Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 51

Thread: Will Prop 65 be the downfall of the Monopoly that has pushed that trash material?

  1. #26
    looking up the answers smallworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    united states
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    327
    I worked for wallyworld back in the early 1990's. Over the years after I left the company I have been notified a couple of times that I was part of a class action suit. One was employees forced to work off the clock. Another was woman receiving lower pay than men. I didn't get too excited as the listed "award" was $20 per employee. I haven't received a check yet.

    As an aside, I worked in wallyworld small one hour labs during both pregnancies, and both my sons have birth defects that are listed as "possibly" connected to BPA exposure. But BPA exposure comes from everything from food and drink, to everyday materials our kids play with. How could anyone directly prove a birth defect came from working in a lab cutting polycarbonate lenses? Secondly, these same birth defects can come from other sources than BPA, so how can anyone prove the source? Unless lab workers underwent a specific blood test for toxins in their system? But the research says low levels of BPA can cause as much damage as high levels. So I would guess even if I get another class action suit notification, I won't sit waiting for a $20 check. But in all reality, birth defects in your children are not fun , and if they can be prevented I hope more research can be done.
    What is reality but a concept unique to each of us? Can anything be classed as real when our perceptions differ greatly on so many things? Just because we see something a particular way does not make it so.

  2. #27
    Doh! braheem24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    KOCF & 89ft ASL
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    3,829
    Sorry to hear, The larger risk to birth defects in that lab would have been the lead based alloy used for blocking the lenses.

  3. #28
    Master OptiBoarder rbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Gold Hill, OR
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    4,347
    Quote Originally Posted by braheem24 View Post
    Sorry to hear, The larger risk to birth defects in that lab would have been the lead based alloy used for blocking the lenses.
    As I recall, and it's been quite a while, LMPA or Low Melting Point Alloy was a mixture of bismuth, tin, and indium and was also called Field's Metal. In addition to its low melting point, 144 degrees, was its ability to bond to glass. It didn't contain any lead. It was probably the other elements that got into your vital bodily fluids and made you crazy.

    How about the pitch that we used to use to block lenses. If it wasn't bad enough how about the gasoline that we used to dissolve the stuff. Bear in mind that this was back in the day when gasoline contained more tetraethyl lead then gasoline. Cripes lead and asbestos were the salvation of humanity.

    Nowadays all we have to worry about is gluten in our oatmeal.

  4. #29
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240
    If protection is easy to get and cheap.....then why not do it ?

    If they tell you on the radio there might be some showers today, don't you take the umbrella along ?
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  5. #30
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Texas
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    526

    ...who exactly is forecasting rain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ryser View Post
    If protection is easy to get and cheap.....then why not do it ?

    If they tell you on the radio there might be some showers today, don't you take the umbrella along ?
    IF A (‘protection is cheap & easy to get’) THEN B (‘one should get protection’)
    Let’s assume that’s a truism where the economics of ‘protection’ are justified by some agreeably quantified Risk Analysis. (…a notion that seems to escape the state of California.)

    But “Protection” necessarily implies there is a Risk. Fact not in evidence. Why spend so much time swirling around such an unlikely possibility that’s on the other side of a mountain of research to validate? Is this really all it should take to introduce new costs, complications, and unintended consequences into our industry?

  6. #31
    OptiBoardaholic
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ryser View Post
    If protection is easy to get and cheap.....then why not do it ?

    If they tell you on the radio there might be some showers today, don't you take the umbrella along ?
    Weatherman are often wrong.

  7. #32
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Bronze Supporter
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    wisconsin
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    161
    ...will the protection work with the edges of TRIVEX/Hi Index lenses when somebody discovers that the URETHANE in TRIVEX/Hi Index is also a PROP 65 material?

  8. #33
    Ghost in the OptiMachine OptiBoard Silver Supporter Quince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sebago ME
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,054
    My lab was discussing this shortly after seeing the postings for poly. I may not have been in the business for as long as some of my peers here, but I've been exposed to companies switching from alloy to wax for health reasons and now the hype of poly. Buuuut what about our other material options? We are being informed about poly, not because we work with it, but because it is used everywhere. This is not an optical specific movement. My conclusion? You are probably going to be exposed to a lot of harmful chemicals/ materials in the manufacturing business. I'm now leaning more in the direction of- how do I keep myself and co-workers best protected while handling potentially hazardous materials? Shamefully, I didn't expect optics to be so demanding in regards to personal safety. Now I'm investing in whatever means necessary to protect myself, whether it be from BPA, urethane, or whatever the f*** is in Eliminator...
    Have I told you today how much I hate poly?

  9. #34
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Blue Jumper Yes they are ................unless they actually manufacture and deliver the weather

    Quote Originally Posted by iD View Post

    Weatherman are often wrong.

    Yes they are ................unless they actually manufacture and deliver the weather.

