Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Classes LED Component Gallium Arsenide a Carcinogen

Posted by timothy on from the tooth-fairy-is-a-cat-burglar dept.

Reader LM741N, pointing to a report released this month by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, writes "Gallium Arsenide has now been listed as a carcinogen. Given the increasing usage of gallium arsenide, the main constituent in LEDs, and their recent championing as more efficient light sources in recent news stories and Slashdot, there may be significant environmental concerns as related to their disposal. Morover, workers in industries using the substance may be at risk of cancer as well."

79 of 495 comments (clear)

  1. Known to cause cancer... by jeffy210 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ah, California, where everything is known the cause cancer. I just got back from a trip there and saw those signs everywhere, even on most buildings. It seems to the locals it has even become a running gag.

    --
    ------
    "And may your days be long upon the earth."
    1. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah, California, where everything is known the cause cancer.

      Including sand. When I lived there, one of the utility bills (I forget which one) always had a statement that the company used chemicals "known to the state of California to cause cancer", because they used sand at some of the plants.

    2. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't believe the number of people bashing California for the cancer labels. Since when is it a bad thing to notify consumers that the products they're buying and using may pose a health risk? I suppose you might also be against putting cancer warning labels on cigarettes?

    3. Re:Known to cause cancer... by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what happens when you have nanny state liberals in office. Let California be a lesson to the remaining 49 on how *NOT* to run a state.

      Did you forget to back that up with some compelling statistics you're saving for later? Let's compare housing values in silicon valley vs. detroit to see if you're right.

    4. Re:Known to cause cancer... by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even some of the restaurants have them, "WARNING: Chemicals Known to the State of California to cause cancer, or birth defects, or other reproductive harm may be present in food or beverages sold here or served here"

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    5. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets see... Because it seems like everything can cause cancer there. Cigarettes will cause cancer in a lot of people's lifetimes even with moderate smoking. A lot of the things that California requires warning labels to be put on only will cause you cancer if you eat 4000 of them in a year, inject them into your blood, etc. Excess warning labels only make people not read them and you know what happened when the little boy called wolf a bit too many times...

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    6. Re:Known to cause cancer... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sign is pretty cheap, but the administrative overhead in determining which sign, how big, and compliance with all current laws, state, local, and whatever someone can pull out of their ass this week all add up. Businesses raise prices to compensate.

      Then, there's the boy that cried wolf. If every square inch of everything is plastered with cancer warnings, people might miss the ones that warn of a near certain cancer mortality within 5 years because of all the ones for the 1 in one billion risk of mortality within 90 years.

      I'm all for public health and product safety. Many states don't do nearly enough for either. However, Ca seems to have gone overboard.

    7. Re:Known to cause cancer... by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "California has a lower limit for cancer causing chemicals than other states, which is why you see those signs on pretty much every older building."

      No, California has a law requiring ANYTHING that contains ANYTHING that MAY cause cancer to have that sign. As far as I know, there are no lower limits - if it contains any amount of any of the list of substances known to the State of California to possibly cause cancer, it gets the label.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    8. Re:Known to cause cancer... by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's bad when they probably don't. The truth is that labeling laws don't accomplish anything. Especially when you put warnings about cancer on everything. Every building down here has that "known to cause cancer" sign on it. It's ridiculous scaremongering.

    9. Re:Known to cause cancer... by tftp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We have such a warning at work, on the doors. There are indeed dangerous chemicals in the building, in one chemical lab, accessible to maybe 10 chemists. The remaining 1,990 workers do sales and support and design stuff on computers.

    10. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, its a free country, so feel free to not read any warning you like. But I like knowing that the power cable on my blender contains lead and that I should wash my hands after plugging it in and before touching food. I like knowing which products at Home Depot are more likely to cause respiratory problems. And yes, if a building I worked in contained excessive levels of some toxin, I would like to know about it.

    11. Re:Known to cause cancer... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      California claims to not be deciding it's carcinogenic? IARC:

      IARC issued the Volume 86 in its series IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. In this monograph, IARC concluded that gallium arsenide is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(a) requires that certain substances identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) or the National Toxicology Program (NTP), as described in Labor Code section 6382(b)(1) and (d), be included on the Proposition 65 list as causing cancer. Accordingly, volume 86 is at this location

      I don't understand California's conclusions that it should be added to the list, the IARC monogram they use as a basis for adding it to the list state that: 5.5 Evaluation There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of gallium arsenide. There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of gallium arsenide.

    12. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what happens when you have nanny state liberals in office. Let California be a lesson to the remaining 49 on how *NOT* to run a state.

      Did you forget to back that up with some compelling statistics you're saving for later? Let's compare housing values in silicon valley vs. detroit to see if you're right.

      That's just a comparison of the desirability of living in those places. No, it's more accurate to compare state government fiscal responsibility between California and Ohio. The fact that the economy in California continues to be able to support ruinously idiotic government that continually spends more than it takes in is part of what keeps the idiots in charge, in charge. If California were a marginal rust-belt state, it's residents would have thrown those morons in the legislature out long ago.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    13. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Examples of buildings that have the signs posted:

        - Junk yards
        - Gas stations
        - Vehicle maintenance yards
        - Recycling stations
        - Apartment complexes
        - Malls
        - Grocery stores
        - Hospitals
        - Vacant lots

      And that's just the start of it. No one pays attention to them anymore, and even if we did, we wouldn't know just what the problem was, because the law only requires that the sign be posted, not explain what led to it being posted.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    14. Re:Known to cause cancer... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      #1 GDP of US states, #10 GDP per capita. Diversified economy including agriculture, shipping, assorted manufacturing, and high tech.

      Truly, a downtrodden people, crying out for the better way of life enjoyed by their fellow men in Mississippi.

      While we're on the subject, after the thorough screwing that California got from the ever wise and beneficent market during the electricity deregulation and crisis, I'm guessing that they might not be rushing with open arms into a bold era of state nonintervention.

    15. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      California has always been on path to economic self-destruction

      Which is why it has consistently had the strongest economy in the nation?

      As a life-long resident of California, I can guarantee that the success of the economy is in spite of the state government, not because of it.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    16. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, its a free country, so feel free to not read any warning you like. But I like knowing that the power cable on my blender contains lead and that I should wash my hands after plugging it in and before touching food. I like knowing which products at Home Depot are more likely to cause respiratory problems. And yes, if a building I worked in contained excessive levels of some toxin, I would like to know about it.

      You don't get that kind of information though. You get a generic Proposition 95 warning sign that basically says "something sold, kept, or used on these premises has been deemed a cancer risk by borderline hypochondriac bureaucrats at the state level." It's no fucking use at all.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    17. Re:Known to cause cancer... by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Truly, a downtrodden people, crying out for the better way of life enjoyed by their fellow men in Mississippi.

      The right-wing anarcho-capitalist nutjobs HATE it that "liberal" states tend to be far more economically prosperous than the "conservative" anti-environment, anti-union states. It kills them.

    18. Re:Known to cause cancer... by UltraAyla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That may be true, but that's not the point. The point is that we're not on a path to "economic self-destruction." The mere presence of hindrances does not mean you are in an awful situation.

    19. Re:Known to cause cancer... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The signs are stupid don't tell you anything useful.

      In some places, all the hotels have the sign. It doesn't tell you what the carcinogens are, how much there is, where in the facility they are, how much exposure you might get, what the risk is, or what you could do to control the risk.

      It's a pretty safe bet that any building has something that, if properly prepared and administered in sufficient quantities over a long enough time, causes cancer. The cigarettes in the hotel lobby shop mean the hotel has carcinogens. The charcoal grilled steaks in the restaurant have carcinogens. If you took apart the TV in the room and decocted the various plastics and rare metals into a kind of gritty slurry, you'd have something that you wouldn't want to put on your English muffins every morning.

      And some hotels don't have the signs. It doesn't take a genius to figure out this doesn't mean they're any different, the sign thing hasn't got there yet. Once all the hotels have the signs, then you're pretty much presented with a Hobson's choice: stay in a hotel that has carcinogens in it, or sleep in your car. Which probably has carcinogens in it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:Known to cause cancer... by davester666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Billy! How often do I need to tell you to NOT EAT THE LED TAILLIGHTS! Just you wait until your father gets home!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    21. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Miseph · · Score: 5, Informative

      "I was thinking they'd be a viable alternative to mercury-filled CCFL's."

