You Down With AB1953?
December 26th, 2009
I realize I’ve reached a new low low in terms of lame titles, but wanted to briefly discuss Assembly Bill 1953. Beginning in 2010, the bill requires all potable water pipes and fixtures to be lead free*. Oh yes, the lovely asterisk. I stumbled upon this little doozy while hunched over at my local Home Depot looking for new aerators for every faucet in my house.
The situation was actually a bit funny because Home Depot had gotten me in this mess to begin with. They’ve coupled with a local RainSoft dealer and hidden their DIY water softeners way in a back corner somewhere. Long story short, I made the horrible mistake of having RainSoft/Home Depot install a whole house water filtration system. It has been a total nightmare with such highlights as soldering flux firing out of my kitchen faucet, several bathfuls of black water, a tub which required lengthy cleaning sessions to partially remove black/brown residue, ongoing cleanup of wherever the incompetent RainSoft installer worked. I have much much more to say on this topic, but will have to write about it another time. Oh RainSoft, you have had not heard the last of me.
But I digress…. So there I was in Home Depot trying to buy five aerators. Their selection was pretty sparse (perhaps because of the upcoming law), but I managed to find a Neoperl product which seemed to fit the bill. And there it was in big capital letters: “LEAD FREE*”. This perplexed me a great deal given that a few millimeters above this claim stood: “Ultra low lead”.
I tried to wrap my head around “LEAD FREE*” vs. “Ultra low lead”. How could something lead free have ultra low lead? On the back they described the asterisk in flowery, blooming English: “*AB 1953 compliant less than 0.2% lead.” Wouldn’t you love if everything was described this way? “Traffic ticket you drive too fast.” “Delicious food ate at fancy restaurant.” And so on…
Now having looked into the Assembly Bill a bit, it appears the powers that be are redefining the meaning of lead free. In other words, they are lowering the value considered lead free. After doing a little research, I found that the legal limit for lead in related products used to be 8%. To me, .2% doesn’t seem that low, and 8% seems incredibly high. Given all the really scary stuff written about lead (and I have a two-year-old, people!), I would kind of prefer lead free to mean 0% lead. Is it that hard to make a metal product that contains no lead?
To further my confusion, another, simpler model of aerator, also made by Neoperl, states “LEAD FREE*”, but not “Ultra low lead”. So, does this mean this one is pushing the 0.2% lead content?
Now, I know what you’re saying: “Dude, why didn’t you just buy an aerator from another company claiming 0% lead?” There were none. Home Depot (or “The Home Depot” as I think they like being called now) only had these in stock.
If anyone has a suggestion for eco-friendly aerators without any lead (no asterisk), feel free to comment. Even though they say “there is no safe level of lead”, I guess AB 1953 is a step in the right direction. If it were me, and I know this would probably cause minor economic mayhem or piss off the lead lobby, I would just take a hatchet to it and make lead free actually lead free. 0%. Done.
P.S. Please also comment if you have more RainSoft horror stories.
Please subscribe to my feed.Filed under: Environment, Home Equipment, Safety
Esquire Needs A New Editor
November 28th, 2009
Esquire is one of those expired frequent flyer miles magazines I get. (In other words, for free.)
I used to be mildly interested in Barry Sonnenfeld’s product reviews, though he’s been getting on my nerves lately.
Mr. Sonnenfeld’s latest case of product propaganda, “30 Holiday Gift Ideas for the Digital Man”, randomly features the Rockettes, and a pretty embarrassing typo. It’s hard to believe, but the typo remains on the Esquire website:
“And unlike many other portable speakers, Altec doesn’t overdo the base. The sound is bright and realistic.”
A tech review should not mispell “bass” as “base”. Am I wrong here?
Here is the link. Sorry, but you have to skip to slide 9. I wasn’t sure how to link it directly.
Filed under: Magazines
Vogue Needs a New Editor
June 12th, 2009
A few days ago I picked up my wife’s June 2009 U.S. Vogue Magazine. Flipping though it, I landed on a strangely luring article titled “Battles of the Heart” by Ana Menéndez. I always thought Vogue was a rather sophisticated fashion magazine, so I was really surprised to find an article which was unintentionally tasteless. Granted, I’m all for some good ol’ lowbrow tomfoolery, but what I stumbled upon was garbage packaged as high sheen journalism.
Allow me to explain.
The article begins when Ana Menéndez recieves a FedEx package at her place in Instanbul. (It was forwarded from New York, so you know she’s important.) There she is having a jovial nightcap with visitors (wine and a teak table are involved). She senses this package is important. The package, she finds out, claims her husband cheated on her. Upsetting indeed.
Filed under: Magazines, Stupidity
