Commuting - Bungee cargo net... cancer??

Don't know if any of you has used the Sunlite bungee cargo net (http://www.amazon.com/Sunlite-Bicycle-Bungie-Cargo-Black/dp/B000WY6ZXA/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1288478387&sr=8-7), but the reviews seem to be good, so I bought one. I notice a strange claim on the package, that says "This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm." What the heck? I suppose it would do harm only if you swallow it?

anything will cause cancer in california, i have the exact same one, i dont know what i would do with out it sometimes

Don't chew on it, and you'll be fine.

How about smelling it?:rolleyes:

Fizzaly: do you find it very strong? Some say they broke easily.

Oh wow, that's not cool. That's the same one that I used to use. I went back to my 3 bungee cords holding my bag because a few times while taking tight turns with my trike, my bag fell off the side of the rear rack and was hanging there. Luckly it never fell completely off, but after going back to using 3 bungee cords in a criss-cross pattern, it hasn't slid since.

anything will cause cancer in california
This. Carbon black is listed as a possible carcinogen in Prop 65, the law which requires the label. Any product that has black colored plastic has this compound. It is only carcinogenic in power form (respirable size), so the risk is ridiculously low. The law has created a desensitization of risk which may actually be relevant for other products.

Aspirin and sand are also on the CA list.

anything will cause cancer in california, i have the exact same one, i dont know what i would do with out it sometimes

Ah Yes! California, the land of fruits and nuts.. :p

The legal disclaimers are ridiculous. I was changing a tube today and I noticed the wheels said something like "rims wear with use," or some obvious non-sense like that. The tires had some sort of common sense disclaimer as well, I don't recall what it was. Of course I had to deal with the lawyer lips (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_l.html) while removing the wheel as well.

My cargo net has a label on it that reads, "This product contains chemicals known to the State of California known to cause miracles and mild euphoria. Do not use while pregnant." You should switch man.

They have expanded the cancer warning labeling practice in Klaifornia to such a point of absurdity that it has become useless in helping consumers avoid dangerous products.
The biggest danger from bungee cords is having the end come lose and whack you in the eye.

ridiculous state it is:
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk177/thirdgenbird/coilover/DSC00667.jpg
http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk177/thirdgenbird/coilover/DSC00668.jpg

i mean, it could cause birth defects, but where would you have to put it?

You're a goner.. you can believe me because I live in California.

I lived in CA when prop 65 passed. We thought we were passing a much more specific labeling law. Once the right-wing lobbyists and lawyers got done with it all we had left was the vague, useless label you saw. Fortunately, one can now usually find more detailed information about labeled products on-line, so it is not quite as bad as it was.

The legal disclaimers are ridiculous. I was changing a tube today and I noticed the wheels said something like "rims wear with use," or some obvious non-sense like that. The tires had some sort of common sense disclaimer as well, I don't recall what it was. Of course I had to deal with the lawyer lips (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_l.html) while removing the wheel as well.

My warning sticker said "heavy or excessive braking could cause the rim to fail" I figured there was some bad translation going on.

Yes vol ive found it to be very strong have had the same one for around three years now no problems, it is now a little less stretchy but i kinda expect that over time

Don't chew on it, and you'll be fine.Not true, poking it in your eye may also cause harm and may lead to cancer.

Odd though that California worries more about unlikely causes of cancer but refuses to put a warning sticker on the sun.

I lived in CA when prop 65 passed. We thought we were passing a much more specific labeling law. Once the right-wing lobbyists and lawyers got done with it all we had left was the vague, useless label you saw. Fortunately, one can now usually find more detailed information about labeled products on-line, so it is not quite as bad as it was.So you thought you were voting for a requirement that would cause bike manufacturers to wrap the entire bike in a giant warning sticker.

Odd though that California worries more about unlikely causes of cancer but refuses to put a warning sticker on the sun.

They don't have a tall enough ladder.

Ah Yes! California, the land of fruits and nuts.. :p

California, the land of organic fruits and nuts. lol

Not true, poking it in your eye may also cause harm and may lead to cancer.

Odd though that California worries more about unlikely causes of cancer but refuses to put a warning sticker on the sun.

We tried, but the only suitable material to make the decal out of was asbestos. So for now, we simply live in denial.

