Avia's carcinogenic sneakers
Barry
box when I got it home.
"California Proposition 65 warning: WARNING: This Product May Contain
Chemicals Known To The State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth
Defects or Other Reproductive Harm."
Then I found this on the website of an internet shoe seller:
"The State of California requires us Avia to put warning language on
the box if certain chemicals are present in any amount in the shoe,
even if the amount is very small, or in an amount that tests have
determined will not cause any harm. The chemicals are present in very
small amounts in the cement used in the construction of shoe – all
athletic shoes are made this way.
We cannot comment as to why any of our competitors do not use this
language – it is our understanding that all shoes are made with some
amount of these chemicals, which requires the warning we have used. We
are complying with the letter of the law, but have no reason to
believe that our shoes are a health risk of any kind."
I can't find that qualification of the warning on Avia's website, but
it sounds like it comes from Avia. Even if Avia intended for it to be
private correspondence between them and a retailer or customer, I
think it's an illegal attempt to nullify the warning. What do you
think? I'll probably return the sneakers.
Seth
Barry <ba...@polisource.com> wrote:
>I bought Avia sneakers and noticed this warning on the bottom of the
>box when I got it home.
>
>"California Proposition 65 warning: WARNING: This Product May Contain
>Chemicals Known To The State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth
>Defects or Other Reproductive Harm."
[Disclaimer that the warning is meaningless]
. . .
>I can't find that qualification of the warning on Avia's website, but
>it sounds like it comes from Avia. Even if Avia intended for it to be
>private correspondence between them and a retailer or customer, I
>think it's an illegal attempt to nullify the warning.
What makes it "illegal"? Which law, specifically, prevents such a
statement, and how does that law not violate the First Amendment?
> What do you think?
I think that California is nuts, and you probably shouldn't eat those
sneakers.
According to the California law, if eating 30 gm/day of some substance
causes a cancer-prone mouse to have a 1% higher chance of getting
cancer, that warning must be included on any product (including
something not intended for such consumption) that contains 1 microgram
of that substance. I don't think the California law provides useful
information to consumers (c.f. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf").
Seth
Mike Jacobs
> I bought Avia sneakers and noticed this warning on the bottom of the
> box when I got it home.
>
> "California Proposition 65 warning: WARNING: This Product May Contain
> Chemicals Known To The State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth
> Defects or Other Reproductive Harm."
[Avia offers explanation about their shoe glue on their website, and
says all other mfrs use the same thing but apparently don't comply
with the letter of CA law by giving this warning]
> think it's an illegal attempt to nullify the warning. What do you
> think? I'll probably return the sneakers.
Personally? Not as a lawyer? I think you're making a mountain out
of a molehill.
First off, it is only CA that requires such warnings, not the Fed EPA,
CPSC, or any other nationwide toxic-item policing agency. If you
lived anyplace but CA, would you care? Even if you _do_ live in CA,
should you care?
Second, your quote itself shows this CA law came into being as a
result of an "initiative" petition - Proposition 65 - and thus
represents the desires of whatever political action group put it forth
for a direct vote by the people of the state, not the considered,
balanced result, after bipartisan debate, of the people's elected
representatives in their legislature.
Thirdly, it appears this unique CA law does require a warning label
whenever even tiny trace amounts of a known carcinogen are found in
some consumer product. This is so even if the level of that
substance is below the level that the EPA, CPSC, etc. find to be
potentially hazardous. Many things we handle, and eat, contain
carcinogens. That grilled hamburger you just ate? What do you
think the charred, carbonized (burnt) outer layer of that patty is
made out of? Don't ask me whether Mickey D and the King put these
Prop 65 warning labels on their products in CA - I haven't eaten there
lately.
Fourthly, IIUC all the law requires is that the precise language of
the law be written onto any product it applies to. It does not, and
cannot, abridge the maker's free speech rights to provide additional
explanation elsewhere, such as on their website, even if that
explanation has the effect of dulling the meaning and impact of the
official warning. Those rare cases where government regulation _is_
permitted (under the 1st Amendment) to ban certain types of positive
advertising about harmful products (e.g. tobacco, alcohol) in certain
forums (e.g. on TV) or aimed at certain audiences (e.g. children) make
specific provision for such a ban, based on legislative factual
findings that such booze-touting or cigarette-promoting ads constitute
a clear and present danger to the public health. AFAIK the only
thing the CA Prop 65 law requires is that the warning label be put on,
period - analogous to the "surgeon general's warning" on tobacco
products, which is required by a _separate_ law from the one banning
Joe Camel ads during Saturday morning cartoons.
