Wikipedia - Benutzerbeiträge [de]

Terry Walsh

2011-08-21T06:28:26Z

Openstrings: Adding Category:Olympic medalists in field hockey

{{Infobox sportsperson
|name=Terry Walsh
|birth_date=November 20, 1953
|birth_place=
|death_date=
|death_place=
|show-medals=yes
|medaltemplates={{MedalSport | Men's [[Field Hockey]]}}
{{MedalCountry | {{AUS}} }}
{{MedalCompetition|[[Olympic Games]]}}
{{MedalSilver | [[1976 Summer Olympics|1976 Montreal]] | [[Field hockey at the 1976 Summer Olympics|Team competition]]}}
}}
:''This article is about the field hockey player. For the actor and stuntman of the same name, see [[Terry Walsh (actor)]].''

'''Terence ("Terry") Arthur Walsh''' (born November 20, 1953 in [[Kalgoorlie, Western Australia]]) is a former [[field hockey]] striker from Australia, who competed in two [[Olympic Games]] for his native country.

==External links==
* [http://www.usfieldhockey.com/futures/walsh/ Profile on USA Field Hockey]
<br>
{{Netherlands FH Squad 2004 Champions Trophy}}

{{Persondata 
| NAME = Walsh, Terry
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =
| DATE OF BIRTH = November 20, 1953
| PLACE OF BIRTH =
| DATE OF DEATH =
| PLACE OF DEATH =
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Walsh, Terry}}
[[Category:1953 births]]
[[Category:Australian field hockey players]]
[[Category:Olympic field hockey players of Australia]]
[[Category:Field hockey players at the 1976 Summer Olympics]]
[[Category:Field hockey players at the 1984 Summer Olympics]]
[[Category:People from Western Australia]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Australian field hockey coaches]]
[[Category:Olympic silver medalists for Australia]]
[[Category:People from Kalgoorlie]]
[[Category:Olympic medalists in field hockey]]

Magdalena Aicega

2011-08-21T05:06:26Z

Openstrings: Adding Category:Olympic medalists in field hockey

{{MedalTableTop|Maggie Aicega.jpg|200px}}
{{MedalSport | Women's [[Field Hockey]]}}
{{MedalCountry | {{ARG}} }}
{{MedalCompetition|[[Olympic Games]]}}
{{MedalSilver|[[2000 Summer Olympics|2000 Sydney]]|[[Field hockey at the 2000 Summer Olympics|Team]]}}
{{MedalBronze|[[2004 Summer Olympics|2004 Athens]]|[[Field hockey at the 2004 Summer Olympics|Team]]}}
{{MedalBronze|[[2008 Summer Olympics|2008 Beijing]]|[[Field hockey at the 2008 Summer Olympics|Team]]}}
{{MedalCompetition|[[Women's Hockey World Cup|World Cup]]}}
{{MedalGold| [[2002 Women's Hockey World Cup|2002 Perth]] | Team}}
{{MedalSilver| [[1994 Women's Hockey World Cup|1994 Dublin]] | Team}}
{{MedalBronze| [[2006 Women's Hockey World Cup|2006 Madrid]] | Team}}
{{MedalCompetition|[[Hockey Champions Trophy|Champions Trophy]]}}
{{MedalGold| [[2001 Women's Hockey Champions Trophy|2001 Amstelveen]] | Team}}
{{MedalGold|[[2008 Women's Hockey Champions Trophy|2008 Mönchengladbach]]| Team}}
{{MedalSilver| [[2002 Women's Champions Trophy (field hockey)|2002 Macau]] | Team}}
{{MedalSilver| [[2007 Women's Champions Trophy (field hockey)|2007 Quilmes]] | Team}}
{{MedalBronze| [[2004 Women's Hockey Champions Trophy|2004 Rosario]] | Team}}
{{MedalCompetition|[[Hockey at the Pan American Games|Pan American Games]]}}
{{MedalGold| [[Hockey at the 1995 Pan American Games|1995 Mar del Plata]] | Team}}
{{MedalGold| [[Hockey at the 1999 Pan American Games|1999 Winnipeg]] | Team}}
{{MedalGold| [[Hockey at the 2003 Pan American Games|2003 Santo Domingo]] | Team}}
{{MedalGold| [[Field Hockey at the 2007 Pan American Games|2007 Rio de Janeiro]] | Team}}
{{MedalCompetition|[[Pan American Cup]]}}
{{MedalGold| [[2001 Women's Pan American Cup|2001 Kingston]] | Team}}
{{MedalBottom}}

'''María Magdalena Aicega Amicarelli''' (born November 1, 1973 in [[Buenos Aires]]) is a [[field hockey]] defender from [[Argentina]], who won the silver medal with the [[Las Leonas|Women's National Team]] at the [[2000 Summer Olympics]] in [[Sydney, Australia]]. [[Nickname]]d ''Magui'', she first represented her native country at the Junior World Cup in 1993 in [[Barcelona, Spain]], where Argentina won gold. The following year the penalty corner hitter played for the senior team, finishing second at the [[1994 Women's Hockey World Cup|World Cup]] in [[Dublin, Ireland]].

