Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Leica California Cancer disclaimer

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 23rd January 2019, 23:58   #1
bachbirder
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 21
Leica California Cancer disclaimer

Hi,

Does anyone have information on this disclaimer seen on eBay and amazon for some Leica bins?

"Important information
Legal Disclaimer
WARNING:� This product can expose you to chemicals including TDI, which are known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.�� For more information go to:� www.P65Warnings.ca.gov"

Thanks

Chris
bachbirder is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 00:20   #2
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 4,061
Don't worry, California has warning labels all over, and they mean nothing.

I hope that explains it. Just stupid is what it is.

Jerry

Last edited by Troubador : Thursday 24th January 2019 at 06:32.
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 00:45   #3
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,326
Iirc, the state requires the same warning on garden hoses, because of the plasticizer in the material. So Leica is not alone here.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 01:37   #4
KC Foggin
Super Moderator
BF Supporter 2019
 
KC Foggin's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Myrtle Beach SC "Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places"
Posts: 257,142
I sure hope it's not accurate cause that sounds pretty scary
__________________
KC a/k/a common KC

Karma - What you send out
Comes right back at ya
KC Foggin is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 01:51   #5
dwever
African Fish Eagle Rwanda
BF Supporter 2019
 
dwever's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 355
I believe this is a result of CA Proposition 65, and even Garmin Marine products bear the warning.

https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov
__________________
Leica NTV 8X42; UVHD+ 8x42; Zeiss Marines
dwever is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 01:52   #6
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,568
Practically everything is allegedly known by the State of California to cause Cancer. If Leica armor is listed, probably every binocular known will eventually have the warning.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are". Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 02:52   #7
oldfortyfive
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 174
Kalifornia changed their law last year. You should be seeing it on about everything. Our corporate legal has had us plaster it all over our products.
oldfortyfive is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 03:53   #8
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
BF Supporter 2019
 
Kevin Conville's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: State of Chaos
Posts: 2,129
Though I agree with the comments of not taking the warnings seriously, for the most part, I am able to determine for myself what threat there may be.
What would be the opposite of California's Prop 65? Ignorance?

I'd rather have more information and parse the nuances for myself than be deliberately lied to or left w/o potentially useful information. Playing Devil's advocate here.
__________________
my bird pics

Scott's Miracle Grow KILLING Birds, for Years!
read this: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=226714

Last edited by Troubador : Thursday 24th January 2019 at 06:38.
Kevin Conville is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 10:05   #9
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Conville View Post
Though I agree with the comments of not taking the warnings seriously, for the most part, I am able to determine for myself what threat there may be.
What would be the opposite of California's Prop 65? Ignorance?

I'd rather have more information and parse the nuances for myself than be deliberately lied to or left w/o potentially useful information. Playing Devil's advocate here.
Labeling so broadly is not helpful.
How can regulators focus on the real bad actors when these are not differentiated from a multitude of very low risk items?
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 11:24   #10
mooreorless
Registered User
 
mooreorless's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntingdon,Pa.
Posts: 3,532
The only thing is that people see these warnings all the time even garden hoses and after a while it goes in one eye and out the other or ear. It is just a way of covering their rear end.
mooreorless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 11:28   #11
Grando
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooreorless View Post
The only thing is that people see these warnings all the time even garden hoses and after a while it goes in one eye and out the other or ear. It is just a way of covering their rear end.
I hope the stickers aren't covering the rear end lenses of the binoculars, else they'll be very difficult to use!
Grando is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 12:33   #12
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,445
Hasselblad stopped making the XPan cameras because of EU legislation banning lead in the solder used for the electronics.
Redesign was uneconomical.
The total amount of lead in all XPans must be minimal, and I think that exceptions should have been given, but they just stopped making them.

Considering that lead crystal glass has lots of lead, as do church roofs, I don't know how these problems should be approached.
The chemicals washed into the sea affect human fertility etc.
The Earth is ruined, but I suppose we have to start cleaning up the mess anyway.

Thorium glass lenses were destroyed by chopping them up after papers highlighting the use of thorium glass.
I think it would have been much wiser to leave them be.

There are still large numbers of watches and alarm clocks found in charity shops with radium painted dials.
The girls who painted these in Chicago died from licking the paint brushes. Their graves are still hot after almost 100 years.

A plastic fairy liquid bottle was washed up recently in an immaculate state. The price was marked in shillings and pence from the 1960s maybe. These bottles may last hundreds of years. The sea is full of plastic down to depths of miles.

It could be that warnings should state the level of risk, so we are better informed.

I took a radiation monitor on an aircraft flight and plotted the readings against height. Most interesting.
Couriers are most at risk. The ones who fly daily.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 12:42   #13
jgraider
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,298
It's crazy California, the left coast. About par for the course.
jgraider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 14:58   #14
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
It could be that warnings should state the level of risk, so we are better informed.

I took a radiation monitor on an aircraft flight and plotted the readings against height. Most interesting.
Couriers are most at risk. The ones who fly daily.
Think the crew personnel is the most affected, they spend a lot of time aloft.
I've not seen any data on possible health hazards though, even though that really should be a concern for the industry and especially for the unions.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 15:27   #15
45northmt
Registered User
 
45northmt's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Think the crew personnel is the most affected, they spend a lot of time aloft.
I've not seen any data on possible health hazards though, even though that really should be a concern for the industry and especially for the unions.
The radiation risks to long-term airline pilots are well known and documented. My father, a 33 year commercial veteran with over 24,000 hrs, suffers a variety of symptoms including osteoporosis. However, since he turns 90 next month, apparently the problems haven't been too severe :)


https://www.amhsr.org/articles/bone-...ored-4469.html

Last edited by 45northmt : Thursday 24th January 2019 at 15:56.
45northmt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 15:48   #16
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,445
Pilots are limited to a maximum 1000 hours per year.
Cabin crew also have limits.
However, some couriers on daily duty exceed these limits.

