The following is the email I got from Walther's after asking them why they couldn't ship to California.

From: "custserv@walthers.com" <custserv@walthers.com>Add sender to Contacts To: rotcodjerry@yahoo.comThank you for your email, we apologize for the delay in response.

There was a California State law that became effective January 1, 2009;
this gave new standards that these items do not currently meet.

This is the only information that we have regarding this new law. Please
know that we are working to meet the new standards that California has put
into place.

Thank you for your time and have a great day!


Wm. K. Walthers, Inc.

After reading all of these threads I am left wondering what part of a slot car might contain lead? is this just assumed because they're manufactured in China, or is there real evidence of dangerous levels of lead somewhere?

-Paint? I don't think silk screened tampos contain lead.
-Motors? Maybe a small content in the solder on the tabs?

Or is this just a choking hazard situation? :confused:

Its just another protect me from myself deal again like everything else in life it seems in a society that doesn't want to take responsibility for their own actions......

Just in case someone gets the idea to slather one with mustard and chow down on it the manufacturers want to be protected so they are not liable for it..

Some people need these laws in place to protect them from their own stupidity.

Unfortunately the rest of us suffer from them like what we see here.

I'd like to jump off this planet at the next stop please........... HA HA HA!!!

Regarding jumping off the planet, You'll need the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the galaxy before you go.

I'm starting to think there is more sanity out in the galaxy then their is here on our planet with all you read in the media now a days! HA HA HA!!!

Eastside Johnny, where abouts in Ohio are you located?

Anywhere near me?

Just curious????

Wayne :thumbsup::thumbsup:

...and he was right!

Bought a hammer lately? The saftey mumbo jumbo sticker sez something about wearing saftey glasses...

...however no mention of protecting the most obvious part of the human anatomy in the line of fire

...yer thumb!

Clearly they have never used one so they allocated funding from yer pocket for an IMPACT study (pun both intended and not intended)...then bent down intently to observe as the blow was struck. Naturally they were shot directly in the eye with the minucia that exits every hammer blow. So of course they presummed that the area warranting protection was yer eyesight; clearly (or maybe not so clearly) confusing the hammer operator's thumb with their eye.:freak: Not exactly the type of folks one would want in charge their destiny! :p

Had they actually used the hammer themselves they would have pulped their own thumb and got it right, OR!...figured out a way to for you to stick a hammer in yer eye. We all know what really happened. ;)


Naturally the trained professional (not his first rodeo) who was hired to strike the blow already knew all this and was saavy enough to first protect his thumb AND protect his eyesight by allowing them to come between the shrapnel and his eyes.

... but of course they neglected to ask him cuz he's just the dumb hammer swinger who inadvertently pays their salary by... guess what?...


Swinging hammers! :wave:

All funny stuff, but tthhheriouthhhly folkthhsss. (...picture Bugs bunny spitting as he speaks) >Is there really any lead content in HO slot cars?

Most anything can be swallowed if you try hard enough. I thought that is what disclaimers on packages are for. (?) -All the lawyer speak on the package itself and the age restriction warnings = parental guidance! I mean, the heat issue seems to be enough to worry parents but that is what the heat shield is for with the warning in capital letters. Aren't manufacturers doing a CYA protection there?

I guess it boils down to the wording in the new California law huh? :confused: I mean if all toy manufacturers bow to some blanket rule then what are kids left to play with, rounded plastic blocks until they are 18 years old?

California.......enough said.

Jim Norton
Huntsville, Alabama

I think there may be more to it.

The can motors in those things are state of the art, and they have MUCHO magnets. If they are Neo magnets, is that possibly a hazzard?
If it is, would this preclude a high end magnet bann in Ca.?

I Know very little of what theses magnets are made of and how it is regulated (I know for a fact it is). Can someone who knows elaborate?

There is the possibility that the product just hasn't been tested yet to prove that it doesn't contain lead.

Its just another protect me from myself deal again

If you are under 12 yrs old, then I would have to agree with you, as I do believe the law is written to protect children, not adults playing with kids toys.

It is unfortunate, however that adults-being-kids sometimes get treated like kids.

