5 ms·

What an absolute waste of everyone's time. Prop 65 has such a high false positive rate that it's worthless; it does nothing to inform nor protect citizens. Whe

What an absolute waste of everyone's time. Prop 65 has such a high false positive rate that it's worthless; it does nothing to inform nor protect citizens. When there's a sign on everything, the "warning" doesn't matter anymore. Moreover, just because something has a carcinogen doesn't automatically mean it's unhealthy nor that it will harm you. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3575799 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3575799 [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/almost-everything-causes-cancer-2016-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/almost-everything-causes-canc... [3] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/kno... [4] https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/08/15/17-carcinogenic-foods-you-probably-eat-every-day_a_21452232/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/08/15/17-carcinogenic...

dmm 9y ago
> doesn't automatically mean it's unhealthy nor that it will harm you. Examples: sunshine, candles, birth control
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  It would be a delightful piece of vandalism if people slapped stickers dating "Sunshine is known to the state of California to cause cancer" on all the moronic notices.
  - shoover 9y ago
    How about writing the warning in the sky, say hourly?
- another-one-off 9y ago
  Realistically, sunshine has caused more cancers than every nuclear disaster added together. If we could, we would absolutely ban it. It is grossly unsafe.
  - Skunkleton 9y ago
    Except for what happens when you get no sunshine.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    Living is unsafe. Also sunshine got more dangerous with the ozone layer depletion (man-made)
    - sundvor 9y ago
      Yep, let's fit warnings in birthing suites that 100% of all children born will die. We need more vigilance from Captain Obvious, who has been slacking off.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    Probably causes more cancers each day than every nuclear disaster added together. On the other hand, without sunshine, the Earth would be frozen world covered with ice, void of life.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  That is actually a counter-example, as many people make an effort to reduce the damage they receive from the sun.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    That is true, but many other people put in substantial effort to increase it. :/
  - njarboe 9y ago
    And the lower vitamin D levels due to this effort to block UV might be increasing the cancer rate instead of decreasing it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- colordrops 9y ago
  Those are all very dangerous if not taken in moderation, and many people are unaware of just how dangerous they are.
SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
Warning: this warning contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
justboxing 9y ago
> What an absolute waste of everyone's time. ..and (tax payer) money.
killjoywashere 9y ago
Also, the science behind carcinogen testing isn't exactly perfect. Ames testing (put cells on petri dishes, expose each dish to a varying degree of substance under test, plot results), for example, is subject to all sorts of problems related to the many, many ex-vivo variables those cells are exposed to simultaneously.
lawnchair_larry 9y ago
Unfortunately, the judge can't consider that. He didn't rule on whether or not the law is a stupid waste of time and money, he ruled that the existing [stupid] law, as written, applies. Someone else should get a ballot measure to improve or repeal the law. I think the idea behind the law is good, but the short-sighted implementation makes it useless.
- _jal 9y ago
  I like imagining a much better world in which we could have a Bureau of Stupid Identification. They'd have no power other than to point to something some other part of the government did and say, That is Hereby Declared Officially Stupid. It would never work, because we can't have nice things. But a boy can dream.
  - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
    If you proposed this it would just become a tool of partisan bickering anyway. This department would spend the first month when a new government is in office declaring everything they ideologically oppose from the previous government as stupid.
- joeblow9999 9y ago
  " I think the idea behind the law is good, but the short-sighted implementation makes it useless." As with most laws...
im3w1l 9y ago
> Prop 65 has such a high false positive rate that it's worthless Tinfoil: The people that actually elevate cancer risk by a significant amount but get drowned out by the noise must be very happy about this.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kw71 9y ago
You can ignore it if you like but don't take the choice away from me. I'm rarely in california but I have seen these warnings while traveling there and on products that are distributed throughout the United States. I'm not well educated in biology or chemistry fields and these signs and labels have made me want to investigate, or at least think about something that I normally wouldn't. Because of these I have considered secondhand tobacco smoke (signs in hotels), benzene (on fuel (petrol) dispensers), lead in brass (plumbing fittings), asbestos (automotive brakes, clutches, gaskets), and many others. I think I make better decisions as a result: telling my kid that if he can smell petrol he's too close, and making sure a brass fitting is RoHS if it's used to convey water but I don't always wash my hands after I handle an air hose with brass fittings.
- stickfigure 9y ago
  There are prop 65 warnings for sand. "This facility performs sandblasting operations. Sand contains silica, a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer." You can't tell me that this is giving you useful information. The noise is drowning out the signal.
  - kw71 9y ago
    Sandblasting operations are a long-recognized hazard. Not only can you get silicosis but sandblasting is an abrasive process and what else besides the sand is hanging around in the air? Tiny bits of the substrate metal? Zinc (galvanizing coating), Cadmium (another plating), Chromate (paint), Lead (paint)? Is a cured cyanoacrylate paint passivated enough that it's safe to breathe its dust? When I was a kid I didn't have anyone to tell me and no reminders to wear a respirator. Edit: after submitting, I realized I've never used "silicon" sand as a blasting abrasive, but only glued to paper or cloth. I typically blast with aluminium oxide, coal slag, or glass beads.
    - stickfigure 9y ago
      That's a good reason to have a meaningful warning sign up ("do not breathe sandblasting dust"). Unfortunately the prop 65 warning has exactly the opposite effect - hahaha yeah sand whatever - which left me with a false sense of security.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Prop. 65 is stupid, but it is not the judge’s job to evaluate then wisdom of the people in adopting the mandate, it is the judge’s job to apply the law.

