can someone summarize why the stock JNJ stayed stable over the past 3 months?
Question by Needy28: can someone summarize why the stock JNJ stayed stable over the past 3 months?
too lazy to go through all the news section. thanks.
Best answer:
Answer by Jim Z
JNJ is a manufacturer of staple products. They are products everyone needs in a rough economy. JNJ and PG are two stand by companies many investing institutions stay with in a down economy. BUT if you look at the one year chart, this really did not happen. It dropped, then came back to where it was before the market corrected.
Give your answer to this question below!
can someone helps me summarize this?, please i really need it, thank you?
Question by : can someone helps me summarize this?, please i really need it, thank you?
when it comes to the safety of young chidren, fire is a parent’s nightmare. just the thought of their young ones trapped in their cribs and beds by a raging nocturnal blaze is enough to make most mothers and fathers take every precaution to ensure their children’s safety. little wonder that when fire-retardant children’s pajamas first hit the market, they proved an overnight success. within a few short years more than 200 millíon pairs were spld, and the sále of millíon more were all but guaranteed. for their manufacturers, the future could not have been brighter. then, like a bolt from the blue, came word that the pajamas were killér. the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) moved quickly to ban their sale and recall millions of pairs. Reason: the pajamas contained the flame-retardant chemícal Tris (2,3-dibromoprophyl), which had been found to cause kidney cancer in children. because of its toxicity, the sleepwear couldnt even thrown away, let alone sold. indeed, the CPSC left no doubt about how the pajamas were to be disposed of buried or burned or used as industrial wiping cloths. whereas just months earlier the manufacturers of the Tris-impregnated pajamas couldnt fill orders fast enough, suddenly they were worrying about how to get rid of the millions of pairs now sitting in warehouses. soon, however, ads began appearing in the classified pages of WOMEN’S WEAR DAILY. “Tris,tris… we will buy any fabric containing Tris,” read on. another said, “Tris- we will purchase any large quantities of garments containing Tris.” the ads had been placed by exporters, who began buying up the pajamas, usually at 10 to 30 percent of the normal wholesale price. their intent was clear: to dump the carcinogenic pajamas on overseas markets. Tris is not the only êxampl of dumping. there were the 450,000 baby pacifiers, of the type known to have caused choking deaths, that were exported for sale overseas, and the 400 Iraqis who died and 5000 who were hospitalized after eating wheat and barley treated with a U.S.-banned organic mercury fungicide. Winstrol, a synthetic male hormone that had been found to stunt the growth of American children, was made available in Brazil as an appetite stimulant for children. DowElanco, although the Environment Protection Agency forbade its sale to U.S. farmers because Galant may cause cancer. after the U.S Food and Drug Administration banned the painkiller dipyrone because it can cause a fatal blood disorder, Winthrop Product continued to sell dipyrone in Mexico City. Manufacturers that dump products abroad clearly are motivated by profit, or at least by the hope of avoiding financial losses resulting from having to withdraw a product from the U.S market. for government and health agencies that cooperate in the exporting of dangerous products, sometimes the motives are more complex. for example, when researchers dôcumented the dangers of the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device-among the adverse reactions were pelvic inflammation, blood poisoning. tubal pregnancies, and uterine perforations-its manufacturer, A.H.Robins Co., began losing its domestic market. as a result, the company worked out a deal with the office of population within the U.S Agency for International Development, whereby AID bought thoúsand of the devices at a reduced price for use in population-control programs in forty-two countries. why do government and population control agencies approve for sale and use overseas a birth control device proved dangerous in the U.S? They say their motives are humanitarian. because the rate of dying in childbirth is high in third world countries, almost any birth control device is preferable to none. analogous arguments are used to defend to export of pesticides and other products judged too dangerous for use in the U.S: foreign countries should vague or ambiguous or too technical to understand.but even if communication procedures were improved or the export of dangerous products forbidden, there are ways that companies can circumvent these threats to their profit- for example, by simply changing the name of the product or by exporting the individual ingredients of a product dumped. the U.S does prohibit drugs banned in this country, but sidestepping the law is not difficult. ” unless the package bursts open on the clock,” one drug company executive observes, “you have no chance of being caught”. unfortunately for us, in the case of pesticides, the effects of overseas dumping are now coming home. in U.S the EPA bans all crop uses of ?DT and dieldrin, which kill fish, cause tumór in animals, and build up in the patty tissue of human. it also bán heptachlor, chlordane, leptophos, endrin, and many other pesticides, including 2,4,5-T (which contains the deadly poíson dioxin, the active ingredient in Agent Orange, the notorious defoliant used in Vietnam) because they are danger to human being. no law, however, prohibits the sale of ?DT and these other U.S-banned pesticides overseas,
Best answer:
Answer by KenK
Summarizing it might involve replacing the specific examples with a general statement, such as “Numerous products have been…”. There is a sentence in the middle of this document that also gets a bit close to a summary.