Fifthly, this Prop 65 issue is so widely ridiculed and parodied that
it has become a standard joke for comedians. "This product has been
shown to cause cancer in California." (But, apparently, not anywhere
else).
So, do you still want to return the sneakers? Would you rather buy
your shoes from a company that, it seems, is _supposed_ to put a Prop
65 warning label on its products, but doesn't? Which would you trust
more, the company that bends over backwards to comply even when the
risk is close to nil, or the company that fails to give the warning
even though its products contain similar amounts of similar
chemicals? I dunno, you tell me.
But the bottom line is, yes, the Prop 65 warning had its desired
effect, and yes, you now know that your sneakers contain trace amounts
of a carcinogenic chemical in the glue that holds them together. And
you probably also know, if you dig deeper, that every other pair of
sneakers out there does too. Maybe you should go back to hand-sewn
moccasins made without glue of any kind. Dunno what they put in the
tanning baths for that leather, though. Maybe it's carcinogenic,
too. Maybe you should stick to rawhide. Or, just go barefoot,
that's the ticket for public safety.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Barry Gold
>I think that California is nuts, and you probably shouldn't eat those
>sneakers.
>
>According to the California law, if eating 30 gm/day of some substance
>causes a cancer-prone mouse to have a 1% higher chance of getting
>cancer, that warning must be included on any product (including
>something not intended for such consumption) that contains 1 microgram
>of that substance. I don't think the California law provides useful
>information to consumers (c.f. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf").
As a Californian, I agree 100%. Every building you go into has a prop
63 warning by the door. So what does it mean? Nothing.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster for:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society: http://www.lasfsinc.org
My blog: http://goldslaw.livejournal.com/
Barry
> First off, it is only CA that requires such warnings, not the Fed EPA,
> CPSC, or any other nationwide toxic-item policing agency. If you
> lived anyplace but CA, would you care? Even if you _do_ live in CA,
> should you care?
I don't live in CA but I care. I bought a Bell Phones model 77380-M2
last year and noticed the warning (and an odor) when I got it home. I
returned it and bought a Panasonic model KX-TSC11B with no warning or
smell. Both are corded phones because I'm afraid of the batteries of
cordless phones (and don't get me started on electric cars).
I also noticed the warning on the driers in the laundry room of my
building. I already know about the carcinogens from gas ovens and I
was wondering if there are ANY clothes driers without the warning. I
think the law should go further and list noncancerous as well as
cancerous products on a website so people could look up whether there
are safer options.
> Thirdly, it appears this unique CA law does require a warning label
> whenever even tiny trace amounts of a known carcinogen are found in
> some consumer product. This is so even if the level of that
> substance is below the level that the EPA, CPSC, etc. find to be
> potentially hazardous.
...
> Would you rather buy
> your shoes from a company that, it seems, is _supposed_ to put a Prop
> 65 warning label on its products, but doesn't? Which would you trust
> more, the company that bends over backwards to comply even when the
> risk is close to nil, or the company that fails to give the warning
> even though its products contain similar amounts of similar
> chemicals?
...
> And
> you probably also know, if you dig deeper, that every other pair of
> sneakers out there does too.
I don't know how you know all that, but I don't. I don't care what
Avia says because it goes against common sense and the spirit of the
law considering the warning they're required by law to place on the
product and considering all the lawyers out there who look for
violations of proposition 65 so they could sue. In case the lawyers
missed what all the sneaker companies other than Avia are doing, now
you know so go and sue them and we'll see what happens.
> So, do you still want to return the sneakers?
I already exchanged them for Nike Initiators. Almost as cheap, better
looking, and I think they smell less.
Robert Bonomi
California requires that warning on practically *EVERYTHING* -- including
_hammers_, step-ladders, and an amazing number of 'organic' (certified)
food products.
The California requirements for the warning *are* so inclusive that the
warning notice *is* a joke. In any store, there will be far more products
with a that warning label, than without it. At least if they're labeled
accurately.
