Fuses cause cancer in the State of California

[Raj]

  you know, it's better to put that warning on there, than someone doing some stupid research and then blaming your new old stock for cancer

[Richard Crowley]

As has been already observed, many vendors (like MPJA and All Electronics) have taken to simply labeling EVERYTHING in order to stay within the idiotic law.  Of course a warning that applies to everything contains no useful information.

Yes, it was a silly proposition, but the state has historically struck down other propositions after the voters approved them. 

[ruffy91]

In most other legislations you would get in big trouble with these warnings.
Why?
Because if someone gets cancer and blames you you would have a good chance to lose the case in front of a judge. Because you sold something where you KNEW it could cause cancer.

The same applies for security measures on electromechanical machines (CNC, 6 axis roboter etc.)
Sometimes customers want to have a machine without the standard security measures (light curtain, two hand switches etc.).
They offer to write a letter which tells that they take all the liability. Never ever take it.
If someone dies you will get sued, because you intentionally sold something you knew could kill someone. Better not to have a paper trail and the customer removes the security measures itself.

[helius]

Note the language: "Known to the State of California", not "known to us".
Of course because I know the State of California knows something does not imply that I know it. The State could be wrong.

because you intentionally sold something you knew could kill someone.

A hopeless legal standard. Anyone with a brain knows that common items like steak knives or frying pans can be lethal.

As the recent EU Copyright legislation shows, the sorry state of the US legal system doesn't mean that other places are better.

[amyk]

Does anybody know the fable of the boy who cried wolf?...

Those warnings prevent lawsuits. There are still commercials from sleazy lawyers asking to contact them if you have mesothelioma.  They try to milk money from corporations using people's disease.

This is exactly the reason for all these warnings and scaremongering. You can't have rational scientific discussion if lawyers are trying to make a living by exaggerating the risks.

[james_s]

Somehow 49 other states seem to get by without warnings on *everything* that it causes cancer.

I can't count the number of times I've seen someone look at that label and say something along the lines of "Hahah good thing I'm not in California!"

[coppercone2]

some how california has better cancer rates then most states, take a look

despite all the sunny weather.

https://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-cancer-rates-in-the-united-states-2017-5?IR=T#this-map-looks-at-the-rate-of-new-cancer-cases-by-state-per-100000-people-this-is-specifically-looking-at-2013-which-is-the-most-recent-year-available-the-darker-the-color-the-higher-the-rate-1


it almost looks like a health cluster around California actually.

maybe its all the 'new age bullshit' . I heard that kinda stuff is popular in Colorado too.

[james_s]

Seems like earlier in this thread someone posted a study showing that California did not have lower cancer rates than elsewhere. That's the problem with statistics, it's very easy to massage them into supporting whatever result you want. I remember a math teacher I had in highschool quoted something along the lines of "There are three kinds of liars out there. Liars, damn liars and statisticians." It was mostly a humorous comment he had heard somewhere but there is some truth to it.

[Cyberdragon]

Does anybody know the fable of the boy who cried wolf?...

Those warnings prevent lawsuits. There are still commercials from sleazy lawyers asking to contact them if you have mesothelioma.  They try to milk money from corporations using people's disease.

This is exactly the reason for all these warnings and scaremongering. You can't have rational scientific discussion if lawyers are trying to make a living by exaggerating the risks.

Especially those assholes that encourage suig over drugs causing this and that, and the ones purpetuating the stupid talcum powder cancer myth. There was even one that claimed you could sue over chemo causing hair-loss. Makes me want to prank call the hell out of the bastards with an untracable autodialer. They're nothing more than dirty phone scammers who happen to have legit businesses.

[coppercone2]

Seems like earlier in this thread someone posted a study showing that California did not have lower cancer rates than elsewhere. That's the problem with statistics, it's very easy to massage them into supporting whatever result you want. I remember a math teacher I had in highschool quoted something along the lines of "There are three kinds of liars out there. Liars, damn liars and statisticians." It was mostly a humorous comment he had heard somewhere but there is some truth to it.

where?

i dunno if I put too much faith in your disregard for medical research but whatever

[Cyberdragon]

Seems like earlier in this thread someone posted a study showing that California did not have lower cancer rates than elsewhere. That's the problem with statistics, it's very easy to massage them into supporting whatever result you want. I remember a math teacher I had in highschool quoted something along the lines of "There are three kinds of liars out there. Liars, damn liars and statisticians." It was mostly a humorous comment he had heard somewhere but there is some truth to it.

where?

i dunno if I put too much faith in your disregard for medical research but whatever

He's probably disregarding the same "medical research" that just popped up on my TV saying Roundup causes lymphoma! Talcum powder yet again!