Add your own answer in the comments!
can someone help me summarize this, i am so stress, can’t write anything, i need help please?
Question by : can someone help me summarize this, i am so stress, can’t write anything, i need help please?
when it comes to the safety of young chidren, fire is a parent’s nightmare. just the thought of their young ones trapped in their cribs and beds by a raging nocturnal blaze is enough to make most mothers and fathers take every precaution to ensure their children’s safety. little wonder that when fire-retardant children’s pajamas first hit the market, they proved an overnight success. within a few short years more than 200 millíon pairs were spld, and the sále of millíon more were all but guaranteed. for their manufacturers, the future could not have been brighter. then, like a bolt from the blue, came word that the pajamas were killér. the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) moved quickly to ban their sale and recall millions of pairs. Reason: the pajamas contained the flame-retardant chemícal Tris (2,3-dibromoprophyl), which had been found to cause kidney cancer in children. because of its toxicity, the sleepwear couldnt even thrown away, let alone sold. indeed, the CPSC left no doubt about how the pajamas were to be disposed of buried or burned or used as industrial wiping cloths. whereas just months earlier the manufacturers of the Tris-impregnated pajamas couldnt fill orders fast enough, suddenly they were worrying about how to get rid of the millions of pairs now sitting in warehouses. soon, however, ads began appearing in the classified pages of WOMEN’S WEAR DAILY. “Tris,tris… we will buy any fabric containing Tris,” read on. another said, “Tris- we will purchase any large quantities of garments containing Tris.” the ads had been placed by exporters, who began buying up the pajamas, usually at 10 to 30 percent of the normal wholesale price. their intent was clear: to dump the carcinogenic pajamas on overseas markets. Tris is not the only êxampl of dumping. there were the 450,000 baby pacifiers, of the type known to have caused choking deaths, that were exported for sale overseas, and the 400 Iraqis who died and 5000 who were hospitalized after eating wheat and barley treated with a U.S.-banned organic mercury fungicide. Winstrol, a synthetic male hormone that had been found to stunt the growth of American children, was made available in Brazil as an appetite stimulant for children. DowElanco, although the Environment Protection Agency forbade its sale to U.S. farmers because Galant may cause cancer. after the U.S Food and Drug Administration banned the painkiller dipyrone because it can cause a fatal blood disorder, Winthrop Product continued to sell dipyrone in Mexico City. Manufacturers that dump products abroad clearly are motivated by profit, or at least by the hope of avoiding financial losses resulting from having to withdraw a product from the U.S market. for government and health agencies that cooperate in the exporting of dangerous products, sometimes the motives are more complex. for example, when researchers dôcumented the dangers of the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device-among the adverse reactions were pelvic inflammation, blood poisoning. tubal pregnancies, and uterine perforations-its manufacturer, A.H.Robins Co., began losing its domestic market. as a result, the company worked out a deal with the office of population within the U.S Agency for International Development, whereby AID bought thoúsand of the devices at a reduced price for use in population-control programs in forty-two countries. why do government and population control agencies approve for sale and use overseas a birth control device proved dangerous in the U.S? They say their motives are humanitarian. because the rate of dying in childbirth is high in third world countries, almost any birth control device is preferable to none. analogous arguments are used to defend to export of pesticides and other products judged too dangerous for use in the U.S: foreign countries should vague or ambiguous or too technical to understand.but even if communication procedures were improved or the export of dangerous products forbidden, there are ways that companies can circumvent these threats to their profit- for example, by simply changing the name of the product or by exporting the individual ingredients of a product dumped. the U.S does prohibit drugs banned in this country, but sidestepping the law is not difficult. ” unless the package bursts open on the clock,” one drug company executive observes, “you have no chance of being caught”. unfortunately for us, in the case of pesticides, the effects of overseas dumping are now coming home. in U.S the EPA bans all crop uses of ?DT and dieldrin, which kill fish, cause tumór in animals, and build up in the patty tissue of human. it also bán heptachlor, chlordane, leptophos, endrin, and many other pesticides, including 2,4,5-T (which contains the deadly poíson dioxin, the active ingredient in Agent Orange, the notorious defoliant used in Vietnam) because they are dangerous to human being. no law, however, prohibits the sale of ?DT and these other U.S-banned pesticides overse
continue “no law..overseas, where thanks to corporate dumping they are routinely used in agriculture. in one three-months period, for example, U.S chemical companies exported 3.9 million pounds of banned and withdrawn pesticides. the FDA now estimates, through spot checks, that 10% of our imported food is contaminated with residues of banned pesticides. and the FDA’s most commonly used testing procedure does not even check for 70% of the pesticides known to cause cancer. with the doubling of exports of Mexican produce to the U.S since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the problem of pêsticid-laced food has only grown worse.