Lastly, there is absolutely no way to tell, from the label, if the item
with the warning has 'unsafe' levels of a carcinogenic substance or merely
a barely detectable microscopic trace that produces a far lower risk than
standing outside for 10 minutes on a sunny day.
This is just -one- of the kinds of silliness that happens with legislation
adopted by 'popular vote'.
At least the Indiana Legislature had the 'common sense' to send a piece of
proposed legislation that would have 'simplified' math for children (by
making 'pi' _exactly_ equal to 3.00 !!) to the Committee on Swamps, where
it died.
Gordon Burditt
>> Chemicals Known To The State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth
>> Defects or Other Reproductive Harm."
Does that wording cover the necessary warning for the chemicals in
the warning label? Or does the warning for the warning label require
a separate warning label (which also needs a warning label, ad
nauseum).
>Thirdly, it appears this unique CA law does require a warning label
>whenever even tiny trace amounts of a known carcinogen are found in
>some consumer product.
Assume that it is discovered that warning labels contain tiny trace
amounts of a known carcinogen. (I seem to recall problems with both
paper and ink in this regard.) Plus, it may be the case that warnings,
however presented, also cause cancer through added stress.
>This is so even if the level of that
>substance is below the level that the EPA, CPSC, etc. find to be
>potentially hazardous.
I'm sure that eating warning labels is potentially hazardous: the
choking hazard alone would be a serious problem.
>Many things we handle, and eat, contain
>carcinogens. That grilled hamburger you just ate? What do you
>think the charred, carbonized (burnt) outer layer of that patty is
>made out of? Don't ask me whether Mickey D and the King put these
>Prop 65 warning labels on their products in CA - I haven't eaten there
>lately.
>
>Fourthly, IIUC all the law requires is that the precise language of
>the law be written onto any product it applies to.
Can this be used to ban products because the precise language of
the law requires an infinite number of warning labels, one for the
product and one for each warning label? It might not happen to
permit a wording like "Warning: This Product and its warning labels
may contain ..." if it specifies an exact wording.
Cy Pres
> In article <005291ca-
c3e3-4ae7-986...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> Barry <ba...@polisource.com> wrote:
>>I bought Avia sneakers and noticed this warning on the bottom of the
>>box when I got it home.
>>
>>"California Proposition 65 warning: WARNING: This Product May Contain
>>Chemicals Known To The State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth
>>Defects or Other Reproductive Harm."
> [Disclaimer that the warning is meaningless]
>>I can't find that qualification of the warning on Avia's website, but
>>it sounds like it comes from Avia. Even if Avia intended for it to be
>>private correspondence between them and a retailer or customer, I
>>think it's an illegal attempt to nullify the warning.
>
> What makes it "illegal"? Which law, specifically, prevents such a
> statement, and how does that law not violate the First Amendment?
Misbranding laws. Cigarette manufacturers also wouldn't be permitted to attach
their own stickers to packs of cigarettes pointing to the Surgeon General's
warning saying "This is bullshit." They also wouldn't be permitted to use such
claims in marketing material. Commercial speech is subject to greater
regulation than other speech. A tobacco company executive, however, could
certainly testify contrary to the warnings, or make public statements of a
political nature questioning the validity of such stickers.
Robert Bonomi
Ain't voter-initiated legislation fun? That warning notice is found on
virtually every hammer and step-ladder sold in California. Anybody want
to guesstimate the hazard from eating 30,000 hammers a day? <snicker>
Robert Bonomi
Cy Pres <c.p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>
>>
>> What makes it "illegal"? Which law, specifically, prevents such a
>> statement, and how does that law not violate the First Amendment?
>
>Misbranding laws. Cigarette manufacturers also wouldn't be permitted to attach
>their own stickers to packs of cigarettes pointing to the Surgeon General's
>warning saying "This is bullshit."
But there is *NOTHING* preventing a cigarette company from� running a statement
on the other side of the package, in the same typeface, point-size and black-
box frame that says "Mortality Rate for Non-Smokers: 100%". That claim is
not an opinion, but rather, it is 'objective fact'. <grin>
Mike Jacobs
> Barry <ba...@polisource.com> wrote:
> >I bought Avia sneakers and noticed this warning on the bottom of the
> >box when I got it home.
