Talking with a rep today and he used the term industrial lens for a 2.5CT lens and for the 2.0CT he did not use that? Also, the thicker "industrial" lens was the aspheric version and the thinner was spherical. Thought asperics were thinner. Was he likely mis speaking or does that sound right?
thanks
industrial lenses are made for safety glasses .............................
As far as I know, industrial lenses are made for safety glasses. Safety glasses are made and sold by optical company labs that are specialised for that purpose and have contracts with factories they serve.Originally Posted by wilardis
Industrial lenses as far as I know have always had to have a minimum CT of 3.0. Still, no lenses are "industrial" unless they have been stamped with an approved lab's safety stamp.
The thickness standard calls for the minimum thickness at center OR EDGE. You can have a 3.0 CT and still have a 1.0 edge, and it would fail the drop ball test (or the projectile test).
And point of fact, with lenses like Trivex and polycarbonate on the market, the thickness issue does become murky. It depends far more on the test results than it does on the actual thickness of the lens. For example: X-Ray lenses are exempted from testing, however, even a 4.0 thick plano power lens, properly tempered, will still fail the drop ball test.
OK heres tossing this out there to hash over.
John Q Worker has just retired and has countless amount of Z87 stamped safety frames that he wants to use for street wear. He does not want to have safety thickness lenses put in the frame. Where is the liability if any by doing that.
Now before people start saying no no cant do that. Where is it in writing that we cant do that?
Yes OSHA says safety frame safety lenses....thats understood when he was on the job site.
But now he is retired. Does OSHA still have any say so as to what he wants to put in his lens? In my humble opinion OSHA has no jurisdiction over what he wants to do with his glasses.
Now some are going to want to say the Food and Drug Administration has the say so. Well just where is that in writing.
To me its a gray area that has never been tried.
CCGREEN, it's basically a liability issue. Say you make him some basic non-monogrammed lenses for his old z87 frames, and he is working in his garage and the bit snaps off his drill press and smacks him right in the face. He could potentially sue you for damages due to non-compliant lenses in a z87 frame. If you want to avoid that, the easiest fix I've ever heard, is to obliterate the z87 marks on the frame. If it is not identifiable as a z87 frame, then there is no requirement for z87 lenses. I've heard of some 'retro' shops in NYC re-purposing old safety frames as vintage sunglasses for the Hipster crowd, and just buzzing off the z87 markings.
Patient, ".. Doctor says I have a subscription for stigmata.. Can you fill that?"
Me, "..Um.. "
Is there a certification process needed for finishing safety lenses from wholesale lab? Can I finish them myself and monogram? If so, do I have to apply for a specific set of characters to go before lens specific identifier I.e. "***+","***V+",etc
VCOM, I have in the past done exactly as you suggested. And yes you by all means want to practice defensively and eliminate all possible liable situations while at the same time make a couple of bucks.
safetylensguy: Finish your safety lenses. Just make sure they meet minimum thickness requirements. Monogram in what ever manner you want and use the same monogram on every pair. That is what indicates the job came from your lab. Last but not least you must keep a drop ball log on every pair indicating who tested it date and time.
I called a big lab here in town once to see if its a law, state or otherwise, that a safety has to be stamped, and they said it did not have to be, as long as min thickness is correct.... accurate?
Search function is your friend!
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...tandard-Lenses
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...ght=industriaL
Just a few to get you started.
I suggest contacting the ANSI and getting a copy of the standards.
A law? Depends on who is defining what. The 'generally accepted practice' is to follow Z-87 and all of its parts. If you do that, you can innoculate yourself pretty well against frivolous lawsuits. However, it won't stop them from happening. Z-87 says a safety device (spectacles, frame) needs to have the Z87 markings on the frame and a trademark on the lens. If a lab does not do that, then the dispenser is fully within his rights to reject the job as non-safety, when safety is called for.
And remember that OSHA is called in usually on big accidents where there has been a maiming or death. I'm not sure they would show up for eye damamge, HOWEVER, many safety officers will demand full compliance with the "voluntary" standard that Z-87 is.
Thanks Mike. I just wont edge any here again, plus the couple local labs are doing complete jobs and for what they are charging for the pkg, I cant be bothered to cut them lol.
Funny as I am reading this, One of my ecp's is checking on a denied ins claim that the safety job wasnt done thru a safety lab...(done In House in my lab) never heard of that.
What is the deal with ansi charging $75 for a 12 page document? Are there Anya ssociations you can join that give you access to this document (Z87.1) for less or free?
FEZZ thanks. Should have seen your links before I posted. Any other discounts known to man???
Your forum name indicates you are in the safety biz, but you don't already have a copy of Z87? Curiouser and curiouser.
Have one but it is a copy. Did I just say that?
$75 is pretty cheap insurance.
i am looking for soewhere that specifically states I can monogram uncuts. This is what I have been taught and told by many but trying to find in z87 standards...??? If they are tested at lab in batches would there still need to an individual drop ball test? If no, who is liable?
safetylensguy: Finish your safety lenses. Just make sure they meet minimum thickness requirements. Monogram in what ever manner you want and use the same monogram on every pair. That is what indicates the job came from your lab. Last but not least you must keep a drop ball log on every pair indicating who tested it date and time.
Are you making uncuts? Or are you edging (and hardening, if they are glass) the uncut lenses?
You will still need to monogram and drop ball test each pair you edge. The monogram indicates which company finished the job, and essentially paints the target on your forehead. Batch drop ball testing usually takes a statistical sampling of the lot, and tests those, however, Z87 calls for each lens to be tested before insertion into the frame. You cannot rely on the batch testing as your sole source of drop ball testing.
Why would you monogram a "uncut"? It would be a mute point. Monogram and then edge the monogram away? Why don't you edge it first then monogram. After that your not monogramming a uncut, your monogramming a edged lens. As that is the way it is supposed to be done.
Not trying to be a smart a$$. Just made a observation. (even though we all knew what you meant)
Follow Z87 standards and direction and you will be just fine. Do not do as "a large lab in town" would do. To me thats like saying, large lab shot them selfs in the foot so I'm supposed to do the same thing. Now you both are hurting. Follow Z87 standards, be safe, be happy, sleep well.
Last edited by CCGREEN; 10-22-2013 at 09:05 AM.
MOOT point.
Mute is silent, moot is meaningless (in this context).
Awwwwwwwwww man!
Stung by Mike. But he is right my bad. I promise to do better
LOL!! I usually ignore most grammar and word use issues, but that one just seems to be like fingernails on a blackboard for me.
If I were an attorney, and a client was injured by a projectile, at home, work or play, and said client was wearing a properly marked safety frame with improperly marked and manufactured lenses, how long do you all think it would take me to find the ANSI standards to use in my case?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks