[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Risks and their avoidance
But while
measures like Proposition 65 have little to do with effectively safeguarding
human welfare (except in those cases where a legal monetary award is provided
due to lack of signage), I am convinced they have everything to do with
isolating corporations from product use/exposure liability. We
shouldn't be so naive so as to believe that "life as we know it" has been
produced in a legal vacuum. I rarely, if ever, interpret such signage as
being a statement of human health risk, and apparently I'm in considerable
company.
Rick
Orthen
In a message dated 5/19/2003
10:51:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:
How can we get society to take responsibility on a personal
level? In
California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's
Prop 65,
Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to
the state of
California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So,
I mean this is
on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not
park? Walk to work
and inhale the same stuff on the street?
Puleeze!
Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is one of the
big problems we have, as a society, in addressing risks. We had all
these businesses put up these signs, but since they are literally EVERYWHERE,
they mean nothing. People don't even see them anymore, because you
literally can't go anywhere that there's not one. They're even on our
hotels for cryin' out loud.
While I think we can reduce our risks of an
untoward death, we first must all realize that one day, like it or not, we
will with certainty become a "statistic." Once we really grasp that, we
can better balance quality of life issues against the fact that we know the
quantity is surely limited.
Barbara