'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens

Re:'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens by nickff on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @02:08PM (#26157524)

I can guarantee you that every building will contain something on that list. The problem is that Prop 65 requires notice of chemicals whether or not you'll actually be at risk from that chemical. For instance, BPA is in many plastics, such as those in light fixtures, but you're not at much risk of consuming it unless you drink warm/hot liquids from the light fixtures.

The light bulbs/tubes/LEDs also contain a number of P65 materials, as do all the electronics...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens by appletrotter on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @05:24PM (#26159524)

I think that you're just reiterating things that OP understands.

We know that if the chemicals are there, we have to have the sign. And we know that the chemicals are everywhere.

So what benefit does the sign bring?

None.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens by nickff on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @05:35PM (#26159644)

I agree that the signs are usually useless, but the parent says a/the problem is that there is no penalty for erroneous signs. The problem is that the law doesn’t take context into account, and those signs are actually required.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'New car smell' is the scent of carcinogens by bcrosby95 on Tuesday February 16, 2021 @09:37PM (#26161978)

> The problem is that the law doesn’t take context into account, and those signs are actually required.

Not actually true.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

Companies are choosing to CYA because if they're sued the burden of proof is on them.

[ Parent | on HN ]