Model Paint Cancer warning on tin.

I bought a small pot of a well know brand of enamel model paint and was shocked to read on the tin that it causes cancer. It mentions: “that this product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer” it then gives a web address P65Warnings.ca.gov. This is obviously quite disturbing. None of my other paints of the same brand that I got in the past have this warning. Do the newer paints have different more hazardous chemicals in them? Making me think twice about using my new paint.

I bought the paint in the UK so don’t know why it has warnings relevant to California on the tin.

It doesn't matter where the paint was bought. Where it was made is more important. California bans almost anything and everything as a matter of course. Obviously there are chemicals that cause cancer, but the relationship is complex. I don't know what rules California follows, but it's possible that they are based on laboratory testing at unrealistic exposure levels.

Like most things it's a matter of commonsense. It might be prudent to paint in a well ventilated area, but I doubt hobby painting will cause a problem. Modern paints are probably safer than paints of old. For a start they don't contain lead and VOCs are also being reduced. Sometimes that might result in paints that aren't effective, but hey, they are safe!

If anyone is really worried they could always retire to their armchair and not paint anything. Beware though, as I understand a statistically significant number of people each year die in armchairs.

Andrew

The problem with prop 65 is the list of things on it is so big and the chances of being sued in californium is such that it is easier to put on the warning than it is to try and determine if it actually has any of them in.

the list also changes frequently…

Dave

Use it.

The tin is labelled to suit as wide a market as it can, hence that peculiar warning.

I've an idea I have seen somewhat similar elsewhere; but I forget what for. That assertion appears written by lawyers for lawyers rather than technical people, and one is tempted to ask if it means the paint is safe in Utah or Nevada.

The reference might show what is really meant, what concentrations, situations, etc.; what part of the body it may harm, and what precautions to observe. It's probably based on frequent, heavy industrial use of the offending ingredient; not occasional hobby use of the complete paint.

Most paints, lubricants and solvents are or contain substances that can cause skin damage and even cancer with sufficient prolonged or frequent exposure, so obviously need the usual workshop hygiene precautions; but for proper information I suspect the paint's real MSDS would be more useful than something written to suit legal blokes in one single US State!

So use it, but simply take common-sense care in doing so.

You might find this recent thread of interest, Simon: **LINK**

https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=173406

MichaelG.

I can’t buy a small tin of Phoenix paint to obtain the correct colour for my loco to then colour match locally as it cannot now be shipped (flown) overseas, presumably because it will spontaneously blow up and bring down the plane. I wonder how the hobby paint in the rapidly vanishing hobby shops get here.

Seems to be the trend in there. We’ve had a tin of US made Cadmium & Nickel grease in our garage since the 1980s and it says that it contains a small amount of a suspected carcinogen not had any problems from it. Maybe the warning is designed for the California market. But similar UK made cadmium Nickel greases don’t have this warning.

There is a study that found Parsnips contain carcinogens! How many of us have stopped eating them. Seriously provided you use a suitable mask and disposable gloves, with the quantities you are probably spraying something else is going to kill you first.

Not to mention that the "overkill" inures buyers to the warning such that no one reads it any more let alone let it affect their purchasing habits.

.... on this side of the pond anyway

I bought an Americam made X-Acto saw the other day which came with the same warning, Not sure if you have to inhale it or ingest it to cause harm!

I might sue them anyway as there was no warning about cutting yourself, which I did opening the packaging....

Dave

Very many items bought, and used, during the last century have likely contained potential cancer-causing chemicals.

Proper PPE was likely advised, yet often ignored. Sensible precautions likely diminished the risks to near zero.

Litigation is the key word, these days. People expect others to look after them 100%, without the individual needing to actually think for themselves. Manufacturers/suppliers need to cover their backsides so have to warn about any possible risk (like a cup of coffee might be hot?) and the politically correct mob make a living out of it.