Best answer:
Answer by harvinab
Exactly what do you mean by summarize, it would be helpful if you could say what your word count is for the summary and the style your summary is required to be written in such as APA format. If you can answer that I might be able to help you out.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Want to win a quick ten points ? Well summarize this article?
Question by eag: Want to win a quick ten points ? Well summarize this article?
Photographs taken of Liam Johns’ crib by the Sacramento County Coroner’s Office clearly show where it came apart.
The drop rail had detached from its plastic track, creating a gap through which the 9-month-old boy slipped feet-first. Instead of falling to the floor, Liam got his head stuck between the rail and the mattress. Trapped in a hanging position, the boy asphyxiated.
Liam’s April 2005 death prompted an investigation by a federal watchdog agency and a family lawsuit against the crib’s manufacturer, Simplicity Inc.
Related links
Crib safety — What you need to know Video
Liam Johns died after the drop rail of his crib detached and his head got caught between the rail and the mattress. (Family photo)
Hidden Hazards: Dangerous cribs
What went wrong in the crib
Deadly crib Photo
Dangerous cribs Photos
Photo demonstration: What to look for
Resources: Keeping your kids safe
Recall notice from Consumer Product Safety Commission
Information on crib recall from Simplicity
Deaths spur huge crib recall
Tougher standards could boost safety
What do to
Consumers who have one of the cribs cited in the recall should contact Simplicity (888-593-9274 or simplicityforchildren.com) to obtain a repair kit with new hardware. If the crib already has the newer hardware (see attached graphic), consumers should still check the crib’s drop rail to ensure it is assembled right-side up.
Dangerous cribs
Related items:
• Story: Missteps delayed recall
• Video: Need to know
• Graphic: What to look for
• Photo gallery
For parents:
• Main page
• Deadly toys
• Car seat dangers
• Safety resources
• Latest recall news
• Send in your stories
• More stories
But the company and the Consumer Product Safety Commission didn’t warn parents across the country about the potentially fatal flaw in Simplicity cribs–not after Liam suffocated, not after more complaints about the crib rails and not after two more infants died.
Once the Tribune began questioning the company and the agency this month, a massive recall of Simplicity cribs followed.
On Friday, the CPSC took action on 1 million cribs, including the model that the Johns family used for Liam. It is the largest recall of full-size cribs in the agency’s history.
In its Hidden Hazards series, the Tribune has documented how the understaffed and sluggish CPSC fails to protect children from dangers in toys and other products. The paper’s examination of Simplicity’s popular cribs underscores that, even in the aftermath of a child’s death, the agency can fall short in its watchdog role, leaving children vulnerable to a documented hazard.
Interviews and records show that the federal investigator assigned to Liam’s death failed to inspect the crib in his initial inquiry and didn’t track down the model or manufacturer.
“We get so many cases,” the investigator, Michael Ng, said in an interview this month. “Once I do a report, I send it in and that’s it. I go to the next case. We could spend more time, but we are under the gun. We have to move on.”
Only last week, after inquiries by the Tribune, did Ng return to California to find the crib. It had first been held as evidence by sheriff’s police and later was put in storage by a lawyer retained by the family.
Even with the recall, it remained unclear why it took so long to address the problem. The CPSC often gets bogged down in negotiations with companies over recalls because fedx eral law limits its powers and its ability to disclose details of its investigations into dangerous products.
Nancy Cowles, a child-product safety advocate and executive director of Kids In Danger, called for congressional hearings to look into the delay. “Was it because the CPSC has no power and the company was able to stall?” she asked.
When first presented with the Tribune findings this month, Julie Vallese, spokeswoman for the CPSC, said the agency could not comment about Simplicity. “We have more than one investigation open, and that’s why I can’t answer any questions,” she said.
In announcing the recall Friday, the CPSC blamed a flawed crib design and hardware that allowed parents to install the drop rails upside down, which can cause the rail to detach from the frame. The agency said it was aware of seven non-fatal cases of infants being trapped and 55 other cases of drop-rail problems.
It also linked the Simplicity cribs to three deaths but did not release the names of those children or the dates of the fatal accidents.
One of those children was Liam Johns, records show. Another was 6-month-old Edward Millwood, who died in November 2006 in Georgia. The third was 8-month-old Royale Arceneaux, who died in February in Houston. All three children fell between the mattress and a separated drop rail.
The drop rails in those deaths had been installed upside down. But the agency also found two incidents in which correctly installed drop rails failed to work properly.
Ken Waldman, president of Simplicity Inc., said in an interview Friday that the company makes safe products and works closely with the CPSC to fix any problems. He would not say why the recall did not occur earlier.
“This is the thing to do and that’s why we decided to do it now,” he said.
The Aspen 3 in 1, once Simplicity’s best-selling crib, accounted for the bulk of the recall. About 600,000 of those models, which are no longer made, were recalled.
Best answer:
Answer by bobdaMoFobuildr
fuck that i rather get 2!!! =]
Add your own answer in the comments!