[ExI] safe if you are outside of california

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 1 16:02:43 UTC 2019


Oh well, too much of a good thing.  bill w

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:39 AM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On Behalf
> Of *William Flynn Wallace
> *ubject:* Re: [ExI] safe if you are outside of california
>
>
>
> >…I wish all states had laws and regulations for health and safety like
> California.  I read a book by Edna Ferber about a caravan to Calif.  Ended
> up in Yerba Buena (good grass - maybe they deserve the name back) - San
> Francisco.  bill w
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On the contrary BillW.  California’s Prop 65 is written in such a way as
> to nullify legitimate warnings on materials which can cause cancer or
> reproductive harm.  In the old days, consumers could be fairly warned of
> such things.  But since Prop 65, the law is written so broadly, any
> building or any product which contains any one of a long list of materials
> must have a Prop 65 warning.  Result: all buildings, including doghouses,
> have Prop 65 warnings.  This covers for those buildings which actually
> contain actual carcinogenic materials.
>
>
>
> For a while, there was a halfhearted effort on the part of some
> manufacturers to qualify for non-65 carrier, but even one lawsuit by the
> thriving lawsuit industry nullifies the effort.  It is much cheaper to just
> slap the label on there, particularly since it doesn’t actually mean
> anything.  Now even bottled water can cause cancer or reproductive harm:
>
>
>
> https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article77030402.html
>
>
>
> We were warned.
>
>
>
> Perhaps we need legislation that requires a second label that goes on top
> of the universal Prop 65 cancer warning, which says something like “No
> really, this really does cause cancer.”  Then it would go only on those
> materials or products which really does cause cancer and reproductive
> harm.  Then we can go round two, suing those manufacturers which caused
> cancer and had only the first warning but not the second one, so the
> hapless victim had no way of knowing, with only the universal Prop 65
> warning, of the risk.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 9:22 PM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was looking at washing machines today.  I found out that this machine
> inside California causes cancer and reproductive harm.  But if you take it
> outside California, apparently it is safe out there.
>
>
>
> That’s it, I’m moving.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
> Configuration and Overview
>
>    - *ADA Compliant*
>
> No
>
>    - *CEE Tier*
>
> Not Rated
>
>    - *Prop 65*
>
> [image: Prop 65 warning]*CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS ONLY - WARNING: *Cancer and
> Reproductive Harm - www.P65Warnings.ca.gov
> <https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/>.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190301/39c06c7d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 174 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190301/39c06c7d/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list