I don't know if you'll find one without a Prop. 65 warning, but you might check here: http://mountainplumbing.com/page/resources/ca-prop-65-warning

They are labeling all their products that carry the warning.

Oops. No shower hoses at above site. How about stainless steel over a rubber liner? https://www.deltafaucet.com/bathroom/product/U495D-60-PK#specsTab

Apparently, anything with brass contains small amounts of lead and so has to carry the warning.

Prop 65 is a joke. It's made uninformed people into Chicken Littles. And it's done it by setting content levels so low that virtually nothing can pass.

Think about it. That hose will last 10 years with everyday use. It can't leach any significant amount of any substance or it would fall apart. Plus, you're not drinking from it, so you can't ingest anything.

The only people who paid any attention to the warnings about CFLs were the anti-EPA tea party trolls and they only used it to bash Obama and the EPA and conservationists. (The EPA's lawyers didn't help any by making cleanup of a broken bulb seem like a major brownfields spill.). The absolute miniscule amount of mercury in a bulb (less that the ink in a period at the end of a sentence in a magazine) did not warrant opening all windows and leaving the room.

I am serious about safety and chemical disposal and real sources of pollution and harmful substances, but many things that people worry about are not backed by real science.

California sets the warning requirement for lead at 1/1000 of the federally recognized limit. And manufacturers add the warning just to avoid being sued by the nutty Cali plaintiffs lawyers and not because their product poses any real health hazard. I would waste zero time trying to find a product without the warning. Keep in mind these are the same legislators who have said coffee and pastries need the same warning....

How much lead is in a rubber hose anyway?

You can find those warnings on many food products in our CA supermarkets. So many now, that the signs become "invisible" and meaningless.

The risk to you is non-existent since I presume you're not planning to drink large quantities of shower water daily. You are not going to have toxic materials build up in your body by using such a hose to shower with. And I say this as someone who spent most of my career as an engineer dealing with and trying to protect people from environmental risks.

kudzu9: You mean there's something wrong with drinking bathtub water :)

I don't think the risk is zero if they are going to put a cancer warning on it? The skin is the largest organ of the body, if we go to the trouble of filtering drinking water why not shower water? And if you filter shower water it stands to reason that you do not want filtered shower water passing through a hose that contains the very substances you are trying to filter out. BTW, I understand people are tired of all the warnings. You should know many of these very substances are banned in the rest of the world. Maybe if everyone made a concerted effort to stop buying toxic products these threats to public health wouldn't be an ongoing concern. Unless of course scientific standards are ignored or manipulated. Mercury is bioaccumulative and has devastating effects on the body, no joke. Throwing up your hands and saying 'I don't care!' or "Don't worry about it!" means people will continue to buy irresponsibly and the health issues will continue...I just don't think that's a viable option.

Because when you drink water, it gets ingested and digested. Shower water doesn't; it just runs down the drain.

Your skin cannot pass water into your body any more than it can pass soap or shampoo into your body.

We're not sponges.

That's why.

tilemaster-

Even pure water is toxic if you ingest too much of it. But the risk of showering in water with a trivial amount, if any, of a metallic contaminant is zero. And just because California places warnings on certain products is not helpful if the risk is nil. Your comments are not useful if you don't have risk-based, toxicological studies to back then up.

I believe Proposition 65 was based on risk-based, toxicological studies to back them up.

I support the intent of Proposition 65, but that doesn't mean that just because a compound is present in a product then all uses of the product are dangerous. For example, it's one thing to continually drink hot water from water pipes and/or fixtures that contain lead; it's another thing to shower in it.

The intent of Proposition 65 is to alert people that certain products contain certain harmful components (which is good) so they can make individual decisions about exposure and risk...which most people aren't equipped to do. An inability to know how to interpret the warning can mean people are fearful of anything to do with a product when, in fact, proper use of it may pose absolutely zero risk. If vinyl asbestos tile were still being produced it would deservedly carry a Proposition 65 warning even though it is safe to have in your home -- as many millions of people do -- as long as you don't decide to do something stupid, like remove it with a floor sander. There's a proposition 65 warning on gasoline, and I try to avoid inhaling fumes when gassing up my car, but I haven't stopped going to the gas station (nor do I think it will give me cancer).

What this thread illustrates is that we pretty much all agree certain materials are harmful, but we don't agree that just because they are present in some trivial quantity it constitutes a risk. A basic tenet of risk assessment is to look at paths of exposure: just because something is present doesn't mean you are being exposed to that material in a way that poses a meaningful risk.

So, for me, the fact that something has a Proposition 65 warning may be useful info, but the next question is what does that really mean? And more specifically, it doesn't tell me that a shower hose with a Proposition 65 warning poses a risk if all I use it for is showering.

@ kudzu9 A well reasoned and insightful position.

Have you ever used plastic in a microwave? The leaching of estrogenic compounds in your food from that is possibly a hazard. But heat and some breakdown of the material is what it takes to get most substances like metal or plasticizers out of the material. That does not take place even in a hot shower and your skin is there to protect you, not absorb everything that touches it. Just stop and think of all of the things that have touched your skin in your lifetime and think about how little they have harmed you.

Yes! Non-science-major legislators make stupid rules.

California will pass any law that makes some person or group feel good ... legislation based on feelings ... no facts, data or science required!

;-)

That's a little harsh, chispa. ;-)

Proposition 65 was a voter initiative and it passed with a vote of almost 2/3 in favor. It has accomplished some good things, including getting manufacturers to reformulate some products. And compounds only get on the list when there is a scientific basis for inclusion.

My main problem with it, as I tried to articulate above, is that most people don't know how to interpret the information and make a considered judgment for themselves, and a lot of people draw conclusions that aren't necessarily valid.

Would you buy a chandelier with a Prop 65 warning? It seems every chandelier by Hinkley has the warning and I am confused if I should buy.

If it's a chandelier with metal parts, the alloys may have small amounts of lead in them. Unless you intend to eat the parts or lick them regularly, it poses no risks.

Forget Prop 65 warnings for lead.

What you need to look for is the ANSI/NSF 61/9 certification which requires lead in water passing through the hose to be 5 parts per BILLION or less. There is probably more lead in the air you breathe, and in a house more than 20 years old, almost certainly more lead in the pipes.

Prop 65 was well-intentioned, but it has gone much too far. Even the smallest trace of lead is enough to trigger a Prop 65 lawsuit, so most companies are just being carerful when they attach a Prop 65 warning.