Are your binoculars giving you cancer? (1 Viewer)

[elkcub]

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.

Is THIS what you're looking for?

The warnings on binoculars are arguably more about product liability protection for the manufacturers and distributors than protecting customers. Otherwise, they wouldn't sell the products in the first place, would they?

Ed

 

[Quak]

agree...Commiefornia should be concerned about its other issues...typical CA hysteria. Spent some time in San Fran last year...what a gong show. 1st and last time for my family

 

[edwincjones]

This is just in liberal California, with way too much BS on their minds.
........
No danger at all in the products, just too much govt. control.

Jerry

??? or maybe they are just smarter then the rest of us ????

edj

 

[Adrian Taylor]

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!

Entertaining view, WJC. I am about the same age as you, and I wonder how any of us is still alive considering the frightful things such as asbestos that we grew up with. I remember my mother stopping me sawing into a discarded asbestos panel with a hacksaw. Despite the impression created by the media, in the UK we sue one another a little less readily than they do in the USA. This may explain California's approach to health hazzards. I use an air-mattress regularly at nights, so I am aware of warnings about pthalates. Your third eye sounds really useful. Should they fit a finder scope to higher powered binoculars?

 

[atamzarian]

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.

It's nice to see a rational assessment, informed by relevant experience no less. To that point, although the phthalate warnings are valid (even though jumbled in with other things and not logically sorted out nationally in the US), there is indeed a big difference regarding routes of exposure between a large facility such as hospital with phthalates in all of the floors and the wall paper and the IV bags, and rubber coated binoculars.

 

[atamzarian]

Is THIS what you're looking for?

The warnings on binoculars are arguably more about product liability protection for the manufacturers and distributors than protecting customers. Otherwise, they wouldn't sell the products in the first place, would they?

Ed

Bullseye about liability in this case but as to the rest... of course they would if it was legal and there was no liability.

[EDIT] BTW, yes that is one of the sources which I referenced.

 

[atamzarian]

... I wonder how any of us is still alive considering the frightful things such as asbestos that we grew up with..

Somewhat by definition many of those affected are not still alive and cant post here.

Anyhoo, I'll leave the off topic there and play with these new binoculars. The creatures I was going to watch today are tucked in for some incoming rain so I'll check to see if this forum can be read from 60 feet away but will try not to post

 

[dries1]

I could see it now, folks out in CA. with a mask outdoors with nitrile gloves birding.

 

[atamzarian]

I could see it now, folks out in CA. with a mask outdoors with nitrile gloves birding.

Perhaps also nitrile stick-on circles for the eyes.
No...wait a minute..... nitrile coated binoculars!

 

[WJC]

Entertaining view, WJC. I am about the same age as you, and I wonder how any of us is still alive considering the frightful things such as asbestos that we grew up with. I remember my mother stopping me sawing into a discarded asbestos panel with a hacksaw. Despite the impression created by the media, in the UK we sue one another a little less readily than they do in the USA. This may explain California's approach to health hazzards. I use an air-mattress regularly at nights, so I am aware of warnings about pthalates. Your third eye sounds really useful. Should they fit a finder scope to higher powered binoculars?

You have no need to pick on MY country. We're destroying it just fine ........... FROM THE INSIDE!