Al M wrote:Is the parking lot open air or enclosed underground or similar?
Open air. A pretty small lot. They might as well have that sign on every street corner in the whole city, in every city and town in the whole state.
Al M wrote:Is the parking lot open air or enclosed underground or similar?
crollsurf wrote:Love Bacon. Love bushwalking. Hate going to work and being chained to a desk.
I know whats killing me and it aint the Thermarest.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
wayno wrote:toluene has been used in insect repellent for a long time
GPSGuided wrote:Too often people become obsessed with the minutiae and forget the big picture for health, longevity and happy living. It really comes down to weight control, diet, exercise and a positive frame of mind. Avoidance of chemical would take one out of society and be a hermit in the woods. But then there are still potential for natural environmental toxin and conditions to induce cancer. Everything in moderation... LOL
Orion wrote:You can control your weight, diet, and be in great shape but still get sick due to prolonged exposure to some substance or substances. It happens to people. It's worth knowing what those substances are, where you might encounter them, and what the relative risks are. It's too bad the simple idea of posting a sign doesn't adequately convey that information. You have to do some research.
wayno wrote:toluene has been used in insect repellent for a long time
Al M wrote:For those who believe the Californian Proposition 65 warning system is the wrong way to go about it please explain how you think it should be done apart from ignoring it?
Orion wrote:Al M wrote:For those who believe the Californian Proposition 65 warning system is the wrong way to go about it please explain how you think it should be done apart from ignoring it?
You have an interesting way of asking the question. The warnings are already largely ignored by the general public.
Perhaps you missed it but last year there was a ruling that coffee roasters and retailers were going to have to post notices. Fortunately reasonable minds prevailed in that case and coffee was given an exemption. But that wasn't before a number of the defendants agreed to pay settlements. The private organization that brought this suit was entitled to a share of the settlement, in addition to legal fees. That's why the suit was brought. It had nothing to do with protecting Californians from death though drinking coffee. It was just part of the mechanism of the law. That sort of abuse is not an isolated case.
On balance I think we'd be better off without the Proposition 65 warning requirement.
Al M wrote:There are successes and excesses in application of Proposition 65. Having to many asbestos particles spewing out from a property and not warning families about it is not good either and should never be ignored while the coffee thing is another extreme but it was corrected. There are many articles for and against and many saying the balance is one of benefit in removing unnecessary chemicals surrounding us:
https://law.stanford.edu/2017/03/10/pro ... egulation/
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/ ... ntext=pubs
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/pre ... ies-cancer
https://www.accountablescience.com/wp-c ... Report.pdf
And
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018 ... op-65-law/
Orion wrote:I went to buy some freshly roasted coffee beans at the local co-op market and noticed a sign that's probably been there for a while but, well, I just tend to ignore these signs. Even though it's not required this market decided to do us all the dubious favor of warning us about coffee anyway:
Orion wrote:And the FDA doesn't merely fail to advise people to stop consuming coffee. They specifically point out that coffee is not associated with an increased risk of cancer; that evidence suggests that consumption of coffee may actually provide health benefits, including a decrease in risk for certain cancers.
trekker76 wrote:It doesn't matter so much what is discovered its whether anyone makes use of it. There is a chequerboard approach to using dangerous chemicals in the world. Country A chooses 'XYZ' as good, but 'ABC' as bad. Country B chooses their list, all basically in order to have a list that both enables production for your country and also satisfy notions of duty of care. Look at Australia's terrible list of accepted chemicals for heavy industry and agricutlure. Some of the things we spray and allow into waterways are banned in half the civilized world. The government throws mileinials some reports on bacon and textile dyes in camping gear and they run around happy they are eliminating the real dangers
Neo wrote:I'm all for greater knowledge and public awareness.
One can be oblivious or discerning, that's evolution
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests