Do you own a yeti cooler or equivalent? does yours cause cancer in California?

Señor Arroz wrote:

I understand your point but CA has often led the country by adopting consumer and environmental regulations that then, only later, are adopted by the nation as a whole. You can do that when you're the world's 5th largest economy and "only" a state. 

In this example, when it comes to labeling a consumer product The Federal Hazardous Substance Act was passed in 1960... In regards to protecting water, The Clean Water Act passed in 1972 (navigable waters) and the Safe Drinking Water Act passed in 1974, so these federal regulations predate the 1986 ballot initiative in CA with the same general purpose/goal. I'm not going to say that any legislation stops a company from a willful violation, but perhaps CA has more resources in place for enforcement?

Certainly when it comes to vehicle emissions (e.g. CARB in 1967), CA has set a slightly higher level of protection for residents than the Feds, but again.... the Clean Air Act passed in 1963 so I wouldn't say its totally accurate that they are first to pass major environmental legislative acts first. In either case, both UT and CA have problems with air quality, which to me has more of an impact on general health as its hard not to breathe:

• https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html
• https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono105.pdf

Steve Skarvinko wrote:

In this example, when it comes to labeling a consumer product The Federal Hazardous Substance Act was passed in 1960... In regards to protecting water, The Clean Water Act passed in 1972 (navigable waters) and the Safe Drinking Water Act passed in 1974, so these federal regulations predate the 1986 ballot initiative in CA with the same general purpose/goal. I'm not going to say that any legislation stops a company from a willful violation, but perhaps CA has more resources in place for enforcement?

Certainly when it comes to vehicle emissions (e.g. CARB in 1967), CA has set a slightly higher level of protection for residents than the Feds, but again.... the Clean Air Act passed in 1963 so I wouldn't say its totally accurate that they are first to pass major environmental legislative acts first. In either case, both UT and CA have problems with air quality, which to me has more of an impact on general health as its hard not to breathe:

• https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html
• https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono105.pdf

CA had the first tailpipe emissions standards and had the first air quality control districts in the nation, as it also had the worst smog problems.

In a political climate like the current one, where the executive in charge of the Federal Government has expressed a desire to reverse environmental regs and where the EPA is in a tailspin, I'm really glad that there are states with enough size and clout to continue making a difference.

From the time this was OP’d shouldn’t every person in Cali have cancer by now?

WOW ! Dry ice inside the cooler, NOW we're talking!! 100% solid CO2 (carbon dioxide); expands about 100-fold when it sublimes to gaseous CO2. Don't know if CA (or any other crackpot) has shown dry ice to be carcinogenic but certainly it is rather "suffocating" . About 15% by volume in the air will "do it."

I can see the headlines now: " Climber dies in car while sleeping due to cooler being open and CO2 gas causes suffocation as dry ice evaporates; State of CA to ban sale of dry ice"...Yesterday Joe Shmoe passed away in Yosemite while sleeping in the back of his car. Apparently, it was a cool evening and he closed his windows to conserve heat, but also accidentally left the top of his "Abominable SnowMan Cooler" open. The cooler had dry ice in the bottom and it evaporated, filling the car with CO2 gas which caused the death. The CA Dept. of "EveryMan Safety" has reacted and will ban the sale of dry ice to anyone who is not a registered and trained dry ice user. All sales are banned until the Dept. develops a training program and registration requirements, expected about 2023.

Meanwhile, the Dept. of EveryMan Safety is looking into a report that another climber was injured when a "Cam-o-less" device pulled out of a crack during a fall and caused an injury to the left pinky fingernail.

ps - The above is all satire, ah...but one day.........

Dry ice, in order to be solid, exists at about 109 degrees below zero farenheit. Water ice, on the other hand must only be about 32 degrees. There are ice and filtered water dispensing machines around N.M. that seem to end up around car washes. The ice I get from them seems to be in an advanced state of melt when it gets spit out. I wish the state would regulate the temp., or require the vendors to post it, with fines for erroneous (Meaning dishonest) posting. Why not do that instead of taking our civil rights away? But what I was getting at was 109 below versus 32 above zero. I would think dry ice would be much better than water ice. Consider cost versus density versus price, and you get the best dollar value. I've never bought it dry, so I don't know the cost. Perhaps somebody can figure out the formula. As far as the dry sublimating to gas and asphyxiating somebody, don't say you weren't warned. However, the breathing reflex is triggered by the build up of CO2 in the blood. So,I would hope that if somebody is foolish enough to go to sleep in an enclosed area with dry ice, they would wake up feeling short of breath and realize their mistake. But I wouldn't risk my life with such an experiment.

Californians think they have greener and healthier regulations, but it's a virtue-signaling sham.

Consider MTBE. Formerly a waste byproduct of the petrochemical industry, they had no way of safely disposing a known carcinogen so instead they funded a bogus study showing it improved combustion as a fuel additive. The dumbass politicians couldn't pass up an opportunity to meddle and mandated it, and their equally ignorant constituents cheered. Now  Californians now wonder why they pay more for their bespoke gasoline than anyone else while their wells are closed one-by-one due to MTBE pipeline leaks, and maybe some extra mystery cancer in the future.

