They could handle this issue the same as California did with Proposition 65 which "requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exp

They could handle this issue the same as California did with Proposition 65 which "requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm." There is no need to foster actual safety when you can just put up warning and disclaimer signs everywhere. I am reaching a bit to make a point, but hear me out: if you live in California, try to pay close attention and notice all of the Prop 65 warning signs you see as you go about your day. Then ask yourself this: "if you really wanted to protect or insulate yourself from the dangers that Prop 65 warns about, how would you go about it? Would it even be possible in a practical sense?" My opinion is that the answer is "No. That would be impossible." So the Prop 65 warning signs (which is all Prop 65 amounts to in terms of laws) do literally nothing except provide cover/deniability/risk-displacement for businesses and maybe the State of California. How would you compare the associated health risks with Prop 65 chemicals with the health risks of operating a Gas Stovetop? Why are they not treated in like manner?