Just think about all those adults who could no longer purchase the beanie-baby doll (or whatever doll it was) for their collections, when it became apparent that toddlers were choking on the poorly attached eyeballs.

...and he was right!

Bought a hammer lately? The saftey mumbo jumbo sticker sez something about wearing saftey glasses...

...however no mention of protecting the most obvious part of the human anatomy in the line of fire

...yer thumb!

Clearly they have never used one so they allocated funding from yer pocket for an IMPACT study (pun both intended and not intended)...then bent down intently to observe as the blow was struck. Naturally they were shot directly in the eye with the minucia that exits every hammer blow. So of course they presummed that the area warranting protection was yer eyesight; clearly (or maybe not so clearly) confusing the hammer operator's thumb with their eye.:freak: Not exactly the type of folks one would want in charge their destiny! :p

Had they actually used the hammer themselves they would have pulped their own thumb and got it right, OR!...figured out a way to for you to stick a hammer in yer eye. We all know what really happened. ;)


Naturally the trained professional (not his first rodeo) who was hired to strike the blow already knew all this and was saavy enough to first protect his thumb AND protect his eyesight by allowing them to come between the shrapnel and his eyes.

... but of course they neglected to ask him cuz he's just the dumb hammer swinger who inadvertently pays their salary by... guess what?...


Swinging hammers! :wave:

Don't give em any ideas..or we will have to be buying thumb protector child safe hammers.
I did some research and it seems that California is outlawing a chemical used to soften plastic.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/16/MNT0SQDJV.DTL

http://www.noharm.org/details.cfm?type=news&ID=34&contentRegionKey=us

Hey, at least you got an answer. :thumbsup::thumbsup: rr

There is the possibility that the product just hasn't been tested yet to prove that it doesn't contain lead.

I think oddrods hit it on the head, but, let me add to it. Working for a company that is in California, any products that are produced with material from another country (such as China - which in our case, EVERYTHING is from there) must go through state testing and pass the test before being approved for shipment into and out of the state of California. That being said, it does not imply that a product or item that is currently restricted contains lead. What it means (and here is the key to it all ladies and gentlemen) is that the manufacturer or distributor has not paid the thousands of dollars to the state for the state required testing that can only be done by a state lab. Until they do, the product or item is not allowed in the state for fear that it *MIGHT* have levels of lead that exceed the state laws.

PD2:thumbsup:

If you plan on shooting someone in California you may recieve
a lighter sentence if you use a lead free bullet.And if you can
prove it was assisted suicide you may get off scott free.

I'm begining to think that maybe everbody else is just jealous, plain & simple. :)

Regarding jumping off the planet, You'll need the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the galaxy before you go.

Ahh But can you buy it in CA. Has the ink been tested?

I think oddrods hit it on the head, .... the product or item is not allowed in the state for fear that it *MIGHT* have levels of lead that exceed the state laws.

I generally agree with this process, in that the product needs to be tested to make sure it doesn't exceed acceptable levels of a listed substance before it is allowed in. The inverse would be to let all products in, then ban them after it is determined that they are harmful.

In reading the email that Jeri received from Walthers, it doesn't give the impression that Walthers is overly upset about whatever law California has instituted that prevents them from shipping to CA. They are working towards complying.

And when the first of the Walthers/CA threads started, I actually thought people here were concerned that Californians would not be able to get Lifelike products. lol - boy was I wrong! :) I see now it was just an opportunity to bash on the government, both US and CA, and then to pidgeon hole CA residents. I find it entertaining, to say the least.

Hopefully we will hear more from Walthers, about the specific law and substance involved (we are still assuming, probably correctly but not confirmed, that it has to do with lead). I do know the toy-lead law is getting a lot of attention out here. Even though it may have merit, it may not have been written correctly, and will most likely need to be ammended.

simple cure:dip entire car in latex paint....

I agree with Tom H. The problem's not lead, it's phthalates, chemicals used to make plastic softer and more flexible.

