7 ms·

The problem I've always found with the California warnings is that they're so damn generic. There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmf

The problem I've always found with the California warnings is that they're so damn generic. There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is, or what it's used for.. A fishing sinker made from lead is pretty obvious when you see that warning. There's only one ingredient, lead, and it's obvious why it's harmful. But when you buy a complex product that says "this product contains chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects", the first thing I want to know is what the chemical is, the second is where it is in the product, and the third is why it's there. Nothing in the warnings makes manufacturers tell you any useful information.

new299 9y ago
Interestingly, I want to know none of those things. I'd be more interested in knowing how statistically likely the chemicals are to increase my risk of getting cancer.
- jgust 9y ago
  I would argue that without the prior information, the statistics are also irrelevant.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Even if they did, would it matter? It would be some chemical term, like the one you see in an ingedient list, that is meaningless to most people. And these are places, not products...with gardens. Even if they use organic pesticides, they probably still have to put up the warning.
- jstanley 9y ago
  > that is meaningless to most people. Therefore no people should be allowed to know? For what it's worth, I'm not in favour of California's labelling requirements either. But just because something is meaningless to the majority of the population doesn't mean it's meaningless to the entire population. And it is specifically the population that is interested in knowing it that finds it least meaningless!
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    I didn't say allowed or not. Sure, you should know that there are 15 ug of theomacrotasium among a hundred other things in your environment, but then what? Information overload means our decisions can get worse, not better, when presented with more of it. What would be more meaningful: certifications that act as abstractions for complex problems. Organic kind of acts like this already, and of course there are multiple federal certs for electronics. Having a functioning regulatory system as well as a working civil law system also help.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      How about a warning that says "The battery in this cell phone contains an amount of theomacrotasium known to cause cancer if ingested." That's a completely actionable warning. Don't eat the contents of the battery of your cell phone. Or how about "This carpet contains formeldahyde, which is known to cause birth defects in pregnant women. Limit exposure to this carpet for a few days after installation." That's a good warning. That tells me what I need to know, what the risks are, and how to mitigate it.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Hey, if it's just one thing, great! Now, how do you do that for a hundred things? Again, warnings work great for very small numbers of N. We have to find a middle ground between "has chemicals that may cause cancer" and "a hundred specific chemicals in X quantities that may cause cancer." Abstraction is very necessary as a pragmatic solution, even if full disclosure makes sense as an ideal. Heck, most places are just doing CYA, they have no idea what specific lists of chemicals their contractors use. For the IoT case, no one has any idea how their devices can be exploited, and merely admit the possibility of exploitation. But that is another issue.
        kaybe 9y ago
        Well, information on how to migitate the cancer risk is already a step forward. If it is only harmful if ingested you know not to give it to your toddler. If it gives off toxic fumes while burning, well, stay away if you made a fire mistake. etc. The warning itself is pretty useless as it is.
- freehunter 9y ago
  >And these are places, not products Those places have products that contain the toxic chemical, An apartment building is not poisonous by itself, they contain products that contain the harmful chemical. That's what they should be warning you about.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Ya, but what products? I'm sure California understood that it would be difficult for property managers to do a complete audit, so allowed this warning as a cop out (it might be that they have none of those chemicals, but who knows, we will put up the warning just in case).
