Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonbiker
His blog post is here: https://www.hambini.com/silca-announ...ca-anti-seize/ and it seems to be based on the Prop 65 warning.
A quick read of the relevant IARC monograph shows that current evidence only supports that nickel compounds are carcinogenic to humans when inhaled, causing increased rates of lung and nasal cavity. The studies were mostly done of people working in nickel smelters and refineries. None of the studies in the monograph look at grease, but maybe there are other sources since 2012 that have investigated this. |
Silca's anti seize has nickel in it which means it's a carcinogen in CA (per Prop65), and it's labeled as such on their packaging which meets the legal requirements. Hambini's perspective is that Silca should be doing more the the legal requirements in terms of their labeling and information regarding their product, presumably because it's the right thing to do.
Silca points out that the bearings used in his bottom brackets carry the same Prop65 warning. But Hambini isn't labeling his bottom bracket with the same warning because CA doesn't require him to put that label on his products because he has less than 10 employees, not because it would be the right thing to do like he claims that Silca should do.
So they're both meeting the legal requirements, yet Silca is in the wrong for not going further, because reasons?
The comments section in the article is very telling in that Hambini is being knowingly hypocritical in his response.
Admin being Hambini in this context.