When Walthers emailed me the same reply that Win43 got, I googled California laws going to effect Jan. 1 2009. There was one on lead in jewelry - not applicable. Most of the fuss was about banning phthalates from any childrens' products. CA says they cause health problems in lab rats, including cancer; the manufacturer says the effect is too small to be significant for humans and is taking it to court.

I note that some companies "temporarily" aren't shipping any toys to CA, and I suspect that Walthers hasn't got ironclad assurances from their Chinese manufacturers that their plastic tests out to CA standards, so they're not taking any chances with the LL stuff until they know for sure what's in the plastic, or perhaps, until they get a ruling from CA as to whether CA considers slot cars a children's product that falls under the ban, or maybe until they see how the court appeals settle out.

I don't think LL slotcars will be permanently banned from CA. If Mattel is cool with making track-melting tires, I'm sure Walthers won't feel too bad if the next lot of LL bodies is a bit on the hard and brittle side.

-- D

I think oddrods hit it on the head, but, let me add to it. Working for a company that is in California, any products that are produced with material from another country (such as China - which in our case, EVERYTHING is from there) must go through state testing and pass the test before being approved for shipment into and out of the state of California. That being said, it does not imply that a product or item that is currently restricted contains lead. What it means (and here is the key to it all ladies and gentlemen) is that the manufacturer or distributor has not paid the thousands of dollars to the state for the state required testing that can only be done by a state lab. Until they do, the product or item is not allowed in the state for fear that it *MIGHT* have levels of lead that exceed the state laws.

PD2:thumbsup:

I have some old hot rod mags dating back to the late 80s. Most of the ads in them state "Not Legal in the state of California". In recent ads, the same is stated in most. What gives? No chrome in California? Is high performance exhaust known to cause cancer in the state of California?

:confused:

I have some old hot rod mags dating back to the late 80s. Most of the ads in them state "Not Legal in the state of California". In recent ads, the same is stated in most. What gives? No chrome in California? Is high performance exhaust known to cause cancer in the state of California?

:confused:


More than likely it's called "Smog Emissions".


As far as the original matter here, I just saw a story on the news, and it may have to do with all the disgarded plastic that's ending up in the ocean. They showed a sea turtle that when very young got caught in a plastic soda ring, as he grew he streched the ring to it's limit. Now he looks somewhat like a siamese twin...not a pretty image.

Smog it is.

And because of smog, California has enacted some of the toughest emmissions standards in the nation. (I say 'some of the toughest' instead of 'the toughest' because other states have adopted the same standards as CA).

Back in the 70's and early 80's, the smog was real bad out here.

From 1970 to 2000, the number of vehicles almost doubled (12 million to over 23 million), miles driven had more then doubled (110 billion to 280 billion), and the total harmful emmissions decreased (1.6 million tons per year to 1.2 million).

Back in the 70's, it was common to have over 100 Stage 1 smog events in a year. In 2000, we had none.

CA is the only state that gets to set their own emissions standard. Other states get to choose between the federal standard, or the CA standard. With 10 percent of all cars mfgd going to CA (and 40% to states who have adopted the CA standard), you can see why car manufacturer's have to take heed of CA, and why they get nervous when CA demands even more reductions in emmissions.

Having grown up in the LA area my whole life, I have seen how the air quality has improved, and can't imagine what it would have been like if nothing had been done.

As far as the original matter here, I just saw a story on the news, and it may have to do with all the disgarded plastic that's ending up in the ocean. They showed a sea turtle that when very young got caught in a plastic soda ring, as he grew he streched the ring to it's limit. Now he looks somewhat like a siamese twin...not a pretty image.

I haven't seen the image you refer to, but it is the reason why I take the scissors to every one of those plastic six-pack holders, and make sure every circle is cut, even those itty-bitty ones between the larger ones. It used to be a hassle - "is it really worth the effort?" - but now its just part of the routine.

Smog it is.

Having grown up in the LA area my whole life, I have seen how the air quality has improved, and can't imagine what it would have been like if nothing had been done.


Oh, by far!!!!

Where do you live, i'm in the San Fernando Valley...gets pretty bad here at times.

maybe not

I'm in Orange now, and the on-shore really helps to keep the air cleaner here. But, grew up in Whittier, and then Chino, where a lot of it settles.