    - freehunter 9y ago
      It always trickles down. The property managers know who built the buildings. The construction company knows what companies produced the construction materials. The company that made the construction materials knows what chemicals are in them. That's the person who writes the warning, and the construction crew tells the property manager, and the property manager keeps a list in their office for public viewing.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        I think it has more to do with the gardeners and maintnence than the orig construction. But ya, they so much as use a floor cleaner from the grocery store, that would have to be documented.
  - taneq 9y ago
    Depends what it's made of. An asbestos apartment building is kinda toxic.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Sure. Also, no one on china trusts each others apartment renovations for this reason, which is why you are expected to re-renovate every time you buy (and your own renovations do nothing for the resale value). That stuff is actually easy to track down is what I meant. It is the day to day stuff that isn't.
daniel-cussen 9y ago
Or how much of it there is. Parts per million/billion? I'm pretty interested in how much cadmium and mercury gets into my system because they're bad news for the brain. At the same time, mercury is also in air so it's kind of inescapable. Parts per billion is interesting information because then I can control how much I ingest the way I do for food that is fattening.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  It would be much more useful if it were in the form of "This property contains substances determined by the state of California to be toxic to humans. The site report may be viewed in person at 123 Maple St, Suite 200, San Mateo, or electronically at https: //sitereport.ca.us/ " Then the print report would basically be a binder full of MSDS-like information sheets, along with the history of measurements recorded on the site. Online, you could see the threshold levels for single massive exposure and for casual environmental or daily occupational exposures. And maybe enter your age, sex, and weight in kg, to see how likely it is that living in your apartment will kill you. The generic warning is useless. It ranges from "last month someone found 30cm of thermal receipt paper with bisphenol-A all over it" to "someone once dumped a 55gal drum full of dioxin right into the soil where your vegetable garden is now."
  - notauser 9y ago
    This is the same problem with the cookie law in Europe. They allowed one single, generic, disclaimer which every site pops up. If they'd demanded: - a separate disclaimer for each domain (or at least company) setting a cookie - a description of the purpose of the cookies (e.g. advertising, remembering log-ins) Then the law might have actually achieved something.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      TBH, you need to put a cookie warning only if you use cookies for stuff like tracking and advertising. Logins and general site functionality are extempt from that. Basically, cookie warning on site means the site tracks you.
sandworm101 9y ago
Some warnings speak of "specific birth defects" which is something greater than a may/might do something. Normally this is reserved for the class of chemicals and drugs that post-thalidomide are known to cause limb-reduction defects.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Funny story, we moved from china to California last year because my wife was pregnant and the environment over there is pretty pllluted. When she saw this warning at the entrance of our new apartment, she began doubting our move (they don't have that in china!). Kid was born without defects.
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    When I was a kid I was put on an anti-acne drug known to cause such birth defects. Docs insist that any females wanting the drug be on birth control, some simply not prescribing it to any females who aren't open to a quick termination should they accidentally get pregnant while on the drug. There are things that we know for sure will cause serious harm. Too bad such warnings can get lost in the shuffle.
letlambda 9y ago
>There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is. This is changing. But you still have the problem of over reporting. There are provisions to verify that your use of the material is safe, but it's so much easier, and so much less risky, to just slap the label on.

