I worked for a chemical company in Oxnard years ago and came into contact with the air folks after Prop 65 was passed. I asked the person in charge how they went about determining when companies were required to put up the signs. Her response was something along the order of : if one person breathes nothing but the air coming out of a plants theoretical dome (put the plant in a baggie and have only one exhaust point) for 70 years, and that person develops one extra cancer, it meets the requirement for a warning sign. At the time, they were debating outlawing gas driven mowers and lighter fluid used for backyard BBQs. Same with charcoal soaked briquettes.
Needless to say, we had to put up fence line monitors and warning signs.
Risk that you take is fine and dandy. Risk that someone else throws on you is usually a big deal.
So what do they think is the lifespan of a human, exactly? 530, normally, but we keep eating this poisonous food all the time? If I removed from my diet everything that someone said in some report at some time caused cancer I… well I wouldn’t die of cancer, that’s for sure, but only because starvation would claim me first.
When EVERYTHING has that warning label, they have no weight and you will start to think cigarettes aren’t that bad
Seriously, though, I am all for proper warning labels, but given the amount of coffee usage, if one can’t draw a clear line to them causing cancer or other health issues, are the labels really prudent?
Also, since I don’t drink coffee, this doesn’t effect me, but hopefully they don’t have this stuff in my Mt Dew!
I guess if you can’t prove something doesn’t cause cancer, then it definitely does. Yep, sounds scientifically valid to me. CA is the height of nanny-state ridiculousness.
One of the biggest problems with prop 65 is that it legislates the test used and the creator of that test has stated that this is not the intended purpose of it. Not only that, prop 65 totally ignores dose response, bioavailability and sequestration of harmful substances. Basically, it’s worse than useless.
You can get wine glasses that hold a whole bottle. Therefore you’re actually drinking only one glass. But seriously, trying to determine a person’s alcohol use is a tricky affair when one standard drink is defined as 100ml of wine (at least in New Zealand). It’s always best if you can get the glass they use and have them fill it to the level they use (with water!).