Aicega was awarded the ''Silver Olimpia'', the most prestigious local prize awarded by Argentina's Sports Journalists Association, in 1998 and 2003. She was also nominated for the [[International Hockey Federation|FIH]]'s Best Player of the Year in 1999, won by [[Australia]]'s [[Alyson Annan]].

==References==
{{refbegin}}
* [http://www.cahockey.org.ar/link.asp?ir=leonas CA Hockey]
* [http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ai/maria-magdalena-aicega-1.html Profile]
{{refend}}

==External links==
* [http://magdalenaicega.galeon.com/ Website with more information]
<br>
<br>
{{Navboxes
|title=Magdalena Aicega – International Tournaments
|list1=
{{Argentina FHW Squad 1994 World Cup}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 1995 Pan American Games}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 1996 Summer Olympics}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 1998 World Cup}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 1999 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 1999 Pan American Games}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2000 Champions Trophy}}
{{2000 ARGw OS Field Hockey}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2001 Pan American Cup}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2001 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2002 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2002 World Cup}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2003 Pan American Games}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2003 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2004 Summer Olympics}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2004 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2005 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2006 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2006 World Cup}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2007 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2007 Pan American Games}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2008 Champions Trophy}}
{{Argentina FHW Squad 2008 Summer Olympics}}
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Aicega, Magdalena}}
[[Category:1973 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Field hockey players at the 1996 Summer Olympics]]
[[Category:Field hockey players at the 2000 Summer Olympics]]
[[Category:Field hockey players at the 2004 Summer Olympics]]
[[Category:Field hockey players at the 2008 Summer Olympics]]
[[Category:Olympic field hockey players of Argentina]]
[[Category:Olympic silver medalists for Argentina]]
[[Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Argentina]]
[[Category:Las Leonas players]]
[[Category:Olympic medalists in field hockey]]

{{Argentina-fieldhockey-bio-stub}}

[[bs:Magdalena Aicega]]
[[es:Magdalena Aicega]]
[[hr:Magdalena Aicega]]

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986

2010-12-10T05:54:18Z

Openstrings: adding article feedback pilot to USPP articles using AWB

{{ElectionsCA}}
'''Proposition 65''' (formally titled "'''The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986'''") is a [[California]] law passed by direct voter initiative in 1986 by a 63%-37% margin. Its goals are to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that cause [[cancer]] and [[birth defect]]s and to reduce or eliminate exposures to those chemicals generally, for example in consumer products, by requiring warnings in advance of those exposures. It is administered by Cal/EPA's [[California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment]] (OEHHA), which maintains a helpful website<ref>[http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html]</ref> on the law. Proposition 65 regulates substances officially listed by California as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm in two ways. The first regulatory arm of Proposition 65 prohibits businesses from knowingly discharging listed substances into drinking water sources, or onto land where the substances can pass into drinking water sources. The second regulatory arm of Proposition 65 prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing individuals to listed substances without providing a clear and reasonable warning.

Since enactment, Proposition 65 has been the reason for reformulation of numerous consumer products to eliminate toxic chemicals covered by Proposition 65, as well as other significant changes to reduce exposures such as toxic air emissions.<ref>The "Prop. 65 Kit" [http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=3376] by the Environmental Defense Fund includes a short summary of the law's effects (see "Track Record") as well as its history, controversies, and industry attempts to eliminate it.</ref> In some cases consumer products have been relabeled to show specific toxic ingredients, but reformulation has been far more common. An official list of covered substances is maintained and made publicly available. Entries are added or removed based on current scientific information. All substances listed show their known risk factors, a unique [[Chemical Abstracts Service|CAS]] [[CAS registry number|chemical classification number]], the date they were listed, and, if so, whether they have been delisted.