I lived in CA when prop 65 passed. We thought we were passing a much more specific labeling law. Once the right-wing lobbyists and lawyers got done with it all we had left was the vague, useless label you saw. Fortunately, one can now usually find more detailed information about labeled products on-line, so it is not quite as bad as it was.

I think you mean the "Left Wing"

The Right is the capitalist that employed people who paid the taxes to make it in the first place. They would have lobbied not to have printed the labels because it drove up the cost.

Comifornia is run by the Left wing that thought this was a good idea in the first place.

They (CARB) (http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm) also recently made gas cans useless trying to hold the vapors when pouring. NOW you spill gas all over the ground when trying to fill your lawnmower...But hay that gas can didn't let any vapors escape! (The gas spilled on the ground let 50 times as much go and actual made a spill that contaminated the soil).

Gubment run amuck

We tried, but the only suitable material to make the decal out of was asbestos. So for now, we simply live in denial.:thumb:

I think you mean the "Left Wing"

The Right is the capitalist that employed people who paid the taxes to make it in the first place. They would have lobbied not to have printed the labels because it drove up the cost.

Comifornia is run by the Left wing that thought this was a good idea in the first place.

They (CARB) (http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm) also recently made gas cans useless trying to hold the vapors when pouring. NOW you spill gas all over the ground when trying to fill your lawnmower...But hay that gas can didn't let any vapors escape! (The gas spilled on the ground let 50 times as much go and actual made a spill that contaminated the soil).

Gubment run amuck
Classic post.

They (CARB) (http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm) also recently made gas cans useless trying to hold the vapors when pouring. NOW you spill gas all over the ground when trying to fill your lawnmower...But hay that gas can didn't let any vapors escape! (The gas spilled on the ground let 50 times as much go and actual made a spill that contaminated the soil).

Gubment run amuckI am sure there are some smart Californians that drive to Arizona to buy their gas cans.

...so, just don't use the cargo net in California, and you'll be fine :thumb:

I am sure there are some smart Californians that drive to Arizona to buy their gas cans.

There was except CARB starts most of these change nation wide as did this one. It is Federal law now.

The design is actually toted as being spill proof as well but it is so hard to use on small equipment that the device is removed completely or you have to juggle the can manually activate the spout while trying to aim on smaller products like chain saws etc A three handed job. Bought one of these damn things for my chain saw gas because the cap got cracked on the old can. first time I used it spilled fuel all over the place. Still using the can withthe craked cap now.

The legal disclaimers are ridiculous.It gets even better when products are shipped and sold in countries where the disclaimer is null and void. I just bought a new GT commuting bike that came with no less than 4 warnings: one label for each wheel (regarding lawyer lips) and one label on top tube (standover height IIRC). And finally the one written in the handlebar: grip firmly at both ends for best performance, or somesuch nonsense. And as said, none of them serve a legal purpose here.

At least I had some pleasure in peeling off the three stickers, as they had "DO NOT REMOVE THIS LABEL" printed on them in bold, unfriendly letters. I'm not sure how to remove the handlebar text. :rolleyes:

--J

I am sure there are some smart Californians that drive to Arizona to buy their gas cans.

Actually those are Republican Californians who buy Arizona gas cans to resell to the liberal Californians.

[mod hat on]

And before anyone gets carried away too much, please remember this is Commuting, not Politics & Religion. Thank you.

--Juha, a Forum Mod

[mod hat off]

I think the only real danger is if you try to have sex with your cargo net. Something bad might happen then. Note, this only means actual intercourse with the net. Using it as an aid in your lovemaking is perfectly safe.

("....contains chemical known to the State of California.....")

Interesting thread. I've often wondered what exclusive information California has, unknown to the rest of us poor slobs living elsewhere, that made them privy to all of these horrible dangers. It's amazing anyone else is still alive.

[mod hat on]

And before anyone gets carried away too much, please remember this is Commuting, not Politics & Religion. Thank you.

--Juha, a Forum Mod

[mod hat off]


No.. let us thank you.

I am sure there are some smart Californians that drive to Arizona to buy their gas cans.


Actually those are Republican Californians who buy Arizona gas cans to resell to the liberal Californians.That is what I said, smart Californians.


Sorry Juha the Mod, but that one was too good to resist.

There was except CARB starts most of these change nation wide as did this one. It is Federal law now.
Guess I will be keeping my old gas can for a very long time, now.

Sorry for being too much carried away: does anyone know the reason that the material labels on pillows have "Do not remove this label" disclaim on them?

Sorry for being too much carried away: does anyone know the reason that the material labels on pillows have "Do not remove this label" disclaim on them?"Do not remove this label" does not apply to end user (you). I tells all the people before you buy it, that it is against the law for them to remove the label.

"Do not remove this label" does not apply to end user (you). I tells all the people before you buy it, that it is against the law for them to remove the label.

Oh, I see. That means I can remove it now! :D

Ah Yes! California, the land of fruits and nuts.. :p

Yep...and I grow 'em.

People in CA smoke all kinds of s**t so I guess that's why this warning, in case someone tries to smoke it...

Be nice if they told you what that chemical was.

This. Carbon black is listed as a possible carcinogen in Prop 65, the law which requires the label. Any product that has black colored plastic has this compound. It is only carcinogenic in power form (respirable size), so the risk is ridiculously low. The law has created a desensitization of risk which may actually be relevant for other products.

Aspirin and sand are also on the CA list.

It's probably not carbon black since most bungee cords don't use that. It's more likely butadiene which is a suspected carcinogen.

'Sand' is not on the list. 'Silica, crystalline (airborne particles of respirable size)' however is on the list. This material has been known as a health hazard since the Greeks and Romans. The introduction of the air powered drill to mining in the mid1800s vastly increased the incidence of death due to this cause. The air powered drills were known as the "widow maker" until the introduction of water cooled drill in 1904

Nearly everything on that list is nasty and should only be used with care. Aspirin may seem silly but it does create some problems for pregnancies. Whether or not those problems result in cancer is questionable but they do cause other issues
(http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/aspirin-during-pregnancy/AN01897)

Generally, however, aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs — including ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin, others) — aren't recommended as pain relievers during pregnancy.

Before birth, a baby receives oxygen through blood from the placenta. At birth, a natural drop in prostaglandin levels in some of the baby's blood vessels drives the baby's circulatory system to reroute blood flow to the lungs. Since aspirin blocks the production of prostaglandins, taking aspirin during pregnancy — especially after 32 weeks — could trigger the baby's blood flow to be rerouted in the uterus. This could cause potentially fatal problems for the baby.

("....contains chemical known to the State of California.....")

Interesting thread. I've often wondered what exclusive information California has, unknown to the rest of us poor slobs living elsewhere, that made them privy to all of these horrible dangers. It's amazing anyone else is still alive.

This is not to pick on you particularly MNBikeguy but your post seems to be like all the others that are making fun of those 'stupid Californians' (and making an argument for ignorance). Do you, or any of the other boys snickering in the back of the science room, know the toxicity of acetaldehyde, aristolochic acids, benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, cumene, toluene, or vinyl chloride...just to pick a few? Do you know where you might run across anything on that list, what they are used for, what they might do to you, how much is present in certain common items, etc.?

I, as a professional chemist, could probably put my hands...not that I'd want to and I'd certainly wear personal protective equipment...on about half of that list. Before I'd use them, however, I study the hazards and use them very cautiously. I certainly would limit my exposure as much as possible to them because many of those items on the list are not only carcinogens but they are acute toxins as well. That's science speak for 'you won't get cancer 'cause you'll be dead before that happens'. Those items are on the list not because some faceless bureaucratic put them there but because some faceless scientists made them their life's study. You can all snicker all you like about how 'stupid' the scientist are but they are the ones who actually study this stuff so that your kids aren't born with 2 heads or you don't die of cancer before your 40th birthday. When you make it to 80 years old, thank those scientists.

Scientist aren't necessarily smarter than the average person, we're just better educated. Ignorance isn't bliss, ignorance is just ignorance.

This is not to pick on you particularly MNBikeguy but your post seems to be like all the others that are making fun of those 'stupid Californians' (and making an argument for ignorance). Do you, or any of the other boys snickering in the back of the science room, know the toxicity of acetaldehyde, aristolochic acids, benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, cumene, toluene, or vinyl chloride...just to pick a few? Do you know where you might run across anything on that list, what they are used for, what they might do to you, how much is present in certain common items, etc.?

