Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The most useless warning sign in the world

Posted by Monica Mehta at 11:17 AM on August 17, 2005.


What's the point of warning people that an area contains chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects?
Warning Sign
Warning Sign

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Monica Mehta in your
mailbox!

 

Walking into the parking garage of my apartment building this morning, I became aware of a huge sign posted at the entrance:

"Warning: This area contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm."

It turns out this sign is the result of Proposition 65, passed in 1986, which in part prohibits workplaces from knowingly or intentionally exposing individuals to dangerous chemicals without giving advance warning. The thinking goes that businesses are letting individuals know they may be risking their own or their babies' lives by entering a certain area.

But there's no further information as to which chemicals the area contains, in what amount, and how harmful those chemicals are. In other words, is it unsafe to spend a few minutes in that area every day, or do you basically have to lick the wall to get exposed to the chemicals?

So basically, instead of being forced to clean up these areas, businesses got away with placing the burden of safety on people who choose to enter that area. But what's the alternative? Are pregnant women in my building not supposed to use the parking garage? There's no easy overnight street parking nearby, so how are they supposed to avoid the garage if they have a car?

Also, the proposition was originally intended for employees who spent long amounts of times in buildings with these chemicals. But again, what's the alternative? Find another job? There's no addendum that says companies have to help employees find other jobs in non-toxic buildings. So what is the real point of these signs? What good do they really do?

The proposition wasn't completely useless: It required companies to place similar warnings on products, including alcoholic beverages. But products are easily avoidable, and have simple alternatives: Places of residence or work don't. Hey, but there's one benefit to this law: Businesses saved thousands through its passage. All they had to do was have the area tested and then post up a little sign. The larger price is the health and safety of millions of people, including pregnant women and their fetuses, but who cares about that, right?

Digg!

Monica Mehta is an associate editor at AlterNet.


The worst lesson to learn
The war on terror is right here, at home.
August 25, 2005.
Pat Robertson unleashed
Somebody get a muzzle.
August 23, 2005.
A New Kind of Celebrity Journalism
Sean Penn is writing a series of dispatches from Iran for the San Francisco Chronicle.
August 22, 2005.
POTUS' Summer Book List
What Bush is and isn't reading during his five-week summer vacation.
August 18, 2005.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Richard Gilbert
Posted by: rggilbert on Aug 18, 2005 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have seen the label in question on a number of products here in Massachusetts warning that the State of California has found that certain somethings in the product may cause cancer. I was thinking that the label may put some of our residents at ease and that perhaps they will not be affected because they do not live in California. Or even better, that since those from the left coast are afraid of everything then the label, since it essentially blames the toxicity on California, is best ignored as another raving from Cassandra.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prop 65
Posted by: jparfrey on Aug 18, 2005 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enacted in 1985, Prop 65 was the fruit of many years of environmental activism. The law compels the posting of potential cancer-causing and reproductive toxins. The toxicity levels are much more strigent than other state and federal levels -- and are factored at a daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000, assuming lifetime (70-year) exposure.

If companies fail to comply, they can be sued. And companies have been successfully sued, compelling clean-ups, and penalties going to public health organizations.

The law is imperfect, the signs (so pervasive) can seem meaningless, and the state toxic-review panels have been influenced by other-than-science of late -- that said, California is far healthier and cleaner with the law.

For more information see /www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html">OEHHA website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Prop 65 Posted by: Monica Mehta
Useless Warning Signs
Posted by: susan9390 on Aug 19, 2005 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In July 2004, I was on I-26 westbound around Orangeburg, SC on a mercilessly hot, humid day in my un-air-conditioned truck when I saw one of those light bulb matrix road signs at the side of the road. When I got close enough to read it, I saw that it said "ORANGE OZONE ALERT." By the time I could think, "HUH?," it had changed to "PLEASE CARPOOL TOMORROW."

How about "PLEASE CARPOOL TEN YEARS AGO?" What was I supposed to do? I was already there! How big a zone did the alert cover? Was I safe in my car? My windows were both opened about three inches; should I roll them up?

I sustained a dose of UV radiation poisoning that had me on steroids for 10 days and on bed rest for six or eight weeks. I did not have a sunburn; I had swelling and an intensely painful and itchy hive-like process going on under my skin.

Why were there no signs in advance of the danger area with detour advice? Who could I blame when there were hundreds of other cars on the same stretch of highway at the same time whose passengers didn't get sick? If I hadn't been so sick, it would have struck me as funny like those signs that say "BUMP" but don't tell you if it's there or in 500 feet or....

But I'm not laughing. How can I demand a culture of life in spite of the fact that I'm neither a minor nor a senior?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pg
Posted by: pg on Oct 31, 2005 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can you clarify your position? Why are you so concerned about a fetus?

They're still on the verge of instating a Supreme Court that will make abortion illegal. -or- The larger price is the health and safety of millions of people, including pregnant women and their fetuses, but who cares about that, right?

Whats the big deal? They can always abort the baby and try again ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]