Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Leaded glass lenses?

  1. #1
    Bad address email on file DC Optix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    272

    Leaded glass lenses?

    Hey folks-

    Any help is much appreciated! I have a doctor that is wanting leaded glass lenses because of daily exposure to a "C-Arm", or X-Ray Image Intensifier. Any ideas on where to obtain such a lens?

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    From me!! I make about 30 to 40 pair per month in plano, single vision, D28, T28 and progressive.

    You can PM me on this board or send an e-mail to: m.aurelius@auralens.com or call 800-281-2872 ext 16.

    Be happy to help you out.

  3. #3
    ATO Member HarryChiling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Nowhereville
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    7,765
    Luzerne (800)233-9637, we do all our glass in house so you'll get the fastest turn time and best quality.
    1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
    1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
    1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software

    *Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.

  4. #4
    Rochester Optical WFruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,273
    We also do it in house. So far all three of us who have posted do. Who says no one makes glass any more?
    There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.

  5. #5
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    MI
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    281
    Question:

    Quote Originally Posted by WFruit View Post
    Who says no one makes glass any more?
    Answer:

    Quote Originally Posted by WFruit View Post
    So far all three of us who have posted do.
    :)

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter DragonLensmanWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    The Greatest Nation
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    7,645
    Is it just me or is it true that the x-rays will still enter the eye if they turn their head just a bit? And if they turn their back completely to the source, it will go through their head from the back.
    DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
    "There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."

  7. #7
    Rochester Optical WFruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,273
    The answer is: it depends.

    Yes, there are senarios where what you describe could easily happen. It all depends on what other protective gear they are wearing. The guy probably has a nice lead apron but feels his eyes should also be protected.

    Here's a bit about the machine he's using: " An X-ray image intensifier (XRII), sometimes referred to as a C-arm or fluoroscope in medical settings, is an imaging device which uses X-rays and produces a live image feed which is displayed on a TV screen.
    The term image intensifier refers to a special component of the machine, which allows low intensity X-rays to be amplified, resulting in a smaller dose to the patient. The overall system consists of an X-ray source, input window, input phosphor, photocathode, vacuum and electron optics, output phosphor and output window. It allows for lower X-ray doses to be used on patients by magnifying the intensity produced in the output image while enabling the viewer to easily see the structure of the object being imaged. They were introduced by Philips in 1955."

    I'm going to guess that the guy wants them more to have them "just in case" rather than an actual safety need. Unless he actually sticks his head in the path of the scanner, his exposure is going to be extremely minimal at worst.
    There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by DragonLensmanWV View Post
    Is it just me or is it true that the x-rays will still enter the eye if they turn their head just a bit? And if they turn their back completely to the source, it will go through their head from the back.
    It depends on the procedure. Usually these guys are cardiologists who are doing heart catheterizations...the C arm has to follow the catheter up the vein (started in the leg/groin) up to the heart. The doctor is exposed directly facially during the original insertion phase and then from side scatter as the C arm follows the catheter (the doc stays by the insertion site) and watches the process on a video monitor. A good cath lab will have moveable leaded polycarb shields on flex arms to keep side scatter to a minimum. The main exposure is during the original insertion and shortly after as the C arm is directly in front of the doc. He gets the full deal as the C arm rotates on its axis to monitor movement as the vein does change position and orientation inside the body on its climb up to the heart.

    They wear hand and arm long leaded gloves, full body armor (leaded aprons) and usually leaded throat aprons as well. The only part of the face that isn't protected is the eye, and the eye is unusually sensitive to direct X-Ray radiation.

    Other medical professionals that require eye protection include: orthopedic surgeons, urologists and thoracic surgeons. Radiologists themselves rarely use x-ray eyewear as they do 99% of their work from behind a full leaded wall.

  9. #9
    Bad address email on file DC Optix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    272
    Yep, this guy is a orthpaedic surgeon. He is the husband of one of our doctors here. So what specifically would I order? Do I just say "leaded glass lenses"? I've ordered plenty of glass, but not specifically "leaded". Are the fitting parameters pretty much the same as fitting a standard glass lens (i.e. if his Rx would work in a particular frame in glass, it will also work in "leaded" glass)? Thanks so much for the info everyone!

