Exterior paint accidently used indoors
 

We accidentally used Valspar Exterior paint indoors on our built-in that covers one wall. The paint can contains warnings about it containing a chemical known to cause Cancer. I've attached the warning. Should we try to cover the paint or get it removed?

Photo

Warning label

Attachment 51887

Not going to be a problum unless you plan on drinking the paint or lapping the walls.

I agree, it won't be a problem.

It is in much more than that paint, but now they have to put hysteria labels on everything to cover their butt. When dry, it is locked in and not a problem.

Notice the part about the state of California. Right there, that is the problem. I would not worry about it, as long as you are not painting in the land of Tree Huggers and nut cases, that are nuttier than those running Florida.

I have used EXTERIOR paint indoors on purpose (trim, etc.) for many, many years.......never had any problems that I know about.

Just curious. Why?

Not always sd, but some things just need that harder/glossier finish. Sometimes the inside of a door that opens to the outside.......sometimes a customer asks for it.......things like that.

Look closely at the warning. It says "known to the State of California to cause cancer".

The "State of California" pretty much thinks every single product you can buy can cause cancer.

One of the things that always amazes me is that people who have never lived anywhere near California know so much about it and that everybody in it ever are bleeding heart tree huggers. Quite the contrary is true and under Reagan especially California was an environmental disaster surpassed perhaps only by New Jersey with people making and dumping anything just about anywhere and hoping it did not wash up on Malibu Beach. It has some of the toughest environmental laws and research into waste management because it had no choice. People would not behave themselves on their own. And come on, if California finds that substances being dumped are carcinogenic through scientific testing should we not at least consider the data?

Even Ronny got bit when his offshore drilling buddies and donors built a crappy leaky rig and destroyed the beaches of Santa Barbara. He had to give in to at least some environmental protection of the California Coastline. It is a major source of income. And California grows more food for this country not requiring processing before we eat it than any other. We cannot, for example, eat most of the corn grown in the Midwest before it is processed. Do you really want chemicals being dumped on your California grown strawberries or lettuce in larger quantities than already? Many heavy metals from the semiconductor industry end up in fertilizer sacks under inert ingredient labeling loopholes.

The FDA was born here for the same reasons. Human and animal carcuses were washing up from the Chicago River banks on to peoples front yards. The river flowed red into Lake Michigan which is shared with Michigan and Wisconsin. You would think people would figure out on their own this was not a good or healthy thing but it went on for along time. A government agency had to be formed because people would not regulate themselves or their behavior.

I am sure people criticized those who cleaned up the river too and called them animal huggers or worse.

I don't know how you read so much out of my statement?

I only pointed out that the California cancer warning label is now on so many things that it has basically become irrelevant.

How can labeling as to known and scientifically proven cancer risk be considered irrelevant? And if carcinogens can be identified and contact avoided is that really tree hugger nonsense or just common sense?

I don't like much about California but living there for decades had its moments. I am rather proud that it does have such an aggressive stance on labeling things. And like it or not, as goes California with such things so goes the nation---eventually.