EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: Fungus on July 31, 2017, 06:20:41 pm
-
Check the warning on the side of the latest Fluke 87 packaging:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/fluke-87v-causes-cancer!/?action=dlattach;attach=336897;image)
-
It does not cause cancer, but contains chemicals known to cause cancer. There is a difference.
-
Not only that, but the state of California has much different standards than the federal EPA or the IARC for what constitutes a carcinogen. Basically, just about everything causes cancer in California.
-
There is the list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list_of_chemicals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list_of_chemicals)
The list has testosterone.
I contain materials known to the state of california to cause cancer.
My other favorite materials are wood dust and PVC and Asphalt. I guess you should not eat your multimeter.
-
Apart from putting this label on buildings where people can potentially smoke, I don't really see over-use of the label. So I wonder what exactly Fluke put into their meter. If there is an improvement can be made to that system, that would be the one - be more specific.
They also made similar warning recently for BPA. That stuff can be in the plastics, I guess.
EDIT: BPA is apparently on the list already, so I'm not sure why they needed separate prop and a label for that.
-
Standard California prop 65 warning. Old news - they've been around for 30 years.
Not only that, but the state of California has much different standards than the federal EPA or the IARC for what constitutes a carcinogen.
Yes, thankfully.
Basically, just about everything causes cancer in California.
Not quite. Here's the current list (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/p65single07072017.pdf)
-
The list has testosterone.
Also estrogens and other naturally occurring hormones, as it should:
The list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Source (https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list)
-
The proponents of Prop 65 had good intentions. It sounds good on paper. Drag everything out into the light, and let people make educated decisions. However, it has become yet another case of information overload. When almost everything you buy (slight exaggeration) has a Prop 65 warning label on it, the signal-to-noise ratio is so low that the warning labels are effectively useless.
Not to mention the stupidity of representing carcinogenicity as a boolean. So even the most carcinogenic substance on the list gets the exact same Prop 65 warning label as the least carcinogenic substance. In terms of your actual risk of developing cancer from said substances, that's a pretty huge range. At the high end, you have the usual things like industrial solvents, etc. And at the low end, things like food coloring that has only been shown to cause cancer in lab rats getting massive daily injections of the stuff.
And of course, the whole thing is premised on the idea that people are going to see the warning label, decide to go do some research, and then make an informed decision. That's laughable. The vast majority of Californians (including me) just ignore the labels entirely. Most of the rest probably just get scared off of buying anything with a Prop 65 label on it. Maybe there's some really tiny percentage of people that actually do the research, but those are just the same people who'd be doing it anyway, and I sincerely doubt that those people find the warning labels to be useful, since you basically just have to research everything.
-
The state of California is known to cause cancer.
-
only in California, you are safe everywhere else
-
only in California, you are safe everywhere else
You are oblivious and misinformed everywhere else.
Don't get me wrong Prop65 is not the best example of a good implementation, and that's something to work on. But it is important to provide information to consumers.
Same way as nutrition facts on the food provide valuable information in a standardized format.
-
Don't get me wrong Prop65 is not the best example of a good implementation, and that's something to work on. But it is important to provide information to consumers.
Despite my misgivings regarding Prop 65's usefulness, I agree with this. I'd rather see it improved than scrapped.
Edit: I think a good start would be to classify things into a couple/few categories, ranked by your actual risk of getting cancer. I know, that's not necessarily an easy thing to quantify, but there needs to be some way to distinguish the risk of getting cancer from arsenic, formaldehyde, and asbestos from the risk of getting cancer from something like a ubiquitous food additive that's only been shown to cause cancer in some very specific lab setting, and only in lab animals.
-
only in California, you are safe everywhere else
You are oblivious and misinformed everywhere else.
Don't get me wrong Prop65 is not the best example of a good implementation, and that's something to work on. But it is important to provide information to consumers.
Same way as nutrition facts on the food provide valuable information in a standardized format.
you are one of the more literal individuals I have interacted with of late
-
I strongly agree with @deflicted. It is a textbook example of information overload. When (practically) everything is labeled as "potentially carcinogenic" then the label has lost its effectiveness. It has turned into a joke. Do you really think many (any?) people stopped smoking because every pack of cigarettes had a warning label on them?
-
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.
Toning it down and making labels more specific will be better, obviously. At least now you know that if there is no label, there are none of of those chemicals in the product. Whether is makes a difference - hard to tell. I don't remember seeing this label on things I buy anyway, so it is not that common.
