Cancer in California

There are more nuts and fruits in California then anywhere else. Does that cause cancer?

technically more of all basic food products, not as much spam and sausage and other processed food i guess though. The State of California uses a stricter interpretation of cancer, ptoentially known is not acceptable to EPA. This means that there are two extremes that develop here: some things that have a tenuous link to cancer may be listed in California, and some things that the manufacturers have devoted substantial funds to dissuade listing with EPA aren't cancer causing (e.g. compounds found in cigarette smoke, oil, drugs, some pesticides/herbicides/rodeticides). This actually only effects a few compounds. Plus the state can get a standard passed much faster than the EPA, and it has the economic leverage to enforce a standards.

Is it against the law to use products (industrial) that cause cancer in California?

Having done contracting work there, California is a highly regulated state. As far as statistics are concerned, I do not know where CA is ranked.

And as far as the post about nuts and fruits... I'm sure if you eat enough of them.

There is all kinds of scary compounda in fresh organic fruits and vegetables. Someone needs to do a study on the cancer causeing agents in just one of the products for argument sake lets use Celery in two forms the first one will be typical and the second will be stressed prior to harvest. You will find that Celery is damn acary by any statndards and so are many other fresh things. Which is the reson I want most things from the normal cooked and processed food supply.

Sounds like California is a tough place to live.

Greetings Guest,

to your comments,

" Someone needs to do a study on the cancer causeing agents in just one of the products for argument sake "

That's sounds easy. (can you hear the sarcasm?)

" Which is the reson I want most things from the normal cooked and processed food supply. "

I do not know what you mean by normal cooked and processed foods. I don't not think you realize what goes into processed foods. Coloring, thickeners, emulsifiers, pasteurizing, ........ (reasons for doing this I'll save for another day) seems you understand what it takes to grow the food, and to avoid these foods, until you have them processed. Before you process, running these foods for processing, you get out what you put into it. Is it bad? Possibly. To avoid consuming these food stuffs, well that's a pretty aggressive diet you have.

Celery and Tomatoes both have scary families. Sure tastes good though.

Brad

They say that things that tastes good are usually bad for you. (its hard to say when)

It's not a geographical effect re the chenicals. It's the philosophical mind-set of the people in each state (or Federal) who make up the laws and exposure data, etc. Often times, many of these people are not trained chemists, etc, but they make the rules by what they "understand" about chemical activity in and on the human body. I have worked with extremely hazardous chemicals for many, many years, I cleaned huge amounts of mercury in college labs, my MOS in the service was warheads, propellants and explosives. We used to clean up (hands, etc) with benzene, and suddenly benzene was declared a cause of leukemia. Historically, under-arm deoderants, shaving cream, etc in pressurized spray containers were pressurized with VCM, vinyl chloride monomer. Then it was discovered that VCM is a cancer-suspect agent at very low (ppb) concentrations. How many (1,000s) of shipyard workers were covered with asbestos, insulating ship's steam lines, during WW II? Asbestosis didn't seem to be a problem then, or cause 1,000s of deaths years later.

Is it because allot of the activist are cultivated there may have played a doctor, an expert witness or a chemist on TV. Making them an expert? Atleast in thier minds.

Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me of the good old days when I used to play with mercury (it was a neat toy to chase the liquid around), and the old organic chemistry lab that I almost burned down when benzene accidentally caught fire. Thankfully a lab assistant was there with a fire extinguisher.

I also remember my Gilbert Chemistry sets. Used to go through one a year. Probably cant buy the chemicals we used to play with any more, all in the name of safety regulations. BUT THEN THE QUESTION ARISES, WHERE WILL THE FUTURE CHEMISTS COME FROM. Will they have any creativity, or will the formulations all have to be worked out on software programs?

You mean kids don't get to play with Mercury anymore???

One thing good about ignorance, some of the best ideas came from accidents or mistakes by not knowing what your getting into.

Those warning required in California are the states attempts to keep people healthy and working instead of sick and running up the health care cost.

The requirement forces companies to inform workers not hide information from workers.

Maybe, just maybe other states value the company using the chemicals over the human beings that work there!

No one may doubt that, Problem is and this is from experience with doing work in CA, is that you have multiple Governmental departments that contradict themselves.

Over regulation comes from not enforcing the regulations already in place, which comes to people not being held accountable

Well regulations like taxes force the companies to use those chemicals for the most good without waste or doing harm.

If a company is allowed to harm many people with the way they use chemicals. The cost of that process or product to the people of their state becomes more than the people in the state of California are willing to tolerate. Society can not afford to support the Businesses that do more harm than good and they need to be regulated. California has been there done that and have laws in place for that very reason.

Look at China no regulation. Guy was soaking cardboard in grease, rolling it in flour, frying it and calling it a dumpling. Selling it as food for years.

We may be trying to get (2) separate points across and we are not hearing each other.

My point is, Regulation is needed, yes. Over Regulation, no.

Example; When you have a USDA 3A (National Organization and (2) at that being USDA and 3A) inspector inspecting process equipment the was designed using USDA 3A specifications and The inspector fails this piece because as he puts it. He does not follow USDA 3A Specs. He follows FDA. When the specs. contradict themselves.

