• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Are your binoculars giving you cancer? (1 Viewer)

J

jibbs

Member
I've recently noticed a legal disclaimer on the Amazon listings of many binoculars. It reads:

This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

You'll find it on well-liked binos like the Celestron NatureDX or Athlon Midas.

Does anyone know what the chemicals in question are? Or have concerns about the disclaimer? Binoculars are, after all, products we hold to our faces for hours upon end.

That said, I've seen the disclaimer before on other outdooring gear -- typically for plastics used in the product.
 
These are going to be showing up on other glass also (included on the info with the Bushnell Forge glass), David is right in his statement.

Andy W.
 
This is just in liberal California, with way too much BS on their minds.

This language is not required in any other state.

No danger at all in the products, just too much govt. control.

Jerry
 
Info

NDhunter said:
This is just in liberal California, with way too much BS on their minds.

This language is not required in any other state.

No danger at all in the products, just too much govt. control.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Jerry,

I fully agree Jerry, that is where the BS starts.

Andy W.
 
NDhunter said:
This is just in liberal California, with way too much BS on their minds.

This language is not required in any other state.

No danger at all in the products, just too much govt. control.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Right on Jerry. California should concern themselves with the bigger problems they have than BS like this.
 
Hi,

in general it is a good idea to be a bit wary of products containing phtalates, they are really not very healthy - in europe there are regulations about these too, but a bit less general than in california. Over here they're just forbidden for toys, cosmetics and all products in contact with food.

I'm not sure if the few hours of skin contact a week for most of us with bins will be a problem - I would be more concerned about the phtalates evaporating from furniture, wallpapers, car interiors etc. - you get a bit more significant exposure times with these...

Joachim
 
Last edited:
The issue at large is less that California has a warning and more that there is no wider warning and that this is not stated up front in some cases. The risk may be small to some people but it has been found that phthalates can cause cancer, if I remember correctly (I cannot find a link to the source) particularly in children and adult reproductive system. That is not a debatable point, although how to manage it is debatable. Given a choice between two levels of risk with all other things being equal I would choose the lower level becasue... it would be foolish not to select the safer option when all other things are equal.

Complicating the matter is the fact that before this health risk was discovered phthalates were ubiquitous; linoleum and other synthetic floor tiles in almost every major institution including and especially hospitals, as well as domestic kitchens and bathrooms and so many things during the plastic generation. It's understandable that widespread adaptation to this new information about the risk might be slow but that does start with these warnings which I IMO are not yet sufficient enough. We've learned not to stare into the sun with the naked eye, we can handle this. ;)
 
Steve C said:
It is nearly impossible to find anything that the state of California does not think causes cancer, Jerry is right.
Click to expand...
Ah, C'mon Steve. I'll bet you would deny that saliva causes cancer when swallowed in small doses over a long period of time. Well, the proof is in the pudding and that's why you rarely see anyone over the age of 130!
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-02-21 at 10.37.02 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-02-21 at 10.37.02 AM.png
    832.2 KB · Views: 11
As one of the schmucks that live in California I have to drop my head and shake it a bit from time to time with all the slagging of the "nanny state". Yep it can be overzealous, but as a long term resident I can't see how the air (as bad as it is in Los Angeles county along the coast) could have gotten better without some of the apparently draconian measures they put in place to improve the air quality. The air in the 60-70's was so bad that taking in a full breath hurt my lungs. Seeing Catalina island (27 miles out to sea) was all but impossible on the average day. With the # of cars we have now, I shudder to think what it would be like without all the emission controls.<rant mode off> I hope all have a good day!! Apologies to those that might differ in opines.... Regards, Pat
 
Pat,

No doubt that something needed to be done with the air in LA and various other maladies. Some sort of laws are sometimes necessary. The thing is more laws are not necessarily better. It is just the idea that California has decided to go the more is better philosophy. California is a huge economic market and if California decides something causes cancer or some other harm and bans its sale there, the thing effectively becomes law everywhere because manufacturers can't afford to make two of everything, one for California and one for everywhere else. Many feel that that approach is serious over reach .While I like very few politicians, I do prefer to have the opportunity to vote for or against what I feel is best.
 
I believe the saying goes something like "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I agree, taxes and regulations can't solve everything (let alone anything!). Regards, Pat (now about that radioactive glass!)
 
As a chemist - my PhD was in synthetic polymer chemistry - may I draw your attention to the difference between solids, liquids and gases. The movement of materials in your solid binoculars is insignificant, even if you consider the plasticiser, phthalate, as more mobile than the metal/plastic matrix of the Bins.
 
Julie50 said:
As a chemist - my PhD was in synthetic polymer chemistry - may I draw your attention to the difference between solids, liquids and gases. The movement of materials in your solid binoculars is insignificant, even if you consider the plasticiser, phthalate, as more mobile than the metal/plastic matrix of the Bins.
Click to expand...
Have you ever noticed that these PhD types are always trying to use their bloody logic to rob us of irrelevant things to worry about! When I was 20, back in the stone age, I had the opportunity to dismantle 6 or 7 tank periscopes—complete with Thorium in the eyepieces.

But I have never let the activity of 50 years ago slow me down. I just take one of my good arms, grab a foot or two and place them in front of some of the others and get on with life. Also, I find the third eye rather useful. Seeing a target at 1 power allows better, and more rapid placement of the binocular!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

I
objective covers for Habicht 10x40 w ga
Replies
1
Views
505
[email protected]
D
Robert Moore
Lead glass in the Swarovski NL?
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
elkcub
elkcub
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars
Replies
11
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
G
Winners Chosen - Next Drawing is May 4th for a sampling of the awesome new Athlon Midas Tripods
Replies
0
Views
483
gr8fuldoug
G
B
Leica California Cancer disclaimer
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
WJC
WJC

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top