Proposition 65 remained politically controversial <ref>See Prop. 65 Kit, above.</ref> for well over a decade after it passed, in large part because, in effect, it put the burden of proof on business instead of government to make a key scientific determination about safety levels for specific chemicals.<ref>If a "no significant effect" level has been established for a cancer-causing chemical listed under Prop. 65, then no warning is required as long as the actual exposure is below that level. But it is up to the business causing the exposure to know what that level is, and to do the scientific analysis if government has not already done so.</ref> This unique shift gave businesses an incentive to cooperate with government in setting exposure limits to specific chemicals. When the California Environmental Protection Agency conducted a five-year review of the law in 1992, it found that "By federal standards, Proposition 65 has resulted in 100 years of progress in the areas of hazard identification, risk assessment, and exposure assessment." <ref>Unpublished report, reproduced in original form as "Accomplishments Summary" in the Prop. 65 Kit [http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=3428]</ref>

== Rationale and enumerated rights ==
In addition to amending the [[California Health and Safety Code]], Proposition 65 contained the following language in the 1986 ballot initiative:

"SECTION 1. The people of California find that hazardous chemicals pose a serious potential threat to their health and well-being, that state government agencies have failed to provide them with adequate protection, and that these failures have been serious enough to lead to investigations by federal agencies of the administration of California's toxic protection programs. The people therefore declare their rights:

(a) To protect themselves and the water they drink against chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

(b) To be informed about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

(c) To secure strict enforcement of the laws controlling hazardous chemicals and deter actions that threaten public health and safety.

(d) To shift the cost of hazardous waste cleanups more onto offenders and less onto law-abiding citizens.

The people hereby enact the provisions of this initiative in furtherance of their rights."<ref>Prop. 65 ballot pamphlet full text available at [http://traynor.uchastings.edu/library/Research%20Databases/CA%20Ballot%20Measures/ca_ballot_measures_main.htm Hastings' California Ballot Measures Databases]</ref>

The Legislature's 2003 amendments to Proposition 65 contained the statement that the changes "further the purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986."<ref>[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_1751-1800/ab_1756_bill_20030811_chaptered.pdf AB 1756 of 2003]</ref>

== Enforcement ==
Enforcement is carried out through [[Lawsuit|civil lawsuits]] against Proposition 65 violators. These lawsuits may be brought by the [[California Attorney General]], any [[district attorney]], or certain [[city attorney]]s (those in cities with a population exceeding 750,000). Lawsuits may also be brought by private parties "acting in the public interest", but only after providing notice of the alleged violation to the Attorney General, the appropriate district attorney and city attorney, and the business accused of the violation.

A Proposition 65 Notice of Violation must provide adequate information to allow the recipient to assess the nature of the alleged violation. A notice must comply with the information and procedural requirements specified in regulations. A private party may not pursue an enforcement action directly under Proposition 65 if one of the government officials noted above initiates an action within sixty days of the notice. After 2003, private enforcers must also serve a certificate of merit (statement of expert consultation(s) supporting belief of reasonable and meritorious private action) as a means of preventing frivolous enforcement actions.

A business found to be in violation of Proposition 65 is subject to civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation. In addition, the business may be ordered by a court of law to stop committing the violation.<ref>[http://www.calcleaners.com/drycleaners/prop65.html California Cleaners breaking news]</ref> Other penalties may apply, including unfair business practices violations as limited under [[California Proposition 64 (2004)]].

== Warning label ==
The following [[warning language]] is standard on products sold in California if they contain chemicals on the Proposition 65 list and the amount of exposure caused by the product is not within defined safety limits.

<blockquote>WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause [[cancer]] and [[congenital disorder|birth defect]]s or other reproductive harm.</blockquote>

The wording can be changed as necessary, so long as it communicates that the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. For exposures from other sources, such as car exhaust in a parking garage, a standard sign might read: "This area contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm" .<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.compliancesigns.com/ChemBioCAPROP65.shtml
| title = CA Proposition 65 Signs
| author = ComplianceSigns.com
| accessdate = 2008-07-22
| publisher = InfoTag, Inc.}}</ref>