  10. #10
    Rochester Optical WFruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,273
    Mike or Harry can correct me, but I believe that only X-Cel currently makes X-Ray Filter glass. If you need a progressive, it's the Freedom ID, available in 3, 5, 7 bases. Otherwise, everything else they make in glass can be made in the X-Ray Filter (it's a laminated lens).

    Further availability can be found here: http://x-celoptical.com/PDF%20Files/avail_glass.pdf

    Fitting parameters should be the same as for any glass lens. As for ordering, it would depend on who you're ordering from, but "X-Ray Filter Glass" should be fine.
    There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by WFruit View Post
    Mike or Harry can correct me, but I believe that only X-Cel currently makes X-Ray Filter glass. If you need a progressive, it's the Freedom ID, available in 3, 5, 7 bases. Otherwise, everything else they make in glass can be made in the X-Ray Filter (it's a laminated lens).

    Further availability can be found here: http://x-celoptical.com/PDF%20Files/avail_glass.pdf

    Fitting parameters should be the same as for any glass lens. As for ordering, it would depend on who you're ordering from, but "X-Ray Filter Glass" should be fine.
    We do our own laminating and processing of X-Ray glass here (we source it from the raw glass manufacturer), so it is all done in one place, but yes, the BF, TF and progressives are all laminated.

    For fitting, set the segs higher than usual, as the doctor is almost always sitting down, using the near vision for doing his up close work.

    Order them simply as "X-Ray Shielding Glass" and any lab who does them will know what you want. Beware however, of ordering them from places that don't know what it is, I've done replacement jobs where they used didymium, and hilite (1.70) and high index glass (1.80). The X-ray glass *IS* 1.80, however, the difference is that flint 1.80 uses titanium for its index "raising", while the X-Ray glass gets its index from the lead content.

    Lenses are going to be thick and heavy -- to get .75 mm lead equivalency (medical industry standard), the lenses need to be ground to 2.5 mm (edge or center minimum thickness). All laminated lenses are going to be at least 4.5 mm thick. Also note that the plano & single vision lenses (at least from me) are hardened to meet Z80, while the others (BF, TF and prog) because of the lamination are not hardened. Lenses SHOULD NOT be put into a Z87 frame unless the Z87 markings are removed. The glass even in plano/SV form cannot be hardened to meet Z87 standards.

    Try to keep eye size under 55 mm, a nice round shape is the best for complete orbital coverage.

  12. #12
    Bad address email on file DC Optix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    272
    Thanks so much for the info, Mike! These will just be single vision...but it's going to be about a -3.00, I think. I'll be in touch soon!

  13. #13
    ATO Member HarryChiling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Nowhereville
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    7,765
    Actually Schott SF-6 or leaded glass (x-ray glass etc.) should be ground to a minimum of 2.8mm thickness for full protection, the 0.75mm thickness that Mike refers to is a reference to secondary walls in an x-ray room and is actually 1/32" which comes to an equivalency in thickness to about 0.79mm, with primary walls recieving direct rays will be required to have a thickness of 1/16" or double the thickness. The glass is super soft and can't be chem treated or traditionally heat treated. The only way to temper is heat treat at a lower setting than you would normally use for clear glass. Not a good idea for a safety frame, which shouldn't be a concern for any occupation mentioned. They have laminate version available in multifocal and SV the laminate version don't have to meet any drop ball tests so they may have more leeway when it comes to thickness but that would be both a function of minimum required thickness and the power required. To my knowledge there is not PAL version available unless it's a specialty (I guess I should say even more specialty). I would start my search at x-cel they'll have more information, once you determine what's available then shop through your lab so you don't inadvertently get the wrong product. If you want our in house lens expert ask for Charlie, he's forgotten more about lenses than I know and he'll direct you towards the right product and provide you all the info you need (800)233-9637. An added advantage we accept most buying groups so you can get the product ordered quickly.
    1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
    1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
    1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software

    *Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.

