SCUBA and the California Nanny State . . .

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Bigbella

ScubaBoard Supporter
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
2,409
Reaction score
3,221
Location
San Francisco
# of dives
I'm a Fish!
I recently bought a day-glow yellow catch bag and it came with a Proposition 65 warning, due to the risks of butadiene exposure from nylon -- so I will do my very best not to eat it. At least the loose netting slightly lowered any risk of suffocation.

Judging by the State of California, there seems little to nothing SCUBA related, from knife handles to natural rubber and the use of stainless steel, that isn't hazardous in some fashion -- and it would just seem safer to remain at home on the couch, floating your bloat, were it not for the myriad risks of that sedentary lifestyle: anxiety, cardiovascular disease, migraines, breast cancer, colon cancer, computer vision syndrome (from excessive electronic use), depression, gout, high blood pressure, lipid disorders, skin problems such as hair loss; mortality in adults; that All-American gem of obesity, osteoporosis, spinal disc herniation (low back pain), and type 2 diabetes . . .
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2025-04-30 at 2.10.41 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2025-04-30 at 2.10.41 PM.png
    112.4 KB · Views: 20
Christolube is a respiratory irritant, we’ve been screwed from day 1 😅
 
I recently bought a day-glow yellow catch bag and it came with a Proposition 65 warning, due to the risks of butadiene exposure in nylon -- and I will do my best not to eat it.

Judging by the State of California, there seems little to nothing SCUBA related, from knife handles to natural rubber and stainless steel, that is free from hazardous chemicals -- and it would just be far safer to remain at home on the couch, were it not for the myriad risks of a sedentary lifestyle: anxiety, cardiovascular disease, migraines, breast cancer, colon cancer, computer vision syndrome (from excessive electronic use), depression, gout, high blood pressure, lipid disorders, skin problems such as hair loss; mortality in adults; the gem of obesity, osteoporosis, spinal disc herniation (low back pain), and type 2 diabetes . . .
You could move to another state if the warning bothers you. I would not give it undue attention.
 
I don't know much about California, but giving people information freely and accessibly hardly sounds like a 'nanny state'.

When I use a mouthpiece and it says food safe grade, I expect it to be such.

As consumers we can demand all our brands to give us quality products, that are safe for ourselves and our environment. Brands shouldn't be able to freely cut corners without our knowledge. Having the information available sounds good to me. I can make an informed decision, I can take the risk and use the product, or go purchase a different brand. That's not nanny state in my view, that's freedom to choose.
 
That’s just unintended consequences of well-intentioned legislation. It turns out that it’s cheap and easy to slap that legally-required prop. 65 warning on nearly everything vs. figuring out if you’re actually making something harmful. But it kind of makes it all useless.

And to be fair, no one is going to stop you from buying and putting something with the prop.65 warning in your mouth, so a mediocre, negligent nanny at best,
 
Not legislation, a proposition passed by the people, perhaps a touch over the top inclusive language and we’ve all learned to ignore it since it’s virtually everywhere.
 
We get Californian warnings on products that end up in NZ. Stupidity. It actually detracts from safety in my opinion. The boy who cried wolf.
One may conclude that “safety” isn’t the goal but an affirmative defense is, “you were warned”.
 
There's a second half to the prop 65 warning.
The intention was to alert people to possible health hazards in everything the warning was slapped on. The idea was that they could make an informed decision on whether they wanted to expose themselves to hazards that could possibly cause cancer and birth defects, etc.
The second half was the attorney feeding frenzy on everything they could find that technically should have had a warning label that didn't. The result is now EVERYTHING has a warning label on it and most people have become numb to it and think it's a joke.
 
Back
Top Bottom