In other words California probably causes cancer.

Then there's the anti-plastic campaign which had the opportunity to actually do good if it wasn't wedded to crassly ignorant virtue-signaling. Instead of demanding that Chinese companies follow the same standards for dealing with waste as the rest of the world (which they could easily do being the 11th largest economy and the vast majority of that trade being with Chinese companies), they went after plastic bags and straws. Plastic bags are a a non-issue; the only shopping bags you see in the environment are less than a year old. When they say plasic is forever, that applies to buried plastic in which case newspapers are forever, too. Plastic photo-degrades like crazy. The Pacific gyre, for example, would disappear if we (or rather fly-by-night Chinese companies run by sociopaths) would stop adding to it. Oh no, but instead they went after plastic straws! I can't wait until they go after plastic cups, 'cause plastic is just evil, and there's just no way that washing mugs uses more energy than disposable plastic cups no matter what thermodynamics and petrochemistry says. Let's also not mention that some municipalities in the midwest use natural gas to burn their trash and produce power with the excess heat, selling their excess energy to green California and wasting a ton of electricity transporting it. I think some people think that inconvenience is inherently green.

Don't even get me started on high speed rail, a public transportation solution which only marginally makes sense in Japan where everyone lives on one dimension: the coast. Ask the average Californian what a ticket on the bullet train costs in Japan they'll spit-take out their tofu. Suggest that their expensive electric cars have a larger carbon footprint than ICE equivalents (conclusion by the Ifo institute) and you'll be labeled a denialist or some sort.

Honestly I wouldn't care if Californians would stay there instead of exporting their brilliant ideas :)

So far as Yeti coolers are concerned, I've switched to a 12v powered Dometic and even put up a panel to make the greens happy. No tumors as yet. 

Kyle Taylor wrote: From the time this was OP’d shouldn’t every person in Cali have cancer by now?

If you live long enough... your probably gonna get some form of cancer or Alzheimer's / Dementia like disease. Funny thing is we spend a ton of time regulating factories, tail pipes, etc. for outdoor breathing air... but what about sources right in the home (where most of us spend a lot of time)? Here is an interesting read about the emerging science (warning... someday, YGD™):

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-hidden-air-pollution-in-our-homes

Trad Man wrote: Californians think they have greener and healthier regulations, but it's a virtue-signaling sham.

Consider MTBE. Formerly a waste byproduct of the petrochemical industry, they had no way of safely disposing a known carcinogen so instead they funded a bogus study showing it improved combustion as a fuel additive. The dumbass politicians couldn't pass up an opportunity to meddle and mandated it, and their equally ignorant constituents cheered. Now  Californians now wonder why they pay more for their bespoke gasoline than anyone else while their wells are closed one-by-one due to MTBE pipeline leaks, and maybe some extra mystery cancer in the future.

In other words California probably causes cancer.

Then there's the anti-plastic campaign which had the opportunity to actually do good if it wasn't wedded to crassly ignorant virtue-signaling. Instead of demanding that Chinese companies follow the same standards for dealing with waste as the rest of the world (which they could easily do being the 11th largest economy and the vast majority of that trade being with Chinese companies), they went after plastic bags and straws. Plastic bags are a a non-issue; the only shopping bags you see in the environment are less than a year old. When they say plasic is forever, that applies to buried plastic in which case newspapers are forever, too. Plastic photo-degrades like crazy. The Pacific gyre, for example, would disappear if we (or rather fly-by-night Chinese companies run by sociopaths) would stop adding to it. Oh no, but instead they went after plastic straws! I can't wait until they go after plastic cups, 'cause plastic is just evil, and there's just no way that washing mugs uses more energy than disposable plastic cups no matter what thermodynamics and petrochemistry says. Let's also not mention that some municipalities in the midwest use natural gas to burn their trash and produce power with the excess heat, selling their excess energy to green California and wasting a ton of electricity transporting it. I think some people think that inconvenience is inherently green.

Don't even get me started on high speed rail, a public transportation solution which only marginally makes sense in Japan where everyone lives on one dimension: the coast. Ask the average Californian what a ticket on the bullet train costs in Japan they'll spit-take out their tofu. Suggest that their expensive electric cars have a larger carbon footprint than ICE equivalents (conclusion by the Ifo institute) and you'll be labeled a denialist or some sort.

Honestly I wouldn't care if Californians would stay there instead of exporting their brilliant ideas :)

So far as Yeti coolers are concerned, I've switched to a 12v powered Dometic and even put up a panel to make the greens happy. No tumors as yet. 

I'm sorry.  Who's virtue signaling?  Some Preparation H will fix that butt hurt in no time.  

Trad Man wrote: Californians think they have greener and healthier regulations, but it's a virtue-signaling sham.

Consider MTBE. Formerly a waste byproduct of the petrochemical industry, they had no way of safely disposing a known carcinogen so instead they funded a bogus study showing it improved combustion as a fuel additive. The dumbass politicians couldn't pass up an opportunity to meddle and mandated it, and their equally ignorant constituents cheered. Now  Californians now wonder why they pay more for their bespoke gasoline than anyone else while their wells are closed one-by-one due to MTBE pipeline leaks, and maybe some extra mystery cancer in the future.