  14. #14
    Rochester Optical WFruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,273
    Harry, FYI, X-Cel will custom make the Freedom ID in laminated X-Ray filter glass. It's at the bottom of the 2nd page (page 21) of the X-Cel link I provided in post #10.
    There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    Actually, Harry, the 0.75 mm lead equivalency is the defacto standard for leaded eyewear in the industry. I've been making these spectacles since the late 1970's and there is not now and never has been any demand or requirement for anything other than that.

    Schott no longer makes SF-6.

  16. #16
    ATO Member HarryChiling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Nowhereville
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by WFruit View Post
    Harry, FYI, X-Cel will custom make the Freedom ID in laminated X-Ray filter glass. It's at the bottom of the 2nd page (page 21) of the X-Cel link I provided in post #10.
    Thanks, I figured it may be specialy made.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeAurelius View Post
    Actually, Harry, the 0.75 mm lead equivalency is the defacto standard for leaded eyewear in the industry. I've been making these spectacles since the late 1970's and there is not now and never has been any demand or requirement for anything other than that.

    Schott no longer makes SF-6.
    SF-6 is the X-Cel glass: http://www.x-celoptical.com/occupational_lenses.html middle of the page.

    Please direct me to the 0.75mm standard. It is also irelevent when it comes to your recommendation of a minimum of 2.5mm thickness when X-Cel specifically states that their lenses will block x-rays at a minimum of 2.8mm thickness, that's a 0.3mm difference doesn't seems like much but it's outside of ANSI and exposes a patient to unnecessary risk. I am not really interested in arguing with you over the details of a standard that your lenses won't meet according to the manufacturer. There's knowing then there is guessing and if your guessing then I suggest you get on the phone with X-Cel.
    1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
    1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
    1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software

    *Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    http://www.auralens.net/e_xraytechnical.cfm

    Actually, Harry, X-Cel got the information from US (and incorrectly transcribed it). I've advised them of the problem several times and it's never been corrected.

    The standard for eyewear is 0.75 mm Pb equivalency, despite your denials. It has been that since the the mid-70's. When Schott made the SF-6 glass, they did the study above, and based on that and other studies (as referenced in the document) the 0.75 mm standard was developed, by, of all people, the RADIOLOGISTS who are the folks who are actually needing the protection.

    If you go and check out any medical supply house that sells X-Ray shielding glass, you will see that they all sell it at 0.75 mm. It is the standard, whether you like it or not.

    And as I indicated, SF-6 is no longer made by Schott, again, despite what it says on the X-Cel Optical website. SF-6 was discontinued about 3 to 4 years ago due to environmental concerns and has been reformulated and has a totally different filter designator.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    And one more link showing the % absorbtion of X-Rays at 2.5 mm thick (also from Schott)

    http://www.auralens.net/e_xraytechnical2.cfm

    One note: X-Ray energy above 150 Kva is rarely, if ever, used during procedures where the physician is present (albeit protected). Those higher energies are used when the physician (or radiologist) is standing behind a shielded wall.

  19. #19
    ATO Member HarryChiling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Nowhereville
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    7,765
    http://www.x-celoptical.com/PDF%20Files/tech_glass.pdf

    Once again page 27 says "2.8mm for full x-ray protection" that is a quote. I am not an expert on x-ray shielding so I won't argue with you over the details. I do consider myself an expert in ophthalmic optics and one of the fundamental things that I learned is to read and rely on the technical data sheets provided by manufacturers until I have proof otherwise. I am sorry if I don't consider your online eyewear site as a reputable source, but I hope you understand the reason. If a concern of liability were to come up the manufacturers tech data can be a reliable source where your site probably won't hold water. Secondly your thickness being less then the manufacturers recommended could leave a dispenser in a position or better yet you in a position where you would have to defend yourself. Since in this case you would fully manufacture the product I recommend you to surface your lenses 0.3mm thicker to be on the safe side.

