I wholeheartedly agree that the problem is the implementation not the intent. Prop 65 is not the only example.
I was involved in a large construction project some years ago near Mojave CA. Some agency was requiring the use of these coco fiber erosion mats wherever the ground was disturbed. They had conga lines of 18 wheel trucks bringing in these mats sourced from god knows where to prevent erosion...in the middle of the Mojave desert...in the middle of summer.
I am all about the environment. All I could think of was the amount of diesel that went into this absurdity. /:rant:
Coincidentally, California is a cancer on the US..
LOL. Without California's contribution to the US economy , we'd have been in recession for most of the past few decades and even further in debt than we already are.
Just think how large California's economy would be, and how sound it's finances would be if time and energy weren't wasted on drivel like Prop 65. I suspect the waste is larger than the economies of our poorest states, certainly larger than the Indian reservations.
Government waste and bureaucratic overreach are ubiquitous- present in every state and country. Prop 65 is just one example of good intentions poorly implemented. This in no way contradicts the fact that California is an economic powerhouse and leader in many areas, including technology. Comments like the one by BMack and others, just reveal a political ideologue who can't stand the fact that a state whose political leanings they dislike is so successful.
Coincidentally, California is a cancer on the US..
LOL. Without California's contribution to the US economy , we'd have been in recession for most of the past few decades and even further in debt than we already are.
Just think how large California's economy would be, and how sound it's finances would be if time and energy weren't wasted on drivel like Prop 65. I suspect the waste is larger than the economies of our poorest states, certainly larger than the Indian reservations.
Government waste and bureaucratic overreach are ubiquitous- present in every state and country. Prop 65 is just one example of good intentions poorly implemented. This in no way contradicts the fact that California is an economic powerhouse and leader in many areas, including technology. Comments like the one by BMack and others, just reveal a political ideologue who can't stand the fact that a state whose political leanings they dislike is so successful.
mtdoc, don't waste your time... It is the same preconceived drivel that happens anytime Texas shows up in the news about anything.
Yes, California WAS an "economic powerhouse" for over 100 years. But they are becoming so anti-business that companies are bailing out left and right. And they are so deep in debt they are trying to tax anything and everything. The headline "California declares a tax on....." is just click-bait anymore. I'm glad I left 40 years ago, although my present state isn't much better. The tree-hugger, bicycle-riding "progressives" in this state are shocked that the (Democrat) governor has now declared a tax on bicycles.
Yes, California WAS an "economic powerhouse" for over 100 years. But they are becoming so anti-business that companies are bailing out left and right. And they are so deep in debt they are trying to tax anything and everything.
Politically motivated myth and factually incorrect - see links in prior post.
Of course companies are always relocating from state to state or out of country, but net- net California has been creating more new jobs and growing it's economy faster than most of the US and faster than almost all other countries. That's why as of the end of 2016 it ranks just behind the worlds 5th largest economy Great Britian (up from 7th the year before).
While almost all states are heavily in debt (as are most countries), California does not rank very high
among states based on debt/GDP ratio and in that regard is in much better shape than many "low regulation" states. That is why the bond market (the ultimate arbitrator of fiscal health) has rewarded California with very low borrowing costs compared to most states.
BTW, I don't at all condone the current borrow and spend Ponzi scheme economy present throughout the US and globally, but it's just not factually correct to say that California is doing poorly economically - when overall it remains a US economic powerhouse and the facts show that it's contribution to the US economy has proportionately been increasing in recent years.
Do you really think many (any?) people stopped smoking because every pack of cigarettes had a warning label on them?
Not sure about the US, but there is a strong drop in smoking population in Russia. But it is hard to attribute it to specifically new packaging markings, since a number of other measures were implemented at the same time (limits on advertising, placement is stores, higher prices, etc). I'm sure it did not hurt, especially stuff with pictures of smoker's lungs.
In Brazil that was the biggest factor in reducing cigarette consumption. Government heavily taxed it and sales took a severe dive.
