I purchased this 3/8" compression tee. As you can see from the label "LF" it is LEAD FREE.



Now if it's LEAD FREE, why would the same label say I may be exposed to lead? Or lead free doesn't mean lead free just a bit less lead then before?



Scratching my head.



Edited 1 times.

Typical CYA lable since in CA EVERYTHING can cause cancer.

LEAD FREE FITTINGS - WHAT IS THE NEW LEAD-FREE REQUIREMENT? IN 2011, THE REDUCTION OF LEAD IN DRINKING WATER ACT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW. THE ACT HAS REDUCED THE LEAD CONTENT ALLOWED IN DRINKING WATER SYSTEM AND PLUMBING MATERIALS BY CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF "LEAD-FREE" IN SECTION1417OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT.THE TERM "LEAD-FREE" HAS BEEN UPDATED FROM NOTMORE THAT 8% LEAD CONTENT TO MEAN NOT MORE THAN A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF 0.25% LEAD WHEN USED WITH RESPECT TO THE WETTED SURFACES OF PIPES, PIPE FITTINGS, PLUMBING FITTINGS AND FIXTURES.

Sum,

The voters in California in 1986 voted on a proposition (#65) by an almost 2 to 1 margin to require warning labels on products that were seen as cancerous.

Our (I voted for it) intentions were good.

Very long story short .... there are now over 800 products that require Prop 65 warning labels. These days we're basically seeing "wolf, wolf, wolf, wolf" every day and in California itself seeing Prop 65 warning labels everywhere including in all stores, elevators, you name it there had better be a Prop 65 warning sign as it has become an industry of lawyers suing. An industry where there are even lawyers specializing in the defense of those getting sued for not properly showing Prop 65 warnings.

We've been sued when we failed to provide a warning label with a $6 brass fitting. We discovered that that lawyer has sued many companies for violating Prop 65. You would think the judge would recognize this and yet .... justice in America isn't always in the best interest of "we the people" but that's for a different forum.

We learned that the State of California actually gets 25% of all winnings (I mean to say when the court rules in favor of the "victim" who didn't receive a proper warning and rules that the business who failed has to pay $1,000 the state gets $250 of that and the lawyer gets most of the rest with the "victim" gets peanuts). So it feels to me that although the intent of warning is good, these days it has gotten so out of hand plus our State is financially benefitting from mistakes of not giving warnings ... to me that doesn't seem right.

Most people ignore the warning labels as they have seen it virtually everyday.

I hope that answers why you are seeing so many wolf (I mean Prop 65) warnings.

The official name of Proposition 65 is the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

vic, i'm conservative. i vote NO on everything.

vic I incorrectly assumed, which steve helped explained, that lead free really meant no lead which caused my original question why lead free would still have lead exposure. Now I understand, that LF just meant a little bit less lead then before. They should have changed the label to LEAD FREEer LOL.



Edited 1 times.

Yup ... "lead exposure" there still is a TINY amount ....as in we have exposure to "everything."

In California all coffee businesses had to do a Prop 65 warning for coffee (I haven't kept up with if they legally still have however in ALL coffee shops that I go to they have the Prop 65 warning. It really has become a battle of lawyers fighting lawyers. In my eyes which high priced lawyers win which battles.

Round-up fomerly made by Monsanto and now by giant Bayer I believe just won a battle to not have to warn us and yet much of the world believes it contains carcinogens.

In the not too long ago past we used 50% lead in our solder. Today our brass contains virtually no lead however we still must warn our customers. Everyone knows the story of yelling "wolf" too many times and I believe at this point Prop 65 warnings only benefits lawyers and the coffers of the great state of California.

I've been expecting us to have to start warning when selling PVC products as well.

That is a different issue, but it may be coming once the lawyers latch on to it.

I see that there is a P65 label on a PVC compression coupling.

[toxtown.nlm.nih.gov]

and then...

[www.p65warnings.ca.gov]

Yup .... "almost lead free."

Thanks a lot Steve ... there you go Sum ... Prop 65 is for almost everything manmade.

Exceptions?
Of course as this is America land of lawsuits where Bayer's high priced lawyers just achieved a mayor victory in not having to show the Prop 65 warning on Round-up:

[www.rfdtv.com]

Funny thing about not having to show the Prop 65 warning for Round-up as the same Bayer just settled to pay out for $10,000,000,000 to be shared by those who sued them for cancer:

[www.upi.com]

Prop 65 seems to me to mainly benefit lawyers on both sides plus the coffers of California and we consumers just keep having to read "wolf, wolf, wolf" to the point where most all of us just ignore the Prop 65 warnings which I don't find to be in all of our best interests since some products truly are very dangerous.

--

My attempt at comedy (the below is NOT to be taken seriously):

Warning

The most fundamental particles in the products that we sell/distribute are held together by a "gluing" force about which little is known and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently guaranteed.

Important Notice to Purchasers:
The entire physical universe, including the products that we sell, may one day collapse back into an infinitesimally small space. Should another universe subsequently re-emerge, the existence of the products that we sell in this universe cannot be guaranteed.

Public Notice As (maybe soon) Required By Law:
Any use of the products that we sell/distribute, in any manner whatsoever, may increase the amount of disorder in our universe. Although no liability is implied herein, the consumer is warned that this process may ultimately help lead to the heat death of the universe.