[Richard Crowley]

Of course, the issue is NOT what is the current cancer rate in California today.
The issue is whether the rate has gone DOWN after Prop 65 warnings went on everything?
If that were the case, wouldn't we expect loud proclamations of success?  I haven't noticed any.  Have you?

Now, coffee must be labeled as containing a "California Carcinogen". (Acrylamide) Starbucks must be thrilled.
Never mind that you would drown in the amount of coffee it would take to produce any significant risk from Acrylamide.

Will they require barrage balloons floating in the Los Angeles basin smog to fly warnings about the air quality?
"WARNING: The air you are breathing contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause Cancer....."

[coppercone2]

culture may have preceded law by the nature of the people that live there and the rules were perhaps a response to perceived threats?

you know, keeping the status quo.

california had a good health reputation for a long time before 1986

compare the coast lines, the area around new york looks like it has chicken pox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites

[IanB]

Will they require barrage balloons floating in the Los Angeles basin smog to fly warnings about the air quality?
"WARNING: The air you are breathing contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause Cancer....."

I have already encountered this warning in an underground parking lot.

[calexanian]

That is basically compulsory on all non food or drug items in California. The key word on those labels is “Can” and go from there. Technically replacing a fuse in an old
Piece of gear “Can” or in this case could possibly expose one to lead. Super silly yes I know, but California is a silly place. Again, if it were not for my business being so gerographicaly tied I would have left years ago from all this rediculous garbage. Oh and for those not from here, the public actually voted for this kind of product labeling. Nanny state in Action, by our own hands.

[ataradov]

the public actually voted for this kind of product labeling. Nanny state in Action, by our own hands.

I sort of agree, but not with this part. The public voted a long time ago and on a much simpler version of the law. But once it was in place, minor amendments did not require a public vote.

The list of chemical was much shorter at the beginning. There is no way for public to know how the law will be developed after the vote is over. You think you are voting on a good thing, but then it turns out to be a bad thing. Nobody can predict this, but unfortunately it is very hard to change "bad" laws.

There is really need to be a vote "do you still think P65 the way it is implemented right now a good thing?". And only after that vote you could blame the public.

If somebody tells you that every decision they make ends up being a good one after multiple years, you know they are lying. Everybody makes mistakes, but in real life we have ways to correct them.

And also, people that wrote Patriot Act said that the resulting law is not what they envisioned at all. Yet here we are.

[calexanian]

I agree.

[james_s]

It's a common problem with laws that get voted in by the public, I've long had mixed feelings on the initiative process. On one hand it's nice that the public can create laws, however it's a double edged sword because the laws are often poorly crafted and rife with unintended consequences. Then there is the issue that the public is often not well informed, they'll vote on a law that "does X" not even realizing that "X" is only a portion of the law and it also does Y, Z, A, B and C. Many of the initiative laws also turn out to be unconstitutional and are soon struck down in court after wasting a bunch of resources to implement and then battle over.

[soldar]

Also, I don't think it's fair to blame government overreach for this. Apparently it is the result of Proposition 65, which was mandated by popular vote.

Well, "government" in this case includes the popular vote. Just like Brexit. It is a part of the system of government. Like Mencken said "democracy is the theory that the people deserve to get what they vote and they deserve to get it good and hard". The people are now enjoying what they voted.

I would vote for a proposition that promised two women to every man ... and two men for every woman.

[soldar]

The label is present everywhere, so you may also argue that it is useless

Just like every single web site pops up a warning that "this web site uses cookies". What a useless PITA!

[MrMobodies]

They should also put a cancer warning out about the smoke from the wildfires.

[Mr. Scram]

Just like every single web site pops up a warning that "this web site uses cookies". What a useless PITA!

To be fair, that's because most website makes cop out. They put the burden on the visitor, while they really should be mitigating the requirements by properly designing their website. Complain to the website owner, even though he's likely to respond with some sob story about being forced to display the message.

[james_s]

I don't really care about cookies, they're annoying but I can deal with them on my end. The warnings annoy me far more than the cookies do.

[soldar]

I don't really care about cookies, they're annoying but I can deal with them on my end. The warnings annoy me far more than the cookies do.

Hear, hear! +1

"Cookies are know to the state of California to be annoying to the general public and may cause aggravation, high blood pressure, ulcers, homicidal thoughts, etc."