dmm 9y ago

> doesn't automatically mean it's unhealthy nor that it will harm you. Examples: sunshine, candles, birth control

andrewflnr 9y ago
It would be a delightful piece of vandalism if people slapped stickers dating "Sunshine is known to the state of California to cause cancer" on all the moronic notices.
- shoover 9y ago
  How about writing the warning in the sky, say hourly?
another-one-off 9y ago
Realistically, sunshine has caused more cancers than every nuclear disaster added together. If we could, we would absolutely ban it. It is grossly unsafe.
- Skunkleton 9y ago
  Except for what happens when you get no sunshine.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Living is unsafe. Also sunshine got more dangerous with the ozone layer depletion (man-made)
  - sundvor 9y ago
    Yep, let's fit warnings in birthing suites that 100% of all children born will die. We need more vigilance from Captain Obvious, who has been slacking off.
- njarboe 9y ago
  Probably causes more cancers each day than every nuclear disaster added together. On the other hand, without sunshine, the Earth would be frozen world covered with ice, void of life.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
dwaltrip 9y ago
That is actually a counter-example, as many people make an effort to reduce the damage they receive from the sun.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  That is true, but many other people put in substantial effort to increase it. :/
- njarboe 9y ago
  And the lower vitamin D levels due to this effort to block UV might be increasing the cancer rate instead of decreasing it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
colordrops 9y ago
Those are all very dangerous if not taken in moderation, and many people are unaware of just how dangerous they are.

SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago

Warning: this warning contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

justboxing 9y ago

> What an absolute waste of everyone's time. ..and (tax payer) money.

killjoywashere 9y ago

Also, the science behind carcinogen testing isn't exactly perfect. Ames testing (put cells on petri dishes, expose each dish to a varying degree of substance under test, plot results), for example, is subject to all sorts of problems related to the many, many ex-vivo variables those cells are exposed to simultaneously.

lawnchair_larry 9y ago

Unfortunately, the judge can't consider that. He didn't rule on whether or not the law is a stupid waste of time and money, he ruled that the existing [stupid] law, as written, applies. Someone else should get a ballot measure to improve or repeal the law. I think the idea behind the law is good, but the short-sighted implementation makes it useless.

_jal 9y ago
I like imagining a much better world in which we could have a Bureau of Stupid Identification. They'd have no power other than to point to something some other part of the government did and say, That is Hereby Declared Officially Stupid. It would never work, because we can't have nice things. But a boy can dream.
- cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
  If you proposed this it would just become a tool of partisan bickering anyway. This department would spend the first month when a new government is in office declaring everything they ideologically oppose from the previous government as stupid.
joeblow9999 9y ago
" I think the idea behind the law is good, but the short-sighted implementation makes it useless." As with most laws...

im3w1l 9y ago

> Prop 65 has such a high false positive rate that it's worthless Tinfoil: The people that actually elevate cancer risk by a significant amount but get drowned out by the noise must be very happy about this.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kw71 9y ago

You can ignore it if you like but don't take the choice away from me. I'm rarely in california but I have seen these warnings while traveling there and on products that are distributed throughout the United States. I'm not well educated in biology or chemistry fields and these signs and labels have made me want to investigate, or at least think about something that I normally wouldn't. Because of these I have considered secondhand tobacco smoke (signs in hotels), benzene (on fuel (petrol) dispensers), lead in brass (plumbing fittings), asbestos (automotive brakes, clutches, gaskets), and many others. I think I make better decisions as a result: telling my kid that if he can smell petrol he's too close, and making sure a brass fitting is RoHS if it's used to convey water but I don't always wash my hands after I handle an air hose with brass fittings.

stickfigure 9y ago
There are prop 65 warnings for sand. "This facility performs sandblasting operations. Sand contains silica, a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer." You can't tell me that this is giving you useful information. The noise is drowning out the signal.
- kw71 9y ago
  Sandblasting operations are a long-recognized hazard. Not only can you get silicosis but sandblasting is an abrasive process and what else besides the sand is hanging around in the air? Tiny bits of the substrate metal? Zinc (galvanizing coating), Cadmium (another plating), Chromate (paint), Lead (paint)? Is a cured cyanoacrylate paint passivated enough that it's safe to breathe its dust? When I was a kid I didn't have anyone to tell me and no reminders to wear a respirator. Edit: after submitting, I realized I've never used "silicon" sand as a blasting abrasive, but only glued to paper or cloth. I typically blast with aluminium oxide, coal slag, or glass beads.
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    That's a good reason to have a meaningful warning sign up ("do not breathe sandblasting dust"). Unfortunately the prop 65 warning has exactly the opposite effect - hahaha yeah sand whatever - which left me with a false sense of security.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Prop. 65 is stupid, but it is not the judge’s job to evaluate then wisdom of the people in adopting the mandate, it is the judge’s job to apply the law.