I, as a professional chemist, could probably put my hands...not that I'd want to and I'd certainly wear personal protective equipment...on about half of that list. Before I'd use them, however, I study the hazards and use them very cautiously. I certainly would limit my exposure as much as possible to them because many of those items on the list are not only carcinogens but they are acute toxins as well. That's science speak for 'you won't get cancer 'cause you'll be dead before that happens'. Those items are on the list not because some faceless bureaucratic put them there but because some faceless scientists made them their life's study. You can all snicker all you like about how 'stupid' the scientist are but they are the ones who actually study this stuff so that your kids aren't born with 2 heads or you don't die of cancer before your 40th birthday. When you make it to 80 years old, thank those scientists.

Scientist aren't necessarily smarter than the average person, we're just better educated. Ignorance isn't bliss, ignorance is just ignorance.


That is what material safety data sheets (MSDS) are for. In particular, a hazardous substance may only be hazardous in certain forms. Few are hazardous in final products. Further, I know of no product/substance that is known to cause cancer, only substances that have shown correlation to cancer rates... Two entirely different things.

The bottom line is that we don't need such labels, existing product liability laws more than cover consumers...

Scientists are not better educated, they have more knowledge in a specialized area... Again not the same thing. I also hate the term scientist, since a chemist (for instance) typically does not have any more knowledge about another area of science (other than their specialty) than a comparably educated (same education level) average citizen. It is the main reason any statement that begins; "Scientists say..." should be viewed with great suspicion.

Those labels always remind me of the politican (another Kalifornian I believe) who tried to have dihydrogen monoxide treated as hazardous waste... For those who may miss it, dihydrogen monoxide is most commonly known as water...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

That is what material safety data sheets (MSDS) are for. In particular, a hazardous substance may only be hazardous in certain forms. Few are hazardous in final products.

The prop 65 list actually specifies the hazardous form, not just a blanket blacklist.

That is what material safety data sheets (MSDS) are for. In particular, a hazardous substance may only be hazardous in certain forms. Few are hazardous in final products. Further, I know of no product/substance that is known to cause cancer, only substances that have shown correlation to cancer rates... Two entirely different things.

The bottom line is that we don't need such labels, existing product liability laws more than cover consumers...

Scientists are not better educated, they have more knowledge in a specialized area... Again not the same thing. I also hate the term scientist, since a chemist (for instance) typically does not have any more knowledge about another area of science (other than their specialty) than a comparably educated (same education level) average citizen. It is the main reason any statement that begins; "Scientists say..." should be viewed with great suspicion.


No. An MSDS provides the properties and hazards of a particular material. It's used for workers who handle the material, transportation of the material and for emergency responders. The MSDS may list acute toxicity but seldom do they list long term toxicity. The California list is a short hand for a whole lot of research that has been done on chemicals that you may, or may not, find in common products. Often, the chemical that is toxic can be found in small quantities even in the finished product. For the OP's example, butadiene monomer may be present even after the material has been polymerized and cured.

There are known human carcinogens. Several agencies...both national and international...list known human carcinogens. Look here (http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/GeneralInformationaboutCarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens) for the list. Most of the items listed on the California list are on those lists.

"Better educated" means more knowledgeable in a specialized area. And I am more knowledgeable in other areas of science than a comparably educated citizen. An English or business or art or history major didn't have to take physics, advanced math, thermodynamics and biology in addition to their core classes. To get to be a physicist or geologist or biologist or chemist or any scientist, you have to have knowledge of other field of science. It's how the process works.


Those labels always remind me of the politican (another Kalifornian I believe) who tried to have dihydrogen monoxide treated as hazardous waste... For those who may miss it, dihydrogen monoxide is most commonly known as water...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

I'm not sure of what your point is here, considering that this is a joke to demonstrate the lack of scientific literacy of the general public. It kind of proves my point. Want another? Beware of β-D-fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-D-glucopyranoside! It's a deadly poison (according to some)! Doctors (dentists) say to avoid its use!

That is what material safety data sheets (MSDS) are for. In particular, a hazardous substance may only be hazardous in certain forms. Few are hazardous in final products. Further, I know of no product/substance that is known to cause cancer, only substances that have shown correlation to cancer rates... Two entirely different things.

The bottom line is that we don't need such labels, existing product liability laws more than cover consumers...

Scientists are not better educated, they have more knowledge in a specialized area... Again not the same thing. I also hate the term scientist, since a chemist (for instance) typically does not have any more knowledge about another area of science (other than their specialty) than a comparably educated (same education level) average citizen. It is the main reason any statement that begins; "Scientists say..." should be viewed with great suspicion.