>
> >"California Proposition 65 warning: WARNING: This Product May Contain
> >Chemicals Known To The State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth
> >Defects or Other Reproductive Harm."
> The California requirements for the warning *are* so inclusive that the
> warning notice *is* a joke. In any store, there will be far more products
> with a that warning label, than without it. At least if they're labeled
> accurately.
Appropos of that, I noted the following Wall Street Journal blog
entry, which was brought to my attention by a news item today on one
of the plaintiff lawyers' email newsletters I subscribe to:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/13/grilled-chicken-sandwich-hold-the-carcinogen/
Apparently, self-appointed regulators (private citizens filing civil
complaints) are just now noticing that grilling one's meats over a
charcoal fire may introduce into that comestible certain chemicals
with names-longer-than-a-paragraph which, due to the difficulty of
ingesting such long words, may cause cancer in barbecue-fed rats. Of
course, people in California _never_ grill their _own_ foods out-of-
doors on a fire derived from natural wood products, do they? But if
you buy your chicken PRE-grilled from a restaurant or grocery-store
rotisserie bin, this suit which a court ruling has now allowed to go
forward, claims the supplier has to tell you that GRILLED CHICKEN
CAUSES CANCER.
> Lastly, there is absolutely no way to tell, from the label, if the item
> with the warning has 'unsafe' levels of a carcinogenic substance or merely
> a barely detectable microscopic trace that produces a far lower risk than
> standing outside for 10 minutes on a sunny day.
Which, of course, people in California _never_ do. Especially the
Greenie types who are concerned about environmental risks. LOL
I'm a greenie myself, you know. I think I'll go for a hike today in
the sun at the beach, wearing my new Avia sneakers, and grill some
chicken on the BBQ pit when I get hungry for lunch. Sounds like a
perfect California day. OMG, the corporate scoundrels are trying to
kill me!!!
> This is just -one- of the kinds of silliness that happens with legislation
> adopted by 'popular vote'.
I couldn't agree more. Of course, then there's our latest example,
the anti-gay-marriage initiative that just got shot down.
Unfortunately the carcinogen-warning rule isn't unconstitutional, just
profoundly silly, so the People's Republic of California is stuck with
it until sense overcomes emotion and it gets repealed by popular
vote. This will happen when pigs fly, since people don't really
_understand_ the science behind it, and nobody wants to _look_ anti-
environmentalist and retrograde and such, by voting to repeal a
"green" initiative.
> At least the Indiana Legislature had the 'common sense' to send a piece of
> proposed legislation that would have 'simplified' math for children (by
> making 'pi' _exactly_ equal to 3.00 !!) to the Committee on Swamps, where
> it died.
ROFL again. Actually, the solution to that is simple. If you want
the circumference of a circle to be exactly equal to 3 diameters of
the same circle, all you need to do is CURVE SPACE so your diameter
rod on that 2-dimensional figure is just a schoonch longer.... These
guys aren't idiots, they're friggin' Einsteins.
But, good thing they make tires in Ohio instead of Indiana...
Barry
> ...grilling one's meats over a
> charcoal fire...may cause cancer in barbecue-fed rats.
In people too, and even health experts outside of California will tell
you that.
...
> this suit which a court ruling has now allowed to go
> forward, claims the supplier has to tell you that GRILLED CHICKEN
> CAUSES CANCER.
Good. It does. Anyway, that's the law in California, isn't it? What's
the argument against the notice?
Life is livible if you avoid the things that are known to California
to cause cancer. Apparently that needs to be more apparent. The
warnings should be more detailed and, as I said, noncancerous
alternatives as well as cancerous products should be listed on a
website and the warning should include a link.
Seth
Mike Jacobs <mjaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 19, 9:53 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> But if you buy your chicken PRE-grilled from a restaurant or
>grocery-store rotisserie bin, this suit which a court ruling has now
>allowed to go forward, claims the supplier has to tell you that
>GRILLED CHICKEN CAUSES CANCER.
I recently saw what may be the best comment on this: Given the number
of things that apparently cause cancer in California and nowhere else,
the most likely explanation is that it is the state of California
itself that causes cancer.
