3 ms·

great, but California needs to stop saying everything causes cancer: https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning https://www.popsci.com/california-c

great, but California needs to stop saying everything causes cancer: https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning

lostcolony 8y ago
Agreed. Not even in a curmudgeonly or political "quit trying to ruin things for me, California", sort of way. Some things are legitimate threats to people's health. Others aren't. Conflating the two as being equally dangerous is no better than conflating the two as being equally innocuous. In both cases we learn to ignore the warnings. Heck, my wife and I stayed in the historic Westin St. Francis in SF last year. Beautiful hotel, with some amazing history behind it. And, of course, a small plaque at the entrance saying the state of California had determined that the hotel contained some sort of material that was known to cause cancer. Yes, well, thank you state of California, for giving me useless information, that in no way quantified my risk, but just ensured that I continued my practice of ignoring your warnings.
- caf 8y ago
  If the plaque concerned asbestos (which is alone responsible for the majority of cases of mesothelioma), it is likely there as a warning to tradespeople called in to perform work on the building. This means the correct precautions can be taken if bonded asbestos might be damaged by the maintenance or construction work carried out.
  - lostcolony 8y ago
    Which would make sense except it's right by the main entryway, where literally everyone entering from the street will see it. But that's just it, I don't know. The plaque never says. It just says that the site contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. Right at visitor eye level.
  - function_seven 8y ago
    Unfortunately, the prop 65 warning is everywhere and never lists specific carcinogens. That plaque doesn’t help anyone determine if asbestos is present.
    - caf 8y ago
      Oh, I see. That does seem quite pointless.
  - dpark 8y ago
    My apartment in California carried the same warning, because it had a chlorinated pool. California’s cancer warnings are so ubiquitous that they are meaningless. The only thing they do is alarm people new to the area if they aren’t familiar with the proposition.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      It's pretty unfortunate, but it's a good example of how a law can do the exact opposite of what it was intended to do unless it's considered carefully, and messaging risk is a non-trivial task in written communication.
      - dpark 8y ago
        I sometimes wish we created more time-bound laws with expirations or phase outs (depending on the particular law). It’s politically more difficult to get a law repealed than passed. If laws that may have unintended consequences could expire on their own (requiring a legislative act for extension), we might have fewer laws like this on the books. Would enough people actually vote to extend this law? Of course no one wants the law they’re writing to expire because it can’t possibly be a mistake.
        KirinDave 8y ago
        The only thing I'd be for in this is renewals on California-style prop systems. Systems that can create problems because they're decoupled from a requirement to answer, "How do we fund this?" Otherwise, I think the answer to, "How do we make regulation less burdensome while still being effective" can never be, "By making it change even more!"
  - glenra 8y ago
    The most likely basis is that the hotel uses standard cleaning products. Or there might be tobacco smoke near the lounge, aspirin in the medical kits, alcohol at the bar or car exhaust in the parking garage. The warning signs provide no actionable information to consumers, but businesses can be sued for not having them so virtually all businesses in California just post the sign in self-defense against opportunistic lawyers. You can look up what chemicals are covered here: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list/ https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list/
- todd8 8y ago
  I've had to just stop worrying about the generic State of California cancer warnings. Why can't they at least indicate the level of risk and/or the source of the risk?
cordite 8y ago
I have a product that says it does not “INTENTIONALLY” include chemicals “known to the state of California to cause cancer”.

great, but California needs to stop saying everything causes cancer: https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning https://www.popsci.com/california-coffee-cancer-warning

lostcolony 8y ago

Agreed. Not even in a curmudgeonly or political "quit trying to ruin things for me, California", sort of way. Some things are legitimate threats to people's health. Others aren't. Conflating the two as being equally dangerous is no better than conflating the two as being equally innocuous. In both cases we learn to ignore the warnings. Heck, my wife and I stayed in the historic Westin St. Francis in SF last year. Beautiful hotel, with some amazing history behind it. And, of course, a small plaque at the entrance saying the state of California had determined that the hotel contained some sort of material that was known to cause cancer. Yes, well, thank you state of California, for giving me useless information, that in no way quantified my risk, but just ensured that I continued my practice of ignoring your warnings.

caf 8y ago
If the plaque concerned asbestos (which is alone responsible for the majority of cases of mesothelioma), it is likely there as a warning to tradespeople called in to perform work on the building. This means the correct precautions can be taken if bonded asbestos might be damaged by the maintenance or construction work carried out.
- lostcolony 8y ago
  Which would make sense except it's right by the main entryway, where literally everyone entering from the street will see it. But that's just it, I don't know. The plaque never says. It just says that the site contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. Right at visitor eye level.
- function_seven 8y ago
  Unfortunately, the prop 65 warning is everywhere and never lists specific carcinogens. That plaque doesn’t help anyone determine if asbestos is present.
  - caf 8y ago
    Oh, I see. That does seem quite pointless.
- dpark 8y ago
  My apartment in California carried the same warning, because it had a chlorinated pool. California’s cancer warnings are so ubiquitous that they are meaningless. The only thing they do is alarm people new to the area if they aren’t familiar with the proposition.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    It's pretty unfortunate, but it's a good example of how a law can do the exact opposite of what it was intended to do unless it's considered carefully, and messaging risk is a non-trivial task in written communication.
    - dpark 8y ago
      I sometimes wish we created more time-bound laws with expirations or phase outs (depending on the particular law). It’s politically more difficult to get a law repealed than passed. If laws that may have unintended consequences could expire on their own (requiring a legislative act for extension), we might have fewer laws like this on the books. Would enough people actually vote to extend this law? Of course no one wants the law they’re writing to expire because it can’t possibly be a mistake.
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        The only thing I'd be for in this is renewals on California-style prop systems. Systems that can create problems because they're decoupled from a requirement to answer, "How do we fund this?" Otherwise, I think the answer to, "How do we make regulation less burdensome while still being effective" can never be, "By making it change even more!"
- glenra 8y ago
  The most likely basis is that the hotel uses standard cleaning products. Or there might be tobacco smoke near the lounge, aspirin in the medical kits, alcohol at the bar or car exhaust in the parking garage. The warning signs provide no actionable information to consumers, but businesses can be sued for not having them so virtually all businesses in California just post the sign in self-defense against opportunistic lawyers. You can look up what chemicals are covered here: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list/ https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list/
todd8 8y ago
I've had to just stop worrying about the generic State of California cancer warnings. Why can't they at least indicate the level of risk and/or the source of the risk?

cordite 8y ago

I have a product that says it does not “INTENTIONALLY” include chemicals “known to the state of California to cause cancer”.