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

Andrew Ricewrote:

Yeah, but that's marketing, not regulation. 

Yeah, but that's besides the point. You didn't need a regulation for people who sell a better product to advertise it as such. You only need to enforce the existing laws outlawing fraud on the books.

Trad Manwrote:

Yeah, but that's besides the point. You didn't need a regulation for people who sell a better product to advertise it as such. You only need to enforce the existing laws outlawing fraud on the books.

I thought your point was that you dislike the government intrusion.  You are just advocating a more intrusive form—enforcement—over a far less intrusive one—labels.  

Some plastics and metals can leach into acidic liquids, so it could theoretically happen if you made a habit of filling the cooler with lemon juice, letting it steep, and then drinking it. This is possibly a problem for heated plastic Tupperware, but for a cooler it’s not a realistic risk. Carabiners have a prop 65 warning too but the only way to get cancer from them is to grind the carabiner into aluminum dust and snort it on a regular basis. There just isn’t a realistic risk here. The danger from aluminum comes if you’re welding it for hours at a time at work without proper ventilation or a respirator.

R. Moranwrote: also if you don't drink water you are going to die. But you need to be careful because if you drink too much water you will die. Water is really deadly. Be safe out there guys!

Dihydrogenmonoxide is a lethal thing! 

Trad Manwrote:

Yeah, but that's besides the point. You didn't need a regulation for people who sell a better product to advertise it as such. You only need to enforce the existing laws outlawing fraud on the books.

I think you mean "beside the point" but the poster complaining about "Gluten Free!" was acting as if that's part of labeling regs. It's not. Companies slap "Gluten Free" on a popsicle or a soda because market research told them it will increase sales, not because the "gubmint" is making them do it. 

JonasMRwrote:

You sure gasoline no longer contains lead? Isn't the fact that you were comfortable using a shorthand that suggest there is NO lead in modern gasoline a problem that a reminder label could fix? 

Edit to reply to above: The point isn't who is doing the disclosing. The point is that reality doesn't have "dangerous substances" and "non-dangerous substances." It has dangerous and non-dangerous doses. But glad you're now on board with "unsafe" levels of a chemical in consumer goods, and hopefully enjoyed learning more about those levels!

Enjoy your polonium tea! Cheers!

My cooler has the same warning, but luckily I live outside of CA.

Andrew Ricewrote:

Enjoy your polonium tea! Cheers!

By which you mean all tea? Cause guess what, Po and U are everywhere! I for one either want all tea banned, or want to keep using "shorthand" so I can convince myself pure things exist in this world.

We can keep going like this for every product known to man if you want, it's still going to be the case that it's dose and not "bad substances" that cause problems. But I suppose if you were too busy to read my first post, you're too busy to bother reading that neat factoid in any of the following posts either. 

JonasMRwrote:

By which you mean all tea? Cause guess what, Po and U are everywhere! I for one either want all tea banned, or want to keep using "shorthand" so I can convince myself pure things exist in this world.

We can keep going like this for every product known to man if you want, it's still going to be the case that it's dose and not "bad substances" that cause problems. But I suppose if you were too busy to read my first post, you're too busy to bother reading that neat factoid in any of the following posts either. 

Oh, no, I read it. You can hair split that in large quantities H2O is toxic an that in a tiny enough quantity Polonium isn't. Technically you're correct. But there's a reason we drive around with open bottles of water in our cars but not open bottles of hydrochloric acid. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

Oh, no, I read it. You can hair split that in large quantities H2O is toxic an that in a tiny enough quantity Polonium isn't. Technically you're correct. But there's a reason we drive around with open bottles of water in our cars but not open bottles of hydrochloric acid. 

What molarity? I got some in my car right now; and we should all remember the acetic acid for going camping this weekend.

I get that it seems like a technicality. You have a heuristic that lets you get through life just fine without ever having to worry about concentrations. Acid bad, vinegar good; easy peasy. But there are places where that heuristic breaks down, and "avoid carcinogens" is one of those places. Your recommendation for a better system is like asking someone to make 5 redder. It's not just a technicality that 5 can't be as red as a fire engine, the number 5 isn't the KIND of thing that can be red.

Also, I'm like 90% sure you didn't actually read what I wrote earlier. Again, I get it. You have a workable heuristic: "see the word 'government' in the first sentence of a post, assume they must be saying XYZ." It did happen to fail you here, you're not arguing with someone "on the other side," and less than a minute of reading could clear that up for you. (Although, since I never said anything about water being toxic, I'll give ya a 5% chance you're just responding to the wrong person. And 5% you're intentionally raising poor examples to troll. Maybe I'm only 80% sure you didn't read my post...) 

Andrew Ricewrote:

I think you mean "beside the point" but the poster complaining about "Gluten Free!" was acting as if that's part of labeling regs. It's not. Companies slap "Gluten Free" on a popsicle or a soda because market research told them it will increase sales, not because the "gubmint" is making them do it. 

LOL, exactly. Some people care about GF and thus sales increase. Who the fuck cares about the prop 65 label?

So long the labels aren't fraudulent, let them slap on whatever label they want!

JonasMRwrote:

What molarity? I got some in my car right now; and we should all remember the acetic acid for going camping this weekend.

I get that it seems like a technicality. You have a heuristic that lets you get through life just fine without ever having to worry about concentrations. Acid bad, vinegar good; easy peasy. But there are places where that heuristic breaks down, and "avoid carcinogens" is one of those places. Your recommendation for a better system is like asking someone to make 5 redder. It's not just a technicality that 5 can't be as red as a fire engine, the number 5 isn't the KIND of thing that can be red.

Also, I'm like 90% sure you didn't actually read what I wrote earlier. Again, I get it. You have a workable heuristic: "see the word 'government' in the first sentence of a post, assume they must be saying XYZ." It did happen to fail you here, you're not arguing with someone "on the other side," and less than a minute of reading could clear that up for you. (Although, since I never said anything about water being toxic, I'll give ya a 5% chance you're just responding to the wrong person. And 5% you're intentionally raising poor examples to troll. Maybe I'm only 80% sure you didn't read my post...) 

Less words would make your writing (and ideas) better. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

Less words would make your writing (and ideas) better. 

And quicker to skim! If only that were my goal...