I cannot remember my readings as height increased, but it climbs slowly at first then the curve steepens.

Military pilots flying above 40,000ft and up to 60,000ft and beyond receive higher doses, but their flight time is less than commercial pilots.

Concorde crew and passengers were more at risk at 55,000ft to 60,000ft, but the flight times were less.

The background radiation in granite countries like Finland was 2.5 times higher than in England, but some places in Cornwall have radon as a problem and special measures are needed in house building and with ventilation to prevent build up.

Some places in India, from memory are about 11 times the U.K. average background readings.

From memory, radiation workers, such as dentists, have ten times the allowed limits for the general public.
I monitored a scanning x-ray machine through a wall. the scan took a few seconds and the monitor screamed as it went past its limits.
Dentists wisely stepped away from the x-ray machine.
Nowadays doses are less.

When I was a schoolboy, shoe shops had x-ray machines, and I used to delight in seeing my x-rayed foot. There were I think no restrictions.
I wonder how much dosage the shoe salesmen and women received.

Thorium glass lenses had to be ground and polished. I have never seen a paper on how much dust the lens makers inhaled.

I had about a dozen Aero Ektar lenses under my bed for years. I am still around, but maybe a bit gaga.

Last edited by Binastro : Thursday 24th January 2019 at 16:00.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 17:28   #17
Mark9473
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 51N 4E
Posts: 214
TDI is short for toluene diisocyanate; it is one of the monomers used to make many types of polyurethanes used in mattresses, insulation foams, car dashboards etc., and apparently also the outside coating of some binoculars.
The substance by itself is very hazardous, however it reacts away in making the polyurethane and once that is fully cured the TDI has disappeared. It's a complete non-issue for the consumer, and shouldn't have been listed by Leica in my opinion.
Mark9473 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 18:08   #18
Steve C
Registered User
 
Steve C's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark9473 View Post
TDI is short for toluene diisocyanate; it is one of the monomers used to make many types of polyurethanes used in mattresses, insulation foams, car dashboards etc., and apparently also the outside coating of some binoculars.
The substance by itself is very hazardous, however it reacts away in making the polyurethane and once that is fully cured the TDI has disappeared. It's a complete non-issue for the consumer, and shouldn't have been listed by Leica in my opinion.
If Leica (or any company wishing to sell any product) wishes to sell in California, they don't have much choice. Since a company can't tell much ahead of time where a product will get sold it is far less hassle to stick the California label on everything. More cost and hassle for everybody.

I agree with your stance on the labeling.
__________________
Steve

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are". Teddy Roosevelt.
Steve C is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 24th January 2019, 18:27   #19
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Stanford and Uppsala
Posts: 704
Even lead used in some glass can ...lead to the use of warning labels, I have seen such warning stickers on some binos sold in CA. Probably the warning is for those who lick the lenses of their binos instead of using a cleaning cloth.....

Last edited by PeterPS : Thursday 24th January 2019 at 19:25.
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 27th January 2019, 03:55   #20
bachbirder
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 21
Thanks everyone for all the feedback.
bachbirder is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 27th January 2019, 09:14   #21
fazalmajid
Registered User
 
fazalmajid's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 329
I knew I loved my leather-clad Ultravid BLs for a reason...
fazalmajid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 27th January 2019, 09:58   #22
Mark9473
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 51N 4E
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by fazalmajid View Post
I knew I loved my leather-clad Ultravid BLs for a reason...
If you google "hazardous chemicals used in leather industry" you may change your mind. ;-)
Mark9473 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 27th January 2019, 16:02   #23
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,445
My Foton leather clad binoculars are still pungent almost twenty years from new.

A Chinese camera case from a camera I got maybe 20 years ago was so awful, I had to throw it in the trash can immediately. It was the worst smelling optics related thing I have ever met.

The very large British 6 inch survey lens, and I mean large, cost about 85,000 to make decades ago. I paid 60 secondhand. Maybe Ross/Williamson the maker.
The lined register plate cost thousands also.
It had a lot of thorium in it.
I kept well away from it.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 29th January 2019, 03:24   #24
Bill Atwood
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 836
One of those stickers came with my Swaro ATX 1.7x extender. I think it referenced the ink used on the box.
Bill Atwood is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 29th January 2019, 06:29   #25
dantheman
Bah humbug
 
dantheman's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 12,048
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Atwood View Post
One of those stickers came with my Swaro ATX 1.7x extender. I think it referenced the ink used on the box.
I was wondering whether the stickers may need a warning label.
__________________
stithiansreservoirbirding.blogspot.co.uk/ - last update 10/11/15 - really rather remarkable still!!!
dantheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are your binoculars giving you cancer? jibbs Binoculars 7 Wednesday 22nd August 2018 06:43
Tasmanian devil cancer revealed rockfowl Mammals 0 Friday 8th January 2010 17:03
Donana Bird tours article - disclaimer. John Butler Birds & Birding 2 Friday 27th April 2007 08:43

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.21952295 seconds with 39 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.