>> At least the Indiana Legislature had the 'common sense' to send a piece of
>> proposed legislation that would have 'simplified' math for children (by
>> making 'pi' _exactly_ equal to 3.00 !!) to the Committee on Swamps, where
>> it died.
. . .
>But, good thing they make tires in Ohio instead of Indiana...
Actually, what happened isn't quite such a good story.
Some nutcase wrote a math "textbook" which claimed that pi=3.
He had a friend in the state legislature, who he got to introduce a
bill requiring the use of his textbook in the state's schools.
Apparently somebody read the book (or had it reviewed), and the bill
died.
Seth
Robert Bonomi
Mike Jacobs <mjaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At least the Indiana Legislature had the 'common sense' to send a piece of
>> proposed legislation that would have 'simplified' math for children (by
>> making 'pi' _exactly_ equal to 3.00 !!) to the Committee on Swamps, where
>> it died.
>
>ROFL again.
I've forgotten the 'legislative' _why_ it was assigned there, but that
really was how was handled.
> Actually, the solution to that is simple. If you want
>the circumference of a circle to be exactly equal to 3 diameters of
>the same circle, all you need to do is CURVE SPACE so your diameter
>rod on that 2-dimensional figure is just a schoonch longer.... These
>guys aren't idiots, they're friggin' Einsteins.
I think somebody had imbibed _considerably_ more than Ein Stien. Drei,
vier, fumph, sechs, maybe.
I'll also note that doing so would not accomplish the 'simplification'
goal, as one would no longer be able to tell the _plane_truth_ about the
relationship. while the perimeter of the circle might be precisely 3x the
diameter, it would not necessarily be 6x the radius.
>
>But, good thing they make tires in Ohio instead of Indiana...
Credit where credit is due -- they did manage to dispose of the matter
_without_ getting into the '...cornbread are square!!" issue.
Mike Jacobs
> On Aug 16, 10:39 am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...grilling one's meats over a
> > charcoal fire...may cause cancer in barbecue-fed rats.
>
> In people too, and even health experts outside of California will tell
> you that.
Barry - sir - I'm aware of that, and I'm aware and agree with you that
there are complex organic byproducts of combustion (a/k/a charred,
burnt flesh) present in grilled meats, and that several such complex
molecules have been identified as carcinogenic. But I still eat
grilled meat. It's a calculated risk I'm willing to take.
Please note that:
1- The CA law does not require any warnings to people that if you
GRILL YOUR OWN meats, they become carcinogenic. You can buy a raw
chicken or wad of raw ground beef at your local supermarket WITHOUT
any carcinogen-warning labels, throw it on your own grill, and merrily
consume it without the statute in question giving a rat's patootie for
your health or safety. How is it equitable that the state now makes
purveyors of pre-grilled meats, such as fast-food restaurants, supply
such a label?
2- The CA law does not distinguish between materials that have been
shown to have a _significant_ risk of causing cancer in humans, and
those which merely have trace amounts of substances that have _ever_
been shown to be carcinogenic in _any_ study anywhere. That means
there are a whole lot of "crying wolf" warning labels which make it
impossible for the lesser-educated members of the public on the
carcinogen issue (I'm _not_ talking about what degrees they hold or
how smart they are, I'm just talking about how knowledgeable they
truly are about _this_ issue) to distinguish a genuinely significant
risk factor from one that is more Chicken-Little-ish. When the sky
does not in fact fall, this type of person will be less inclined to
pay attention to _any_ warnings, even about significant risks.
3- The people of 49 other states seem to get by just fine with only
the kinds of warnings that the Fed EPA requires, and AFAIK have not
shown a significantly higher incidence of cancer than in CA.
