6 ms·

Prop 65 went off the deep end a long time ago. When you call any and everything a carcinogen then people stop paying attention. I'm willing to take the risks t

Prop 65 went off the deep end a long time ago. When you call any and everything a carcinogen then people stop paying attention. I'm willing to take the risks to drink coffee for example. I know french fries are bad for me, but cancer isn't my first concern there.

einpoklum 6y ago
Can't they just grade the carcinogenic risk? Maybe color-code it into different levels?
- president 6y ago
  Seems it would make more sense to either ban the chemicals completely or do nothing at all. Most people have essentially learned to ignore the P65 warning and I have noticed that not all businesses are compliant with it anyway.
  - annoyingnoob 6y ago
    > not all businesses are compliant with it anyway Pretty risky, just waiting for the wrong lawyer to notice.
- sfink 6y ago
  It would increase cost of compliance -- or mostly everyone would just stick to the most extreme level, to cover their asses. Many things marked with the Prop 65 warning do not actually contain anything carcinogenic (or rather, since everything is carcinogenic to some degree, they contain no more than trace amounts.) Legally, if a business has a Prop 65 warning, they're safe; if they don't, they're not. The only teeth Prop 65 has against excessive warnings is that it makes consumers like me nervous, so it's better to not have it. If it were a little more sane -- like being based on actual exposure from reasonably expected usage -- then I think I'd like it, even if the list of chemicals is still a bit overzealous. The system is too heavily tilted in favor of exposing people to nasty crap, and I appreciate having something that pushes against it. It's a hard thing to do well, and legislating via ballot initiative is a blunt instrument. So the best we generally end up with is stuff like Prop 65, which does some good, some harm.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    > It would increase cost of compliance What's the mechanism that the proposition puts in place? What makes an article be marked by the warning? Does the vendor have to report on the compounds their product contains? Or is there a state-conducted examination?
bookmarkable 6y ago
Exactly. Life is bad for you and leads to death. New car smell is just another minute of pleasure that someone felt compelled to discredit by research and documentation.
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  Maybe I don't realize the threat level. Chance of dying in a car crash, 1 in 77. https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favor-car-crashes-versus-other-fatalities-1420682154567/ https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favo... Chance of dying from cancer, 1 in 5. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probabi...
  - gruez 6y ago
    That's not really a fair comparison because you can only accumulate car crash risk when you're commuting, but you're accumulating cancer risk for every moment you're alive.
    - akira2501 6y ago
      > car crash risk when you're commuting Pedestrians are killed by cars, quite often. They are 1 out of every 6 vehicle fatalities. There's also per-trip associated risk which is separate from per-mile risk.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        Walking is also a form of commuting.
    - stuaxo 6y ago
      OK, but when I walk to the nursery every morning, we can take the quick route down the big road with traffic jams, or I can go 5-10 minutes out of our way on roads with no traffic and through a park. Similarly, every time I'm out walking I try and not walk on the large roads with lots of traffic, it all adds up.
Jakobeha 6y ago
I once heard that almost everything that gets into you slightly increases your risk of cancer (water is the exception), but there are different levels of risk. Some compounds will practically guarantee that you get tumors (like radiation, also benzene is really bad), but others are really negligible (like coffee or junk food, especially if you consume it rarely). So the important part is how much these compounds increase your risk of cancer. If a single day's exposure to a new car increases your risk of cancer enough to be noticeable than there's an issue. Otherwise just don't expose yourself to the smell often and you should be fine.
0xquad 6y ago
The main problem with Prop 65 is that it was done by ballot proposition -- through California's initiative process. That is, the proposed law was voted up or down by the people AS IS. As opposed to being created through the normal legislative process that would have allowed for sensible changes (as well as probable neutering by opponents). The initiative process is a form of direct democracy intended to bypass/override the legislature. As such, it is difficult to tweak Prop 65 legislatively for needed fixes that would make it more effective. This is one example of why most things that are proposed should not actually be done through the initiative process, IMHO. As a Californian, my default bias on ALL ballot propositions has become NO until proven well-written. That said, I'd rather have Prop 65 as imperfect as it is than nothing. It occasionally gives me actionable information.
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  There is a spot somewhere between abstinence and gluttony where you can live well and keep your risks under control. I think I'd rather live a little and take my chances - as long as its my choice. I'm with you generally, its good to have notice, but not all science is correct/settled and we need thresholds.
  - mleonhard 6y ago
    I believe this is the "Argument to Moderation" logical fallacy [0]. > Argument to moderation is the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposing positions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
    - annoyingnoob 6y ago
      I'm saying that I can't eat french fries everyday, but once in say 15 days isn't so bad. That isn't true of Benzene. Prop 65 would warn you to abstain from many things, many things that need more science.
- _nalply 6y ago
  Let me tell you about Swiss direct democracy. If an initiative comes up, parliament can amend the law and tell the people, hey look, we already improved the law, you can reject the initiative, or make a rejectable counter-proposal, or even both. It's sometimes complicated and it doesn't always produce something I would call nice but more often than not the outcome is better than acceptable.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

einpoklum 6y ago

Can't they just grade the carcinogenic risk? Maybe color-code it into different levels?