Adding MTBE to gasoline was a pretty bad idea, but not for any of the reasons you cite.

1.  MTBE isn't a waste product. It has to be synthesized.

2.  MTBE is effective at raising octane. It was originally used in gasoline after lead was banned.

3.  MTBE is also effective as an oxygenating component of gasoline, which induces cleaner burning.

4.  "Meddling politicians" did not mandate MTBE. The mandate was for oxygenating components to be added to reduce smog (particularly in winter). The mandate was most enthusiastically supported by farm state politicians, such as Grassley, because they thought it would create a market for corn-based ethanol. Refineries could have used ethanol but opted for MTBE because it was cheaper.

PRRose wrote:

Adding MTBE to gasoline was a pretty bad idea, but not for any of the reasons you cite.

1.  MTBE isn't a waste product. It has to be synthesized.

2.  MTBE is effective at raising octane. It was originally used in gasoline after lead was banned.

3.  MTBE is also effective as an oxygenating component of gasoline, which induces cleaner burning.

4.  "Meddling politicians" did not mandate MTBE. The mandate was for oxygenating components to be added to reduce smog (particularly in winter). The mandate was most enthusiastically supported by farm state politicians, such as Grassley, because they thought it would create a market for corn-based ethanol. Refineries could have used ethanol but opted for MTBE because it was cheaper.

How dare you use actual facts on MP!

It's cheaper because it's refined from byproducts. The efficaciousness of MTBE is questionable, as is ethanol. 

Gasoline used to be a useless byproduct, too.

The main point still is that it's a mandated carcinogen and bespoke fuels are far more expensive.

Steve Skarvinko wrote:

If you live long enough... your probably gonna get some form of cancer or Alzheimer's / Dementia like disease. Funny thing is we spend a ton of time regulating factories, tail pipes, etc. for outdoor breathing air... but what about sources right in the home (where most of us spend a lot of time)? Here is an interesting read about the emerging science (warning... someday, YGD™):

• https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/08/the-hidden-air-pollution-in-our-homes

..and people spend all day and night sucking on their Juuls. I can pretty much guarantee there will be untold health problems from sucking down mass doses of nicotine vapor

wonderwoman wrote:

Gawdam hippie first responders!  Not wanting to die of all types of awful cancers in addition to having an incredibly dangerous job!  It's as if they're conspiring with scientists, or something!

IAFF Urges Federal Ban on Toxic Fire Retardant Chemicals
‘It’s killing us’: why firefighters are battling to ban flame retardants
Mass. firefighters seek ban on flame retardants

Nanny state!  (/s)  I always find it interesting that so-called conservatives and libertarians who decry regulations intended to safeguard public health have no problem with regulations that limit competition (trade regs and tariffs), access to the legal system (such as arbitration clauses) or, worse, access to medical services such reproductive rights.  

Fat Dad wrote:

Nanny state!  (/s)  I always find it interesting that so-called conservatives and libertarians who decry regulations intended to safeguard public health have no problem with regulations that limit competition (trade regs and tariffs), access to the legal system (such as arbitration clauses) or, worse, access to medical services such reproductive rights.  

There's a simple dialectic to understanding this: Does this law make corporations and rich people richer? Good law. Does  the law make corporations and rich people less rich? Bad law. 

Was that straw man intended to be serious?

So my grandpa died at age 99 last year.
He Ate two meals a day at crappy restaurants, and
Drank plenty of whiskey and beer, out of bpa cans.
He also used a damn cooler.

All I can think of when ppl act worried about cancer.

M Sprague wrote:

..and people spend all day and night sucking on their Juuls. I can pretty much guarantee there will be untold health problems from sucking down mass doses of nicotine vapor

Not so much from the nicotine (yeah its naturally occurring in tomatoes and other foods), but the "flavorings" are certainly questionable at best.... "popcorn lung" is one known condition for sure (sounds tasty?):

• https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510185
• https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318260.php

I'm trying to muster sympathy for the vapers, but failing somehow

Sorry to bump an old post, but I was reading Yeti's website on prop-65 and found this:  "

WHAT IS PROPOSITION 65 AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO YETI?

In 1986, California voters approved an initiative to address growing concerns about exposure to certain chemicals, which requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in products. This warning appears on the Trailhead® Camp Chair, Hondo® Base Camp Chair, Bear Proof Locks, and the Security Cable Lock & Bracket in the form of the sticker or notice on the product for our California consumers. Please see below for an example of the warning label.

 WARNING: This product can expose you to lead, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information go to P65Warnings.ca.gov. "

It looks like Yeti was sued for not labeling these items with a prop 65 warning.  It appears their coolers themselves do not carry a prop 65 warning any longer.  I don't know if they took the offending chemical out of their manufacturing or what.  So it appears, to anyone who was concerned about it, that they are ok.  I would steer clear from their camp chairs if you have kids who might use them.  Lead is no bueno at any amount.