4- Finally, if you _are_ one of those people who _like_ having such
warnings and who _try_ to heed them, on everything from McChicken
sandwiches to rubber sneakers, good for you. You are a health-
conscious person doing everything you can to educate _yourself_ about
health risks, even those that _other_ people may not find significant
in the least, and to do something about them _for_yourself_. That is
your inalienable right in this free country, and I might add (as a
former CA resident, and still current granola-muncher myself) CA does
seem to attract a larger-than-random percentage of people with such,
um, "unusual" health care ideas or concerns, vs. the percentage of
same in other states. That still does not justify the huge costs to
manufacturers and wholesale and retail businesses of ensuring legal
compliance in CA with _any_ new non-nationwide-uniform warning-label
or product-standard requirement, not just this one, _unless_ the
required CA-only label or specification really _would_ make a
significant difference in safety of the CA population as a whole. The
legislative process whereby lobbyists for competing interests present
facts and studies showing a need, and/or showing how proposed
legislation would or would not do anything to meet that need, is
almost totally absent in the _initiative_ process, whereby any fringe
group that gets enough voters to sign a petition can have its proposal
placed on the ballot, where the vast majority of voters will react to
it based on impressions and broad-brush-stroke am-I-in-favor-of-this-
subject feelings, not dispassionate and rational analysis. As I said
last time, voting against a carcinogen-warning requirement is
practically like voting against mothers' milk. Oh, wait, I bet some
study has proven that some human milk is also carcinogenic. Better
put warning labels on all those breasts.
5- Post-finally, I know I have zero chance of ever convincing you of
any of the above, and I don't have anything more to say on the
subject, so why don't we just agree to disagree about the things where
we are not on the same wavelength, okay?
> > this suit which a court ruling has now allowed to go
> > forward, claims the supplier has to tell you that GRILLED CHICKEN
> > CAUSES CANCER.
>
> Good. It does. Anyway, that's the law in California, isn't it?
Yes. But saying "that's the law" doesn't prevent us from arguing
that it's a _bad_ law, even while, as a lawyer, I must urge people
like Avia and Mickey D and the King to _follow_ the law, even if they
are actively working to get it changed by legislative action and/or
litigation.
However, people like you _penalize_ companies like Avia when they _do_
comply with the warning label law, while other companies (whose shoes
are JUST AS CARCINOGENIC - or, not) get away with (literally, in your
view) murder, by putting UNLABELED shoes or sandwiches on the market,
which, until _they_ get caught and have to comply, you, Barry, are
perfectly happy to buy and wear or eat. How does THAT encourage
compliance with this law, and _respect_ for all laws?
> What's
> the argument against the notice?
See above.
> Life is livible if you avoid the things that are known to California
> to cause cancer.
No it isn't. Because, Barry, EVERYTHING causes cancer. If you dig
deep enough, and if you feed enough of it to a rat. WATER causes
cancer (actually, if you ingest _enough_ of it, you will die of its
_toxicity_ long before you develop cancer). AIR causes cancer. FOOD
causes cancer. That's why this is not merely a bad, but a crazy,
law.
> Apparently that needs to be more apparent. The
> warnings should be more detailed and, as I said, noncancerous
> alternatives as well as cancerous products should be listed on a
> website and the warning should include a link.
What's the noncancerous alternative to grilled chicken? Boiled
chicken? Yum.
Enjoy. I'll be firing up my grill now.
Daniel R.Reitman
wrote:
>In article <83ceb0ac-8af2-4912...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>Mike Jacobs <mjaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 19, 9:53 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>. . . .
>. . . .
>>> At least the Indiana Legislature had the 'common sense' to send a piece of
>>> proposed legislation that would have 'simplified' math for children (by
>>> making 'pi' _exactly_ equal to 3.00 !!) to the Committee on Swamps, where
>>> it died.
>. . .
>>But, good thing they make tires in Ohio instead of Indiana...
>
>Actually, what happened isn't quite such a good story.
>
>Some nutcase wrote a math "textbook" which claimed that pi=3.
>
>He had a friend in the state legislature, who he got to introduce a
>bill requiring the use of his textbook in the state's schools.
>
>Apparently somebody read the book (or had it reviewed), and the bill
>died.
Not quite accurate in either form. The story is that Dr. Edward
Goodwin did bring a proposed theorem for squaring the circle (which
had been proven impossible about 10 years earlier) to the legislature
in 1897, offering to alow the state ot use it in education without
charging royalties. Goodwin also claimed to have trisected the angle
and duplicated the cube; his papers had actually been published with
disclaimers.
The text of the bill actually provides that "the ratio of the diameter
to the circumference is as five-fourths to four," which implies pi =
3.2. 1897 Ind. H.B. 247, @ 2 (reprinted at
<http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm>
(visited Aug. 22, 2010). It also claims formulas for the area of the
crcle that would give different values for pi.