Those labels always remind me of the politican (another Kalifornian I believe) who tried to have dihydrogen monoxide treated as hazardous waste... For those who may miss it, dihydrogen monoxide is most commonly known as water...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
This is really unfortunate to read, though it does sort of stand as an interesting example of various rhetorical devices.

MSDS sheets are obviously not readily available to the average consumer, let alone all of those who will come into contact with an item. You already know this, but choose to bring it up in an attempt to discredit the argument. Sort of a funny red herring.

The bit about scientists not being better educated is, of course, not only untrue but also a significant straw man. The average person does not hold a high-level degree, first of all, and the poster was clearly discussing an issue - chemicals - which does fall within his purported area of expertise.

The dihydrogen monoxide hoax is often brought up by people wishing to discredit environmentalists or their activism, or sometimes "intellectual elites" (another purposely loaded term), but the fact is the hoax only works because of multiple lies of omission. If I tell you that a harmless substance is toxic, and ask if you are against it, are you a fool for agreeing? Is it everyone's responsibility to understand chemical naming conventions?

I'm not sure of what your point is here, considering that this is a joke to demonstrate the lack of scientific literacy of the general public. It kind of proves my point. Want another? Beware of β-D-fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-D-glucopyranoside! It's a deadly poison (according to some)! Doctors (dentists) say to avoid its use!i'll stick with just having fruits for my sugar, and my coffee unsweetened.

This is really unfortunate to read, though it does sort of stand as an interesting example of various rhetorical devices.

MSDS sheets are obviously not readily available to the average consumer, let alone all of those who will come into contact with an item. You already know this, but choose to bring it up in an attempt to discredit the argument. Sort of a funny red herring.

The bit about scientists not being better educated is, of course, not only untrue but also a significant straw man. The average person does not hold a high-level degree, first of all, and the poster was clearly discussing an issue - chemicals - which does fall within his purported area of expertise.

The dihydrogen monoxide hoax is often brought up by people wishing to discredit environmentalists or their activism, or sometimes "intellectual elites" (another purposely loaded term), but the fact is the hoax only works because of multiple lies of omission. If I tell you that a harmless substance is toxic, and ask if you are against it, are you a fool for agreeing? Is it everyone's responsibility to understand chemical naming conventions?


I routinely use MSDS sheets (they are readily available on the web) for substances I come in contact with for my hobbies...

A scientist is only better educated in the specific field they studied/work in. That is my point. A chemist is not a better source of information about biology than anyone else who had some college level science classes in biology. The same can be said for any two unrelated science fields. That is why I dislike the term scientist. The group is not homogeneous and therefore the value of their opinions vary with how related the subject is to their specialty. That is one of the reason that ethical codes usually frown on assuming the role of expert in fields outside one's specialty. So no, not a straw man argument.

The water/chemical hoax, was a perfect example for this thread. More than one political entity took the claims seriously at various legislative levels. The thread is about ridiculous warning labels because of a political decision, not a science one. In a democracy, it is everyone's responsibility to be skeptical about claims used to justify legislation, especially claims based upon scientific evidence as it is usually supplied by those advocating such measures. At least one thing that is almost universally true in science is that the truth is rarely as simple as presented to the public.

No. An MSDS provides the properties and hazards of a particular material. It's used for workers who handle the material, transportation of the material and for emergency responders. The MSDS may list acute toxicity but seldom do they list long term toxicity. The California list is a short hand for a whole lot of research that has been done on chemicals that you may, or may not, find in common products. Often, the chemical that is toxic can be found in small quantities even in the finished product. For the OP's example, butadiene monomer may be present even after the material has been polymerized and cured.

There are known human carcinogens. Several agencies...both national and international...list known human carcinogens. Look here (http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/GeneralInformationaboutCarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens) for the list. Most of the items listed on the California list are on those lists.

"Better educated" means more knowledgeable in a specialized area. And I am more knowledgeable in other areas of science than a comparably educated citizen. An English or business or art or history major didn't have to take physics, advanced math, thermodynamics and biology in addition to their core classes. To get to be a physicist or geologist or biologist or chemist or any scientist, you have to have knowledge of other field of science. It's how the process works.



I'm not sure of what your point is here, considering that this is a joke to demonstrate the lack of scientific literacy of the general public. It kind of proves my point. Want another? Beware of β-D-fructofuranosyl-(2→1)-α-D-glucopyranoside! It's a deadly poison (according to some)! Doctors (dentists) say to avoid its use!