    .............unless you apply an anti allergenic coating which locks in, the leaching of any other chemicals through unprotected areas of a product and you are free of any worries.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  10. #35
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Livonia, MI
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    45
    This is asinine. If you spend 15 seconds of your life being remotely concerned about poly causing cancer you just lost 15 seconds of your life for no damn reason. California should take its nanny-state and go ahead and float away into the Pacific.

    It is also a fine product. I can wear any lens I want for next to nothing cost-wise and I've chosen poly for 20 years. I see great, maybe a little too great.
    Fourteen of my family members (including: aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, grandparents...and a great uncle) are, or have been in optical and...that's just crazytown at Christmas

  11. #36
    O.D. Almost Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ryser View Post
    Yes they are ................unless they actually manufacture and deliver the weather.

    .............unless you apply an anti allergenic coating which locks in, the leaching of any other chemicals through unprotected areas of a product and you are free of any worries.
    I received a bottle of your product and see that I need an orbital polisher to finish the coating process. That got me thinking, would just high gloss polishing the edges of all poly lenses help seal in the bPa? It certainly would be easier for my edger to do that than to apply the goo to every pair of poly.

  12. #37
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Blue Jumper This is not being allergic to cheese ..........................

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy View Post

    I received a bottle of your product and see that I need an orbital polisher to finish the coating process. That got me thinking, would just high gloss polishing the edges of all poly lenses help seal in the bPa? It certainly would be easier for my edger to do that than to apply the goo to every pair of poly.

    ............actually the goo stuff is a hypoallergenic sealer which can also be applied to frames when people get allergic reactions from the metal or plastic they are wearing on their nose and ears.

    It has worked for over 20 years, and just polishing or cleaning will not do the same job.

    This is not being allergic to cheese and the doctor tells you not to eat cheese and problem is solved.

    Just apply it, let it dry and put lenses back into frame, no need for polishing.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  13. #38
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Redhot Jumper Prop 65 has become a litigation playground for plaintiff’s attorneys’



    Prop 65 has become a litigation playground for plaintiff’s attorneys’

    One of the main reasons why Governor Brown pursued regulatory changes to Prop 65 was to stop the surge of frivolous lawsuits that arisen from the law.

    ‘Anyone just has to walk into a store and see a product that you think contains one of these chemicals, find out that it does, and you can sue the company if it doesn’t have a warning,’ explains Joseph Perrone, chief scientific officer at the Center for Accountability and Science in Washington, DC. The whole crop of lawyers who make a living on such litigation has been dubbed ‘bounty hunters.’

    Opponents of Prop 65 argue that its warning requirement imposes unnecessary and costly mandates on businesses, rather than serving the public health. After 30 years, recent data issued by California’s Attorney General suggest that more than 70% of the money exchanged under Prop 65 in court settlements goes to law firms.

    Prop 65 has become a litigation playground for plaintiff’s attorneys,’ states Anthony Samson from the California Chamber of Commerce. In fact, Kevin Ott from the Flexible Vinyl Alliance in Washington, DC says the average settlement from retailers, manufacturers, and distributors is $65,000 per notice. This means that businesses sued under Prop 65 could end up having to pay $65,000 in fines three separate times per lawsuit.

    see all of it: =========>
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/20...mful-chemicals
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  14. #39
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    new york
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    3,749
    I'm late to the conversation, but I just want to say,....Poly is not a junk product. It has it's place and should be priced accordingly.

    I remember when CR-39 first came out. Now there was some fine junk. But products mature and improve. Almost everything has a place.

    Unnessary upselling to "something better than poly" is just as wrong as upselling TO poly.

  15. #40
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Houston
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    1
    Agreed with braheem24 Digital Poly with Avance' Rico Suave' does not reduce cancer risk.

  16. #41
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    OptiBoard Silver Supporter

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by CalebBronner View Post
    Agreed with braheem24 Digital Poly with Avance' Rico Suave' does not reduce cancer risk.
    Poly doesn't cause cancer.

  17. #42
    Doh! braheem24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    KOCF & 89ft ASL
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    3,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Tallboy View Post
    Poly doesn't cause cancer.
    Poly contains BPA, BPA is know to cause cancer.

    Don't allow your pets to chew your eyeglasses and don't allow poly swarf to come in contact with the Water System/Table and you may be able to truly say it does not cause cancer.

    Otherwise it is one of the MANY reasons 1 of 2 people in the united states develops cancer.

  18. #43
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Idaho
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    150
    I use to live in California. Everything down there can cause cancer, but if you move to another state apparently you don't have to worry about it.

  19. #44
    Doh! braheem24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    KOCF & 89ft ASL
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    3,829
    Quote Originally Posted by bta89 View Post
    I use to live in California. Everything down there can cause cancer, but if you move to another state apparently you don't have to worry about it.
    Anytime you stick your head in the sand anxiety is alleviated.

    39.6% is the current lifetime risk of developing cancer in the United States.

    I would prefer to eat at the restaurant not governed by head in the sand state.