There has definitely been a very significant decrease in smoking rates in the US over the last several decades. I have no way of measuring just how much of that decrease is due to warning labels, but personally I think the effect of the warning labels is probably pretty small compared to just the general increase in public awareness of the association between smoking and cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc. And it's pretty obvious that reading warning labels is NOT the primary means by which Americans have become aware of these dangers. In fact, I would actually be surprised if there's a single person, ever, who first learned of the dangers of smoking by reading a warning label. Which means that, at best, the warning labels are just there to reinforce the message. That is, they're there to nag smokers and get them to think about the fact that they're jeopardizing their health every time they open up a pack of cigarettes. But again, how effective is that really? I'm not saying the answer is zero. But if you're trying to draw some correlation between warning labels and overall smoking rates, I think it's probably near zero.
Anedoctal evidence from some smoker friends match your opinions. In addition, most of them felt more compelled to drop or simply nagged due to peer pressure from family/friends - in this case I can see that awareness campaigns and even the stamped photographs on the packs are a key influencer to peers.
Sorry to derail such a high level debate - but the warnings on cigarette packs reminds me of a funny story. In Brazil there was a variety of different pictures and messages. Among then was one of a smokers lung with the message "Smoking causes lung cancer", and also one of a sad looking man in bed with a woman with the message "Smoking causes erectile disfunction".
Some smokers started to joke when buying their packs and ask the seller "give me the one that causes cancer, not the one that causes erectile disfunction"
Goes to show how serious people took those warnings...
Some smokers started to joke when buying their packs and ask the seller "give me the one that causes cancer, not the one that causes erectile disfunction"
Goes to show how serious people took those warnings...
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That is a great story!
Coincidentally, California is a cancer on the US..
LOL. Without California's contribution to the US economy , we'd have been in recession for most of the past few decades and even further in debt than we already are.
Just think how large California's economy would be, and how sound it's finances would be if time and energy weren't wasted on drivel like Prop 65. I suspect the waste is larger than the economies of our poorest states, certainly larger than the Indian reservations.
Government waste and bureaucratic overreach are ubiquitous- present in every state and country. Prop 65 is just one example of good intentions poorly implemented. This in no way contradicts the fact that California is an economic powerhouse and leader in many areas, including technology. Comments like the one by BMack and others, just reveal a political ideologue who can't stand the fact that a state whose political leanings they dislike is so successful.
You are entirely wrong in your assumptions on my political stances and I'd appreciate you to not make those assumptions or mentioning my name any further. Thank you.
That meter has been
Cali-fornicated
Caution Alert:
Users may be exposed to a double dose of cancer if removing the
Californication Approval 'CAL' sticker with fingernails,
when it's time to change a fuse and check if the installed HRC fuses were real or fake.
And while users are coughing and slowly wasting away from the onset of
multimeter cancer they may as well do some last minute pre-RIP curiosity checks of parts and manufacturing origin,
post the observations with pictures on EEVblog as a last
farewell to comrades goodwill gesture,
and see what happens
Industry Insider Tip: buy an older often used Fluke, from someone still alive and healthy
One big scam! Made in USA
List
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list_of_chemicalsPlaese find Glyphosate ? (Rundup ... etc )
Of course NO ! (monsanto $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate And Read :
March 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[9][12][13]
Only if you eat the multimeter.
Sad to say, in California, apparently this is a problem.
One big scam! Made in USA
List
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list_of_chemicals
Plaese find Glyphosate ? (Rundup ... etc )
Of course NO ! (monsanto $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
And Read :
March 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[9][12][13]
Keep in mind that in most of the world Science is up for sale to the highest bidder, the United States is no exception.
I just had to post this:
I went to the eye doctor today to get my glasses fixed. While waiting, I looked around at the new glasses on display, there were many of them. Next to each display was a sign saying "Items in this display are know by the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and reproductive system harm." These signs were about 9" x 12", and I counted
SEVEN of these signs.