    Providing naked data is no good, I like to have proof of things. This industry is notorious for gimmicky marketing so documented proof goes a long way at least with me since I am that kind of optician. I don't have a problem saying I'm wrong, but you have to show me data that contradicts the data that I have provided you. Just saying that they transcribed your data wrong is a bit fishy.
    1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
    1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
    1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software

    *Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    It's too bad that you rely on bad information, Harry, but it's totally obvious to me that you are refusing to open you eyes ONLY BECAUSE I happen to sell speciality eyewear on-line. That's a shame. It's also a stupid reason. I hope YOU understand.

    Especially since X-Cel Optical IS NOT the maker of the raw material, and is only passing on flawed information. X-Cel Optical does not make the raw glass lenses. They do not formulate the batch. They do not test it. They are using technical data that is at least 10 years out of date.

    But, if you want to go ahead and refuse to listen, I really don't give a ****. My point was to educate those readers who DO have open minds and DO want to learn.

  21. #21
    ATO Member HarryChiling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Nowhereville
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeAurelius View Post
    It's too bad that you rely on bad information, Harry, but it's totally obvious to me that you are refusing to open you eyes ONLY BECAUSE I happen to sell speciality eyewear on-line. That's a shame. It's also a stupid reason. I hope YOU understand.

    Especially since X-Cel Optical IS NOT the maker of the raw material, and is only passing on flawed information. X-Cel Optical does not make the raw glass lenses. They do not formulate the batch. They do not test it. They are using technical data that is at least 10 years out of date.

    But, if you want to go ahead and refuse to listen, I really don't give a ****. My point was to educate those readers who DO have open minds and DO want to learn.

    All I have seen are self serving webpages from your site. You're forgetting that I have a dozen or more sites that I could flood with contradicting evidence, that would not make it a fact. Again you have all the opportunity in the world to cite your sources and you have choosen to cite yourself. You are confusing trust with fact. I don't trust your information, it's not that you have been wrong in the past it's that you have tried to pass off false statements as fact before. I am trying my hardest to just present evidence based on facts I have read through technical documents.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeAurelius
    Especially since X-Cel Optical IS NOT the maker of the raw material, and is only passing on flawed information. X-Cel Optical does not make the raw glass lenses. They do not formulate the batch. They do not test it. They are using technical data that is at least 10 years out of date.
    Those are bold statements that I don't think you could back up. I am fairly sure but I could be wrong that you don't have the required equipment or know how to test these lenses independently. So for you to make a statement such as the above quoted, I pray you have some infromation other than what you have printed on your website that you can cite otherwise let's just agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeAurelius
    My point was to educate those readers who DO have open minds and DO want to learn.
    You have provided just enough to introduce doubt, I have tech sheets and being that I do have an open mind now I don't have the same level of confidence in them. Although logic dictates that making the lenses 0.3mm thicker according to the tech sheets provides 100% protection from x-rays, I am not as confident that 2.5mm thickness provides 100% protection. If you truly have an open mind as a consumer of this product (not me as a lab rep and you as a lab owner) a consumer let's say you were an x-ray tech or a radiologist, which thickness would you want this lens to be provided all the details in this post.

    Your replies to my posts have been confrontational, and arrogant. I am not making assumptions that you are wrong I am provideing data that contradicts your posts. If you have proof otherwise then provide it so that I may gain more knowledge about this product along with anyone else. I would be more than happy to admit I am wrong. Given the nature of the subject I don't have anywhere near the knowledge I would need to be confident in my recommendations, however I have quoted what I believe to be reliable sources rather than just SAY they are wrong provide proof, PLEASE and THANK YOU.
    Last edited by HarryChiling; 01-25-2011 at 01:16 PM.
    1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
    1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
    1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software

    *Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryChiling View Post
    All I have seen are self serving webpages from your site. You're forgetting that I have a dozen or more sites that I could flood with contradicting evidence, that would not make it a fact. Again you have all the opportunity in the world to cite your sources and you have choosen to cite yourself. You are confusing trust with fact. I don't trust your information, it's not that you have been wrong in the past it's that you have tried to pass off false statements as fact before. I am trying my hardest to just present evidence based on facts I have read through technical documents.
    Did you bother to read the first link I provided? There are 3 citations at the bottom of it. Those are documents the original author (a scientist who worked at Schott, now since retired) used in her research to come up with the document I provided. Note the words at the very top of the document "From a study performed by Schott Glass Technologies".

    Those are bold statements that I don't think you could back up. I am fairly sure but I could be wrong that you don't have the required equipment or know how to test these lenses independently. So for you to make a statement such as the above quoted, I pray you have some infromation other than what you have printed on your website that you can cite otherwise let's just agree to disagree.
    I send all my material out for testing to a company in Florida that does such work. Since X-Cel optical is merely a supplier of Semi-Finished lenses, there is no way that they could test their products, they rely on what WAS provided to them by Schott. Their tech guy gets back from a meeting on Monday next week, give him a call and find out for yourself.

    You don't think I can prove that X-Cel Optical doesn't make the raw glass from constituent components? You don't think I can prove that X-Cel Optical doesn't formulate the glass batch? You don't think I can't prove that X-Cel Optical doesn't test the semi-finished product? Do you honestly believe that X-Cel Optical melts their own glass? Despite the fact that they say right on their website (which you are so fond of quoting that the glass comes from Schott??? Come on, pull the other one!

    You have provided just enough to introduce doubt, I have tech sheets and being that I do have an open mind now I don't have the same level of confidence in them. Although logic dictates that making the lenses 0.3mm thicker according to the tech sheets provides 100% protection from x-rays, I am not as confident that 2.5mm thickness provides 100% protection. If you truly have an open mind as a consumer of this product (not me as a lab rep and you as a lab owner) a consumer let's say you were an x-ray tech or a radiologist, which thickness would you want this lens to be provided all the details in this post.
    Even 2.5 mm does not provide 100% protection at high energy levels of radiation. Our documents prove that, X-Cel Opticals do not. X-Cel Optical says to grind at 2.8 mm for "full X-Ray protection". Where did that come from? They don't provide anything other than a statement of "fact". There's no back up documentation to prove it. On the other hand, my website states at 2.5 mm thickness, the lenses provide 0.75 mm Lead Equivalency. We don't state "full protection" or any other such statement. Just a statement of lead equivalency. IMO, the X-Cel Optical statement is far more dangerous to the end user than mine.

    Your replies to my posts have been confrontational, and arrogant. I am not making assumptions that you are wrong I am provideing data that contradicts your posts. If you have proof otherwise then provide it so that I may gain more knowledge about this product along with anyone else. I would be more than happy to admit I am wrong. Given the nature of the subject I don't have anywhere near the knowledge I would need to be confident in my recommendations, however I have quoted what I believe to be reliable sources rather than just SAY they are wrong provide proof, PLEASE and THANK YOU.
    And yours have not? I'm replying to you in the exact same fashion that you have been to me. You started out calling into question my credibilty ONLY BECAUSE I sell highly specialized eyewear online. I seriously doubt whether you'd have even originally responded had you not had such a bee in your bonnet about me and my company. I've provided everything you've asked for. You asked for sources, I provided them. You continue to question my knowledge, despite the fact that I've been working with this product far longer than X-Cel Optical has. Do you honestly believe that I would make leaded glass lenses for my customers that were not safe for them to wear? Do honestly believe that I would endanger my company and my personal reputation doing that? If you do, then quite honestly, I don't want anything further to do with you, sir. If you do, then you've proven to me that this is nothing more than a personal vendetta against me and my company, and it has NO PLACE on this forum.

  23. #23
    Forever Liz's Dad Steve Machol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Back in AZ
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    10,243
    Thread closed due to unproductive bickering.


    OptiBoard Administrator
    ----
    OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Who does leaded glass for eye protection from radiation?
    By snowmonster in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-28-2007, 03:11 PM
  2. Glass lenses for sale
    By Insighter in forum Optical Marketplace
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-28-2005, 10:40 AM
  3. are glass lenses obsolete?
    By OPTIDONN in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 04-12-2005, 08:14 AM
  4. Clear leaded glasses ..........................................
    By Chris Ryser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-06-2004, 07:25 PM
  5. Glass Lenses
    By Jacqui in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-03-2004, 11:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •