Shure SE-315 may cause cancer? DIdn't expect that..
Feb 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 28

JAnderton

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Posts
11
Likes
10
So I just recently ordered my Shure SE-315 and I can't wait to get my hands on it..
smily_headphones1.gif
 There is a chance that I might have to wait a till April to get it and that seems painful.
 
Every now and again, I google for the SE315 and read stuff about it to appease my desire to have the SR315s and today I was reading through Shure's broshure and SE 315 usage guide. To my surprise, this is what it says at the bottom.
 
Quote:
[size=xx-small]WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.[/size]

 
Am I the only one who found that funny, odd, unexpected and surprising?
blink.gif
 Honestly, it's one of the weirdest things I've ever read (we don't have such notices on Indian products.. I've never read the manuals in detail but this is the first I've heard of a pair of earphones causing cancer).
 
Did anyone else ever read something like this? Thoughts?
tongue.gif

 
Link to the user guide: http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/tech_pubs/@global_managed/documents/webcontent/pdf_en_se315_earphones_ug.pdf
 
Feb 2, 2012 at 11:00 AM Post #4 of 28

rroseperry

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Posts
3,306
Likes
69
So I just recently ordered my Shure SE-315 and I can't wait to get my hands on it.. :)  There is a chance that I might have to wait a till April to get it and that seems painful.

Every now and again, I google for the SE315 and read stuff about it to appease my desire to have the SR315s and today I was reading through Shure's broshure and SE 315 usage guide. To my surprise, this is what it says at the bottom.


Am I the only one who found that funny, odd, unexpected and surprising? :blink:  Honestly, it's one of the weirdest things I've ever read (we don't have such notices on Indian products.. I've never read the manuals in detail but this is the first I've heard of a pair of earphones causing cancer).

Did anyone else ever read something like this? Thoughts? :p

Link to the user guide: http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/tech_pubs/@global_managed/documents/webcontent/pdf_en_se315_earphones_ug.pdfhttp://www.shure.com/idc/groups/tech_pubs/@global_managed/documents/webcontent/pdf_en_se315_earphones_ug.pdf


It's fairly standard in California to add that warning. It will be on the door of a building if there's anything, anything that has been shown to cause cancer in any test. It's on the pumps at the gas station, for heaven's sake. I wouldn't worry.
 
Feb 2, 2012 at 11:06 AM Post #5 of 28

Watagump

Twizzler King
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Posts
7,641
Likes
1,835
Location
Orange County CA


Quote:
It's fairly standard in California to add that warning. It will be on the door of a building if there's anything, anything that has been shown to cause cancer in any test. It's on the pumps at the gas station, for heaven's sake. I wouldn't worry.



Do you think I could win a lawsuit if I said I cant read?
 
Feb 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM Post #7 of 28

Shark

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Posts
105
Likes
13
It seems weird, but I've seen that little notice on a lot of weird things. It's nothing to worry about since it's not something you consume; I'd be hesitant if I saw that at a restaurant or something... 
If something is going to be sold in California, the product has to been "clean" or have this notice somewhere. I'm sure companies include it in everything so they only have to print one version. 
 
Feb 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM Post #8 of 28

buffalowings

Went way too far, too many times.
Joined
May 14, 2010
Posts
4,542
Likes
39
guys, it has to be something within the earpieces, or maybe they apply a thin layer of lubricant group at the factory to prevent corrosion of internal components. Or maybe a trace of lead inside. This is enough to warrant the labeling for california
 
Feb 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM Post #12 of 28

IEMCrazy

Longwindeus Supremus
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Posts
1,506
Likes
67
There's a reason those warnings say "known in the State of California" and not "known in the United States"....the other 49 states never found it to be a problem worth looking into. 
 
California has all sorts of crazy labeling requirements that a manufacturer must include to be able to sell the product in California.  It's not that the product doesn't contain "cancer causing agents"...most products do in trace amounts.  But not in concentrations to actually cause a health concern, and California's poorly worded labeling law doesn't actually specify that it has to be in a certain concentration to require labeling.
 
There's lead in the solder, usually cable jackets were made with some percentage of lead (all cables), most of most products is made with petroleum and plasticizers, and the foam rubber ear pieces were cured with chemicals of one form or another.   Of course, in a solid state, none of that actually presents a problem, nor does the lead unless you plan on eating your wires or diluting them in your drinking water...  I don't think I've bought anything electronic in the last year that didn't have that warning somewhere on it.   If you plan on vaporizing the headphones in a fire....well...that could be more problematic...
 
Feb 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM Post #13 of 28

pack21

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Posts
526
Likes
38
Did State of California make the same warnings in things like "KFC fried chicken"??
 
 I'm not kidding, but  asking,  because if  they are so strict in Shure, also should be on things that are bad for prolonged exposure.
 

 
Feb 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM Post #14 of 28

JAnderton

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Posts
11
Likes
10
rofl.. For those who thought that I was actually confirmed, I'd like to say I'm not. I know that the laws in the US are different (to those here) and quite a few times service providers/manufacturers have to state such things.. it's just new for me. I never expected a earphone to have these warnings so I thought I should share it with you guys for a discussion/laugh :)
 
At no point was I actually concerned. I did find it a bit funny :)
 
Feb 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM Post #15 of 28

IEMCrazy

Longwindeus Supremus
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Posts
1,506
Likes
67
 
Quote:
Did State of California make the same warnings in things like "KFC fried chicken"??
 
 I'm not kidding, but  asking,  because if  they are so strict in Shure, also should be on things that are bad for prolonged exposure.

 
If they haven't outright banned KFC from operation in CA, no doubt, there's no less than 6 different bills that will try, and a dozen that have only narrowly escaped passing in the past...
 
...I mock CA lovingly....on the opposite coast we're starting to show more severe symptoms on the madness as well (the "sugary softdrink tax" comes to mind....which I have to laugh at considering the disconnect between the politicians and the planet Earth.  What was the last softdrink you had that actually contained any sugar whatsoever?  No, they all have corn syrup instead...  So I'm wondering what softdrinks would be taxed?  Presumably upscale sodas from small bottling companies, definitely not the majors.)
 
To follow the headphone warnings, I'm wondering how music is ever made in CA.  You shouldn't use headphones, they're toxic.  You shouldn't run speaker cables, they're toxic.  You shouldn't buy CDs, they're toxic.  You shouldn't buy digital downloads, the servers that provide them are made of toxic things.  You can go to a live concert, but the concert shouldn't be amplified because the cabling, amps, and mixing boards are toxic.  The musicians can play acoustic instruments....but the strings were probably treated with toxc substances that may or may not contain lead or mercury.  The venue shouldn't be illuminated because the light bulbs are toxic.  :)  "Welcome to California: State animal?  The Unicorn.  It's real, we swear!" :)
 
It's one of those things that, the idea made sense, a product that contains potentially DANGEROUS levels of toxic substances should be labeled as such.  Products that achieve dangerous levels of toxic substances on their own probably shouldn't be sold to begin with.  But as-is an open ended labeling requirement makes the actual point of it meaningless.  There are almost zero manufactured products that contain zero percent of anything at all toxic, which means virtually every manufactured product has to be labeled as toxic.  And nobody actually reads or cares about the warning because it's the same warning they've seen on everything else they bought, so if they buy something that actually is packed with depleted uranium, they'll still be as oblivious to it as if it had no label at all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top