In my time working on construction crews in Oregon, one persistent joke was, upon reading the ubiquitous warning “known to cause cancer in the state of California” on a material we were about to use, was announcing, “good thing we’re not in California!” Everyone would laugh and then go ahead using the pressure-treated lumber, or whatever it was, as usual. I was generally alone in taking precautions in these situations, and actually caught significant flack for being paranoid and/or anal retentive. This was not improved by my careful explanation that California was where the lawsuits and legal actions happened which resulted in these warnings, not where the cancer cases were confined!
The bottom line was that precautions (not to mention using less toxic materials) slow down the process for bosses and often seem unnecessary to the crew, so they were not taken. Many of the crew reasoned that since they already smoked and drank, how much could inhaling some fume or touching some chemical really increase their chances of getting cancer?
This was frustrating to hear but is actually an excellent point. Without information about base rates, how can we make good decisions about toxicity exposure? We need specificity and statistics to make good decisions.
For example, Reanna pointed this sign out to me last night:
It is posted on the side of the RV we have been living in during our renovation project. Of what use is this supposed to be? If I was on the fence about whether or not to buy an RV this might be somewhat helpful, but only by increasing a vague sense of fear, possibly to the point that I wouldn’t make the purchase. I want to know by doing what (driving it? sitting in it? licking the walls?) for how long (minutes? years?) and in what circumstances (engine running? after the RV’s a certain age? at certain temperatures?) will increase my chance of developing what cancer by what statistical rate? With that information, I could make a decent decision about how to interact with this RV. Or construction material.
It’s unfortunately true that construction worker and RV buyers (as well as doctors, lawyers, and Americans in general) do not understand statistics, and so for many this information might not be helpful. But it could hardly be less helpful than it is now.
Nathen's Miraculous Escape 
May 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm
*sigh* Someday the headline will be, California sues the Sun for causing skin cancer in California. The Sun will of course agree, and as part of the settlement will turn the lights off. Now the same rays that DID cause cancer in genetically susceptible individuals are absent for everyone. This causes vitamin D deficiency, slowing the absorption of calcium, and the poor pale human race who are wealthy from the settlement from the Sun, are now skin cancer free, but are unable to support their own weight without fracturing their weakened bones.
Good for you for avoiding known carcinogens, and based on your genetics, you will likely live long. Currently medicine is debating the risk of various CT scans on the risk of cancer. Unfortunately, even the smartest statisticians have missed the mark. We all know the risk of cancer is very real, based on models of Hiroshima and Chernobyl(sp?). Unfortunately there are literally thousands of people with CT scans numbering 5x the amount theorized to cause cancer. Why? dunno, but my guess is genetics and flawed modeling in the stats. Not sure we can actually compare controlled and focused energy of CT to saturating environmental contamination. Stats? not really helpful. At any rate, good luck with the project, it does feel good when it is completed!
~b
May 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Good point, Boyce. Stats are only as helpful as the underlying data are complete, accurate, and relevant. Another reason that scientific journals should publish their data, as in my post “A Proposal For Modernizing Psychology Journals: Publish the Data.”
Nathen
May 26, 2012 at 1:57 pm
These warnings drive me crazy too, as they instill fear, but I often end up wondering what exactly I’m afraid of. When planning for an extended camping trip in the desert with my kids, I was looking at a portable shower. The cancer warning on the box freaked me out so we skipped it. Later, we had to replace our tent and it wasn’t until we set it up at the campground that we saw the cancer warning inside of it. But it was too late- we were already sleeping in it. My kids started an eye spy kind of game to spot the cancer warnings just in our camp site- on the lantern, flashlight, blow up beach ball- it seemed they were every freakin’ where. It just leads to desensitizing us so we ignore the warnings altogether. I’d love to see some stats personally that show what exactly the risks are so we could actually make informed decisions.