-
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.
Toning it down and making labels more specific will be better, obviously. At least now you know that if there is no label, there are none of of those chemicals in the product. Whether is makes a difference - hard to tell. I don't remember seeing this label on things I buy anyway, so it is not that common.
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.
-
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.
-
Send them all to me guys, I'll dispose of them in a responsible manner :-+
and ensure they don't go into dumpsters, sewers, rivers, 3rd world landfills, stripped for parts and flogged on Ebay,
nor shipped to outer space into the sun
If you're short on cash, I'll pay the shipping charges to get those cancerous meters to me, because that's the type of guy I am :clap:
But don't hesitate, DO IT RIGHT NOW before some growth appears on your body :scared: and... it's TOO LATE! :horse: :(
-
only in California, you are safe everywhere else
You are oblivious and misinformed everywhere else.
Don't get me wrong Prop65 is not the best example of a good implementation, and that's something to work on. But it is important to provide information to consumers.
Same way as nutrition facts on the food provide valuable information in a standardized format.
Well, not quite the same way. The nutrition labels give you actual quantities to work from. The Prop 65 labels don't. That's why they're essentially worthless. Their over-inclusiveness eliminates the possibility of their usefulness in their current form, because there is no way to meaningfully distinguish the risks arising from an item that has the label versus an item that doesn't.
-
The Prop 65 labels in Cali are worse than worthless. They provide negative value since their overuse has or will prevent people from paying attention to things that do matter. They also add small costs to each item affected. The incremental cost is tiny, but the cumulative cost are actually enough for fabulous vacations for just about every member of this forum.
Two terrible examples of this signage doing its negative job.
1. Virtually every convenience store, grocery store and filling station has a sign like this at the entry. Zero value added because after reading this sign I don't know which of the thousands of products inside are the guilty parties. Is it the motor oil (small but real danger here, but who needs a sign), the peanut butter (really, really small danger and it doesn't mention the allergy risks which are much larger) or something even more innocuous. Because of this, I and virtually everyone else who encounters this sign and its brethren develops a tendency to ignore it since there is no useful information conveyed on what to avoid.
2. I recently bought a pallet of Douglas fir lumber. Not treated, just dimensionally sized lumber. Each and every piece of wood in this pallet had a little paper Prop 65 warning stapled to the end. Hard to say whether the warning pertained to the potential for wood dust or the terpenes and other chemicals found naturally in all conifers. But I had to go through and pry the staples out of each one to avoid damage to my saws and to get rid of an unsightly piece of paper. Someone on the production end had to staple each one on. What a waste of time and resources.
California could save a lot of time and effort and get equal value by putting signs at the state lines warning that this state contains chemicals known to cause cancer and eliminating all of the internal warnings.
If they really wanted to get smart they would rewrite the law to require labeling only those things which cause a significant (say 10%) increase of cancer at normal levels of exposure. Forget trying to protect those people who drink 40 liters of artificially sweetened drinks a day.
-
Apart from putting this label on buildings where people can potentially smoke, I don't really see over-use of the label. So I wonder what exactly Fluke put into their meter. If there is an improvement can be made to that system, that would be the one - be more specific.
They also made similar warning recently for BPA. That stuff can be in the plastics, I guess.
EDIT: BPA is apparently on the list already, so I'm not sure why they needed separate prop and a label for that.
Probably the plasticizers used in PVC, which is almost certainly what the rubber bumper is made of.
-
I know its very subjective, has anyone feel that at Fluke's handhelds, the plastic are just feels different and "better", say compared to Keysight/Agilent's ?
I mean starting from the yellow holster, the rubber feels nice even for years, and the grayish hard plastic for the case too, feels strong say compared to Keysight's. :-//
-
Even Mickey Mouse causes cancer in California
(https://askthescientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Disney.png)
-
Don't eat anything there, bring your own rainwater,
and don't bonk back at the hotel/motel,
lest someone gets knocked up and pops out zombie twins
(lose Disneyland and go to Queensland Australia next time, for a real holiday that isn't chemohazardous to your health and wallet)
-
I bought a pair of brake discs at a dealership spares dept in LA, and before I could pay & leave had to sign a release that the products I purchased were not intended for human consumption...??!
Just slightly crazy.
-
I know its very subjective, has anyone feel that at Fluke's handhelds, the plastic are just feels different and "better", say compared to Keysight/Agilent's ?
