Video games with cancer and reproductive harm warning

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

1 hour ago, Tanooki said:

Eh what?  Hack it?  Weather aside, I didn't like the state even before it turned into a test bed for liberal democrat leaning really bad ideas and schemes.  Too expensive sure but the pay kind of balances that, the over crowding, dirtiness, crime, awful traffic, lack of friendliness, wasted time, leaning towards bilingual or no job garbage, the list goes on.  I know you're joking, but I was glad to leave the first time, escape the second.  Outside of vacation there's just not much to like left there anymore sadly.

In addition to it being amazing that CA is the only state with “crime” or “unfriendliness”, I appreciate you stating your opinions as fact. Really makes them count that much more. 

 

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

I've lived here for nearly thirty years and aside from the traffic (which is only during rush hour), I've never experienced any of that. But hey, hit all the untrue cliches while you're at it.

He wouldn’t believe me if I told him that commuting 30 miles each way from Sf to san jose, I literally sit in zero traffic. but hey, as far as terrible cliches go, it beats the daily earthquakes and feces/ heroin needles everywhere!

[cj_robot | 542]

As flawed as these laws can be, it's still better that we have them with the possibility of being tweaked in the future, rather than not have them at all. For way too long, corporations have been able to poison the population without anyone knowing about it. It's a good thing to have some accountability. People rip on California, but at least people there care about this stuff.

[GPX | 1,370]

7 hours ago, cj_robot said:

As flawed as these laws can be, it's still better that we have them with the possibility of being tweaked in the future, rather than not have them at all. For way too long, corporations have been able to poison the population without anyone knowing about it. It's a good thing to have some accountability. People rip on California, but at least people there care about this stuff.

There’s caring with good intentions, and then there’s caring with ego-stroking. This topic seems to be an issue of the latter rather than the former.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

1 hour ago, GPX said:

There’s caring with good intentions, and then there’s caring with ego-stroking. This topic seems to be an issue of the latter rather than the former.

Whos ego is getting stroked? Lol. 
 

This topic basically turned into people crying about how terrible California is, which is what commonly happens online when discussing the state. Jealousy? 

[fcgamer | 4,727]

21 hours ago, Tulpa said:

I live in LA, the hotbed of whatever conservatives gripe about at any given moment. But you know, we actually contribute to the nation, rather than those states that mooch off of it. If any state's gone downhill, it certainly isn't this one.

I contribute to the nation too, and I don't even live there anymore.

[GPX | 1,370]

15 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Whos ego is getting stroked? Lol. 
 

This topic basically turned into people crying about how terrible California is, which is what commonly happens online when discussing the state. Jealousy? 

I was referring to the law makers, not people’s views on California as a state. Law makers enforcing a rule to mention cancer/pregnancy risks with seemingly good intention, but with zero benefit to any of the consumers. The “zero benefit to the consumers” is the ego-stroking part from my previous post.

[fcgamer | 4,727]

19 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

He wouldn’t believe me if I told him that commuting 30 miles each way from Sf to san jose, I literally sit in zero traffic. but hey, as far as terrible cliches go, it beats the daily earthquakes and feces/ heroin needles everywhere!

Well are there basically "daily earthquakes"? In Taiwan there are, but to say that to someone who's never lived in an earthquake region before, the reality of the situation is much, much different from how people might imagine it to be.

[Tulpa | 3,510]

Most of the Pacific Rim has "daily earthquakes." 99% are only detected by seismographs.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

43 minutes ago, GPX said:

I was referring to the law makers, not people’s views on California as a state. Law makers enforcing a rule to mention cancer/pregnancy risks with seemingly good intention, but with zero benefit to any of the consumers. The “zero benefit to the consumers” is the ego-stroking part from my previous post.

So I still dont get it. The lawmakers are stroking their own egos? How is letting people make their own decisions  based on what corporations try to sneak by “zero benefit”?

 

Didnt some talcum powder company cause ovarian cancer in a ton of women? Bet they wished they were warned that was cancerous. 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

43 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Well are there basically "daily earthquakes"? In Taiwan there are, but to say that to someone who's never lived in an earthquake region before, the reality of the situation is much, much different from how people might imagine it to be.

No there are not. I can only remember 3-5 of them total, in 39 years. One being the loma prieta in 1989 that was by far the most aggressive and longest. 

[fcgamer | 4,727]

6 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

No there are not. I can only remember 3-5 of them total, in 39 years. One being the loma prieta in 1989 that was by far the most aggressive and longest. 

Well that seems to be a bit odd, as I did a quick search and found this.

Looks like daily earthquakes are indeed the norm for California.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

36 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Well that seems to be a bit odd, as I did a quick search and found this.

Looks like daily earthquakes are indeed the norm for California.

Yeah like Tulpa said, you cant actually feel those. There are thousands of earthquakes everyday that nobody feels. Usually 3.5 and higher, as long as you are within a short distance to the epicenter. 
 