That is the point I am trying to get across

And as for as society supporting business, Who are you working for? Society or for a Business.

Society and business working together yes because when I see they work together a lot more gets done. I feel one should not put a separation between the 2.

Same point just different views of application.

yes, covering different points

About that guy in china, I heard about it, (1) one that it was true, the other (2) is that a newsman needed a headline and made it up.

If (1) is true, think of the people who bought from him for years keeping him in business are saying, "I was buying dumplings from this vender for years, the dam best dumplings ever, and the dam government shut him down"

Possible since a large part of our food come from wood fibers. Cellouse comes from many forms even ground up wooden palets. Just like Protien use to be added and came from cats and dogs gased in Animal Shelters. "FAST FOOD NATION" a good read.

I agree California is reeaally doing us a favor, however, what about all the compounds, etc. that are new that California hasn't had a chance to research for the rest of the world and classify as cancer causing in California.

What criteria is used in determing the cause of the cancer in California? Is it different in Ohio? What is the shelf life on "yes that does cause cancer or no that doesn't cause cancer? How many people have to be associated with the same variable to qualify as cance causing in California?

In addition, if the government will fine you for not wearing your seat belt, to keep you alive/safe (i.e. still paying taxes) then why isn't it against the law to work with/come in contact with the "known to cause cancer in California" materials. Shouldn't there be a regulation on materials to have a "Non-carcinogenic" MSDS before the public can spray their kids with it to kill mosiqutoes (or whatever). Only problem with that is Supply & Demand.

At least we have California to tell us 15 years after market availablity that it is known to cause Cancer in California.

The warnings are due to a voter approved ballot ballot measure Prop 65 .read & judge for yourself.

There are also mandated safety meetings monthly for employers of over 10 people.

Mostly they end up being a way for employers to shift the liability to the employee's.

"We informed you & you didn't quit so if you have any ill effects, your problem, you knew the job was dangerous....

Thanks, Garth....I needed that.

"Mostly they end up being a way for employers to shift the liability to the employee's."

as an emplyee or an employer, who in their right mind wants to be liable for anything.

It comes down to who has the most money for the lobbying to get the laws passed.

Tanks Garth - for the link to Position 65.

I am currently assisting with the Creation of law and realize creating universally acceptable law is difficult.

In SA we must cater for the likes of: Clever people without any education. Stupid people with the title "Prof. Dr" , Legal people apparently on drugs (spending 30 min to argue something not on the agenda) Left , right wing. etc etc. but we are getting somewhere.

The Proposition was a good idea but has some weak points (from our prospective)

"Knowingly or intentionally" Ignorance is no excuse.

"Employer employee" Will an employee intentionally (career limiting) expose his employer.

I want to urge CR4's to actively engage in adding some logical thinking to law. If you don't you must shut up (in your face) forevermore.

The real world implications are that basically every business has a prop65 sign posted @ the door. Its so prevelant as to be almost meaningless. I would suggest some sort of MSDS placard, w/a rating for the real hazard [exposure level] & an actual list of the substances.

"Employer employee" Will an employee intentionally (career limiting) expose his employer.

Putting this on the table for food for thought, while your assisting with the creation of law.

In the states, we have what is called "Whistle Blower Protection" with federal acts to protect a employee from retaliation from the employer for commiting an illegal act.

I have only heard it happen on the larger cases though, not so much smaller.

Problems I see with this, is that it can be abused by employees that may have been left go and only want to retaliate against the employer. (and is clever enough to figure this out)

Using a different governmental department that is set up simuliar to this (nothing to do with environmental), once a "claim" has been file from an employee. It's up to the employer to prove he's innocent. "At a very high cost", While proving the initial ex-employee's claim, the ex-employee's envolvement is taking over by the governmental dept. Can get very ugly.

Abusing the original intent.

I hate giving an example, without naming the department or links, but it was recently settled to a certain degree (in my favor, at very high health and wealth cost to me), and if you would like more information I would be happy to email it to you,

The employee's should have communication [open ] w/the liability insurer, it's in their interest to have the safest workplace possible, since they are going to have pay the claims.

The best way is for the employer to be on the side of safety & communication.

This is rarely the case.

The best system is one where it easier to do the right thing.

how you design a regulatory system, that protects the people being exposed, w/out hammering the employer into red tape submission?

& as Phoenix911 points out, there needs to be protection for people exposed to dangerous work place conditions, w/different avenues to pursue recourse. The problem is the inevitable retribution the employer feels obligated to inflict upon those who dare to point out deficencies in working conditions.

Not just ways to sue, also ways to improve methods & conditions, after all the people doing the work have the best perspective, [but not always the skills] to improve safety.

Well put Garthh,

Except for one append, it may not always be the employer, but the disgruntle employee that may inflict retribution upon the employer that may have left an employee go for legitimate reasons. If there is recourse to correct the problem, and a government agency is involve, This agency should view the claim with a open mind, and not the employer is guilty until proven else wise.

Sorry about the delay, it bothered me.

phoenix911

Of course balance is key, any system needs to have recourse for & against all parties, including the government.