[TheForge] Interesting Article

[Peter Fels & Phoebe Palmer]

Maybe we need quantified warnings with the designated # rising with risk 
and frequency?

Mike Spencer wrote:
>> I found a more definitive set of warnings and cautions here: ...
> 
> The problem with label warnings is that the manufactures of stuff are,
> presumably on the advice of their lawyers, crying wolf.  So we don't
> pay attention when a real and important safety warning is present.
> 
> I have in front of me a bottle of hand cleaner.
> 
>                       Heavy Duty
>                      Hand Cleaner
> 
>     DIRECTIONS: Apply hand cleaner to dry hands and rub well to
>     dissolve all grease and grime....
> 
>     CAUTION: May irritate eyes.  May irritate skin. Do not get
>     in eyes.  Do not get on skin or clothing....
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah.  Once some idiot ditz coated his whole body with this or a
> related product and then spent 3 hours tanning naked in the West Texas
> sun in August.  After he was cleaned up and returned to his custodial
> institution, numerous blisters were found on his body and he smelled
> funny.  His family sued us for $100,000,000 for contributory
> negligence and won.  So, like, you know, don't get this stuff on your
> skin, eh?
> 
> Enough of those scenarios and we don't find safety warning credible
> even when they say, "Get this on your fingers and you will die in 10
> minutes" or "breathe these fumes and your liver will turn to compost
> before bedtime."
> 
> There *are* frighteningly dangerous chemicals [1] and it would be real
> nice if the scary warning labels warned us against them instead of
> chiefly protecting corporations from law suits by people who might put
> Drano on their Cheerios, wash their kid's hair with oven cleaner or
> use SuperGlue for eyedrops.
> 
> 
> - Mike
> 
> 
> [1] E.g. dimethylmercury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn
>