This is strange, it's all I could find and it seems to be about 3 years old but it was on tonites news. Slow nite in Cali for news I guess.

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Six_Pack_Plastic_Deforms_a_Turtle

I haven't seen the image you refer to, but it is the reason why I take the scissors to every one of those plastic six-pack holders, and make sure every circle is cut, even those itty-bitty ones between the larger ones. It used to be a hassle - "is it really worth the effort?" - but now its just part of the routine.

Stands and Applauds! Your a Good man we do it too.. I actually try to avoid excess packaging period and I wish everyone would stand up and go Hey I do not need 7 levels of package. I know its to stoip theft but hire somewith a IQ higher then 71 and they can watch the shopplifters for you a lot cheaper then the garbage is costing us.. reduce, reuse recycle, I have been doing it for years with my slot cars lol...


Dave

Go figure, you can be openly married gay in CA, smoke weed, but can't have
the new LL car of tomorrow NASCAR.
All the more reason to buy the USA made Wizzard P3X and Storm cars.

http://www.daveshoraceway.com

Dave --- I guess you guys all take out those foreign made mabuchi arms from the wizzard cars before you race Right?? Nice shop by the way.

State testing of products - within their rights. With slot cars and model trains that have been available in their relative current forms and configurations, is the law guilty until proven innocent?

Isn't smog a different subject? I think coastal areas of Cal have their own unique topography and atmospheric conditions that enhance "smog" - that would be the mountains and the marine layer. I also believe gross polluters like trash incinerators (like we used way back to burn all the packaging the grocery stores produced) and open burning of lawn trash/leaves were also first regulated in the mid-late 70's - sometimes its a matter of how much impact what you are regulating actually has. Big difference that can be observed vs. difference that can only be approximated by applying lab data to a macro scale. I have a friend who is an environmental chemist working for the state of California - I'll ask him if he knows if this is a chemical component issue.

Sadly, it all boils down to the lawyers, and the fear of a lawsuit, be it a single case or class action. Since liability falls into so many different laps (how could my state allow these dangerous slotcars to be available) the tendancy to over-react not only exists, but thrives. But this is what happens when a country has one lawyer for every 25.8 (est.) people. :jest:

I haven't seen the image you refer to, but it is the reason why I take the scissors to every one of those plastic six-pack holders, and make sure every circle is cut, even those itty-bitty ones between the larger ones. It used to be a hassle - "is it really worth the effort?" - but now its just part of the routine.

I actually do this too because I don;t want any animals to get hung up or trapped in them. Takes a few seconds but so what.

I actually do this too because I don;t want any animals to get hung up or trapped in them. Takes a few seconds but so what.

When we go hunting, we always trim the loops on our 6pack holders too.
We don't want to see any animals get hurt.

By the same logic then Tomy or Mattel (nasty little battery sets) should be able to ship there either.

Buster

The answer from the Cal Dept of Toxic Substances Control:

California Law Prohibiting Phthalates in Toys and Infant Products
Effective January 1, 2009, Health & Safety Code § 108937 (AB 1108) prohibits the sale of toys or child care articles in California that contain certain phthalates. This California law restricts six particular phthalates, which are the same as those restricted by the federal Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ("DEHP"), dibutyl phthalate ("DBP"), benzyl butyl phthalate ("BBP"), diisononyl phthalate ("DINP"), diisodecyl phthalate ("DIDP"), and di-n-octyl phthalate ("DnOP"). Three of the phthalates, DEHP, DBP and BBP, may not be present in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent in any toy or child care article. The remaining three phthalates, DINP, DIDP, and DnOP, are restricted to 0.1 percent only in those toys and child care articles "intended for use by a child under three years of age if that product can be placed in the child’s mouth."

