4 ms·
The biggest problem is not even prevalence... it's the content-free message. What part of the product contains these chemicals? What chemicals are they? Will I
by ip26 6y ago
The biggest problem is not even prevalence... it's the content-free message. What part of the product contains these chemicals? What chemicals are they? Will I be exposed just by touching the product, or only if the product is burned? etc. It's almost completely non-actionable information.
- ballenf 6y agoIt also bothers me on a pedantic level that "the State of California" is portrayed as a sentient being. I can't think of an equally concise but more accurate phrasing so long as a reference to California remains, but maybe brevity isn't such a high priority.
- vmception 6y agoEvery judge does that with their court and if you look close enough “the state” does this everywhere. All of them. The California notices are one of the only examples of it being put in your face everywhere
- TT3351 6y agoSurely there must be at least one federal or state judge who quietly whispers to himself 'I am the state' every time he/she signs a court document in that way
- neuronexmachina 6y agoThey've actually started including the names of the specific chemical(s), example: https://news.llu.edu/patient-care/california-s-cancer-warnings-what-are-real-risks https://news.llu.edu/patient-care/california-s-cancer-warnin...
- mattnewton 6y agoNot only that but I have nothing to base it off of. What concentration is thought to cause cancer? What concentration would I expect to be exposed to it?
- gnopgnip 6y agoThere have been significant changes to the law in the last few years. The chemical that causes cancer needs to be listed on the label. A lot of products that never should have had these labels don't have them anymore.