Katherine Mangu-Ward | July 13, 2009
Governments everywhere love to do things "for the
children." And no government loves kinder guarding more than
California. But the Golden State seems to have hoisted itself on
its own petard while trying to fight the
flammable baby menace:
For decades, California has been the only state in the nation to require the use of highly toxic fire-retardant chemicals on cribs, infant carriers, strollers, nursing pillows, changing tables, high chairs and other baby products....
Last year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued statements strongly discouraging the use of fire retardant in home furniture, including baby products. The federal agency's scientists cited numerous studies linking fire retardant exposure to cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems, thyroid disorders, hyperactivity, learning disabilities and a plethora of other health concerns.
Which raises the question: Do fire retardants make babies retarded? (Sorry. So very sorry. That was completely inappropriate. But it had to be done.)
It's not just Cali babies who have gotten screwed by overcautious state legislators who prefer to have their babies rare instead of well-done:
California's law has meant that baby products are often treated with the chemicals even in states that don't require such treatment. To avoid manufacturing two separate lines, one for California and another for other states, many manufacturers make their products sold in other states to California standards.
More on dumb legislation aimed at protecting tots, this time with CPSC on the wrong side, here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I still think we should kick California out of the US. They think they are their own country, let's just make it official.
We taught our kids very early the prudence of stubbing out their cigarettes before they fell asleep.
The federal agency's scientists cited numerous studies
linking fire retardant exposure to cancer, birth defects,
reproductive problems, thyroid disorders, hyperactivity, learning
disabilities and a plethora of other health concerns.
"It's NOT a toomer!
Fire retardants are for the CA firemen who retire at 50yo at full pay plus medical for life.
Fire retardants are for the CA firemen who retire at 50yo at
full pay plus medical for life.
Seriously, would you want a 51 year old fireman to come
to your burning house to save your life? ;)
# HeadTater | July 13, 2009, 7:31pm | #
# I still think we should kick California out
# of the US. They think they are their own
# country, let's just make it official.
We WERE our own country before delivering our gold and other
resources as "dowry" to our union with the other States of America.
Long live the Bear Republic!
Now that the Demos control DC, perhaps we can entice all of the
socialists here in California to emigrate there before we break
away and refuse them re-entry. California has only been socialist
in the past thirty years or so, due to the massive immigration of
transients and transplants FROM OTHER STATES, who brought their
collectivist ways with them. The result has been disaster, as most
of us Californians-from-birth have endured our entire lives, and as
the rest of you have seen lately in the news headlines.
Trying to force everyone into a solution for one
hazard...exposes those you are trying to save to another
hazard.
Who knew there's a law of unintended consequences? Not a nanny
stater, certainly!
We WERE our own country before delivering our gold and other
resources as "dowry" to our union with the other States of America.
Long live the Bear Republic!
Reminds me of what my mom used to say about how great the state
was, until the rest of the country shipped us all the fruits and
nuts.
come now - California was the "Left Coast" for longer than 30 years.
It's the flaming retards who make up the California legislature that did this to us.
Maybe they should require every baby-containing home to post one of those "The place contains cancer-causing chemicals" like the hotels do. Problem solved!
It's likely all those aging hippies from the 60's. Ya know, the ones who for the last 50 years now have been trying to get others to do their working and thinking for them. What else could the logic behind all these supersafety laws be but someone thinking "Someone else has to do it?"
"Seriously, would you want a 51 year old fireman to come to your
burning house to save your life? ;)"
I'm 50 and have a 1 year old son. I wouldn't mind if an experienced
51 yo fireman braved a fire to save my son's life.
What's the difference between a pile of burned babies and a
black Ferrari?
I don't have a black Ferrari in my garage.
...........
What's the only thing more fun than lighting a baby on fire and
watching it burn?
Putting it out with a shovel.
here all night | July 14, 2009, 1:14am | #
Libertarians want to be taken seriously and they say stuff like
this?
Sorry, I just wanted to save some random person the trouble of
saying that.
# The Angry Optimist | July 13, 2009, 10:39pm |
# come now - California was the "Left Coast" for
# longer than 30 years.
Yeah, if you judge by Hollywood, and if you buy into the mythology
currently propagated by the self-proclaimed "Progressives." But the
rest of the State -- even San Francisco and my home town of Santa
Cruz! -- took a while to catch up to their shade of red.
As late as the early 1960s, California was seen as fairly reliably
conservative in its politics -- in the western, self-reliant way
that Barry Goldwater tried to tap into during his run for the White
House. He drew a lot of interest here: I well remember my Dad's own
excitement at the time. We didn't yet have no-fault divorce, a
pervasive welfare system, or Prop. 13. After years of Pat Brown
(father of current AG and former governor Jerry), Ronald Reagan
captured the Governor's office, based on his appeal to the State's
libertarianish conservative population.
Things didn't really start to get socialist until the Jerry Brown
administration and Rose Bird's tenure on the State Supreme Court. I
don't blame them for this, as they were merely riding the wave; I
only cite them as convenient touchstones along the timeline. By
then, it seemed as if nearly everyone who came to California tended
to have stars in their eyes, flowers in their hair, or their hands
out for State largess. It also didn't help that we were going
through the great malaise of the 1970s, not to mention the eras of
affirmative action and "women's lib." Most all the politicians who
were speaking on the "right side" of those issues were doing so
with left-leaning rhetoric, as Democrats. The tidal wave washed
over us, and here we are today.
So I stand by my assessment as someone who's been here to see it
all: we really didn't start experiencing wholesale socialization of
this State until a critical mass of transplants had accumulated by
the mid-1970s. And now that whole house of cards, decades in the
building, is falling to the ground. I hope that those of us who
remember the old, resilient, self-reliant California, or who are
too young to remember but still share the same vision, are able to
pick up the pieces and rebuild this State. If that has to be in the
context of secession, oh well. But regardless, we must turn out the
socialists. They've had their chance and they have driven this
State into the ground.
What if your kid is born retarded? Wouldn't it make sense to wrap him in fire retardants then?
Libertarians want to be taken seriously and they say stuff
like this?
I don't want to be taken seriously.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245