^^^
It could be done, but would probably cause cancer.

The incessant warnings just act to hide anything that actually might have some risk.

Imagine a state-mandate for everyone to cry "Wolf!" at the top of their lungs once an hour....what if someone actually saw a wolf?

labels are just there to keep CA state inspectors at bay and avoid CA civil attorney contact...

If you are selling anything in CA it'd best have that label on it, regardless if it caused the big C or not...

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
I wonder if anyone has analyzed the total impact of those stickers. Yes they are small, but there are millions printed every year. Paper, adhesives, etc all took energy to produce. End users probably used some sort of solvent to get them off which really might cause cancer or add to air pollution. All for NOTHING. No net benefit to the individual purchaser or the planet.

I always wonder the same thing about emissions testing. Does requiring every single registered vehicle in the county to idle in line for 2 hours waiting to be tested not add more pollution to the air than just allowing the few that wouldn't pass drive? Typical government, add expense while the unintended consequences are worse than the problem.

While working some fires in California a couple of years ago, I noticed Proposition 65 stickers on the federal vehicles, warning that they contained products known to cause cancer in California.

I noticed even the Taco Bell entry door had a sticker stating that the products inside cause cancer in California.

Good thing I use taco bell in states where it's not a problem. All these things seem to be found only in California, where air, rocks, pigeons, dust mites, and the color red are all known to the state of california to cause cancer.

California knows a lot of things. Apparently.

quote:

aromatic ring organics

WTH?

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:

quote:

aromatic ring organics

WTH?

"Aromatic" refers to organic (carbon cased) chemical compounds that contain a benzene ring in their structure.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
...but a chrome plated hitch pin. Yep, there's the warning.

I had a buddy who told me he went out with a girl that could suck the chrome of a trailer hitch...so I guess its applicable.

California removed the cancer warning from coffee just a few days ago. A few thousand more to go…

I had a friend in college from CA and he said that CA makes them put warning signs on virtually everything, is this true?

The example had gave was you'd go to get a drink at a water fountain and there would be a big warning sign right over it or next to it.

This was on Wikipedia, WTF people

It actually was a good idea when it started but now has become a joke.

I bought a pack of stainless steel bolts from a HomeDepot here in S.C. last year and it had the warning on it... stainless steel bolts?
Some engineer on the internet pointed out it was most probably the cutting lube old used in the making of the bolts...

I'm pretty sure that I'm safe from the things that cause cancer in California, since I use all these products in Florida.

I'd be a little more concerned about it if I were to use them in California.

Just bought a Zev Pro Trigger for my G34, inside the package a nice red warning card, Per CA Prop 65 that it contains stuff that could cause cancer.

Wait until they have to mark the container itself that it contains stuff that could cause cancer, as well as the card in it that tells you the product in the container could cause cancer, such a screwed up rule...

Warning, this container contains contents that could cause cancer, and the container contains components in the production of the container that could cause cancer and the container the containers we reference of causing cancer with their internal cancer causing contents were shipped in a container that contains products that can cause cancer, and they were shipped in a cancer causing container, from China, in a container ship that could cause cancer due to the contents in, on and used to create the container ship, it's containers, the contents of the containers on the ship, and the contents of the containers that contain the containers that contain the item you bought that could cause cancer.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I'm pretty sure that I'm safe from the things that cause cancer in California, since I use all these products in Florida.

I'd be a little more concerned about it if I were to use them in California.

If they are "Nuts" from CA that made their way to FL, you might be at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by shovelhead:
When we first started seeing those warnings on auto parts the oft heard comment was "We're safe, it only happens in Cali."

Extend that thinking by just a small amount. How about a law that requires signage at EVERY SINGLE crossing into the State of California that Residing in, or Visiting, California has been shown to cause Cancer. Yeah, it would speed up the doomsday for California but IMO that cannot happen fast enough.

Prop 65 has been a bugaboo for me from the beginning.
If medicine were run that way, there would be only false positive tests: everyone MIGHT have cancer. It’s the worst public policy issue I’ve ever seen, in every possible way, some of which were noted above.
WOLFWOLFWOLFWOLFWOLFWOLF....
No one pays attention except loonies.

Last night I was in a hotel garage and there was a huge sign saying breathing the air in the garage could cause cancer; not in so many words, but the usual.

I’m sorry for all of you outside CA who have to put up with this shit.

Thank goodness I live in Montana where none of that shit causes cancer.

This issue is sort of in my professional sphere of knowledge. The problem is CA Prop 65 is it is a system based on HAZARD (potential) vs. actual cancer (or developmental/reproductive toxicity or DART) RISK.

The CA EPA has legions (it seems) of scientists and risk assessors with decades of written policy and procedures who churn out chemical reviews using many, many HIGHLY conservative assumptions that have a very large probability of going from any given chemical to the hazard warnings.

When I worked in Kaiser Permanente Northern California, I directed the development of guidelines for preventive medicine for adults.
Following what medicine has adopted as “evidence-based guidelines”, anything we recommended as a screening test had to meet strict guidelines:
1. Prevalence: relatively common condition
2. Peril: condition had to have significant health consequences
3. Preventability: had to have solid evidence that doing the screening test resulted in better health outcomes than would occur without the test
4. Payoff: Reasonable correlation between the cost of screening and health care costs saved.

We were specifically trying to avoid doing a bunch of tests which scared patients without having a significant benefit.

That’s clearly the opposite of the Prop 65 approach, which in my professional opinion is a terrible public health policy.