new299 9y ago

Interestingly, I want to know none of those things. I'd be more interested in knowing how statistically likely the chemicals are to increase my risk of getting cancer.

jgust 9y ago
I would argue that without the prior information, the statistics are also irrelevant.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Even if they did, would it matter? It would be some chemical term, like the one you see in an ingedient list, that is meaningless to most people. And these are places, not products...with gardens. Even if they use organic pesticides, they probably still have to put up the warning.

jstanley 9y ago
> that is meaningless to most people. Therefore no people should be allowed to know? For what it's worth, I'm not in favour of California's labelling requirements either. But just because something is meaningless to the majority of the population doesn't mean it's meaningless to the entire population. And it is specifically the population that is interested in knowing it that finds it least meaningless!
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  I didn't say allowed or not. Sure, you should know that there are 15 ug of theomacrotasium among a hundred other things in your environment, but then what? Information overload means our decisions can get worse, not better, when presented with more of it. What would be more meaningful: certifications that act as abstractions for complex problems. Organic kind of acts like this already, and of course there are multiple federal certs for electronics. Having a functioning regulatory system as well as a working civil law system also help.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    How about a warning that says "The battery in this cell phone contains an amount of theomacrotasium known to cause cancer if ingested." That's a completely actionable warning. Don't eat the contents of the battery of your cell phone. Or how about "This carpet contains formeldahyde, which is known to cause birth defects in pregnant women. Limit exposure to this carpet for a few days after installation." That's a good warning. That tells me what I need to know, what the risks are, and how to mitigate it.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Hey, if it's just one thing, great! Now, how do you do that for a hundred things? Again, warnings work great for very small numbers of N. We have to find a middle ground between "has chemicals that may cause cancer" and "a hundred specific chemicals in X quantities that may cause cancer." Abstraction is very necessary as a pragmatic solution, even if full disclosure makes sense as an ideal. Heck, most places are just doing CYA, they have no idea what specific lists of chemicals their contractors use. For the IoT case, no one has any idea how their devices can be exploited, and merely admit the possibility of exploitation. But that is another issue.
      - kaybe 9y ago
        Well, information on how to migitate the cancer risk is already a step forward. If it is only harmful if ingested you know not to give it to your toddler. If it gives off toxic fumes while burning, well, stay away if you made a fire mistake. etc. The warning itself is pretty useless as it is.
freehunter 9y ago
>And these are places, not products Those places have products that contain the toxic chemical, An apartment building is not poisonous by itself, they contain products that contain the harmful chemical. That's what they should be warning you about.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Ya, but what products? I'm sure California understood that it would be difficult for property managers to do a complete audit, so allowed this warning as a cop out (it might be that they have none of those chemicals, but who knows, we will put up the warning just in case).
  - freehunter 9y ago
    It always trickles down. The property managers know who built the buildings. The construction company knows what companies produced the construction materials. The company that made the construction materials knows what chemicals are in them. That's the person who writes the warning, and the construction crew tells the property manager, and the property manager keeps a list in their office for public viewing.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      I think it has more to do with the gardeners and maintnence than the orig construction. But ya, they so much as use a floor cleaner from the grocery store, that would have to be documented.
- taneq 9y ago
  Depends what it's made of. An asbestos apartment building is kinda toxic.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Sure. Also, no one on china trusts each others apartment renovations for this reason, which is why you are expected to re-renovate every time you buy (and your own renovations do nothing for the resale value). That stuff is actually easy to track down is what I meant. It is the day to day stuff that isn't.

daniel-cussen 9y ago

Or how much of it there is. Parts per million/billion? I'm pretty interested in how much cadmium and mercury gets into my system because they're bad news for the brain. At the same time, mercury is also in air so it's kind of inescapable. Parts per billion is interesting information because then I can control how much I ingest the way I do for food that is fattening.

logfromblammo 9y ago
It would be much more useful if it were in the form of "This property contains substances determined by the state of California to be toxic to humans. The site report may be viewed in person at 123 Maple St, Suite 200, San Mateo, or electronically at https: //sitereport.ca.us/ " Then the print report would basically be a binder full of MSDS-like information sheets, along with the history of measurements recorded on the site. Online, you could see the threshold levels for single massive exposure and for casual environmental or daily occupational exposures. And maybe enter your age, sex, and weight in kg, to see how likely it is that living in your apartment will kill you. The generic warning is useless. It ranges from "last month someone found 30cm of thermal receipt paper with bisphenol-A all over it" to "someone once dumped a 55gal drum full of dioxin right into the soil where your vegetable garden is now."
- notauser 9y ago
  This is the same problem with the cookie law in Europe. They allowed one single, generic, disclaimer which every site pops up. If they'd demanded: - a separate disclaimer for each domain (or at least company) setting a cookie - a description of the purpose of the cookies (e.g. advertising, remembering log-ins) Then the law might have actually achieved something.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    TBH, you need to put a cookie warning only if you use cookies for stuff like tracking and advertising. Logins and general site functionality are extempt from that. Basically, cookie warning on site means the site tracks you.

sandworm101 9y ago

Some warnings speak of "specific birth defects" which is something greater than a may/might do something. Normally this is reserved for the class of chemicals and drugs that post-thalidomide are known to cause limb-reduction defects.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Funny story, we moved from china to California last year because my wife was pregnant and the environment over there is pretty pllluted. When she saw this warning at the entrance of our new apartment, she began doubting our move (they don't have that in china!). Kid was born without defects.
- sandworm101 9y ago
  When I was a kid I was put on an anti-acne drug known to cause such birth defects. Docs insist that any females wanting the drug be on birth control, some simply not prescribing it to any females who aren't open to a quick termination should they accidentally get pregnant while on the drug. There are things that we know for sure will cause serious harm. Too bad such warnings can get lost in the shuffle.

letlambda 9y ago

>There's nothing forcing companies to tell you what compound is harmful, where it is. This is changing. But you still have the problem of over reporting. There are provisions to verify that your use of the material is safe, but it's so much easier, and so much less risky, to just slap the label on.