On May 29, 9:34�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

The do-gooders done did too much with all those
warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything.

If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings?
Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other
health hazards involved?

It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much"
to discover hazards
and eliminate or contain them.

I think it a matter of magnitude.

Not really. See below.

Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not
going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide
attempts)

But it *is* dangerous stuff, and should have adequate warnings,
shouldn't it?

What does

"do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything."

really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals?

More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause
anyone harm unless intentionally abused?

Did every user of the stuff do so in a "well-ventilated area"? I think
not.

Of course, I'm not so sure if Strip-X was discontinued
because of health
concerns or that it just didn't work any more on new generations of
enameled wire.

AFAIK, it worked on all enameled wire. Teflon isn't an "enamel".

Sure, not everyone who uses Strip-X will get cancer.
But some of the
components of it are known carcinogens, and a proven
hazard. More important,
we can't know ahead of time who the susceptible folks are.


More likely, they looked at the *possibility* of such a lawsuit, the
scientific evidence of the hazards of the ingredients, the limited
profit and
declining sales, and just stopped making the product.

Once a chemical is shown to be dangerous, the manufacturers
can't
claim ignorance anymore.

Since the formula for Strip-X appears to be in the public
domain,
anybody can make it and sell it. Would *you* be willing
to set up shop to make
it and sell it, with all the risks that entails, and the very limited
market for it?

There you touch on the real issue with items like Strip-X. The
manufacturing side. While I might have my little bottle that I get
out a
time or two during the day, the people making the stuff have
exposure issues well beyond that.

Depending on the manufacturing process. The history of industry is
full of examples of people being slowly killed at work by exposure to
hazards. Asbestos, radium paint, carbon tet, MEK, all sorts of
wonderful stuff.

The fact that something doesn't kill everyone who gets near it doesn't
make it safe enough.

My main point is that while we might not get much
exposure, those who produce it just might be getting
serious contact with nasty chemicals.

'zactly.

It's all about avoidable risk.

Another example:

Once upon a time, cars had single main hydraulic brake systems. The
master cylinder had one pump that fed all four wheel cylinders.

It was simple and effective, but a failure anywhere in the system
(wheel cylinder, master cylinder, brake lines, etc.) meant total
hydraulic brake system failure.

Then the "do-gooders" pushed for dual brake systems, on the theory
that most single failures would leave half the brake system working,
plus a warning system.

Critics said that the cost and complexity were too much, and that
complete brake failure was very rare in then-modern cars with single
systems.

The "do-gooders" won, and dual brake systems with warnings became the
standard.

Was that excessive? I guess it depends on whether you've ever had the
brake pedal go right to the floor at a critical moment.

73 de Jim, N2EY