Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by ghost rider, Mar 11, 2018.
Did you learn cigarettes were unhealthy by reading the warning on the side of a pack of cigarettes?
Yep. I was nine and read it on my uncle's pack of Lucky Strikes.
Sounds like you should all be wearing hazmat suits.
Same kind of idiot who burned himself using an iron on clothes being worn at that moment or the person who burned herself with McDonald's coffee, necessitating a warning that the liquid is hot.
Umm, McDonald’s was at fault. The woman was hospitalized for a week and wanted them to pay the medical bills. Mikky d’s fought to.
Sure, the ubiquitous warnings in CA regarding cancer causing materials may be overkill but if you don't care about such matters, they're easy to ignore, right? I would bet that such warnings influence a lot of people in subtle, perhaps even unconscious ways, to be more careful with potentially toxic substances. The warnings may be applied to some things where the risk is small, but they also appear on many, many things that you really do need to take precautions with.
Every single modern human carries a "load" of toxic substances, albeit usually in pretty small quantities, in our bodies. Exposure to 1000s of different chemicals, over the long term, can and likely does have cumulative effects, about which we often know little. To varying degrees, most people generally ignore this, and go about our business. Then when cancer strikes, we think back to how we lived our lives, what we might have done differently, what all we got exposed to over the years and decades, whether or not this might have had something to do with finally triggering cancer to start.
I for one appreciate government entities acting on behalf of individual citizens to protect us from the selfishness and greed of corporations that manufacture and sell chemical products, even when those gov't entities don't get it exactly "right". Remember, corporations have a strong motive to externalize and evade responsibility for the effects of those products. People who trust corporations to "do the right thing" without strong government oversight are naive.
Individual citizens commit crimes. Corporations commit wrongs. Both risk very serious repercussions. Governments? Yeah, what could go wrong?
I wouldn't even read anything that long about Audio Note. Damn.
I write things for myself - but wrote here not into word so I pulled it as it would probably get pulled by a moderator anyway. I was waiting for my laundry - time to rant.
California considers the plastic coating on electrical wire to be carcinogenic. It's kind of ironic every Christmas when I plug my legitimately hazardous bubble lights from the 50's or 60's into a drop cord with a California warning label on it.
For fans of glass bottled sodas, you may have noticed most have switched from painted labels to plastic stickers. Turns out colored paint won't adhere to glass without a minuscule amount of lead in it. Thus they got banned in CA. So stickers it is.
Those warnings are a result of a law known as Prop 65. A sticker with the same warning is on practically every make of car sold in California. I don't think it has discouraged anyone from buying a car here.
Unfortunately for every California there's 5 or 6 states that have very lax laws on this, and almost no enforcement on toxic pollutant violations.
In the news today was a study that concluded that deaths from lead exposure was 10 times higher than previously thought.
Over 400,000 U.S. deaths per year caused by lead exposure
Then you are obviously not from California.
Yeah, this the point I'm trying to convey solely with snark. The people praising California for "forward thinking" are incorrectly equating mandatory legalese with a more informed and thus safer and healthier public. If anything, we're crying wolf - when everything has a scary warning label, in effect nothing has a scary warning label. In some hypothetical situation where a hot new energy drink advertises the energy boost one gets from thalidomide laced with arsenic, the warning label gets ignored because the same label is on bottled water.
I see your point and agree with it.
Since you mention water...the flip side....there are way more state governments that are guilty of not informing/protecting their citizens from toxic materials in a competent and dutiful manner.
In this regard I'll take a California over say a certain state (I won't name) that has been in the headlines recently for essentially causing and allowing it's citizens to be poisoned by Lead and then trying to hide that fact.
Every State government in the USA has shortcomings of one sort or another. Our Federal Government does some things well and some not so much (and few here will agree on which!). California's "forward thinking" may feel good for many millions, but I can tell you that if Pittsburgh had thousands of homeless littering the streets, as they have in LA and SF, that few would stand for it. What the heck is LA going to do with FIFTY THOUSAND human beings (presumably, US citizens) living in the streets!? But hey, they've spent how much on all these warning labels?!
Just wear a condom. Good to go.
The manufacturers bear the cost of the warnings. I suppose CA may be running it's own hazard tests, or maybe they just jump on ones run in the university systems or even abroad.
The homelessness is a serious problem, but a large part of it is due to a change in the laws back in the 1980's that emptied the asylums and made it much more difficult to commit the mentally ill. Combine this with good weather that draws the homeless from other areas and housing costs that make it impossible for someone drawing SSI (less than $900 a month) to afford shelter, and you get what's happened there.
I have, not kidding, been forced to go to the ER from either a latex reaction, or, more probably, a reaction to Nonoxonyl-9.
I don't know that I'd want to work on a speaker with Beryllium tweeters.
Everybody here in SF immediately cites this as the reason why the streets are littered with human feces and needles. Nobody seems to know why 1) other cities, including those with warm weather, don't have this problem or 2) why not a single good-guy politician has ever proposed amending said bad-guy law in the 30+ years that followed it.
It seems that everything that is plastic or rubbery that is colored black gets that warning label for California. It must be attached to the item.
I expect to see such labels stuck to black vinyl records soon or made part of the record label. Records probably are already in violation.
It was the courts more so than legislatures that made it next to impossible to institutionalize anyone who was not an imminent thread to themselves or others. Some blame the legislatures for not providing sufficient funding for treatment facilities and halfway houses. But I'm cynical enough to believe that what most addicts want most is not treatment, but another fix.
I don't really know what should be done, and even speculating gets into the political.
Separate names with a comma.