The House referred it to the Canals Committee, who reported it back.
It was then referred to the Education Committee, which also reported
favorably, and it passed the House.
Fortunately, Purdue mathematics professor C.A. Waldo went to the
Senate to lobby for the Indiana Academy of Sciences appropriation, and
he was handed a copy by a Senator. Waldo lobbied against the bill,
and as a result, the Senate referred it to the Temperence Committee.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill> (visited Aug. 22,
2010).
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
INTENDED.
Gordon Burditt
>> charcoal fire...may cause cancer in barbecue-fed rats.
>
>In people too, and even health experts outside of California will tell
>you that.
>...
>> this suit which a court ruling has now allowed to go
>> forward, claims the supplier has to tell you that GRILLED CHICKEN
>> CAUSES CANCER.
>
>Good. It does. Anyway, that's the law in California, isn't it? What's
>the argument against the notice?
The glue on the notice may contribute to the cancer threat far more
than the grilled chicken (even if you don't eat the notice), and
most vendors fail to put on a notice to say that the notice also
causes cancer. And even if they do, few vendors put a notice on
*THAT* notice.
JSmith
> In article <83ceb0ac-8af2-4912-83a7-ec8b1c1e4...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> At least the Indiana Legislature had the 'common sense' to send a piece of
> >> proposed legislation that would have 'simplified' math for children (by
> >> making 'pi' _exactly_ equal to 3.00 !!) to the Committee on Swamps, where
> >> it died.
> . . .
> >But, good thing they make tires in Ohio instead of Indiana...
>
> Actually, what happened isn't quite such a good story.
>
> Some nutcase wrote a math "textbook" which claimed that pi=3.
>
> He had a friend in the state legislature, who he got to introduce a
> bill requiring the use of his textbook in the state's schools.
>
> Apparently somebody read the book (or had it reviewed), and the bill
> died.
I've never understood why they defeated the bill. It says right in the
Bible that pi = 3 (1 Kings 7:23). How could any legislature dispute
that??
Stuart A. Bronstein
>>Good. It does. Anyway, that's the law in California, isn't it?
>>What's the argument against the notice?
>
> The glue on the notice may contribute to the cancer threat far
> more than the grilled chicken (even if you don't eat the
> notice), and most vendors fail to put on a notice to say that
> the notice also causes cancer. And even if they do, few vendors
> put a notice on *THAT* notice.
;-)))))
deadrat
<Note to moderator: Aw, c'mon. Indulge me./>
> On Aug 17, 11:42 am, Barry <ba...@polisource.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 10:39 am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ...grilling one's meats over a
>> > charcoal fire...may cause cancer in barbecue-fed rats.
>>
>> In people too, and even health experts outside of California will tell
>> you that.
>
> Barry - sir - I'm aware of that, and I'm aware and agree with you that
> there are complex organic byproducts of combustion (a/k/a charred,
> burnt flesh) present in grilled meats, and that several such complex
> molecules have been identified as carcinogenic. But I still eat
> grilled meat. It's a calculated risk I'm willing to take.
>
> Please note that:
>
> 1- The CA law does not require any warnings to people that if you
> GRILL YOUR OWN meats, they become carcinogenic. You can buy a raw
> chicken or wad of raw ground beef at your local supermarket WITHOUT
> any carcinogen-warning labels, throw it on your own grill, and merrily
> consume it without the statute in question giving a rat's patootie for
> your health or safety. How is it equitable that the state now makes
> purveyors of pre-grilled meats, such as fast-food restaurants, supply
> such a label?
Well, it's probably not, but I find myself with a strange craving for
rat's patootie. Do you have a grill recipe?
<snip/>
> 4- Finally, if you _are_ one of those people who _like_ having such
> warnings and who _try_ to heed them, on everything from McChicken
> sandwiches to rubber sneakers, good for you.
I believe the warnings on both are the same, which is reasonable
considering their composition.
<snip/>
> Enjoy. I'll be firing up my grill now.
Mmmm. Rat's patootie? Throw one on for me; I'll be right over.
Barry
> 5- Post-finally, I know I have zero chance of ever convincing you of
> any of the above, and I don't have anything more to say on the
> subject, so why don't we just agree to disagree about the things where
> we are not on the same wavelength, okay?
