Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 31 of 31

Thread: POF/COF question/poll

  1. #26
    Master OptiBoarder AngeHamm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by smallworld View Post
    A few years ago a young boy came in with a deep gouge in the middle of his polycarbonate lenses. He had hit the corner of a glass table. It gave me the chills, because if not for the glasses, he most likely would have lost his eye. I 100% will not put non-safety lenses in a safety frame. I won't put kids under 18 in anything except polycarbonate.
    Yup. Or Trivex. Very, very occasionally I'll put a teen with a very high RX in 1.67.
    I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.

  2. #27
    Master OptiBoarder CCGREEN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Emerald Coast of Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Randle Tibbs, ABOM View Post
    Very interesting, you are always quick to chime in but nothing to offer but sarcasm!
    The fact still remains that you stated your "belief" without any facts and want it to be followed. Does not work that way with all of us.
    I have been looking for what you say about safety frames and have yet to find it in writing with OSHA. It is something that I have not thought of and if you know where we can find that please share. Yes we all know about the side shields but we are speaking of removing the Z87 stamp as Robert Martellaro stated.

  3. #28
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,816
    You may not alter a safety frame, and have it meet Z87 standards. Removing a stamp disqualifies it as a safety frame , it's still a frame!

  4. #29
    Master OptiBoarder CCGREEN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Emerald Coast of Florida
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by CME4SPECS View Post
    You may not alter a safety frame, and have it meet Z87 standards. Removing a stamp disqualifies it as a safety frame , it's still a frame!
    Absolutely agree with you 100% CME4SPECS. Removing the stamp will disqualify the frame as a OSHA safety frame and no one should use it as such.
    But after the stamp in removed, may the patient use, and will someone put lenses into this former Z87 safety frame?
    Furthermore if someone brings in a frame that is void of all markings and we put lenses into it whats the difference? We have no idea it was a Z87 frame.
    After all take care of your patient. If the frame is marked as safety put safety lenses into it. If it has no safety markings on it put dress lenses into it.
    Next question would YOU remove the markings to put dress lenses into it?

  5. #30
    looking up the answers smallworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    united states
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    328
    I've noticed many patients wear their "dress glasses" on their motorcycle, mowing the lawn, working in the shop, shooting guns, etc. Somewhere in this conversation comes the "duty to warn" topic. I find many people should be wearing safety glasses more not less.
    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.

  6. #31
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Randle Tibbs, ABOM View Post
    Robert,
    Not sure if you are injecting sarcasm concerning filing away the Z87 designation. If not, and you are referring to safety frames, I do not believe safety frames can be altered in any fashion.
    Hi Randle,

    My middle-of-the-road libertarianism explains the hint of sarcasm, but I'm serious about the subject, that is, it's acceptable practice to remove the Z87 designation as long as dress only lenses are inserted. My basis for that statement comes from a second hand explanation from Daniel Torgersen when he was with Walman Optical, who was also chairman of the Z87 committee at the time.

    Best regards,

    Robert Martellaro
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. what % of pof's
    By IIII in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-08-2005, 07:11 AM
  2. Policies on cof's
    By Rich R in forum Ophthalmic Optics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-20-2004, 11:04 PM
  3. POF/OAA
    By Judy Canty in forum Professional and Educational Organizations Discussion Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-28-2003, 08:32 AM
  4. Surface Generators question POLL
    By braheem24 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-22-2003, 05:11 PM
  5. POF Charges
    By PAkev in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-14-2003, 03:55 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
  •