According to a friend who lives in Ca even some foodstuffs have that cancer warning on them. Looks like the Ca lawmakers are covering their axses.

regards

Picked up a cab a year or two ago from a coachbuilder repair place with a paintshop in it and I couldn't get out quick enough, the fumes would choke a horse and those guys were in there 8-12 hours a day

I bet they had zero rodent or insect problems

I remember when I was in the Air Force when Polyurethane paints became the norm for painting aircraft, when the painters were working in a hangar there was a choking mist of polyurethane paint particles. Not all that long after the paints came into use, painters were developing throat cancers, there ensued a frenzy of regulations and PPE for the painters and we mere mortals were excluded from hangars whilst paint spraying took place. The Crown, who had immunity from prosecution until the mid 80’s, in those days were very lax about potential hazards to personnel, asbestos was an area they totally ignored until statistics became overwhelming. Dave W

Maybe, but 1 in 4 UK deaths are due to cancer. Surely we should try and dodge the bullet!

California law makes it necessary to label anything containing a substance that might cause cancer. It's a warning to take care. Usually easy - with paint don't breath the fumes, especially through a lit cigarette. I'd rather know about risks than ignore them. Ignorance is so unhelpful!

Trouble with cancer is it's impossible for individuals to judge the risk on their own because personal experience is worthless. Cancer risk is established statistically by counting the number of illnesses and fatalities across the whole population. The statistics reveal the big picture, not what definitely happens to you or me. Might never know the truth - we never get to read our own post-mortem report.

As an example, the numbers show that, on average, smokers die ten years earlier than non-smokers. That granny smoked 80 a day until she was run over aged 95 by a tram is worthless information on it's own: her experience doesn't make it safe for anyone else to smoke. It's a lottery, except we can improve the odds by playing it safe, provided we know what to avoid.

The risk of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogens is much higher for youngsters than pensioners. For us it's already too late, or something else will get us! For that reason, I'm happy to take risks now that would have been daft when I was 20. Perhaps it's because most people are thoughtless optimists that 28% of us eventually die from cancer. Aged 18 I was immortal, now I'm not quite so sure...

Dave

As far as your own use, you take note and assess the risks. One then either uses the stuff or not. The problem is that you know little about the product you are about to use. The warning on the label or the COSSH sheet is of little use unless you really unstand the subject. You can go to the internet which is full of misinformation, deliberate or accidental, even or, particularly, from respected sites (on numerous occasions members of this site have said that Kasenit is toxic which is untrue). In the end it is your choice.

As for cancer there is, or may was, a common test where a laboratory rat was fed with the suspected carcinogen at something like 80x the suspected lethal level. If a cancer developed the substance was carcinogenic. One lab tested distilled water and the rat died of cancer.

JA

I think the government tolerated smoking while the population were dropping dead from dozens of industrial diseases because smoking helped to cover up the true death toll in industry

Once Britain began to de-industrialise smoking became public enemy number one

Wouldn't be in the least surprised if all of Billy Connollys shipyard mates are all gone

My shipyard uncle is long gone while both his older and younger siblings are fine, some of whose lifestyles are definitely not healthy

I doubt that many American ambulance-chasing lawyers could be described as 'politically correct'...

Dunno about that but smoking was highly tax efficient. Nicotine improves the performance of young workers without making them ill. Smokers spend their entire working lives paying lots tax on tobacco. Then, soon after reaching retirement age, illness kicks in and they die young without drawing a pension. The Business Case in favour of encouraging smoking was rock solid.

The morality of state and industry profiting from selling a highly addictive life reducing drug is dubious but might not be the reason for the swing against smoking. Never seen any figures confirming the idea, but in my lifetime medicine has developed many ways of prolonging life despite heart attacks, bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer etc. The cost of treating smoker casualties today may exceed the amount they paid into the system, in which case smoking should be discouraged.

If we have a Nanny-state, she's not a nice nanny!

Dave