Some businesses in the state post similar notices on their premises, even when they have not evaluated the actual level of risk from a listed chemical they know is present.<ref name="urlMade Simple">{{cite web
|url=http://www.prop65news.com/pubs/brochure/madesimple.html
|title=Prop 65 Made Simple
|year=2005
|publisher=Prop 65 News
|quote=When a warning is given by a business, it means one of two things: (1) the business has evaluated the exposure and has concluded that it exceeds the no significant risk level; or (2) the business has chosen to provide a warning simply based on its knowledge about the presence of a listed chemical, without attempting to evaluate the exposure. In these cases, exposure could be below the Proposition 65 level of concern, or could even be zero.
|accessdate=2008-07-22
}}</ref> Warning signs are often posted at gas stations,<ref name=House/> hardware suppliers,<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.watts.com/prop65.asp
| title = California Proposition 65
| author = Watts Water Technologies, Inc.
}}</ref> grocery stores, drug stores, medical facilities, and many other businesses.<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.kaweahdelta.org/guide/edevices.asp
| title = Electronic Devices
| author = Kaweah Delta Health Care District
}}</ref><ref name=CHLA>{{cite press release
| title = California Hotel & Lodging Association Helps Lodging Guests Understand Proposition 65; Court Approval Obtained for Comprehensive Compliance Procedure
| publisher = California Hotel & Lodging Association
| date = 2004-07-07
| url = http://timesharebeat.com/2004/july/0707-04t.htm
| accessdate = 2008-07-22
| quote = "Unfortunately, the 'safe harbor' warning-sign language specified under Proposition 65 is designed to be so all-encompassing that it is vague and typically doesn't provide much useful information," said Jim Abrams, president and CEO of CH&LA. "People see Prop. 65 warning signs nearly every place they go -- grocery and hardware stores, restaurants, commercial buildings, car show rooms, hotels and inns, pretty much everywhere...
}}</ref> Government agencies,<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/P65Facts.html
| title = Comparison of the Warning Requirement and the Government Employee Disclosure Requirement
| author = Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen
| publisher = California Environmental Protection Agency
}}</ref> parking garages, hotels,<ref name=CHLA/> apartment complexes,<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/P65ten.html
| title = Proposition 65 Fact Sheet for Tenants
| author = Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen
| publisher = California Environmental Protection Agency
}}</ref> retail stores,<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.target.com/California-Proposition-65/b?ie=UTF8&node=1041180
| title = California Proposition 65
| author = Target.com
}}</ref> banks, and restaurants<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/25/MNGD2CU9RA1.DTL&type=printable
| title = Cancer label for foods is considered
| first = Greg | last = Lucas
| date = 2005-05-25
| publisher = San Francisco Chronicle
}}</ref> also post warning signs because of the possibility of hazardous chemicals being present in everyday items or the nearby environment. Some large businesses, such as utility companies, mail a Prop 65 notice to all customers each year to warn them of dangerous substances like natural gas<ref name="urlPacific Gas and Electric Company">{{cite web
|url=http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/#proposition--publicwarning
|title=July 2008 bill inserts
|publisher=Pacific Gas and Electric Company
|quote= Pacific Gas and Electric Company uses chemicals in its operations that are “known to the State of California” to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Company uses natural gas and petroleum products in its operations. Pacific Gas and Electric Company also delivers natural gas to its customers. Petroleum products, natural gas, and their combustion by-products contain chemicals “known to the State of California” to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.
|accessdate=2008-07-22
}}</ref> or the sand used in sandblasting.<ref>[http://www.pge.com/docs/pdfs/customer_service/bill_inserts/2004/200404_bus.pdf April 2004 bill insert from PG&E]{{dead link|date=August 2009}}</ref>

There is no penalty for posting an unnecessary warning sign.<ref name="Proposition 65 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986">{{cite web
|url=http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65law72003.html
|title=Proposition 65 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
|year=1986
|publisher=[[State of California]]
|accessdate=2008-07-22
}}</ref> Because of the overuse of the vague warning, the ubiquitous signs ultimately communicate very little information to the end user.<ref name=House/><ref name=Sills2>{{cite court
|litigants = Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members
|vol = 40
|reporter = Cal Rptr 3d
|opinion = 832
|court = Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Div. 3
|date = 2006-03-24
|quote=Given the ease with which it was brought, and the absolute lack of any real public benefit from telling people that things like dried paint may be slowly emitting lead molecules or that parking lots are places where there might be auto exhaust, instead of $540,000, this legal work merited an award closer to a dollar ninety-eight.
|url=http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/pdfs/G035101.pdf }}</ref> This problem has been recognized by California courts,<ref name=Sills>{{cite court
|litigants = Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members
|vol = 40
|reporter = Cal Rptr 3d
|opinion = 832
|court = Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Div. 3
|date = 2006-03-24
|quote=As the Attorney General pointed out in oral argument, it does not serve the public interest to have the almost the entirety of
the state of California “swamped in a sea [of] generic warning signs.”
|url=http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/pdfs/G035101.pdf }}</ref><ref name="urlLaw.com - Calif. Judge Blasts Firm in Toxic-Warnings Case">{{cite web
|url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144672792347
|title=Calif. Judge Blasts Firm in Toxic-Warnings Case
|author=Pamela A. MacLean
|date=2006-04-13
|publisher=The National Law Journal
|quote=
|accessdate=2008-07-22
}}</ref> advocates,<ref name=House>Written Testimony of Jeffrey B. Margulies. ''Proposition 65’s Effect on Small Businesses.'' In the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business. October 28, 1999. "''Implications for consumers.'' While the intent of Prop 65 was to “inform” consumers, the impact of warnings under the Act has been a proliferation of meaningless warnings. Virtually every business has some sort of Prop 65 warning sign posted, and innumerable products are labeled with the warning. From gas stations to hotels, from grocery stores to hardware stores, consumers are deluged with warnings that they are being exposed to unnamed carcinogens and reproductive toxins. They are not told either the degree of exposure or the likelihood that they may actually be impacted by it. Moreover, because the risks to business of not providing a warning, many provide a warning even though they don’t actually know whether an exposure is occurring, or even if the exposure is trivial, further diluting the meaning of warnings to consumers.</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.ehib.org/emf/pdf/AppendixD-EJ.PDF
|title=Equity and Environmental Justice Considerations in Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Policy
|authors=Indira Nair and Detlof von Winterfeldt
|date=
|quote=This is to be contrasted with Prop. 65 warning experience where the public received meaningless warnings filled with disclaimers, information that trivializes risk, and fails to put it into context.
|accessdate=2008-07-22
}}</ref> and businesses.<ref name=CHLA/>

