Pollutant alarm in binoculars - Zeiss strap recall. What about Steiner? The others (1 Viewer)

Pollutant alarm in binoculars

The Stiftung Warentest has selected 17 binoculars from the high-selling price range for their test and bought them anonymously in the trade.*From the inexpensive binoculars from the supermarket to the powerful binoculars for bird watching even at dawn.*16 out of 17 binoculars in the test are heavily loaded with pollutants, they took the grade Poor.*The examiners of the Stiftung Warentest found a desperate mix of chlorinated paraffins,*phthalates and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)*- in a worryingly high concentration.*Some of the substances found are even toxic to reproduction or carcinogenic.

Pollutants enter the body via the skin

Binoculars are among the products with longer skin contact.*

It is all the more important that eyecups and housings are made of pollutant-free plastics, because the pollutants can enter the body directly through the skin.*The experts of Stiftung Warentest found unusually high levels of PAHs, including naphthalene, which is suspected of causing cancer.* the contents clearly exceeded the specified limit for devices with the GS mark.

In two models, the straps are heavily contaminated with carcinogenic pollutants.*We have informed the providers about our test results and asked if and how they can remedy the situation.

16 of the 17 binoculars in the test are significantly contaminated with pollutants, they make up for a shortage.*We found high levels of PAH and critical emollients in the palms, eyecups and straps.

In the above model Skyhawk 4.0 from Steiner we found carcinogenic PAH in very high concentration in the carrying strap.

The others.

Steiner is offering exchange.

Bresser, Eschenbach, Leica, Nikon, Minox and Olympus offer no exchange. (Source: Stiftung Warentest, Issue 08/2019, page 74ff)

Sucks about the eyecups?

As explained under the Zeiss thread, there are harmful substances in virtually everything around us and in items we take for granted. Zeiss being the only company for now, that is acknowledging the situation and trying to compensate a little. Car, camera, TV, computer, smart phone, etc. You'll probably find something horrible in all of them.

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=379291

zzzzzz said:

The others.

Steiner is offering exchange.

Bresser, Eschenbach, Leica, Nikon, Minox and Olympus offer no exchange. (Source: Stiftung Warentest, Issue 08/2019, page 74ff)

Sucks about the eyecups?

Click to expand...

How can Zeiss and Steiner immediately offer a broad exchange to all users? According to the Zeiss email, replacement parts can be ordered directly from Zeiss or through any dealer.
Have they been producing pollutant-free straps etc. in parallel to the polluted ones? Otherwise, I would expect an exchange to take some time.

I remember vaguely that Leica in California was forced to declare that their binoculars (because of the rubber armour) were basically carcinogenic. The same is true for zillions of consumer products.

I think Pyrtle is right (post # 3): looking at my quite large binocular collection (close to 50 different brands), exchanging some parts on Zeiss and Steiner binos would have an effect like the proverbial „drop of water on a hot stone“, i.e. none.
So I think I will have to live with my polluted collection or dump it as a whole, and the latter is rather unlikely.

Canip said:

Have they been producing pollutant-free straps etc. in parallel to the polluted ones?

Click to expand...

Their announcement curiously refers to elevated PAH levels only in "some batches" of straps... yet going back 20 years? I can't imagine who is doing all that testing. This level of paranoia makes no sense except maybe in toys babies chew on all day, which I think is what got Proposition 65 started in California. Plastics exposure is a ubiquitous fact of modern life.

Who actually makes Zeiss straps and rubber armour?
Is it Zeiss in Germany or outsourced in China?

Same for Leica?

Also the binocular cases?
Many cases seem to be made in China and some seem very well made.
But do these have hazards also?

B.

P.S.
Swarovski gave a free rubber bone to the dog that chewed the binocular armour.

Were the rubber armour or the rubber bone compliant with regulations?

Exchange strap..

Canip said:

How can Zeiss and Steiner immediately offer a broad exchange to all users? According to the Zeiss email, replacement parts can be ordered directly from Zeiss or through any dealer.
Have they been producing pollutant-free straps etc. in parallel to the polluted ones? Otherwise, I would expect an exchange to take some time.

I heard from Zeiss directly that they worked quite hard with their supplier in order to provide new straps as fast as possible. Nevertheless I assume that they will also face some supply issues depending on the amount of people who will ask for a new strap.

Click to expand...

tenex said:

………... This level of paranoia makes no sense except maybe in toys babies chew on all day, which I think is what got Proposition 65 started in California. Plastics exposure is a ubiquitous fact of modern life.

Click to expand...

Fully agree with you here.

Time effects .... ?

Is anyone clued up on the effect of time (and things like exposure to sunlight) on these pollutants ?

I can only hope that something like off gassing, half-life decay, or UV breakdown etc has rendered these bins less harmful ...... coz I don't like my chances of getting safe replacement parts from Zen-Ray ! :eek!:

As an FYI my 8&1/2 yr old Zen ED3'S have faded and softer straps and neck pad, and the armouring has lost quite a lot of its pliability and surface softness - being somewhat harder and shinier. They have also lost a lot of that new binocular smell ...... :cat:




Chosen :gh: