• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

regarding WARNING label on #80

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • regarding WARNING label on #80

    WARNING: This product contains N-Methlylpyrrolidone known to the state of California to cause reproductive harm.
    I myself am female, NOT pregnant, and have some concern about this. I don't live in CA either. Of course I will be working outdoors, but....?! Just kinda concerned, that's all.
    FL

  • #2
    You're probably right to use proper precautions with any chemical but I wouldn't worry about casual use. Besides, I think everything in California has a warning label of some sort. A litgious bunch down there

    Comment


    • #3
      Moved to Customer Care...
      -The Final Detail-
      Lagrange, Kentucky
      thefinaldetail@insightbb.com
      CLICK HERE TO VISIT MY GALLERY

      Comment


      • #4
        That's true, lol. I just don't want to come back and have to sue Meg's... j/k :-P
        FL

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Spotty-Dog
          You're probably right to use proper precautions with any chemical but I wouldn't worry about casual use. Besides, I think everything in California has a warning label of some sort. A litgious bunch down there
          While Spotty-Dog is exactly correct from a 'litigation' standpoint, the reason that it's listed on the label is because of California Proposition 65. This law mandates that a label of this stature must be present on products containing certain chemicals spelled out within the text of this regulation.

          RP
          -The Final Detail-
          Lagrange, Kentucky
          thefinaldetail@insightbb.com
          CLICK HERE TO VISIT MY GALLERY

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Rockpick
            While Spotty-Dog is exactly correct from a 'litigation' standpoint, the reason that it's listed on the label is because of California Proposition 65. This law mandates that a label of this stature must be present on products containing certain chemicals spelled out within the text of this regulation.

            RP
            How do you know that?

            What, if any, harm does it cause to a female?
            FL

            Comment


            • #7
              Proposition 65 is rapidly becoming a 'national standard' in the Environmental, Health and Safety world. This world is what puts food on my table as I deal with OSHA and EPA regulations on a daily basis as an Environmental Consultant/Environmental Geologist. Other states have adopted 'bits and pieces' of this law and have made it their own. Prop 65 (as it's sometimes called) has made the national news on more than one occasion.

              As for the toxicology data and such; I'm far from a chemist or a Industrial Hygenist and thus, I can't attest for specific factors of this nature.

              Simply put, there are endless amounts of chemicals out there in the world in which we live. Many of these chemicals are harmful as we all know. Many are not.

              Don't quote me on this but, I seem to recall N-methylpyrrolidone's addition to the Prop 65 regulation to be in limbo and potentially tied up in court? Long story short, I believe someone/some organization was challenging the validity of the toxicology data. With that in mind, N-methylpyrrolidone may not even have to be listed as a Prop 65 chemical and, in that case, Meguiar's is showing good faith in printing that blurb on the bottle.

              Again, I'm not sure about this though as I don't practice much in California. I'm much more of a 'right coast' type of environmental guy (ie: Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Penn., Indiana, Etc...)

              RP
              -The Final Detail-
              Lagrange, Kentucky
              thefinaldetail@insightbb.com
              CLICK HERE TO VISIT MY GALLERY

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rockpick

                Again, I'm not sure about this though as I don't practice much in California. I'm much more of a 'right coast' type of environmental guy (ie: Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Penn., Indiana, Etc...)

                RP
                That's cool; I grew up in PA

                Well, it doesn't really matter about the toxicity of #80, I'm gonna use it anyway
                FL

                Comment


                • #9


                  One thing is almost always certain within the environmental, health and safety world; major regulations move from west to east. In short, they seem to originate in California or EPA Region 9 and migrate towards the east.

                  For example, nearly ever state in the United States goes by EPA Region 9 drinking water maximum contaiminant levels (MCLs) even though they're probably not in Region 9. Even sillier (is that a word?), instead of making a 'state law' adopting their own contaminant levels, they just run to the Xerox machine and say 'here's Region 9's numbers... we'll use them as our own!'. LOL!

                  This business is very odd sometimes.

                  RP
                  -The Final Detail-
                  Lagrange, Kentucky
                  thefinaldetail@insightbb.com
                  CLICK HERE TO VISIT MY GALLERY

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X
                  gtag('config', 'UA-161993-8');