== Abuse ==
Political controversy over the law, including industry attempts to have it preempted by federal law, have died down. However, enforcement actions remain controversial. Most of the Proposition 65 complaints are filed on behalf of [[straw man (law)|straw man]] plaintiffs by private attorneys, some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits.<ref name=Sills/><ref>[http://www.docstoc.com/docs/282270/Defending-the-Proposition-65-Bounty-Hunter-Case Defending the Proposition 65 Bounty Hunter Case ]</ref><ref name="urlToxic Avengers - Forbes.com">{{cite web
|url=http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1015/080.html
|title=Toxic Avengers - Forbes.com
|author=Dorothy Pomerantz
|date=2001-10-15
|publisher=Forbes
|accessdate=2008-07-22
}}</ref>

Labeling requirements conceded the reality that listing and classifying substances did not help the consumer if the contents of a purchase were unknown. At the same time, there were no other labeling requirements to support the proposition. Industry critics and corporate defense lawyers charge that Proposition 65 is "a clever and irritating mechanism used by litigious [[Non-governmental organization|NGO]]s and others to publicly spank politically incorrect opponents ranging from the American gun industry to seafood retailers, etc."<ref>[http://www.fisheries.ifcnr.com/article.cfm?NewsID=495 NGO Strategies for 2004 and Beyond]</ref>

In addition, because the law allows private citizens to sue and collect damages from any business violating the law, there have been cases of lawyers and law firms using Proposition 65 to force monetary settlements out of California businesses.<ref>[http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1207 Cal. Attorney General news alert, paragraph 10]</ref> The Attorney General's office has cited several instances of settlements where plaintiff attorneys received significant awards without providing for environmental benefit to the people of California, resulting in the requirement of the Attorney General's approval of pre-trial Proposition 65 settlements.<ref>Chapter 3 - Settlement Guidelines, Cal. Attorney General's Proposition 65 regulations</ref> The Attorney General also objected to efforts in [[Settlement (litigation)|settlements]] between private parties to pre-empt the Attorney General's right and duty to protect the [[public interest]] against future violations.<ref name=Sills />

== See also ==
* [[California ballot proposition]]
* [[Environmentalism]]
* [[Toxicity]]
* [[Pollution]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html Official Proposition 65 website]
*[http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html Official Proposition 65 list of substances]
*[http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/whats_new/index.html Proposition 65 updates]
*[http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/regs.php California Attorney General - Proposition 65 regulations]
*[http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1015/080.html Forbes.com -Toxic Avengers, Morse Mehrban gets rich from Proposition 65]
*[http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/SafeGuardS_09907_Proposition_65.pdf California Proposition 65]
*[http://www.envirolaw.org/ Environmental Law Foundation of California]
*[http://www.prop65clearinghouse.com/ Prop. 65 Clearinghouse Research Center]

{{HealthIssuesOfPlastics}}

[[Category:California ballot propositions, 1986|65]]
[[Category:Environment of California]]
[[Category:United States state environmental legislation]]
[[Category:Article Feedback Pilot]]

[[nl:Proposition 65]]