When I saw this post this morning, I forwarded to my manager to see how it
effected us.  He contacted our legal folks.  They came back with a ~10-page
document that lists all the chemicals found by this committee.  This leads
me to 2 questions.

Doesn't the California government know that the leading cause of death is
life?
And, does the California government not have anything better to do with
their tax dollars?

Jen Hovland
Sr. EMC Engineering Technician
Regulatory Compliance
Phone: (605) 232-2230 x26548
Fax: (605) 232-2814
Email: [email protected]

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Werlwas, Mark [SMTP:[email protected]]
        Sent:   Thursday, August 05, 1999 11:06 AM
        To:     '[email protected]'
        Subject:        Proposition 65


        | For those on the frontline: has anyone been exposed to any of 

        | these legal

        | requirements? Would you mind sharing your experience(s)?

        | ...

        | 2. The State of California statue called Proposition 65 requires
that

        | manufacturers place a warning label on the containers of 

        | products (and the

        | products themselves) if they contain harmful carcinogens or
chemicals,

        | including lead. The solder on your circuit boards constitutes 

        | a product

        | with toxic exposure potential to both customers and employees.

        | 

        As a resident here on the left coast I can share a personal
observation. It
        seems like every building has (or had) a prop. 65 warning on it.
Apparently
        there are detectable levels of listed chemicals everywhere. So most
        buildings are labeled. Even gas pumps are labeled. The labels were
placed
        almost everywhere so I don't think that people pay any attention to
them any
        more -- at least I don't notice them any longer. I don't know why
signs are
        not posted outside of the buildings, I've heard that sunlight can
cause
        cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm too.

        Here is a link to California's EPA page describing the law:
        http://www.oehha.org/prop65/p65plain.htm

        Here is a link to a dissenting opinion on the law.
        http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/studies/s137/s137b.html This link
has
        some interesting (although I don't know how accurate) information
regarding
        relative risks in the tables.

        Mark Werlwas

         
        Mark Werlwas
        Product Safety Engineer
        Lam Research
        4650 Cushing Parkway
        Fremont, California 94538
         

        ---------
        This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
        To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
        with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
        quotes).  For help, send mail to [email protected],
        [email protected], [email protected], or
        [email protected] (the list administrators).
        

---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], or
[email protected] (the list administrators).

Reply via email to