      They still are, and truth be told CCFLs, despite containing mercury, are a viable alternative to incandescents which aren't exactly made of sunshine and pixy dust. The real problem is that we expect to just be able to throw everything in a bucket, ship it off to the dump and never have to worry or think about it again. That has never been a reasonable thought, but we're just starting to figure that out now. When the expectation is impossible to achieve, you shouldn't be surprised by disappointment.

      In the mean time, I'd suggest not crushing up and snorting your LEDs, because even if the cancer doesn't kill you, I'm sure that the deadly poisons and glass fragments will.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    22. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is what happens when you have nanny state liberals in office.

      Let California be a lesson to the remaining 49 on how *NOT* to run a state.

      Did you forget to back that up with some compelling statistics you're saving for later? Let's compare housing values in silicon valley vs. detroit to see if you're right.

      That's just a comparison of the desirability of living in those places. No, it's more accurate to compare state government fiscal responsibility between California and Ohio. The fact that the economy in California continues to be able to support ruinously idiotic government that continually spends more than it takes in is part of what keeps the idiots in charge, in charge. If California were a marginal rust-belt state, it's residents would have thrown those morons in the legislature out long ago.

      That's sort of a silly comparison. If California were a rust-belt state then it would receive more in federal spending than it pays and there would be no problem. California pays the federal government $50 billion per year more than the benefits it receives. If California wasn't subsidizing the unsuccessful economies of those rust-belt states with its very successful economy (a gross state product equivalent to the GDP of Italy), there would be no problem whatsoever. Complain all you want about the idiots in charge in California, but at the end of the day if it weren't for California, many of the governments of the States in the US would be bankrupt.

    23. Re:Known to cause cancer... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's just a comparison of the desirability of living in those places.

      Not everyone who doesn't currently live in California desires to live in California.
      Not even most.

    24. Re:Known to cause cancer... by philspear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, in the biology community, the fact that everything DOES seem to cause cancer is a running gag. It's kind of black comedy really. The one way to be sure that you're not going to slowly and painfully to cancer is to get killed by something else first. Ha ha...

      I blame our early RNA-based ancestors for choosing an imperfect nucleotide-based system of keeping notes that has not been significantly improved (aside from the DNA version at some point.) Is it too much to ask that the genetic material be completely error-free?

      Physicists would say yes, but I say they're cowards, traitors, and anti-life.

    25. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      California is liberal only in that it is less conservative than other states. Our politics are all over the map. We want legalized marijuana, but three strikes. We want compassion for first offenders, but we demand the death penalty. We demand impartiality in the judiciary, and yet we require that judges be elected and stand for re-election every four years.

      As for the economics, we have a government whose spending has grown 40% in the last five years, and yet has had a combined population and price index growth rate of only 29%. We have no budget, spending expectations having outstripped revenue expectations by more than $15 billion out of $140 billion, nor do we have any signs of getting a budget soon, and the politics of the budget this year are even more brutal than past years. One Democrat who refused to cast a vote (she was protesting the refusal of the majority to bring up legislation she wanted heard) found that her office was moved across the street that afternoon on orders of the Democratic Majority Leader. (Not that her vote would have changed anything -- it still several votes short of passing.)

      Unemployment in California is at 7.3% as of August, up from 6.2% in May. It ranges from a low of 5.0% in Marin County to 23.3% in Imperial County (admittedly a smaller county). Los Angeles County is at 8.1%. The foreclosure rates for the state have tripled in the last year.

      There are states in worse shape than California (though I don't know if anyone has a budget mess as bad). Still, it's not exactly all peaches and cream in California.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    26. Re:Known to cause cancer... by pxlmusic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this.

      i had a number of friends in high school who had transferred out here to atlanta from high school.

      all they could talk about was how awesome california was and they couldn't wait to get back there.

      it seems to be (from my anecdotal evidence) that natives of california are the only ones who seem to feel that there is no civilized life outside of california.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    27. Re:Known to cause cancer... by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like I said, many states don't do enough, but there is a point where it becomes less than helpful.

      For example, any electronic device contains lead, but if the kids are actually touching the lead in a TV (for example), the multi-kilovolt discharge is by far the more serious problem.

      The LEDs contain Gallium Arsenide but it is a tiny amount well sealed in plastic. That's preferable to mercury sealed in breakable glass tubes or to incandescents that cause more mercury release through burning coal to light them.

      For that matter, any cancer fatalities from LED bulbs will likely be more than offset by the fatalities from fires started by incandescents that won't happen.

      Please note, nearly every food contains toxins that if concentrated and taken in a single dose would be fatal. Many essential nutrients are themselves fatal in concentrated doses.

    28. Re:Known to cause cancer... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's not just desirability that drives housing prices. In Seattle, for instance, the regulations applied to housing accounts for $200,000 "value" of the average $450,000 home. A not-insubstantial amount from regulations alone.

      .
      Perhaps housing in many places is cheaper than Seattle or the Bay area or the LA/SD megalopolis not because of desirability but because of regulation?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    29. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Discordantus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm sure rolling blackouts due to lack of government regulations does wonders for an economy.

      There, fixed it for you.

    30. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Around here (foothills), the signs are posted everywhere because the dirt naturally contains asbestos. It's not like there's much anyone can do about dirt except move, so maybe it's be more useful to publish a map highlighting the few areas that are safe to live in.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    31. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As the article points out, the regulations are there because they're desirable to the public. You could claim it's not the desirability that drives up the costs in a "good" neighborhood compared with a run-down "bad" neighborhood, but the extra costs associated with upkeep of the homes and of local services such as police.

      The fact remains that the prices are what they are because people are willing to pay them. Willingness to pay a price is generally regarded as a good measure of its desirability to the public.

      By the way, I've lived in Seattle, owned a home there, and am familiar with their permitting process for single family homes, and I have to say that whatever unnecessary regulations there are, they're such that I'd rather they keep it the way it is than see them become too permissive. The natives of Houston that I met in Seattle would certainly agree with me 100%, as they would tell me of the ridiculous results of Houston's lack of zoning laws.

    32. Re:Known to cause cancer... by aurispector · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bah! In my day we had blankets made out of asbestos so the cigarettes we smoked in bed wouldn't burn holes. We had lead paint on our tableware and lead in our water supply pipes. We put mercury solutions on our cuts, brushed our teeth with PCB's and washed our hair with dioxin. We spent every day in the sun without sunblock and it was GOOD for us.

      Kids these days have it too easy.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    33. Re:Known to cause cancer... by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The #1 cash crop in the country is marijuana. The only thing screwy about that fact is that the federal government allows all that money to go to drug cartels instead of taxing it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    34. Re:Known to cause cancer... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Besides, the price of homes there isn't just a measure of desirability, but also a measure of the ability of the economy to support those prices.

      No... it used to be. The price of homes in most non-rural areas is not an indicator of the economy's ability to support those prices. Hence the ever increasing foreclosure rate. Hence, house prices have gone up many times more than income (as a for instance, houses that were worth $30K here in a NY suburb 30 years ago are now worth $480K (nothing but upkeep). House prices have thus went up 16 times their previous value... while wages for such people have went up by a factor of 2.5 to 3.

      I doubt most of Cali or any other place that isn't rural or very close to rural isnt having the same problem. As the gap widens, it is going to become sickeningly obvious to more people that it's not what the economy can support that is driving house prices...

      --
      StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
    35. Re:Known to cause cancer... by vsny · · Score: 5, Informative

      White LEDs are made of Gallium Nitride not Gallium Arsenide. It's the Arsenic in GaAs that is a carcinogen.

    36. Re:Known to cause cancer... by iserlohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure all the middle class people in California giving thirty percent of their income to the government (soon to be more if we become an Obamanation) are really happy about it and wish the government would take more of their money.

      Your tax numbers only make sense if you only classify the top 2% of earners as middle class.

      Please stop spouting misinformation. In fact, with the McCain tax cuts, only the top earners will get a benefit. Everybody else will be just about the same. Now let's just cross our fingers and hope the trickle-down pixie dust work?

