Okay, this question is out of topic but I will still answer it.
Had Avocado Toast this morning crispy toast, creamy avocado, and a little seasoning. Simple and healthy start 
2 Likes
Crispy toast??? Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!! You’re gonna die!!!
Burnt toast is considered unhealthy primarily because it contains acrylamide, a chemical compound formed when starchy foods are cooked at high temperatures (above 120°C/248°F).
4 Likes
The desk lamp I bought at Lowes is hazardous to my health somehow, per California. 
4 Likes
Mm, sounds good. Better for the heart than butter!
2 Likes
This is true. Unfortunately, society has gotten so lawsuit crazy that manufacturers are required to put out so many warnings that they lose all meaning and effectiveness. Then, on top of that, you get states like California declaring that everything from table lamps to glasses are hazardous, it’s hard to know what to believe.
Regardless, you’re right. Our bodies are fragile, and you only get one to last your whole life, so do be careful with it. For me, I do my own homework to decide if I’m comfortable with something, as I suspect many of us here do.
As for the Diisononyl Phthalate, it appears this is added to plastics to make them flexible. If one eats it, burns it, inhales a significant amount of dust, or finds another way to get it in the body, then yeah, it’s bad, from what I can quickly research. On the other hand, it’s literally everywhere already, almost anyplace plastic and vinyl is made to be flexible, so, like many modern chemicals, is almost impossible to avoid.
3 Likes
You make a fair point. Too many warnings can make people ignore real risks. I agree that staying informed and doing your own research matters. With chemicals like this, complete avoidance may be hard, but reducing unnecessary exposure where possible is the sensible approach.
2 Likes
1 Like
What about drinkiing it, such as in Scotch? 
Yes, the cali prop 65 warnings are stupid. Companies put that warning on everything, not because everything is dangerous, but if the company does not and Cali decides the warning should have been there, the company will face huges fines.
3 Likes
That is partly true many companies put warnings on products mainly to avoid legal risk. But that does not mean every warning is meaningless. Some products really can contain chemicals that are worth being cautious about. The best approach is not to panic when you see a warning but to look into the actual product details and understand the level of exposure and real risk involved.
4 Likes
Or call the company directly, which I did on a product I was interested in. The chemist involved in the production of product at the company called me and explained what was in it, and I understood the bogus nature of the prop warning. Cali has no interest in protecting its citizens, if it did, it would not allow illegals to deficate and urinate on the streets, etc, etc, etc.
5 Likes
one explanation does not prove all warnings are fake. Some warnings can be overly cautious, but others are based on real risks depending on exposure. It is better to look at actual data and independent sources instead of assuming everything is either completely safe or completely dangerous and also keep the discussion focused on the product itself.
you are right @Andrew358
Let’s see. If we believe half of everything the government tells us we would not eat butter or anything with it, no eggs, etc. etc. But wait, that is all good stuff now. Left to their devices the government would all have us vaccinated for one thing or the other, wearing masks (unless you are BP or ICE), sitting far apart. But wait, they did all of that only to find that countless people were either hurt or killed by that program. We have at least one generation arriving that cannot spell, do simple math, read, write in cursive or much else. Yeah, government is great! 
3 Likes
Nor did I assert that. I will be polite in that you clearly did not understand my point. I was only stating that for products sold in Cali you will find that they all carry the prop warning because if they don’t and it is decided by Cali they should have, it will cost them far more than if they had added the prop warning.
2 Likes
This seems a bit oversimplified. Health guidelines change as new research comes in, so shifts around things like food or masks do not necessarily mean they were wrong before. Vaccines and COVID measures also have a lot of data showing they saved lives, even if there were some downsides. And issues like education decline cannot be blamed on one factor alone, it is more complex than that.
i get your point now. Many companies add the Prop 65 warning as a precaution since the risk and cost of leaving it off can be much higher later. Makes sense from a business standpoint.
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s another example of politicians putting out regulations without considering the unintended consequences. Now there are so many warnings that I bet most people pretty much ignore them all, because most are meaningless.
Some products are so intuitively dangerous that I don’t feel like they should have warnings, beyond, maybe, “If you don’t know what you’re doing, don’t try using this thing…” Table saws come to mind. I remember, as a little kid, watching my dad cut lumber, and I had a deep, instinctive respect for how dangerous that saw was. I didn’t need a safety label to tell me that if it could rip an oak board like butter, it could take my hand off even more easily.
Other products are legitimately dangerous, like getting lacquer thinner vapor in your lungs. Those ARE the things that need warnings, but they’re probably ignored now because people are conditioned to ignore excessive warnings.
Now days, everything from clothes (fire hazard) to light bulbs (prop 65) have warnings.
To be really safe, California would have us all standing in a field naked. Wait. The sun is dangerous. Better put on sunscreen. Wait, there’s even a warning on that.
5 Likes
sunscreen?
Seriously?
SUNSCREEN!?’!!!
Key risks include hormonal disruption from chemical filters (e.g., oxybenzone), allergic skin reactions, respiratory dangers from aerosol spray inhalation, and rare contamination with benzene.
You’re gonna die!!! 
5 Likes
i get what you mean. When warnings are placed on almost everything, people can start tuning them out, which defeats the purpose. Important hazards should stand out clearly, especially the ones involving real health or injury risks, instead of getting lost among overly broad labels.
2 Likes
Honestly, I get your point. When everything has a warning, people stop taking any of them seriously that kind of defeats the purpose. At the same time, not everyone has the same experience or awareness. What seems obvious to one person (like a table saw being dangerous) might not be so obvious to someone new.
I think the real issue is not warnings themselves, but too many unnecessary ones. If warnings were only used for real, non-obvious risks, people would probably pay more attention to them instead of ignoring everything.
2 Likes