Okay, but here's my reply anyway.
> Please note that:
>
> 1- The CA law does not require any warnings to people that if you
> GRILL YOUR OWN meats, they become carcinogenic...
> How is it equitable that the state now makes
> purveyors of pre-grilled meats, such as fast-food restaurants, supply
> such a label?
I don't think it's likely that someone would substitute something as
unhealthy as grilled meat if they're put off by a pre-grilled meat
warning lable. If you have health information and reason to believe it
would help people, your "equitable" concerns shouldn't prevent you
from disclosing it. "They can do it so why can't I" doesn't fly with
me. Make a good law, then consider making other laws. You don't have
to make them all at once.
> ...You are a health-
> conscious person...That still does not justify the huge costs to
> manufacturers and wholesale and retail businesses of ensuring legal
> compliance in CA with _any_ new non-nationwide-uniform warning-label
> or product-standard requirement, not just this one, _unless_ the
> required CA-only label or specification really _would_ make a
> significant difference in safety of the CA population as a whole.
How huge are the costs? Seems not very, especially for new products. A
food science guy who's working on a new product just has to send a
note to the package designer if the product is grilled, and the
package designer opens his graphics program and adds the warning.
> The
> legislative process whereby lobbyists for competing interests present
> facts and studies showing a need, and/or showing how proposed
> legislation would or would not do anything to meet that need, is
> almost totally absent in the _initiative_ process
The people vote and in this case the science is so sound that even you
and I believe it, and it seems really cheap to implement. Oh, maybe
the lost business for companies that make unhealthy products is a
"huge cost" to the companies, but I won't worry about that. I don't
know exactly what you mean by "almost totally absent." I'm glad this
particular proposition went through.
> 3- The people of 49 other states seem to get by just fine with only
> the kinds of warnings that the Fed EPA requires, and AFAIK have not
> shown a significantly higher incidence of cancer than in CA.
Completely unworthy of consideration. Some of "the people" there
obviously die of cancer (though maybe to you it's an insignificant a
number) and therefore don't get by just fine, and the prevalence of
things that cause cancer differ between states.
> However, people like you _penalize_ companies like Avia when they _do_
> comply with the warning label law, while other companies (whose shoes
> are JUST AS CARCINOGENIC - or, not) get away with (literally, in your
> view) murder, by putting UNLABELED shoes or sandwiches on the market,
> which, until _they_ get caught and have to comply, you, Barry, are
> perfectly happy to buy and wear or eat. How does THAT encourage
> compliance with this law, and _respect_ for all laws?
It's the possibility of getting caught and the unfair competition and
health incentives for companies and people to sue that encourage
compliance. And I don't wait for a company to get caught before
avoiding dangerous products, though I do wait for evidence stronger
than Avia's claims about its competitors, which I can't confirm and
don't trust.
> > Life is livible if you avoid the things that are known to California
> > to cause cancer.
>
> No it isn't. Because, Barry, EVERYTHING causes cancer. If you dig
> deep enough, and if you feed enough of it to a rat. WATER causes
> cancer (actually, if you ingest _enough_ of it, you will die of its
> _toxicity_ long before you develop cancer). AIR causes cancer. FOOD
> causes cancer. That's why this is not merely a bad, but a crazy,
> law.
Show me why water gets labled under the law (not that I'd think it was
a crazy law in that case, because they make water filters). I think
water is dangerous at a whole other level than the things that need to
be labled. I guess the warning lable would have to contain the full
text of the law to be accurate enough for you. To me, saying something
causes cancer, with whatever implication there is that water can't
cause cancer, is accurate enough.
> What's the noncancerous alternative to grilled chicken?
Marinated, baked chicken, maybe with tomato sauce lemon pepper.
Seth
Gordon Burditt <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote:
>The glue on the notice may contribute to the cancer threat far more
>than the grilled chicken (even if you don't eat the notice), and
>most vendors fail to put on a notice to say that the notice also
>causes cancer. And even if they do, few vendors put a notice on
>*THAT* notice.
"Grilled chicken contains substances known to the State of California
to cause cancer."
"All cancer notices on this package contain substances known to the
State of California to cause cancer."
a.k.a. "It's turtles all the way down."
Seth