Standard poly lenses in a Z87 Titmus frame

[MikeAurelius]

Frames and shield markings for Rx:
o
All frames will have the manufacturer’s logo.
o
Size markings will be in accordance with ANSI Z80.5 – 2004 and will include the “A”
dimension, DBL on the fronts with temple length on the temples.
o
New! Impact rated frames will be marked “Z87-2+” on the front and on one temple.
o
New! Small head tested frames will be marked with the letter “H”.
o
New! All detachable sideshields are to be marked “Z87 +” if impact rated.
•
New!

There might be a misunderstanding of the term "front". In general optical terminology, the frame "front" refers to the part of the frame that holds the lenses, as opposed to the front of the front...get my drift

I don't think I've ever seen a Z87 marking on the front of the front, it is usually on the back of the front, and the inside of the temples facing the temple of the brain.

A marking is required on each lens as well, that is on the +side facing away from the eyeball.

[Chris Ealick]

That is what I was confused about. We carry titmus frames and I never looked at the underside of the bridge. I thought they were referring to the actual front of the frame and that is where I was getting confused on. That's why I posted the question, I wasn't trying to attack anyone I was just asking.

[CCGREEN]

Why ASK where to find it if you already have the knowledge? You should have posted where to find the information rather than question the knowledge of fellow experts? I don't understand where you are coming from CCGREEN. I reread the posts and just don't get it.

I understand what you are saying EyeCare.
If you go back and read the original question by Logan he wanted to know if you had to have safety markings on the lenses. Well all of us in the business know that you put the markings on the lenses. We were taught that by someone or learned it in school or read it in the ANSI standards somewhere at sometime or just did it because we were told to.
I wanted to know exactly where it came from being dictated to us that we HAD to do it. RT was kind enough to provide that answer.
It was obvious that Judy didn't have the answer because she wanted me to buy the standards for her to look it up for ME. What? If I was going to do that I could look it up myself. And no I don't have a copy of standards because I do not make safety glasses here. So why would I. I already knew everything needed to be marked.
And Mike just wanted me to take his word for it. Well his "word" still was not the answer I was looking for. I was looking for where. All Mike told me was yes the lenses had to be marked.
Hope it clears it up for you a bit more EyeCare Rich. Seems I brused some egos when I told some that they were not giving me the answer I was looking for. After all finding right answers is why we are on here. If we are not in the know we know where to go. OPTIBOARD

[CCGREEN]

I think the same as Mike does here. I have only ever seen any markings on the inside of the front chassis of the frame and temples.
Would look odd to see markings on the outside of the front chassis.

[Judy Canty]

I know the answers like Mike knows the answers. It's been a part of my job for more than 40 years. CC, I don't need to PROVE anything to you. I'm over your passive-aggressive nonsense.

[Judy Canty]

There might be a misunderstanding of the term "front". In general optical terminology, the frame "front" refers to the part of the frame that holds the lenses, as opposed to the front of the front...get my drift

I don't think I've ever seen a Z87 marking on the front of the front, it is usually on the back of the front, and the inside of the temples facing the temple of the brain.

A marking is required on each lens as well, that is on the +side facing away from the eyeball.

Well, maybe if you're so new to the industry that you still call temples "legs" or "wings" or "arms".

[Chris Ealick]

Jesus, remind me not to ask another question. I apologize for being ignorant and not up to the high level of intelligence that is represented here.

[CCGREEN]

LOL Gotta have thick skin to run with this bunch Chris.
But at the end of the day I will still buy everyone a round and anxiously look forward to the next time.

[Judy Canty]

Ok now I am confused. The standards that Judy posted do not say anything about requiring the z87 stamp on the front of the frame, but she says yes it does. I also checked my ANSI standards and didn't see it stating you needed markings on the front of the frame, just on the lenses with the correct stamps for the different materials. Am I just misunderstanding or do frames need the z87 stamp on the temples and face of the frame?

Sorry if you were offended, but the information I posted DID indicate where the marking must appear.

[NCspecs]

Jesus, remind me not to ask another question. I apologize for being ignorant and not up to the high level of intelligence that is represented here.

Welcome to the internet.

No, seriously, it's not an Optiboard thing, it's a forum thing. I've been flamed for dumb stuff here and it never irritates me- some people just don't know how not to troll. Getting your feelings hurt won't do you any good dude.

[Chris Ealick]

First off I said I WAS CONFUSED and THAT I DIDN'T SEE IT. I never attacked some one or flamed them or said anything about Judy being wrong. I am well aware of how boards worked but I assumed that a board like this would be professional boy was I mistaken. If you guys want to play flame and troll wars then no problem I will gladly put on my gamer hat and start the insults.

[NCspecs]

If you guys want to play flame and troll wars then no problem I will gladly put on my gamer hat and start the insults.

To what purpose? You don't have to join every argument to which you are invited.

[Uilleann]

Wow - poor Logan opened up the can of worms with this one! Sad when the egos of the board resort to the nuclear option so quickly. It was a valid question that without question deserved a better response from the "pros" than it got.

I would also be extremely interested to see the legal precedent previously set by past safety eyewear impact failure suits brought by failure to guarantee the stamp of a lens properly. What does the law actually say? Not a "standard" mind you, but the actual law-

[AngeHamm]

..

[CCGREEN]

Wow. What a lively thread..................and here we go off in another direction. What a egotistical motley crew we are

[waynegilpin]

DING, DING, DING!