I just had to post this:
I went to the eye doctor today to get my glasses fixed. While waiting, I looked around at the new glasses on display, there were many of them. Next to each display was a sign saying "Items in this display are know by the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and reproductive system harm." These signs were about 9" x 12", and I counted SEVEN of these signs.
I don't know if this is a direct quote or a paraphrase. If it is a direct quote it is an example of idiocy creep. Many earlier signs said something to the effect of: "Items in... contain chemicals known by the state of California ....". This statement, while inane, is quite possibly true. I can believe your statement is a direct quote, I think I have seen similar. But there is no chance whatsoever that California has run exposure tests on eyeglass frames and knows that they cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive system harm. . Someone with little concern or understanding put words on a sign and posted it.
Likely the frames either have a VOC containing paint finish, or have brass or bronze parts, or the PVC in the nose pads has a BPA plasticiser in it, or the case plastic has a BPA conaining plastic in it, or the glass powder used as filler in ithe plastic is the reason. Also a lot of lens coatings are heavy metal oxides, along with them being present in the glass or plastic as a refractive index modifier.
Likely the frames either have a VOC containing paint finish, or have brass or bronze parts, or the PVC in the nose pads has a BPA plasticiser in it, or the case plastic has a BPA conaining plastic in it, or the glass powder used as filler in ithe plastic is the reason. Also a lot of lens coatings are heavy metal oxides, along with them being present in the glass or plastic as a refractive index modifier.
As I said, they contain materials which have been shown to be carcinogenic. I will stand by my statement that it is extremely unlikely that these products have been shown to be carcinogenic. I doubt that anyone has forced rats to live in physical contact with glasses frames and done statistical studies on their cancer rates. Probably no one has done a study of the relative cancer rates of eyeglass wearing populations to non-eyeglass wearing populations, correcting for other involved factors. A naive version of such a study would probably show that glasses prevent cancer since at a guess those who wear glasses get less sun exposure than those who do not, and skin cancers are one of the most common cancers. It is not just the materials involved, it is how people are exposed to those materials. I can take polonium, one of the most carcinogenic substances there is, encapsulate it in glass, encapsulate that in stainless steel and make a paperweight that has no measurable chance of causing cancer.
The original sign would be consistent with your comment. The glasses contain materials known to cause cancer. The statement is inane because it doesn't provide any meaningful risk information. When the sign is changed to read as it does in the ophthalmologist's office to that the products are known to cause cancer the sign has gone from inane to outright wrong.
Might as well put a sign on both sides of your front door that says "Warning: You are entering an area where carcinogenic materials will be encountered." That applies to inside your house as well as the rest of the world. In other words, a completely useless "warning". But completely consistent with the distorted thought(?) processes that pass for government regulation here in the 21st century.
Just got back from the doctor after a suspect bout of the Fluke Flu,
coughing, sneezing, stomach pains, headaches, vomiting, low libido, vertigo, no appetite, lethargy
He could not confirm whether it was Fluke based, a bad lifestyle, or both..
and advised I use Brymens and Meggers for a few days, expose myself to some CRT radiation, avoid $20 multimeters like the plague, and the symptoms should clear up.
i.e. NO CANCER !
Next time I won't use two 87Vs side by side, and mash it up with different meters
I wonder if chemicals that appear in the body natural might be confined to certain regions. I..e maybe testosterone does not belong in certain places. Your body is not exactly homogenous.
I wonder if chemicals that appear in the body natural might be confined to certain regions. I..e maybe testosterone does not belong in certain places. Your body is not exactly homogenous.
Don't be silly! Nothing is ever more complicated than it appears at first glance!
Found this California-targeted cancer warning on the date sticker on ups battery.
Looks like this Proposition 65 is circulating throughout the world.
We seem to have raised a couple of generations of idiots who need warning labels like: "Do not use toaster in bathtub."
We seem to have raised a couple of generations of idiots who need warning labels like: "Do not use toaster in bathtub."
Nah, the idiots were always there.
The problem is a new generation of lawyers who see idiocy as a get-rich opportunity.
When is the title going to be to changed to: "Fluke 87V
can cause cancer"?