Hacker News Reader

Comment by lostlogin | Hacker News Reader

I’m not in the US, but laughed when I saw that my bike is ‘known to cause cancer or birth defects/reproductive harm.’

When everything is dangerous, nothing is dangerous.

Well… your bike likely has several lubricants, and paints as well as coatings that especially in close contact with your skin… especially in the handle bars under friction indeed probably introduce chemicals that will increase some risks, versus never having done it. That is the horror of what we have done with modern material science… Would you prefer a label that gives you only risk increases above say 1% ? Alternatively you can just assume we have complicated the world so much with modern material tech that despite its benefits nearly everything you touch increases your cancer chances in America.

And you know that it's not dangerous based on... Gut feeling?

Have you read the health warning in detail and disagree from an informed point of view or are you just generally opposed to regulation?

Even better, can you link the bike model and health warning and let others take a look at it for you? Or just your neighborhood chat bot :-)

I’m on a Cervélo Soloist. I’ve just looked more carefully - the warnings is on the S5 (under the frame set sale option, specifically naming lead), so I’m safe!

https://www.cervelo.com/en-GB/bikes/s5

So I’m in the clear. I’m pro good regulation. This warning is ridiculous and it’s plastered all over things in California such that it’s useless. Yes, there are toxic things on a bike. How many riders or their offspring were harmed as a result of them?

Does the warning harm you? That's the ultimate benchmark of bad legislation?

Annoying legislation is just... meh.

Now, what would be ideal if they would actually list the harmful chemicals and where exactly they are used. There are certifications that require that kind of disclosure and for people that do care, they're gold.

> Does the warning harm you?

It’s a waste of time and money, so yes.

The DOT has a list of interesting studies on the active transportation in the form of walking and cycling https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/active-transpo...

You can also search for studies that compare the societal cost/benefit of using a car vs a bicycle. The generally accepted conclusion is that cars have a cost while cycling has a benefit for society.

That's not what I'm saying. Based on OPs phrasing, their specific bike was marked as a health hazard. Maybe their bike is painted with lead based paint. There could be a million reasons a specific model could be unhealthy.

Oh sorry, I missed that CA over-cautious warning label nonsense.

> Oh sorry, I missed that CA over-cautious warning label nonsense.

See, that's the thing... what "over-cautious warning label nonsense"? What are they actually warning about? Which chemicals/products?

Who’d know. It gets slapped on all sorts of things and you can’t tell which matter.

I've read the list of materials that California knows cause cancer and birth defects. It lists things that people encounter every day. Alcoholic beverages, aloe leaf extract and aspirin are some of the most notable examples from the "A" section.

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list

Well, here in France, pregnant women are also discouraged from drinking alcohol because of birth defects.

I don't know about aloe extract, but pregnant women are also discouraged from taking aspirin.

Here's a random online store selling it, with a big warning for "usage during pregnancy and breastfeeding" (French only): https://lasante.net/nos-medicaments/douleurs-et-fievres/aspi...

Yes, but California requires prominent signs for any business premise where these materials are found, and the incentives are to not provide any further detail about which substances are present. So a gas station will have a Prop 65 sign; is there a hazard beyond automobile exhaust? It's legally less risky for the business to not say. Similarly for a store that sells alcoholic beverages; should customers take protective measures besides not drinking alcohol? It's less risky for the business to not say. The signs are too common, and too vague, to satisfy the intent of the law.

Oh, I thought those signs were on the products themselves. I was probably confused because of the "handlebars being a cancer risk" comment.

>> Alcoholic beverages, aloe leaf extract and aspirin

Where I am, they all are known to cause birth defects. I never met woman with children that didn't take measures to avoid them (and a dozen of other products with similar effects) during pregnancy.

If you liken your bike to them, that's, uh. That's one hell of a bike. Probably should stay away from pregnant woman while riding it, huh

Asbestos, leaded gasoline, lead based paint, etc were things encountered everyday in the past. This is how science progresses and how our life expectancy and active life expectancy go up.

At the risk of stating the obvious, California's law only requires property owners to declare the presence of hazardous substances, not to reduce or even identify them.

In that case, I withdraw my complaint and say that the whole think is just window dressing.

You ignore gut feelings? Feelings from your second brain? That seems incredibly unwise. Sorry for the off topic comment.

Look up California Proposition 65 warning labels [0]. Every parking structure or a building is dangerous to your health, enter at your own risk. It's very endearing. Our taxes at work.

[0] https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov

"we know this is dangerous, but we're not going to do anything about it"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com