End of round three. Everyone go to their corner and wait for the bell before starting the next round.

By the way, would the bell ringer please leave the arena and take the bell with you.

[optical24/7]

I would also be extremely interested to see the legal precedent previously set by past safety eyewear impact failure suits brought by failure to guarantee the stamp of a lens properly. What does the law actually say? Not a "standard" mind you, but the actual law-

Ok, round 4 and nice...As noted earlier, ANSI is a standard not a law. If standards are not followed it may lead to a lawsuit. When a standard such as ANSI is so well established and universally accepted and known about in the eye care field one puts oneself in jeopardy of surely loosing said lawsuit.

[CCGREEN]

Nice to see that some on here (optical24/7 & Uilleann) know the difference between a "standard" and a law/state statue.
So many times "rules" get confused with "standards" get confused with "laws"/state statues. Then you have federal laws, state laws. County ordinances, city ordinances...............gezzzzz when does it stop?

[Uilleann]

Ok, round 4 and nice...As noted earlier, ANSI is a standard not a law. If standards are not followed it may lead to a lawsuit. When a standard such as ANSI is so well established and universally accepted and known about in the eye care field one puts oneself in jeopardy of surely loosing said lawsuit.

Sounds very grey to me. And that much is still left up to interpretation and could just as quickly be disputed as it could be defended. Are there any actual cases that pertain directly to safety eyewear, and the use of non-ANSI thickness standard lenses that have gone to trial to date? If so, what was the outcome? TIA

[MakeOptics]

Thanks Mike.
But you did what everyone does. You gave us your gut feeling or picked the wisdom out of your head expecting us to take your word as gospel. I want to know just how did you come to your conclusion. I'm NOT doubting you. I have NO reason to. I just want to know WHERE it is quoted that if using a Z87 stamped frame you HAVE to use safety thickness and marked lenses. We all know that if the person is still actively employed lenses and frames must be marked.
Cant really remove marks if it is stamped real deep into the material)

Attached is a copy of the ANSI Z87.1 Annex that summarizes teh markings an where they need to appear on what type of eyewear.

Also OSHA is the government organization that regulates this standard and "YES" they will do a walk through inspection fo plants and they do check glasses, although I don't think I have ever heard of a specific case where they checked the stamp to match the occupational requirements. Even still they can and I am sure tehy occasionally do. By all means don't take my work for it:

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/eye...s.html#can_any
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/eye...l#use_required

[Judy Canty]

Somewhat germane to the discussion. http://www.asse.org/practicespecialt...ottopic_01.php

[Darryl Meister]

Just some food for thought, or maybe playing devil's advocate... While it may be technically correct that removing the Z87 markings from the frame precludes the need to install Z87 safety lenses, remember that there is still the issue of liability.

Your patient knows that he brought you a safety frame so, in the unlikely event that something should happen, he could be sitting in front of a jury during his civil suit arguing that you did not provide adequate protection for his "safety" frame.

You could go on about technical markings and such, but the jury may not care much. Of course, polycarbonate lenses are very difficult to break, but not impossible. And thin polycarbonate lenses may become dislodged from the frame more easily.

Best regards,
Darryl

[MikeAurelius]

Just some food for thought, or maybe playing devil's advocate... While it may be technically correct that removing the Z87 markings from the frame precludes the need to install Z87 safety lenses, remember that there is still the issue of liability.

Your patient knows that he brought you a safety frame so, in the unlikely event that something should happen, he could be sitting in front of a jury during his civil suit arguing that you did not provide adequate protection for his "safety" frame.

You could go on about technical markings and such, but the jury may not care much. Of course, polycarbonate lenses are very difficult to break, but not impossible. And thin polycarbonate lenses may become dislodged from the frame more easily.

Best regards,
Darryl

I've got a "special circumstance" that is the exception to the rule.

X-Ray glass is exempted from the drop ball test, and even when we do harden them to pass Z80, they've never passed Z87. We get requests all the time for installing the lenses in Z87 frames (because of the side shields). I say "sure, but we have to remove the Z87 markings from the frame". Never had a complaint or a problem. Now, keep in mind, these are going into medical facilities, not an industrial setting.

[scriptfiller]

I would politely inform the patient that I would have to de-certify the frame as being a safety frame. I would inform him that the process involves filing the certification stamps off of every part where indicated. After doing so the frame cannot be considered a safety frame owing to the removal of the certifying marks. If the pat. consents to the above, I would record such in my opticians notes and would keep on file a signed consent agreement. Note: I have not done this in practice. So a question, is the only "thing" that makes a frame a safety frame the Z87-1 or Z87-2 stamp?

[MikeAurelius]

I would politely inform the patient that I would have to de-certify the frame as being a safety frame. I would inform him that the process involves filing the certification stamps off of every part where indicated. After doing so the frame cannot be considered a safety frame owing to the removal of the certifying marks. If the pat. consents to the above, I would record such in my opticians notes and would keep on file a signed consent agreement. Note: I have not done this in practice.

Which is exactly what is done.

So a question, is the only "thing" that makes a frame a safety frame the Z87-1 or Z87-2 stamp?

I would say yes. Especially since the only "cosmetic" difference between street wear frames and Z87 frames is the stamp (ignoring for the moment a more robust construction, deeper lens groove, etc.).