While certainly not a scientist, I do know that the use of the phrase "carcinogens cause cancer" is simply not correct. First cancer, is still a relatively un-understood disease, if it wasn't we'd be able to cure it or prevent it. Carcinogens are labeled as such because studies (which may or may not have been performed correctly) determined that there was a high enough correlation between one or more types of cancer and that substance. As anyone who has studied statistics knows, that correlation does not imply a causal relationship. Indeed with the difficulties involved in human studies, it is all but impossible to experimentally determine causation...

Take tobacco smoke for instance. It is a listed carcinogen, yet not everyone who smokes or chews it develops cancer? Why? No one, not even the experts know. All that we can say is that tobocco smoking raises your chances of getting certain types of cancer. That is most certainly not the same as saying tobacco smoke causes cancer... If you are indeed a professional chemist, I assume you use much more precise language when publishing/presenting your results...

And no, as a chemist your opinions on unrelated sciences, such as microbiology, physiology, etc. have no more legitimacy than anyone else who took a few undergraduate courses in those subjects, which frankly is not much more (though some) than the general public. Advanced math is a perfect example, one of the biggest faults in peer reviewed science papers is misapplication of the mathematics. Misuse or misapplication of statistical analysis, incorrect or inappropriate use of specific mathematical techniques. It is why physicists, who are very versed in advanced mathematics, will have their work reviewed by pure mathematicians who specialize in the techniques applied--to find subtle mistakes because of lack of knowledge. For disciplines, such as biology and the softer sciences, where knowledge of mathematics is more limited, it is even more important. Even as a lay person, it is fairly easy to find misuse of statistical procedures in such disciplines. A perfect example is the phrase carcinogens cause cancer.

The only label that would make any sense would be something like the following; "The use of this product could cause death, injury or other health problems, particularly if not used in the manner for which it is intended..." And that label could be put on any product made or used by humans... Even the sugar you jokingly refer to... That was the point of my reference to the water hoax... As a scientist you should know the devil is in the details, which are usually lost when science is used as a justification for public policy.

This is not to pick on you particularly MNBikeguy but your post seems to be like all the others that are making fun of those 'stupid Californians' (and making an argument for ignorance). Do you, or any of the other boys snickering in the back of the science room, know the toxicity of acetaldehyde, aristolochic acids, benzene, 1,3-Butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, cumene, toluene, or vinyl chloride...just to pick a few? Do you know where you might run across anything on that list, what they are used for, what they might do to you, how much is present in certain common items, etc.?

I, as a professional chemist, could probably put my hands...not that I'd want to and I'd certainly wear personal protective equipment...on about half of that list. Before I'd use them, however, I study the hazards and use them very cautiously. I certainly would limit my exposure as much as possible to them because many of those items on the list are not only carcinogens but they are acute toxins as well. That's science speak for 'you won't get cancer 'cause you'll be dead before that happens'. Those items are on the list not because some faceless bureaucratic put them there but because some faceless scientists made them their life's study. You can all snicker all you like about how 'stupid' the scientist are but they are the ones who actually study this stuff so that your kids aren't born with 2 heads or you don't die of cancer before your 40th birthday. When you make it to 80 years old, thank those scientists.

Scientist aren't necessarily smarter than the average person, we're just better educated. Ignorance isn't bliss, ignorance is just ignorance.

I did not make my point clear. I would never make fun of scientists, nor call them stupid. That festive pastime is best left for my profession.
I do not know the toxicity of aristolochic acids. I can't even pronounce them. Thank god you and other scientists understand it. We need professionals dedicated to understanding carcinogens and their affect on us. Several posts have gone on to split hairs. That is better left for a scientist to argue.
My frustration is with the specific (and often found) label being discussed; "This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm."
That statement provides no useful information whatsoever and only causes confusion. What chemical? Why only California mentioned? It also implies a legal imbalance. Is California law more stringent than other states? Surely this same unknown "chemical" is just as deadly in Minnesota. Could the Minnesota legislature not be as concerned as California? I see the same warning everywhere - from the auto parts store to the gas pump. It's overkill to the point of confusion. At what point does this mysterious warning warrant our attention? If we could leave scientists to provide whatever information we need here, we'd be much better off. Instead, all we have is a vague and worthless "legal disclaimer".