Proposition 65 comes to the diving industry...

[mderrick]

Someone should just make a label with all 900 chemicals and put it on every product.

The generic label actually was tried in the form of previous 'safe harbor' amendments to P65.... as the law reads today, the generic label below is a sufficient warning... but as an unintended consequence they started appearing on anything and everywhere in order to protect not the public interest but rather to protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits.

The P65 amendment effective 2023 invalidates the previous amendment generic 'safe harbor' label and requires a specific P65 chemical be listed.... the problem being that since most P65 chemicals do not have a no significant risk limit established and so many products could have at least an infinitesimal amount of residue we haven't really improved anything but now suppliers and retailers will have the additional burden of more complex labeling requirements.

In an ironic twist, the P65 warning has become such ubiquitous noise that manufacturers who really should be reformulating products to reduce exposures to genuinely hazardous chemicals have less incentive to do so because there is so little harm to their reputation from having to publish the P65 warning.

Here is an example of how crazy it could become: the use of Viton o-rings is almost de facto best practice in modern Scuba regulators because of the wide spread adoption of Nitrox. In most circumstances Viton will outperform nitrile rubber, so that's a good thing for the recreational diving industry and has been a factor in longer routine maintenance periods (remember when your reg needed annual maintenance at your local LDS to maintain the warranty?) However, fluoroelastomers (aka Viton) can expose you to Tetrafluoroethylene (not really, but there might be residue from the manufacturing process.) So it's within the realm of possibility that Nitrox Ready SCUBA regulators sold in California are going to require a P65 warning notice.

If I were a local dive shop owner in California, I would be nailing something like this to the wall near the door...

Please, somebody tell me I'm wrong!

 

[Pao]

I do not live in the state of California, or the US for that matter. So I probably wont get cancer from exposure.

 

[formernuke]

These are likely the same idiots who tried to ban dihydrogen monoxide a while back.

 

[kaylee_ann]

I do not live in the state of California, or the US for that matter. So I probably wont get cancer from exposure.

you should be safe. LOL

 

[mderrick]

These are likely the same idiots who tried to ban dihydrogen monoxide a while back.

Dihydrogen monoxide parody - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

I believe it's a fact that swallowing your own saliva in small quantities over an extended period of time will potentially cause cancer........ but only if said swallowing is done in California.

PS.... If it wasn't for attorneys, we would not need lawyers.

 

[Bob DBF]

Where P65 really has gone off the rails is the law allows the plaintiff to collect attorney fees, so there are a literally a handful of individuals working with a small number of law firms that literally specialize in shaking down businesses that make a spreadsheet decision to settle for trivial amount of say $500 (but PLUS the attorney fees) if they publish a warning.

This replaced the ADA scam, so ambulance chasers could make a living.

 

[Robert H. Diver]

California is a joke.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

Wouldn't it be safer for Califronicators if every producer of everything simply said "OK, we just won't produce anything in your state or sell anything in your state. Then there would be nothing to cause cancer or birth defects there!"

If you all starve, well, that's a foreseeable consequence of your silly Prop. 65.

In a couple of years, maybe resettle the area ...

OMMOHY

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

California is a joke.

No, jokes make me laugh.

OMMOHY