My current house is about 1000’ away from the San Andreas Fault, and I havent felt and earthquake since we lived here. 

[fcgamer | 4,727]

3 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Yeah like Tulpa said, you cant actually feel those. There are thousands of earthquakes everyday that nobody feels. Usually 3.5 and higher, as long as you are within a short distance to the epicenter. 
 

My current house is about 1000’ away from the San Andreas Fault, and I havent felt and earthquake since we lived here. 

Well, yeah. Taiwan's exactly the same.

Outsiders will notice them though, at least until they get used to it. I was very earthquake sensitive when I first arrived in Taiwan.

That's my point though, to say California doesn't have daily earthquakes is simply untrue, though for the uninitiated, they are imagining catastrophic huge-ass tremors most likely, whereas the reality is much much different.

[GPX | 1,370]

58 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

So I still dont get it. The lawmakers are stroking their own egos? How is letting people make their own decisions  based on what corporations try to sneak by “zero benefit”?

 

Didnt some talcum powder company cause ovarian cancer in a ton of women? Bet they wished they were warned that was cancerous. 

I explained it in prior posts. If the risks are neglible, there is no need to mention it, if anything it can cause undue stress. 

If the risks are indeed significant, there needs to be more mention of the causative nature of such risks. Example, cancer risk from touching, sniffing or ingesting product? What is the life time risk, 0.1% or 0.0000001%? Informed warning needs to be done with care, not just bandied around with a quick throw-away one liner.

Edited January 7, 2022 by GPX

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

I mean, i was obviously over exaggerating when I was speaking about untrue cliches, but thanks for clarifying that there are actually daily earthquakes.  

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

2 minutes ago, GPX said:

I explained it in prior posts. If the risks are neglible, there is no need to mention it, if anything it can cause undue stress. 

If the risks are indeed significant, there needs to be more mention of the causative nature of such risks. Example, cancer risk from touching, sniffing or ingesting product? What is the life time risk, 0.1% or 0.0000001%? Informed warning needs to be done with care, not just bandied around with a quick throw-away one liner.

Or you could notify people and if they want to do more research, they can.  That information exists, it just cant be displayed as easily as a sign. 
 

 Its obviously not realistic to have signage at a place like an automotive repair shop, thats gives you all the cancer causing information for everything there that actually can cause cancer. Asbestos, sulfur, parts wash, carb cleaner, refrigerant, etc. The walls would be covered in fine print signage. 
 

There is something called an MSDS that is required to by OSHA at any location where chemicals are present, and that should include all that kind of info. 
 

I dont see how there is a quicker, easier way to notify people to avoid things if they want.  Why don’t you tell me how you could do it better?  Why do you think that you get to decide what is “significant” or not? Why not notify people and let them dig deeper, or just avoid a product?

Still sounds like people just trying to find something to complain about. 

[Tulpa | 3,510]

2 hours ago, fcgamer said:

I contribute to the nation too, and I don't even live there anymore.

Well, good to know you're subsidizing states like Mississippi and Kentucky.

[cj_robot | 542]

2 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Or you could notify people and if they want to do more research, they can.  That information exists, it just cant be displayed as easily as a sign. 

This is it exactly. It still is the responsibility of each person to do their own research and make an informed decision. But it also forces businesses to at least disclose that they are using materials that are potentially dangerous, which is pretty damn important to know.

This is a pretty significant topic for me personally. When my wife was very young, both of her parents got cancer, and only one of them survived it. It was very likely due to the chemicals used on the farms in their small town. Decades later, her mother was involved in a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, but whatever she got from that is obviously worthless compared to what they had already lost.

There are cases like this all over the place and the stuff that happens in many other countries are even worse. It's great when companies eventually have to pay damages for what they've done, but it would be infinitely more valuable for these horrible cases to have been prevented before they ever happened.

As imperfect as laws like this particular one may be, it's most assuredly a step in the right direction.

Edited January 7, 2022 by cj_robot

[GPX | 1,370]

2 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Or you could notify people and if they want to do more research, they can.  That information exists, it just cant be displayed as easily as a sign. 
 

 Its obviously not realistic to have signage at a place like an automotive repair shop, thats gives you all the cancer causing information for everything there that actually can cause cancer. Asbestos, sulfur, parts wash, carb cleaner, refrigerant, etc. The walls would be covered in fine print signage. 
 

There is something called an MSDS that is required to by OSHA at any location where chemicals are present, and that should include all that kind of info. 
 

I dont see how there is a quicker, easier way to notify people to avoid things if they want.  Why don’t you tell me how you could do it better?  Why do you think that you get to decide what is “significant” or not? Why not notify people and let them dig deeper, or just avoid a product?

Still sounds like people just trying to find something to complain about. 