      --
      :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
    37. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      California being hardest hit on the foreclosure rate is the very point that I was making. No, we're not alone in this, and we're not the worst-hit by unemployment. The point is that the economy here is souring, too, and harder than some people may think. I'm relatively insulated from it, being in Orange County, which hasn't been hit nearly as hard by foreclosures and has relatively low unemployment, but I have no illusions that we're on stable ground; it wouldn't take much to push us over.

      On the judicial point, Supreme Court justices routinely break expectations, especially after they have been on the Court for a few years. The length of their terms -- often in decades -- provides something of a braking force on society. We need that, too, just as we need the people anchoring the very far left and far right of the political spectrum. Without those anchors, society drifts too far to one side; without a strong human link to the past, the judicial system may be too keen on moving with current trends, which, while not necessarily bad, are not necessarily good, either.

      Having judges elected makes them too beholden to public opinion. Judges have lost re-election because they declined to allow the death penalty in widely-publicized cases, or because they exercised judicial discretion on non-violent criminals. While still acting within the law, they were perceived to not be tough enough, and so lost their office.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    38. Re:Known to cause cancer... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh hell, you don't have a clue, do you?

      The concern is not that kids will handle the lead in a TV, or the gallium arsenide in an LED. It's that old TVs and old LEDs will accumulate in the environment and leach their toxic materials into the groundwater. Weathering and other factors will fracture and/or wear away the enclosing materials, allowing some of the toxins to escape into the environment.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    39. Re:Known to cause cancer... by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe you should have gone on to the second page. The capital gains tax is not typically considered a tax on the middle class. From the links you provided he isn't raising the social security tax rates, only increasing the amount of taxable income. That looks like it would probably impact the upper middle class, but these aren't struggling families. I don't see any evidence given of middle class income tax increases.

      As for gas taxes nothing you linked to indicate he supports raising gas taxes, although if he did raise gas taxes and offset the increase with credits elsewhere it would probably be one of the best things you could do for the country. In case you haven't notice, or dependency on foreign fuel is a very bad thing.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    40. Re:Known to cause cancer... by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if the relatives weren't there, would that change your mind?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    41. Re:Known to cause cancer... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Which side of the argument are you taking? The whole article affirms my point:

      "Cities such as Houston and Atlanta, which have few growth restrictions, have shown that. They've been able to add enough housing to meet demand, so their home prices have risen more moderately than heavily regulated San Francisco and Boston, which have a harder time increasing housing."

      It's just another way of saying that people will pay extra to live somewhere that isn't endless sprawling suburbia, because it's nicer. San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Boulder are in a different class from Atlanta and Houston. To say that it's "just" regulations is meaningless - people have to choose to buy into those select markets, and they have to be able to pay.

    42. Re:Known to cause cancer... by beav007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Frankly, I don't want to live anywhere in the USA.

      No offense intended.

    43. Re:Known to cause cancer... by mccabem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AC: Ever worked a day in your life? I mean the hard kind of work that'll make you sweat during the day and blow black shit out of your nose and lungs at night? (or worse/similar) I doubt it.

      Some people in the US work for a living doing hazardous work. Yeah even more hazardous than jockeying that desk of yours all day.

      Of the things that can be hazardous for people to work with, some of them are hazardous to your lungs - like sand.

      "Play sand" like the kind you probably spend your days with has been thoroughly washed and graded for safety.

      People who work around industrial sand (anything from quarries to paint shops) and breath a lot of silicates (very fine sand) end up with cancer.

      I'm sure it's funny to you and some other people -- why else would so many signs be needed to point these things out?

      Sadly more people of your mind you do not expatriate to a place where they already do business "your way" such as...well, nearly any second or third world country. You can sprinkle lead paint on your corn flakes and have silica sand for desert if you like. Sure civilization has its warts, but if you don't like it, don't fake like there's no alternative and try to drag the rest of us back in time. Bye.

      -Matt

    44. Re:Known to cause cancer... by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like the required restroom signs. Nearly every sign in the developed world uses a triangular dress shape for the ladies yet California goes and requires the men's signs to be a one foot equilateral triangle and the women's to be round. Why did they pick the symbols that way? Was it an cruel inside joke for the visual impaired? Were would I find reference to how this was developed?

    45. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The housing bubble came from the competitive pressures introduced by over-generous lending practices. The bubble had a stronger effect in more desirable areas, because the competitive pressure was all the stronger. Even now, the problems of that sliver of the home-owning population that financed during the height of the boom do not reflect on the total productivity of the Californian economy.

    46. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Silicates are certainly dangerous to the lungs if not dealt with properly (as any miner before around 100 years ago, and many of them more recently), but cancer? How exactly did that get linked?

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    47. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sadly more people of your mind you do not expatriate to a place where they already do business "your way" such as...well, nearly any second or third world country. You can sprinkle lead paint on your corn flakes and have silica sand for desert if you like. Sure civilization has its warts, but if you don't like it, don't fake like there's no alternative and try to drag the rest of us back in time. Bye.-Matt

      The problem for the US is if companies do. I've read plausible arguments that offshoring, i.e. moving manufacturing to second and third world countries is more about regulations than wage prices. E.g. electronics companies tend to run rather low labour intensive factories these days - pick and place machines populate the boards and IR or wave solderers solder them in place. You don't need many humans intervening to keep them running, and it is not a very skilled job. So the amount you could save by heading for the third world is pretty minimal. But skilled humans to fill out paperwork for government agencies are expensive, especially in the first world.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    48. Re:Known to cause cancer... by Discordantus · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "shortage" was due to the gaming of the system that you mentioned. By shutting down perfectly good, working power plants, less electricity was supplied, creating an illusion of a true shortage. This was the biggest problem. And by extension, it was more profitable to raise energy prices than to build more power plants; nuclear or otherwise..

    49. Re:Known to cause cancer... by EnOne · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's in the MSDS for crystalline silica.
      "Crystalline silica (quartz) inhaled from occupational sources is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as class I: carcinogenic to humans"
      I believe the IARC is a part of the World Health Organization

      --
      Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
    50. Re:Known to cause cancer... by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like the types of people who bitch that rich people should pay more in taxes than poor people, to then bitch when they get taxed more.

      That's what progressive taxation looks like. You asked for it, and you got it. You don't get to whine that it's making it hard to balance your budget. You're rich (as a state). Pay your dues to the fed, and then get your house in order. It should be easy, after all. You're rich, right?

  2. Get cancer from an LED? by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess I will have to stop eating LEDs, at least while in California.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    1. Re:Get cancer from an LED? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I guess I will have to stop eating LEDs, at least while in California."

      I hope insertion is still safe!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Get cancer from an LED? by supernova_hq · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is why we need a "-1 Too Much Information"

  3. !Carginogen by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, am terrified of anything called a "Carginogen".

    1. Re:!Carginogen by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that this is more or less the point. California has lost sight of 'risk management' in favor of 'risk avoidance'.

      The problem? You can't economically avoid all risk. Apple seeds contain a poison/carcinogen. Yet, in order to have a risk of getting cancer from it along the lines of winning the lottery - you'd have to practically eat your body mass in seeds.

      Lead is a carcinogen, in fairly massive doses. It'll generally lead to heavy metal poisoning long before you have to worry about it giving you cancer. As a bonus, when contained in a solder you really only have to worry about it if you're drinking water run over it, like in pipes. Sitting in your playstation or DVD player, it's not a concern to anybody but the workers soldering all day, and we have machines for that now.

      Yet we spend billions on developing lead free solder techniques that create bonds that are worse than lead ones for these applications*, tending to break more often.

      California bans** incandescent light bulbs - then starts screaming and holloring about the relatively tiny amount of mercury in fluorescent bulbs, now the gallium arsenide in LED lights.

      When you have those 'contains something california has determined causes cancer' signs on everything, it becomes useless because you can't just chose to use stuff without them, and if you look at the literature the risk is negligible anyways. So it just ends up being a waste of time, effort, and money.

      Heck, I'm fairly certain that the gallium in a LED is protected enough that even if a tyke ate a led it'd just come out the other end.

      What california should do is set a standard - only the more dangerous cancer causing substances such as cigarettes and asbestos get the warning. Other items with carcinogenic substances have to show how well sealed the substance is/amounts, which is plugged into some sort of equation to see if it requires a sign. Then people will probably pay attention to the signs.

      I'm sorry, but this is the sort of stuff that makes people think that the greenies just want to send us back to the stone age.

      *You have a point if you're looking at drinking water pipes, but otherwise?
      **In the future, but play with me

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:!Carginogen by txoof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sign blindness is more of a real problem than the tiny amount of Gallium in LEDs. If you want to protect people, you can't deluge them with constant warnings. They eventually become sign blind and begin ignoring, or worse mocking warning labels. According to the labels, every can of paint in the hardware store causes cancer in California. But what I don't know is if paint A is going to make me infertile the moment I look at it, or if paint B is just a problem if I drink 5 gallons of it. The labels don't have any kind of granularity.

      A color coded system might do consumers well. No color==mostly OK. Green==Don't eat a bunch of this, it's not good for you. Yellow==Take care when using this, ventilation is a good idea and long term exposure is probably going to hurt you. Red==For the love of all that is holly, wear a respirator or leave it for the pros. Black==if you are reading this, you're already dead.

      California needs to remember that poison is in the portion. EVERYTHING is poisons in the right quantity. A warning label can be useful, when not slapped on every surface that it can physically bond to.

      Warning! This cliff is known to the state of California to cause plummeting, falling and smassing of bones. Gravity in effect at edge of cliff face! Short term exposure to gravity can cause serious injury.

      --
      This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
    3. Re:!Carginogen by cecil_turtle · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wonder what will happen if they find the cancer warning labels can cause cancer.

  4. CFLs by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CFLs cause cancer too. As technology uses more advanced chemistry (and the ability of medical technology to determent the carcinogenic properties of more materials) we can only find more dangers in the technology we use everyday.

    The important thing to do is to educate everyone that some materials need to be treated with care. And should not be ingested or inhaled. And should be disposed of immediately if they are damaged or broken. In addition disposable of all possibly toxic materials needs to handled specially. And if we're going to have CFLs, CRTs, LEDs, and other three letter acronyms in our households, then each and every one of us needs to be educated on what needs to be taken through a special technology disposable/recycling process.

    Here's a list of things people throw in the garbage that they should not have: rechargeable batteries, fluorescent lights, TV tubes(lead), car batteries(these are normally exchanged), used motor oil, appliances, electronics, ...

    ideally you should only be throwing out old food, soiled paper/cardboard, plastic. and recycling glass and non-toxic metals(steel, aluminum). you can try and recycle plastic too, but it is debatable.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  5. In other news, living has been shown .... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Funny

    to cause cancer and everything associated with living. As a result, the California legislature has required that signs be posted every where that states, "Living causes cancer. To limit your risk, stop living."

    1. Re:In other news, living has been shown .... by wik · · Score: 2, Funny

      You wouldn't believe how many problems this would fix in CA.

      --
      / \
      \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
      x
      / \
  6. This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot causes cancer!*

    *in California

  7. The real reason things in CA cause cancer by davidwr · · Score: 5, Funny

    When you mix Californium and Governmentium, causing cancer is the only chemical reaction that is allowed to happen.

    The radioactive decay products of Californium include Liberelium and a heavy isotope of Governmentium called Bigovernmentium, which when combined are known to be toxic.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:The real reason things in CA cause cancer by andrikos · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...which when combined are known to be taxic.

  8. Umm.. by spiffmastercow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't one of the main advantages of LEDs the fact that you almost never need to replace them, which means (in theory) that they will rarely be discarded? And if they are rarely discarded, then isn't the disposal issue a moot point?

  9. Who would have thought Arsenic was bad for you? by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny
    Who would have thought that a simple natural element such as Arsenic could be bad for you?

    But they haven't warned about gallium arsenide phosphide so the yellow, orange, and red LEDs must be safe.

  10. RTFA by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    No surprise here. California has always been on path to economic self-destruction. This is what happens when you have nanny state liberals in office.

    The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency is adding gallium arsenide to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer and hexafluoroacetone, nitrous oxide and vinyl cyclohexene dioxide to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for the purposes of Proposition 65.

    This was a proposition. It was passed by the voters. The same ones who legalized marijuana, which ironically seems to have limited carcinogenicity because you never see any California state labels on it. Not that I would know.

  11. The emerging LED technology is GaN-based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just wanted to point out that while many LED's are GaAs-based, most of the newer LED's that are starting to be used to replace things like traffic lights and light bulbs are GaN-based. No arsenic involved. Very non-toxic. In theory, your kid could eat several of the dies and be okay.

  12. Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when is it a bad thing to notify consumers that the products they're buying and using may pose a health risk?

    Since doing so excessively will trivialize the risk.

    Imagine if instead of severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings, the national weather service issued "wet weather" warnings any time it wasn't sunny. You couldn't tell the difference between a summer shower and a hurricane, and since summer showers are much more common you wouldn't realize today's warning meant 80mph winds until it was too late.

    If you are going to do warning labels for things that aren't a significant risk, you should at least put a "danger level" on them. We could have categories like for tornadoes:

    Instead of the Enhanced Fujita Scale, we'll have the Enhanced California Scale:

    EC0 - You might get cancer. But 40 million other Californians won't.
    EC1 - 1 in a million lifetime cancer risk from a single exposure
    EC2 - 1 in 10,000 lifetime cancer risk from a single exposure
    EC3 - 1 in 100 lifetime cancer risk from a single exposure
    EC4 - If you touch it and live another 50 years, you'll get cancer
    EC5 - You'll be lucky to be alive a year from now
    EC6 - You'll be lucky if you live long enough to finish reading this senten

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  13. CA is the seventh largest economy in the world by RudeIota · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's right, seventh - right above China - if it were its own country. Yes, here is more information on how to 'NOT' run a state!

    Sounds like those 'nanny state liberal' commies have ruined CA indeed! *cough*

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
  14. hunting and gathering prevent cancer by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a stone-age society you'll die of infection or injury before the cells turn cancerous.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  15. I want my simple band-aid solution! by philspear · · Score: 4, Funny

    Like all americans, I want a magic bullet to the problem of carcinogens and cancer! I hear a lot of chatter about incandescent light bulbs and waste, fluorescent light bulbs and mercury, and LEDs and cancer. I don't understand any of it, but I'm certain it's those bureacratic fat cats in Sacramento that are making me so very confused! If they didn't put those warnings on stuff, it probably woudn't be a problem!

    Why won't someone just make it simple? Wave an american flag in the direction of the perfect light bulb that has no real-world problems that I can pick up at walmart on my way to Ikea while driving in my hummer and forget all about cancer, global warming, and mercury forever.

    Is that really too much to ask?!? I'm beggin you, lie to me and tell me there are perfect solutions! Just give me one saying that will solve the problem completely without consequences that fits on a bumper sticker and I'm there instantly!

  16. Do they post warning signs at all the beaches? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Funny

    or does "free range" sand not cause cancer?

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Do they post warning signs at all the beaches? by tiny-e · · Score: 3, Insightful

      or does "free range" sand not cause cancer?

      *everything causes cancer. Including the human body / systems that run it.

    2. Re:Do they post warning signs at all the beaches? by igny · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please please I need to know if tin foil causes cancer or not.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Do they post warning signs at all the beaches? by tiny-e · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please please I need to know if tin foil causes cancer or not.

      It's fairly well known that the body produces cancerous cells every day (in it's normal operations) -- they're usually taken out by your immune system.

      At least that's what the radio station that plays in my teeth tells me.

  17. Phew! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Boy am I glad that I live outside of California, where I'm safe from those carcinogens!

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  18. GaN not GaAs by Sir+Holo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Submitter is incorrect and misleading.

    Blue and white LEDs are based on gallium nitride, not gallium arsenide. Completely different material.

    GaN, not GaAs.

    It's the arsenic that's bad. It is in some specialized non-consumer electronics, but it is most definitely NOT in LEDs.

  19. Let's apply this to asbestos by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First off, in the real world, the public only cares about EC5 and higher. OK, maybe EC 4.5 and higher. Workers in specific situations may care about other things. For example, building-construction workers would need to know if there is asbestos that if disturbed by their activities could become toxic. They would not need to be bothered about asbestos which is in a form that would not become toxic in the presence of construction activities.

    If I'm a construction worker and I know that using a particular tool or construction technique in a particular part of the building is likely to release non-trace amounts of asbestos in the air, for goodness sakes please tell me so I can mitigate the risk. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.