president 6y ago
Seems it would make more sense to either ban the chemicals completely or do nothing at all. Most people have essentially learned to ignore the P65 warning and I have noticed that not all businesses are compliant with it anyway.
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  > not all businesses are compliant with it anyway Pretty risky, just waiting for the wrong lawyer to notice.
sfink 6y ago
It would increase cost of compliance -- or mostly everyone would just stick to the most extreme level, to cover their asses. Many things marked with the Prop 65 warning do not actually contain anything carcinogenic (or rather, since everything is carcinogenic to some degree, they contain no more than trace amounts.) Legally, if a business has a Prop 65 warning, they're safe; if they don't, they're not. The only teeth Prop 65 has against excessive warnings is that it makes consumers like me nervous, so it's better to not have it. If it were a little more sane -- like being based on actual exposure from reasonably expected usage -- then I think I'd like it, even if the list of chemicals is still a bit overzealous. The system is too heavily tilted in favor of exposing people to nasty crap, and I appreciate having something that pushes against it. It's a hard thing to do well, and legislating via ballot initiative is a blunt instrument. So the best we generally end up with is stuff like Prop 65, which does some good, some harm.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > It would increase cost of compliance What's the mechanism that the proposition puts in place? What makes an article be marked by the warning? Does the vendor have to report on the compounds their product contains? Or is there a state-conducted examination?

bookmarkable 6y ago

Exactly. Life is bad for you and leads to death. New car smell is just another minute of pleasure that someone felt compelled to discredit by research and documentation.

annoyingnoob 6y ago
Maybe I don't realize the threat level. Chance of dying in a car crash, 1 in 77. https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favor-car-crashes-versus-other-fatalities-1420682154567/ https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favo... Chance of dying from cancer, 1 in 5. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probabi...
- gruez 6y ago
  That's not really a fair comparison because you can only accumulate car crash risk when you're commuting, but you're accumulating cancer risk for every moment you're alive.
  - akira2501 6y ago
    > car crash risk when you're commuting Pedestrians are killed by cars, quite often. They are 1 out of every 6 vehicle fatalities. There's also per-trip associated risk which is separate from per-mile risk.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Walking is also a form of commuting.
  - stuaxo 6y ago
    OK, but when I walk to the nursery every morning, we can take the quick route down the big road with traffic jams, or I can go 5-10 minutes out of our way on roads with no traffic and through a park. Similarly, every time I'm out walking I try and not walk on the large roads with lots of traffic, it all adds up.

Jakobeha 6y ago

I once heard that almost everything that gets into you slightly increases your risk of cancer (water is the exception), but there are different levels of risk. Some compounds will practically guarantee that you get tumors (like radiation, also benzene is really bad), but others are really negligible (like coffee or junk food, especially if you consume it rarely). So the important part is how much these compounds increase your risk of cancer. If a single day's exposure to a new car increases your risk of cancer enough to be noticeable than there's an issue. Otherwise just don't expose yourself to the smell often and you should be fine.

0xquad 6y ago

The main problem with Prop 65 is that it was done by ballot proposition -- through California's initiative process. That is, the proposed law was voted up or down by the people AS IS. As opposed to being created through the normal legislative process that would have allowed for sensible changes (as well as probable neutering by opponents). The initiative process is a form of direct democracy intended to bypass/override the legislature. As such, it is difficult to tweak Prop 65 legislatively for needed fixes that would make it more effective. This is one example of why most things that are proposed should not actually be done through the initiative process, IMHO. As a Californian, my default bias on ALL ballot propositions has become NO until proven well-written. That said, I'd rather have Prop 65 as imperfect as it is than nothing. It occasionally gives me actionable information.

annoyingnoob 6y ago
There is a spot somewhere between abstinence and gluttony where you can live well and keep your risks under control. I think I'd rather live a little and take my chances - as long as its my choice. I'm with you generally, its good to have notice, but not all science is correct/settled and we need thresholds.
- mleonhard 6y ago
  I believe this is the "Argument to Moderation" logical fallacy [0]. > Argument to moderation is the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposing positions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
  - annoyingnoob 6y ago
    I'm saying that I can't eat french fries everyday, but once in say 15 days isn't so bad. That isn't true of Benzene. Prop 65 would warn you to abstain from many things, many things that need more science.
_nalply 6y ago
Let me tell you about Swiss direct democracy. If an initiative comes up, parliament can amend the law and tell the people, hey look, we already improved the law, you can reject the initiative, or make a rejectable counter-proposal, or even both. It's sometimes complicated and it doesn't always produce something I would call nice but more often than not the outcome is better than acceptable.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]