  20. #45
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Texas
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    526
    From: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/c...ers-fact-sheet

    Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer. For this reason, Congress mandated that further studies of saccharin be performed and required that all food containing saccharin bear the following warning label: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”
    Subsequent studies in rats showed an increased incidence of urinary bladder cancer at high doses of saccharin, especially in male rats. However, mechanistic studies (studies that examine how a substance works in the body) have shown that these results apply only to rats. Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence.
    Because the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and because there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans, saccharin was delisted in 2000 from the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens, where it had been listed since 1981 as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (a substance known to cause cancer). More information about the delisting of saccharin is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/ele...ppend/appb.pdf on the Internet. The delisting led to legislation, which was signed into law on December 21, 2000, repealing the warning label requirement for products containing saccharin.
    Wiki:
    Saccharin was formerly on California's list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer for the purposes of Proposition 65, but it was delisted in 2001.[
    As tenants of governance, 'Head in the sand' enjoys a much better track record than illogical histrionics.

    This thread already has sufficient documentation to indicate the case of 'polycarbonate is toxic' is unmade. So the options are either provide some documentation to prove it, or settle for innuendo (whose ulterior motive is conveniently articulated in the thread title.)
    Last edited by Hayde; 06-30-2016 at 09:12 AM. Reason: clarity

  21. #46
    OptiBoard Professional RT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    CT
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    877
    Poly contains BPA, BPA is know to cause cancer.
    Actually, no. BpA is a substance known to the State of California to cause female reproductive toxicity. It is not known outside of California to cause female reproductive toxicity, although some states have regulations limiting BpA in baby food containers. The proper warning label under Prop 65 for substances containing BpA is "WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm". Notice that the word "cancer" is not used.

    Surprisingly, our Optiboard members who are known to cut and paste articles with abandon missed this news announcement: http://invisionmag.com/orbit-press/u...it-established . California has established a safe harbor dermal exposure limit of 3 micrograms per day.

    The new safe harbor limit doesn't take effect until Oct 2016, but establishes a dermal exposure limit below which Prop 65 warning is not required. Preliminary testing results suggest that dermal exposure due to contact with eyeglasses are many times lower than this level, and thus are well within Prop 65 levels.

    Suggestions that a particular product will seal the edge of eyeglasses to prevent BpA exposure are essentially like suggesting bug spray in Antarctica.
    RT

  22. #47
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    OptiBoard Silver Supporter

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by braheem24 View Post
    Poly contains BPA, BPA is know to cause cancer.

    Otherwise it is one of the MANY reasons 1 of 2 people in the united states develops cancer.
    1 of 2 people in the united states gets cancer because of 2 things: 1) Humans get cancer. Its in our DNA. 2) We live an awful long time, on average, in the USA.

    What I've always loved about optiboard has been that we cut through the BS and told the science. Poly cancer concerns are not science.

  23. #48
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Tallboy View Post
    1 of 2 people in the united states gets cancer because of 2 things: 1) Humans get cancer. Its in our DNA. 2) We live an awful long time, on average, in the USA. What I've always loved about optiboard has been that we cut through the BS and told the science. Poly cancer concerns are not science.
    Well 1) is kind of a bad explanation of cancer genetics. Its more "Due to the way DNA, and its various maintenance/repair mechanisms work, combined with certain environmental pressures, there is a potential for the manifestation of various forms of cancer, during different periods of time throughout life"

  24. #49
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Redhot Jumper Today was the day when the oncologist .......................

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallboy View Post

    1 of 2 people in the united states gets cancer because of 2 things: 1) Humans get cancer. Its in our DNA. 2) We live an awful long time, on average, in the USA.

    What I've always loved about optiboard has been that we cut through the BS and told the science. Poly cancer concerns are not science.


    Today was the day when the oncologist, in the Hospital in Kingston Ontario where I collapsed on my boat during the summer holidays, 25 years ago, told me that he had some good news and a bad one.

    The good news was that the 4 hour operation was successful, my perforated upper intestine had been fully fixed, shortened and repaired.

    The bad news was that I would only live 5 to 8 month maximum as cancerous cells had leaked all over the intestinal cavity and nobody so far had survived the same situation.

    I went through six month of chemotherapy, while fully working and living normally during that time. Today I was told again, that I was clean of cancer and that they had not heard of any other person surviving the same problem on a worldwide basis.

    PS: Cancer of any type is no joke nor any laughing matter.

    Having passed through one of the the worst cancer experiences, I can tell that warnings are not given for the fun of it, by anybody qualified and made official.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  25. #50
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    7,883
    Good for you, Chris.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. California Prop 65? Anyone here effected?
    By MakeOptics in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-18-2012, 03:47 PM
  2. This really pushed my patience......
    By OptiChick21 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-26-2011, 10:15 AM
  3. Downfall
    By Mizikal in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-06-2010, 09:08 AM
  4. Monopoly........
    By markssunwear in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-13-2006, 10:19 AM

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
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment