4 ms·

This exists - many manufacturing companies get hit up by chemical engineers who discover something in their product, backed by a lawyer. They get damages + fee

by Qworg 12y ago

This exists - many manufacturing companies get hit up by chemical engineers who discover something in their product, backed by a lawyer. They get damages + fees and the product gets a "This is known to cause cancer in the State of California".

mindslight 12y ago
To be fair, everything gets "This is known to cause cancer in the State of California". The only thing that label tells you is that the state of California likes to pointlessly sacrifice lab animals.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Everyone loves to give California a hard time, but they've done more to bring US product safety into the 21st century than any other US state. I'd describe California and the EU as being similar, and the rest of the US to be worse than either (some by far). Fortunately since international companies want to sell all over the US and Europe, it has meant that this is the new baseline most of them shoot for. "Legal in California" means legal in the US (and likely EU). It is better for everyone. It really is.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    So, because they've done good they are immune from criticism? Off the top of my head, I've witnessed this label at parking garages and Starbucks drink counters. For public locations, if the label's concern were legitimate wouldn't it be appropriate to fix the situation instead of just fostering an environment of ignored signage and faux consent?
    - aros 12y ago
      Is there a reason you frame every argument as a hyperbole?
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    The cancer argument California politicians follow is based on non-scientific or non-conclusive research. The legislation that dictates this is Proposition 65 and its considered a public policy failure. Its the anti-vax and holistic crowds dictating policy. It also has the secondary effect of making REAL cancer warnings seem trivial. "Oh cigarettes are bad? So are electric cords and pepsi according to California!"
  - driverdan 12y ago
    Can you cite any research to back your position? Absurd regulations (like putting worthless "product may cause cancer" labels on everything) have resource costs. These resources could be put to better use. A lot of CA regulation is like the TSA. The cost per life saved (or harm avoided / prevented) is astronomical. There are far better uses for the resources squandered.
  - zerocrates 12y ago
    > It is better for everyone. It really is. Except of course when they get it wrong and have to reverse course, as seen in the news over the last several years in the case of flame retardants for furniture.
    - rwallace 12y ago
      What's the latest verdict on flame retardants? Last I heard, the conclusion was that they are carcinogenic, but you have to weigh the risk of dying of cancer in twenty years against the risk of dying in a fire tomorrow, and the best guess seemed to be that they save more lives than they cost.
      - zerocrates 12y ago
        Lately, the dialogue is skewed against flame retardant treatments, though this is probably as much because of Toxic Hot Seat as anything else. So, my sense of the current "wisdom" is that the cancer and toxicity issues are significant, especially for firefighters, and the retardants offer relatively little protection against fires. A big factor in the turnaround is that the California standards were primarily concerned about protecting against dropped lit cigarettes, and so many fewer people smoke, particularly indoors.
  - loarabia 12y ago
    Law of unintended consequences? http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/11/15/pbdes-and-neurodevelopmental-deficits/ http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/11/15/pbdes-and-neurodev... edit I didn't notice but zerocrates had already pointed this out.
- thrillgore 12y ago
  And what would the label say if it was Texas? "Materials meet FDA GRAS specifications?" Oh wait there wouldn't be one.
sk5t 12y ago
Are you sure you mean chemical engineer and not chemist? Chemical engineers are usually more concerned with, e.g., how to produce something to a certain level of purity, designing a process or plant to work effectively, etc.
- Qworg 12y ago
  When a company I was working for received these, they were generally from chemical engineers (by title), but chemists showed up sometimes too. I think the engineering part comes in from the testing for a battery of things.

by Qworg 12y ago

mindslight 12y ago

To be fair, everything gets "This is known to cause cancer in the State of California". The only thing that label tells you is that the state of California likes to pointlessly sacrifice lab animals.

Someone1234 12y ago
Everyone loves to give California a hard time, but they've done more to bring US product safety into the 21st century than any other US state. I'd describe California and the EU as being similar, and the rest of the US to be worse than either (some by far). Fortunately since international companies want to sell all over the US and Europe, it has meant that this is the new baseline most of them shoot for. "Legal in California" means legal in the US (and likely EU). It is better for everyone. It really is.
- mindslight 12y ago
  So, because they've done good they are immune from criticism? Off the top of my head, I've witnessed this label at parking garages and Starbucks drink counters. For public locations, if the label's concern were legitimate wouldn't it be appropriate to fix the situation instead of just fostering an environment of ignored signage and faux consent?
  - aros 12y ago
    Is there a reason you frame every argument as a hyperbole?
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  The cancer argument California politicians follow is based on non-scientific or non-conclusive research. The legislation that dictates this is Proposition 65 and its considered a public policy failure. Its the anti-vax and holistic crowds dictating policy. It also has the secondary effect of making REAL cancer warnings seem trivial. "Oh cigarettes are bad? So are electric cords and pepsi according to California!"
- driverdan 12y ago
  Can you cite any research to back your position? Absurd regulations (like putting worthless "product may cause cancer" labels on everything) have resource costs. These resources could be put to better use. A lot of CA regulation is like the TSA. The cost per life saved (or harm avoided / prevented) is astronomical. There are far better uses for the resources squandered.
- zerocrates 12y ago
  > It is better for everyone. It really is. Except of course when they get it wrong and have to reverse course, as seen in the news over the last several years in the case of flame retardants for furniture.
  - rwallace 12y ago
    What's the latest verdict on flame retardants? Last I heard, the conclusion was that they are carcinogenic, but you have to weigh the risk of dying of cancer in twenty years against the risk of dying in a fire tomorrow, and the best guess seemed to be that they save more lives than they cost.
    - zerocrates 12y ago
      Lately, the dialogue is skewed against flame retardant treatments, though this is probably as much because of Toxic Hot Seat as anything else. So, my sense of the current "wisdom" is that the cancer and toxicity issues are significant, especially for firefighters, and the retardants offer relatively little protection against fires. A big factor in the turnaround is that the California standards were primarily concerned about protecting against dropped lit cigarettes, and so many fewer people smoke, particularly indoors.
- loarabia 12y ago
  Law of unintended consequences? http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/11/15/pbdes-and-neurodevelopmental-deficits/ http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/11/15/pbdes-and-neurodev... edit I didn't notice but zerocrates had already pointed this out.
thrillgore 12y ago
And what would the label say if it was Texas? "Materials meet FDA GRAS specifications?" Oh wait there wouldn't be one.

sk5t 12y ago

Are you sure you mean chemical engineer and not chemist? Chemical engineers are usually more concerned with, e.g., how to produce something to a certain level of purity, designing a process or plant to work effectively, etc.

Qworg 12y ago
When a company I was working for received these, they were generally from chemical engineers (by title), but chemists showed up sometimes too. I think the engineering part comes in from the testing for a battery of things.