I think I should mention that I have a genuine interest in health topics, and cancer being a topic I have a strong interest in. So with that in mind, I’m not taking this thread lightly. 

I probably should know more info on what’s covered in the manual, whether the cancer/pregnancy risks are talked about further. If not, then in the least, they should make a reference of an article or website that talks more in detail. This is my genuine suggestion. 

If it’s a mere mention “warning, cancer/pregnancy risk”, then it’s simply a well-meaning quote without any significance to the consumer. Here’s an analogy to ram home my point:

Imagine you’re in a consultation with your doctor. The doctor ends with “here’s a medication that can help. Oh, time’s up, I need to move onto my next patient. Oh yeah, the medication has cancer/pregnancy risks. Ok, bye!”

[fcgamer | 4,727]

8 hours ago, Tulpa said:

Well, good to know you're subsidizing states like Mississippi and Kentucky.

Hopefully I'm subsidizing Pennsylvania, but likely I'm subsidizing bullshit.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

11 hours ago, GPX said:

I think I should mention that I have a genuine interest in health topics, and cancer being a topic I have a strong interest in. So with that in mind, I’m not taking this thread lightly. 

I probably should know more info on what’s covered in the manual, whether the cancer/pregnancy risks are talked about further. If not, then in the least, they should make a reference of an article or website that talks more in detail. This is my genuine suggestion. 

If it’s a mere mention “warning, cancer/pregnancy risk”, then it’s simply a well-meaning quote without any significance to the consumer. Here’s an analogy to ram home my point:

Imagine you’re in a consultation with your doctor. The doctor ends with “here’s a medication that can help. Oh, time’s up, I need to move onto my next patient. Oh yeah, the medication has cancer/pregnancy risks. Ok, bye!”

Thats the US healthcare system in a Nutshell lol.
 

And just for the record, that prop signage is usually on display in doctors offices and hospitals too. 
 

You arent thinking about the economy of scale, as you have to create a warning that balances efficiency with actual notification requirements.  California is physically huge, with a gigantic, varied population. 
 

Since most things nowadays cause cancer, it is far easier to shoot out a boilerplate “something here may fuck you up” then the idea that someone would constantly be updating websites and signage with the most up to date info across thousands of items and businesses. Its just unrealistic.  

[GPX | 1,370]

14 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Thats the US healthcare system in a Nutshell lol.
 

And just for the record, that prop signage is usually on display in doctors offices and hospitals too. 
 

You arent thinking about the economy of scale, as you have to create a warning that balances efficiency with actual notification requirements.  California is physically huge, with a gigantic, varied population. 
 

Since most things nowadays cause cancer, it is far easier to shoot out a boilerplate “something here may fuck you up” then the idea that someone would constantly be updating websites and signage with the most up to date info across thousands of items and businesses. Its just unrealistic.  

I’m sorry, but you’re still missing the point. When we’re talking about information regarding a serious topic such as cancer/pregnancy risks, there NEEDS to be more information about it. The extent of the risks, how it’s caused, and how it can be minimised when using the material is vital to our informed decision on whether or not to buy the product. 

The common consumer shouldn’t be expected to do the research, because they might not know where to start, or their research might lead to wrong sources which can further confuse their decisions.

A web link or a study reference is perhaps all that’s needed. There’s no need for any updates unless a new study is performed which changes the risks. 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

10 hours ago, GPX said:

I’m sorry, but you’re still missing the point. When we’re talking about information regarding a serious topic such as cancer/pregnancy risks, there NEEDS to be more information about it. The extent of the risks, how it’s caused, and how it can be minimised when using the material is vital to our informed decision on whether or not to buy the product. 

The common consumer shouldn’t be expected to do the research, because they might not know where to start, or their research might lead to wrong sources which can further confuse their decisions.

A web link or a study reference is perhaps all that’s needed. There’s no need for any updates unless a new study is performed which changes the risks. 

You are missing the point. Other states dont tell you shit. This is giving you the heads up. End of story. 
 

You can say “ well this SHOULD be” whatever.   I dont see how arguing for more complicated requirements is some how better.  All the information is out there.
 

Your initial complaint was it was ego stroking from law makers, now its that there isnt the proper information? Seems legit. 
 

Business or Product:

”Things around here or this item may contain things that may be bad for your health”

Consumer walking by at quick glance:

”Oh ok. I choose not to use this product or enter because I am concerned about my health”

 

 

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

On 1/6/2022 at 7:20 PM, MrWunderful said:

Whos ego is getting stroked? Lol. 
 

This topic basically turned into people crying about how terrible California is, which is what commonly happens online when discussing the state. Jealousy? 

Ohio is better on simply on the basis that California doesn't have Skyline Chili.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

On 1/8/2022 at 11:33 AM, Bearcat-Doug said:

Ohio is better on simply on the basis that California doesn't have Skyline Chili.

Yeah, well……

 

Our sports teams are better, college too!