I mean starting from the yellow holster, the rubber feels nice even for years, and the grayish hard plastic for the case too, feels strong say compared to Keysight's. :-//
The Fluke meters and their holsters do stink less, 'feel better' and last ages, :clap:
even though the ridiculous penny pinching self tapping screw holes crack with age
and weaken the meter's ability to contain a good BANG! :--
Some of the Taiwan stuff isn't bad either :-+
-
Proposition 65 needs either a serious overhaul or to be revoked. It is a joke and a complete waste of time and money.
-
Dumbest and most uninformative warning in history, well down California :palm:
-
I live in California.
Proposition 65 is ridiculous.
Most everything has this warning.
At lumber yards there are warning signs saying "sawdust causes cancer".
Restaurants have this warning on the door. :scared: :-//
-
This looks almost like a psyop. If you want some real issue under the carpet - overplay it - hard! "Annoyed masses" will soon ridicule "lone madmen" pinpointing at original issue... This has been recently done on large scale on two other fundamental subjects, quite successfully...
-
don't even get me started on what they have done to the portable petrol can
:palm:
-
don't even get me started on what they have done to the portable petrol can
:palm:
Let me guess..sniffing or drinking gasolene from a portable petrol can, may cause cancer? :scared:
LOL, Whatever 'game' these alarmist d!ckheads on good incomes bled from taxpayers are playing,
the best defence is to hold on to your wallet till the farce blows over 8)
and wait for the next big one, maybe it will be a legit concern.. ;D
-
don't even get me started on what they have done to the portable petrol can
:palm:
Let me guess..sniffing or drinking gasolene from a portable petrol can, may cause cancer? :scared:
LOL, Whatever 'game' these alarmist d!ckheads on good incomes bled from taxpayers are playing,
the best defence is to hold on to your wallet till the farce blows over 8)
and wait for the next big one, maybe it will be a legit concern.. ;D
Its even better than that. It has a special spout which was so poorly designed it causes more spills.
They ban lead ammo and sinkers because you don't want any lead going in the ground from fishing and hunting. I supposed they have mined all the ground to get rid of all the lead occurring naturally.
-
Coincidentally, California is a cancer on the US...not quite as bad as Washington DC but still cancer.
-
..They ban lead ammo and sinkers because you don't want any lead going in the ground from fishing and hunting.
I supposed they have mined all the ground to get rid of all the lead occurring naturally.
LOL, yeah I can see their concern at the rabble with no permits littering the ground with lead ;D
-Tar and Feathering- is overdue for a big comeback :clap: :clap:
-
I think the lack of deviation in calibration is causing cancer not the materials.
Symptoms of this variant of Cancer include:
-Moths in pockets.
-Overwhelming Smugness.
-Evil thoughts (about all other meter manufacturers)
;)
-
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.
-
California would be in the top 10 world economies if was an independent country, iirc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Dumbest and most uninformative warning in history, well down California :palm:
Dave and I have been ignoring those warnings for decades and haven't suffered any brain dramage. :-DD
-
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.
Yes yes, thanks to a handful of tech companies, primarily. California has long suffered from the largest outflow of both individuals and companies in the western US, both acting in what each deem their best interests.
Stop posturing over geography, regardless over the accuracy or context of your claims of California's economy and the wondrous effects of overregulation, you had little to do with it.
-
don't parking garages in California have the cancer signs too? Heard that.
My Tesla s did not come with paper manuals, never noticed that it came without stickers or manual to throw away in 27 languages about safety.
Maybe I should "read the instructions".
-
Yes yes, thanks to a handful of tech companies, primarily.
Incorrect. California has an incredibly broad and diverse economy. See here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California).
California has long suffered from a net outflow of both individuals and companies, both acting in what each deem their best interests.
Wrong again. For example, see here (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-06/california-makes-america-s-economy-great) or here (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-10/california-leads-u-s-economy-away-from-trump)
Stop posturing over geography, regardless over the accuracy or context of your claims of California's economy and the wondrous effects of overregulation, you had little to do with it.
WTF? You seem to be poisoned by politics. I'm not sure why else you'd find the facts so unpleasant that they'd cause such a response.
-
I meant to mention the car was built in California, and did not come with annoying stickers about causing cancer in California. Maybe because it was being shipped here.
Now I'm worried, I lived in California in my formative years, around 6. Am I susceptible to my cars fumes? will I become allergic to peanuts or something?
Also, I thrice again bought a car made (mostly) in america. burned twice before and wife never with aissan made ones. 3k miles so far, (maybe 200 miles for me)
Now I am paranoid about computer type cables burning my house down. Will use ohmmeter or maybe better my Ucuurent eevblog device to check out.
-
Life = Cancer
NOTE:
WARNING ! Homosapiens!
Further use of life can mean cancer. :-DD
:palm:
What's in the US?
More money cash for medical diagnostics.
Be afraid to get cancer, do medical research every day ... thousands of dollars !!!
You will be healthy
Corporations fool you as much as possible, just to earn as much as possible.
-
So basically it is just another checkbox for companies to cover their collective arses from potential lawsuits.
-
Does this mean waving a Fluke around to gain easy access to any job site and reap free tradie benefits :-DMM
is now a Cancer Alert at the security gates.. arrest and quarantine ? :scared:
What's the world coming to ? |O
-
only in California, you are safe everywhere else
You are oblivious and misinformed everywhere else.
Don't get me wrong Prop65 is not the best example of a good implementation, and that's something to work on. But it is important to provide information to consumers.
Same way as nutrition facts on the food provide valuable information in a standardized format.
Don't compare relatively informative nutrition labels to prop 65 labels. If they were analogous, then the nutrition label would read simply "Warning: this product contains chemicals known to cause weight gain, increased cholesterol, increased blood pressure, or other health issues". And of course, the same exact label would be on every food item sold.
-
The entrances to beaches in CA have the Prop 65 warning signs, as well. Crystalline Silica (aka SAND) is on the potential carcinogen list....
-
http://drsircus.com/general/the-air-we-breathe-causes-cancer/ (http://drsircus.com/general/the-air-we-breathe-causes-cancer/)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Californication (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Californication)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlUKcNNmywk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlUKcNNmywk)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/state_debt_rank) 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" :-DD
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" :-DD
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 ;D
Industry Insider Tip: buy an older often used Fluke, from someone still alive and healthy :-DMM
-
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 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
And Read :
March 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[9][12][13]
-
Only if you eat the multimeter.
Sad to say, in California, apparently this is a problem. :palm:
-
One big scam! Made in USA :)
List
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list_of_chemicals
Plaese find Glyphosate ? (Rundup ... etc )
Of course NO ! (monsanto $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
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. :palm:
-
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. :palm:
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 :horse:
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 :clap:
-
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! ;D
-
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"? :palm:
-
When is the title going to be to changed to: "Fluke 87V can cause cancer"? :palm:
If the sample size was 'one' you'd be correct, but is isn't.
In any statistically significant group of engineers a Fluke 87 will cause cancer.
-
When is the title going to be to changed to: "Fluke 87V can cause cancer"? :palm:
If the sample size was 'one' you'd be correct, but is isn't.
In any statistically significant group of engineers a Fluke 87 will cause cancer.
Still a far fetch but ok.
"Will cause" is something different than "causes" tho.
-
You probably shouldnt handle the manual either, as it's printed on paper and Caffeic acid is on the list.
Caffeic acid is an organic compound that is classified as a hydroxycinnamic acid. ... It is found in all plants because it is a key intermediate in the biosynthesis of lignin, one of the principal components of plant biomass and its residues.
-
There are other risk issues with the Fluke 87V to beware of, before any slow onset of cancer
or VD, roids, scrotum rash etc kicks in >:D
Accidental Self Strangulation with the leads
Stabbing oneself with the probes and bleeding profusely
Lung damage and nostril burn from yellow holster sniffing
Update Edit:
Foot injury from such a heavy meter drop, and or long term incapacitation from nerve and bone damage
Sterility in the event the meter falls and swings hard into one's private parts, whilst holding the probes tightly to save the 'expensive meter' from the awaiting concrete peril below
Any of the factors above may contribute to unemployment and a bad day in the sack
worst case the destitute owner resorts to crime, using the probes as weap0ns to threaten greedy evil rich people, the leads to tie up h0stages etc
...or if the p0lice and Sw@t rock up, claim the meter is a b0mb and will go 0ff on the third BEEP if/when probes get shorted, once the device gets selected to the deadly [ __ \$\Omega\$__ ] or DIE->ODE position.
(FYI to dummies: that's the only way you might have a slim hope to bail out of there, after requesting a helicoptor, bikini clad female pilot, bag of unmarked cash, tub of KFC and coke..)
At least my 87Vs measure right every time, otherwise I would Ebay the suckers
and drag out the AVOmeter, and safely prod away... wearing a full nuke suit and breathing gear :phew: