omg, Facebook Oculus Quest 2 causes cancer?! 🙈 (California Proposition 65)
omg, Facebook Oculus Quest 2 verursacht Krebs?! 🙈
Hab mir ein neues Facial-Interface (das ist der Gesichtspolster bei der VR-Brille, den man aus Hygienegründen wechseln kann) für die Quest 2 bestellt und auf der Packung fand sich diese kalifornische Gesundheitswarnung.
Das Teil verursache Krebs und reproduktive Schäden. Komischerweise befindet sich diese Warnung nicht auf der europäischen Originalverpackung, obwohl sie das gleiche Teil beinhaltet.
Was sagt ihr dazu? Übertriebene Warnung oder doch Grund zur Sorge?
Health warning on the Oculus Quest 2 Facial Interface: "Cancer and Reproductive Harm – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov"
English
omg, Facebook Oculus Quest 2 causes cancer?! 🙈
I ordered a new Facial Interface from Facebook (that's the face pad on the VR headset that you can change for hygiene reasons) for the Quest 2 and on the package was this Californian health warning.
The part causes cancer and reproductive harm. Strangely enough, this warning is not on the original European packaging, even though it contains the same part.
What do you think about this? Is it an exaggerated warning or a real cause for concern?
Live your Secrets and Hive Prosper 🍯
xx Viki @vikisecrets
Ich denke absolut übertrieben. Die Amis müssen ja sogar bei ihren Waschmaschinen dabei schreiben das man keine Haustiere da rein packt.
Liebe Grüße Michael
!invest_vote
Weiß auch nicht, was ich davon halten soll. Warnung ist unbrauchbar, da man nicht weiß, warum und wie hoch das Risiko ist. Könnte vlt am Plastik / BPA liegen.
@mima2606 denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient!
@mima2606 thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !
EM radiation is a real concern for people.
Just because you don't immediately feel sick from something doesn't mean it isn't doing you harm. Think lead in the water, thalidamide, smoking, and all kinds of things we thought were safe until observed effects made people decide otherwise.
Initially the tiny amount of microwave radiation (in comparison to the cooking device) that comes from phones to me sounded like it couldn't do any harm. The frequencies are far lower than the harmful x-ray and gamma radiation. But I had to have a second look when people actually had to give up killer-cash paying jobs in order to be away from this wifi. It often seems to be someone who has been exposed to large doses in the past who who get sensitive to the radiation later. They even get sensitive to electricity that run in the wires!
Instead of something that doesn't kill you making you stronger, it seems that when its intense enough, it makes you weaker.
Check out wearetheevidence.org. And if you think these people gave up their jobs in order to get free money with some kind of insurrance fraud, then I guess you have never had the opportunity to live without a job and be paid. It's not nice. Living without paid work makes one feel worthless. Imagine giving up cryptocurrencies, internet, and a near six-figure salary and live like you're in the 19th century. I really want this to be a hoax but this feeling doesn't convince me.
I use a headset while speaking on cellular phone. I expose myself to Wifi all of the time and I live in cell coverage. Maybe I should get rid of my cellphone.
I think the warning could also refer to some harmful chemicals used, but unfortunately the warning is almost useless because it does not state the chemicals and risk.
EM radiation is not per se harmful for people. It depends on the power, frequency, distance to the source/antenna and energy / time exposure. Normal cell phone and wifi em should be completely harmless for people.
Sabine Hossenfelder: All you need to know to understand 5G
I agree it should be completely harmless for people but for me evidence trumps reasoning here. Anything with lower frequency than light in reasoning should be safe.
The 5G is indeed a lower frequency than visible light. It uses too little power to heat you up, so it shouldn't cause any harm. It seems to me that light would be the best option for saftey as that's part of the natural environment but even visible light can harm us.
It comes down to how do you know what is true. The ancient Greeks thought we should be able to just reason out the physics without experiments: Apriori. The introduction of experiments and the development of the scientific method, involves testing things. Experiment and repeated experiments. Here we have users who are sick from it. It's being rolled out without any studies done previously. Why the rush?
California has (probably) the strictest regulations in North America when it comes to health and environmental issues. The device probably uses a chemical that is regulated in the state. We had the same warning on a kitchenaid appliance we bought in Canada. I'm just speculating here but my guess would be that the chemical being used is probably teflon or something like that - a spray coating to keep the device clean, so dirt and oil dont stick to it as readily. Again, I'm just speculating here, I don't actually know.
Yes, it's really a strange warning and sort of useless because it doesn't state the chemicals and actual risk. Maybe it has to do something with the plastic / BPA? But without more information it's useless.
Yeah, BPA and something in the plastic is a good guess. I agree that its not very helpful. It would be nice to know if the risk comes from it touching your skin or from eating it because if its from eating it then its not really a problem. Its probably safe to assume that you're not going to eat the headset hahaha🤣🤣
.... or copulate with it - that could be another risk they tested it for in California!
Na ja
Braucht man das, und wenn aus China?
Mein Junior hat auch ne Quest, die er höchstens 1 Stunde am Tag nutzen darf!
Ok hab die auch schon mal abends angetestet ;-)
Aber da geht schon wieder der Coronawahn los!
Selbst wenn es 2 Nutzer innerhalb eines Haushalts gibt braucht man
das Teil aus China bestimmt nicht
Angst vor Corona? dann halt Krebs ;-)
!BEER !wine
Congratulations, @miketr You Successfully Shared 0.100 WINE With @vikisecrets.
You Earned 0.100 WINE As Curation Reward.
You Utilized 1/3 Successful Calls.
Total Purchase : 23448.834 WINE & Last Price : 0.290 HIVE
HURRY UP & GET YOUR SPOT IN WINE INITIAL TOKEN OFFERING -ITO-
WINE Current Market Price : 0.403 HIVE
View or trade
BEER.Hey @vikisecrets, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @miketr for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Sicherheitshalber das Teil immer mit einer Flasche
!WINE
intus nutzen um alles schädliche mit dem Alkohol zu töten.
Congratulations, @siphon You Successfully Shared 0.300 WINE With @vikisecrets.
You Earned 0.300 WINE As Curation Reward.
You Utilized 3/3 Successful Calls.
Total Purchase : 23448.834 WINE & Last Price : 0.290 HIVE
HURRY UP & GET YOUR SPOT IN WINE INITIAL TOKEN OFFERING -ITO-
WINE Current Market Price : 0.403 HIVE
Hast Du da nachgeforscht? https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/
Under the Proposition 65 statute, “known to the state to cause [cancer] [birth defects or other reproductive harm]” means the chemical has been added to the Proposition 65 list by one of four listing mechanisms. Learn more about how chemicals are added to the Proposition 65 list.
What types of chemicals are on the Proposition 65 list?
The list contains a wide range of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals that include additives or ingredients in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs, dyes, or solvents. Listed chemicals may also be used in manufacturing and construction, or they may be byproducts of chemical processes, such as motor vehicle exhaust.
Also dann, such Dir etwas aus das schmackhaft klingt, ich habe da schon eine Suche eingestellt auf "Reproductive Harm":
Listed Chemicals
haha, das ist aber eine lange Liste, wäre cool, wenn man diese Chemikalien dann gar nicht mehr verwenden würde, wenn sie wirklich so gefährlich sind ;) Aber mit der staatlichen Warnung kann man wie gesagt nicht viel anfangen, ohne mehr Infos zu den tatsächlich im Produkt befindlichen Chemikalien und der tatsächlichen Gefährlichkeit.
Ich würde das nicht ernstnehmen. Das Risiko erscheint mir wesentlich geringer als der Schaden an den Augen durch die ständige Fokussierung auf Objekte wenige Zentimeter vor dem Auge. Das kann nicht gesund sein!