicine report found rupture rates as high as 77 percent.

Women whose silicone implants ruptured have reported years of pain, swelling, numbness and other symptoms that they blame on the devices. Leaked silicone gel can migrate throughout the body, forming lumps. Implants also can cause infection and form hard, painful scar tissue that can distort the shape of a breast.

Some researchers also worry that the platinum used to manufacture the implants can seep into the body and cause harm. The FDA says there is no evidence of that.

Proponents say silicone-gel implants look and feel more natural than do those filled with saline, or salt water. Those implants are sold without restrictions.
Talk about short sightedness.

I wouldn't risk any of those things for short term look and feel.
 
Originally posted by: eits
silicone feels and looks much more natural than saline. the "gummy bear" implants looked better than saline, but not as good as silicone.

Au contraire. Most people who have seen my wife's jumblies didn't know they were fake until she told them, and she has cohesive gel implants.
 
Is there still a ban on lifting silicone breast implants? Because I saw a chick with huge implants and they looked like they were starting to sag, so I lifted them up for her and she went balistic 🙁
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: eits
silicone feels and looks much more natural than saline. the "gummy bear" implants looked better than saline, but not as good as silicone.

Au contraire. Most people who have seen my wife's jumblies didn't know they were fake until she told them, and she has cohesive gel implants.

that's the "gummy bear" implant. it's made from silicone, but it's not the silicone implant. they were only legalized for use a couple years ago, iirc. cohesive gel implants are a lot more natural-looking than saline, but not as real-looking as silicone.

silicone hangs, bounces, and slides more naturally. when girls lie down and they have the silicone implants, they fall to their sides as if they're natural, rather than look like two stationary mounds.
 
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Is it so hard to just be happy with who you are?

sometimes what we are is inferior and defective, thank god we can fix a lot of things now.


I'm going to have a horse member soon. Once I feel that that's not enough, I'm thinking of switching to Rhino, Elephant, and then Blue Whale, in that order.
 
The FDA is a joke. Women who have the silicon implanted are to be followed for 10 years and have MRIs at regular intervals to make sure the silicon isn't leaking out. Doesn't sound too safe to me. Let's do the 10 year study FIRST, and then endorse the product. The women who get the silicon right now are the guinea pigs.
 
Originally posted by: Insane3D
[
...if you had to have some foreign substance put in your body, that was in a sack that possibly could leak at some point, I would prefer something like saline over a man-made chemical product like silicone.

With a 77% rupture rate, I would say more likely than possibly.
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
The FDA is a joke. Women who have the silicon implanted are to be followed for 10 years and have MRIs at regular intervals to make sure the silicon isn't leaking out. Doesn't sound too safe to me. Let's do the 10 year study FIRST, and then endorse the product. The women who get the silicon right now are the guinea pigs.

There's women with silicon implants? You'd have to worry about shattering more than rupturing.
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
The FDA is a joke. Women who have the silicon implanted are to be followed for 10 years and have MRIs at regular intervals to make sure the silicon isn't leaking out. Doesn't sound too safe to me. Let's do the 10 year study FIRST, and then endorse the product. The women who get the silicon right now are the guinea pigs.

The problem is the studies HAVE been done. Read more on the subject including the timeline I posted.
 
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Is there still a ban on lifting silicone breast implants? Because I saw a chick with huge implants and they looked like they were starting to sag, so I lifted them up for her and she went balistic 🙁
:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: Xyo II
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Is there still a ban on lifting silicone breast implants? Because I saw a chick with huge implants and they looked like they were starting to sag, so I lifted them up for her and she went balistic 🙁
:laugh:

heehee
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
The FDA is a joke. Women who have the silicon implanted are to be followed for 10 years and have MRIs at regular intervals to make sure the silicon isn't leaking out. Doesn't sound too safe to me. Let's do the 10 year study FIRST, and then endorse the product. The women who get the silicon right now are the guinea pigs.

Women have been getting silicone implants in Europe for years. The only difference is that they didn't have the knee jerk reaction there that the litigious left did here.
 
Back
Top