ballgunner

My Feedback: (1)

As do most things from California a warning is required. The labels don't need warnings of the content, just a wrning about the point of origination.

BaronSchwab

So now everything from Calafornia causes cancer? Well I'm ready for that state to fall in the ocean.

LANNYBOB

california and its government are taking way too much drugs. the air in L.A. causes cancer thats why they have planes flying around the sky and sky writing to its people not to breath the AIR because it causes cancer.

LANNYBOB

terminators cant get cancer because they cant self destruct.

LANNYBOB

i heard that all glow engines and gas engines on r.c. planes must have a catalytic converter and smog pump on them in order to pass their smog laws.

LANNYBOB

when i lived there many years ago and my dad was flying an r.c. plane, the E.P.A. came over to my dad and told him to shut it down because its polluting the environment and may cause cancer.

LANNYBOB

i once heard that before you can fly an r.c. plane in california you have to take it down and have the motor smog checked.

LANNYBOB

california has gotten so crazy with thier laws, that 4- strokes are banned because their exhaust might be known to cause cancer and other birth defects.

LANNYBOB

my nephew who lives in L.A. county told me that prop blasts from other planes have been known to cause cancer

LANNYBOB

it just goes to show you that CALIFORNIA is the CANCER and to stay away.

East RC

the funny thing is the wording on the stickers....contains cancer causing chemicals.....so they established that the batteries contain cancer, but they want say what kind of chemicals the cancer creates?? I ponder, which is more dangerous....the cancer in the batteries or the mysterious chemicals they create.maybe it's the mongoloid who oversaw the manufacture of the sticker itself....we may never know

BaronSchwab

The problem is the inventor of all the unknown substances.

monsterman1791

My Feedback: (2)

Its stupid that everything they have is a cancer causing thing the funny thing is that lannybob said to stay away from the cancer causing place but i think its spredding to our countrys because it seems like everyone is seeing this sticker i got a pair of lights for my truck and it had the same sticker [:@]

osxpro

My Feedback: (51)

OSHA classifies sand (Yes, YES I SAID SAND -AS IN BEACH SAND!) as carcinogenic (that means causes cancer - for those of you in california). I've seen the OSHA warning signs in several places... Get the @#$& outta hear already!

BaronSchwab

Sand? wow.

osxpro

My Feedback: (51)

Yes Sand.... Sand contains silica, Silica is a "known carcinogen"... You see, what the EPA dipwadds do is pump rats with HUGE quantities of whatever substance and when the animal gets cancer they put it on the list... If I ate 40 lbs of sand a day I'm sure I'd get something too!
That's the catch, they pump the animal with about 500-1000 times of the normal INGESTIBLE substance and guess what... Ding Ding Ding, CANCER!

BaronSchwab

Yeah I knew they did that. Their studies are not realistic.

bubbagates

My Feedback: (32)

Put a hole in it and you'll have a self tosting poptart

Gravityisnotmyfriend

My Feedback: (2)

This thread is ridiculous. That is what I thought until I looked at the back of the bag of wheel collars I just bought today. This is the actual scan of the whole back part of the package.[sm=confused.gif] You can't make this stuff up
THEY'RE JUST WHEEL COLLARS![:@]
I don't know how I'd keep my wheels on if I lived in CA.

IronCross

Hey, I orderd a prop nut from Horizon for a Saito and it came with a cancer causing sticker...
California, the Democarts poster state...

dvhorn00

I wonder how much cancer the ink they are using to produce these lables are causing.

50+AirYears

As a First Responder and a member of my companies Safety Team, I recieve numerous safety oriented magazines, paper and on line. The head of EPA came out in an interview and stated that many of these warnings do not come from them. Their list is a lot smaller than what gets published. Many of these warnings are publishe by mfgs as a self-defense thing.

In California, it apparently is unhealthy to breath the air, drink the water, or eat the food, or even enter the state. IMHO the Fed should do something to totally shut down California's apparent control over the rest of the Country. If they want to set the warning levels, let them keep them in their own state, and don't involve the rest of us.

My county has so many problems with these standards. Every other year we have to go down and have an E-Check on our cars, because we are contributing to increasing air pollution East of us. Standards set because of LA Smog. Yet, historically (or histarically), the first record of unhealthy air pollution in the LA area occurs in the log of the first Spanish ship to enter the bay. The report on PBS said that they found out that local Indian tribes would not live in the area because the air would make people sick if they stayed in the area. They only sent in hunting parties for short periods of time.

Sounds like there is nothing that can be done there, but they are going to dictate to the rest of us anyway.

IronCross

IMHO Ca is the home of most of the wacky liberal politicians (Jollywood included) that pass some really dumb laws.. But they aren't forcing the rest of the states to be this crazy, only if they want to sell there product in Ca... Since most companies do I think they just put the label on all there products... I am guessing also that it is easier just to put the label on everthing then to spend the time and money to determine what does and what doesn't cause cancer... Just another stupid law..

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

It's all politics. The bunch of failed lawyers and other scoundrels who are our elected government do what will get them reelected, logic is not a consideration.

As an example, about eight years ago when the National Institutes of Health did their study on "Secondhand smoke" from tobacco their reported conclusions said it was a bad thing. However, scanning the results of the tests one in particular caught my eye. It said that a person living with a non-smoking partner had one chance in seven of getting lung cancer, while a person who lived with a smoking partner had only one chance in ten of getting lung cancer. It just seems to me that having a partner smoking should be considered a good thing if it lowers your risk of cancer from one in seven to one in ten. Other test results ranged from no difference to a lessened probability of cancer with smoking.

In spite of Yul Brinner and other "Prominentes" NIH found that location of residence had as much if not more effect on the probability of lung cancer.

When the NIH was asked about the results being at odds with their published conclusions the response was "Sure it's lousy science, but it's good politics."

Bill.

CRAZYRYAN

My Feedback: (1)

its an endless mystery!