Prop 65 silliness
2008-08-24 23:30:10.653231+02 by
Dan Lyke
1 comments
California's Prop 65 must have seemed like a good idea at the time, but in practice, the notion that people need to be notified about potential carcinogens in the environment means that there's a "This facility contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm" sign on pretty much every commercial building, so the notifications have lost all meaning.
/. reports that California's new list now includes gallium arsenide, which suggests that LEDs are now on the list. I can't tell if this includes the finished package, or just the manufacturing process...
[ related topics:
Law California Culture
]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2008-08-25 00:05:10.923953+02 by:
m
Thirty years ago I used to see warnings on the dangers of the use of reagent grade water in chemical instrumentation manuals. The prime concerns were death by drowning and hyponatremia (low blood sodium). The documentation was specifically intended for chemists or other lab rats. I could never understand why such insulting nonsense was included.
What I find most obnoxious about Prop 65 is that it states "chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm", when much, if not most of the designations are only guessed at.
We will not edit your comments. However, we may delete your
comments, or cause them to be hidden behind another link, if we feel
they detract from the conversation. Commercial plugs are fine,
if they are relevant to the conversation, and if you don't
try to pretend to be a consumer. Annoying endorsements will be deleted
if you're lucky, if you're not a whole bunch of people smarter and
more articulate than you will ridicule you, and we will leave
such ridicule in place.