The state legislature did not vest any specific state agency with the authority to enforce this law. Instead, this law may be enforced through a civil action under the CA Unfair Competition Law brought by the attorney general or a district attorney in the name of the people, or by certain city attorneys. The Department of Toxic Substances Control is not responsible for enforcement of the new phthalates law, so DTSC is unable to answer any questions regarding compliance issues. The attorney general provided comments to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission regarding implementation of California’s law restricting phthalates and its relationship to new federal standards for phthalates; these comments are available here: http://caag.state.ca.us/prop65/pdfs/CA_phthalate_letter.pdf

I think the italicized section explains the embargo. There is no scientific/regulatory source of information for compliance answers or testing standards (!!!!) - only the risk of a lawsuit from multiple legal entities of government. A potentially dangerous game for a manufacturer to play - they can test it as many ways as they can -as many as are known - and certify that the product meets standards. Somebody can figure out a new way to test which shows levels in excess of the standard - infinite ways to test a substance, aren't there? - and it's a lawsuit costing the company a bundle. Read the news releases from the CA Attorney General's Office - sounds like Mr. Brown is a one-man crusade show, but he is certainly not a chemist.

Diabolical indeed - no ongoing cost, only potential revenue benefitting state/county/city coffers (on behalf of the people). My friend did some work on this preceding the law, but he thought it was only for "rubber duckies" and the like - toys that would be expected to go into children's mouths. IF YOU READ THE LINKED LEGAL COMMENTS: (CA) AB 1108 does not put any age limit on "children." Oh boy, with this group that opens a whole new can of worms doesn't it? LOL

I saw today that Walthers will be carrying the Lionel line for 09.
Lot's of new stuff. We can only hope that they can bring back lost jewels like these.
http://cgi.ebay.com/1976-78-Lionel-Power-passers-Charger-Slot-Less-Car-6510_W0QQitemZ150293973124QQcmdZViewItemQQptZSlot_ Cars?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116

Is it just the cars or are sets included on the list also? We are truely a nation controlled by trial lawyers. I foresee a florishing underground economy emerging as a result. Just think of all the lost tax revenue. But then again, think about how much more revenue will be raised by law suits. A new breed of criminal - H.O. slot car smugglers/runners. If it moves-tax it, if it continues to move tax it even more, then if it still continues to move-regulate it.

Informative post SP! Thank you :thumbsup:
I read the link, and did some googling, and here is what I am seeing.

The federal government created a new law (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008) regarding phthalates (among other things), and California then passed a law which expanded on it. The feds (US Consumer Product Safety Commission) wrote a letter to CA about their law (somethign about 'preempting', which sounds like a conflict situation to me) and the link you provided was CA's response to the letter.

One big disagreement between the two laws seems to be with products manufactured before or after a certain date. CA law was specific in that you cant sell the products after 1/1/09, while Fed law was that you can't manufacture them after 2/09. Since then, it looks like the Fed changed their law to coincide with CA (this makes more sense to me).

CA law also is more broader, by adding in a couple things. One, like you mentioned, is the undefined age of a child. Not sure why they did this, and not sure what the ramificatons are because of it. Might be broad, but might not be anything. I'm curious as to the precedent related to this undefining of a child.

One other broader thing was adding the word 'relaxation'. Again, not sure how much broader this makes the law, but I'm not seeing a problem here.

As for testing, obviously you would use a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer operated in selected ion monitoring mode. :) I'm going to assume that accurate testing is currently available, and not sure where you were going with your infinate ways to test a product comment.

As for the enforcement of the law being left to lawyers and lawsuits, I'm not sure why (or if) you think this is a bad thing. I don't get the impression that you would support a goverment agency being involved in testing and banning products, so this method of enforcement seems kind of logical. I guess it would be like Libel and Slander laws, where the laws are on the books, but you aren't going to be arrested for breaking them. Unfair Competition is what a company would sue another company under if they suspect/have-knowledge that said company is selling products that do not meet the state and/or federal law.

In closing, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what CA did as compared to what the feds did. Did CA take the fed law too far, or did they improve on it?

Lastly, it appears the fed law has been expanded some, to prevent some products from being included, such as books, all natural products, etc. Just as the feds agreed with CA's position on manufactured/sell date, I wouldn't be surprised if CA modifies their law in regards to certain exempt products.