Eyepiece with p65 Warning ⚠️

[Caesardangelo]

I just received my 4mm series 5000 from meade and there is a P65 STICKER in the back of the box that says Cancer and Reproductive har... sorry the ignorance , but, any of your guys know if there is something harmful in this type of eyepiece. I am really new in this hobby and i don't understand too much.

[vlaiv]

Hi and welcome to SGL.

I'm sure that such sticker is probably just formality.

In some cases - glass is doped with some elements to produce better performing product - for example Lanthanum glass.

Element lanthanum has radioactive isotope. Maybe there is no way of separating that radioactive isotope from element and there might be some traces of it left. Such elements are used in traces in glass - so overall these pose no issues to health - but regulative requires such sticker to be used.

Alternative is maybe something similar used in plastics on the eyepiece. In either case - I'm sure it is not really hazardous to use, but regulative forces manufacturers to use such sticker.

[JamesF]

As far as I recall when this has been discussed previously, there are products used to manufacture the eyepiece that have been shown to potentially cause cancer etc., but there's in reality the risk in terms of an eyepiece is tiny.  However, in some locations the law still requires that the warning is present.

It may be due to the rare earths (or perhaps lead) used in some of the glass elements.

James

[mikeDnight]

I have seen this before but can't remember the reason for the warning. It's probably perfectly safe, although I'd be inclined to enquire about it from the manufacturer or possibly return it out of principle.

[vlaiv]

yes, discussed before (same conclusions):

 

[JamesF]

Assuming it's an issue with radioactive elements it would perhaps be informative to see a comparison with the background levels of radiation due to living somewhere such as Aberdeen (where I seem to recall the underlying rock is more radioactive than most places in the UK) or where I live, where levels of radon gas tend to be higher than average.

James

[Steve]

My understanding is if an eyepiece has that label then it was originally intended for sale in California. I don’t think the label is required outside of California. 

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Assuming it's an issue with radioactive elements it would perhaps be informative to see a comparison with the background levels of radiation due to living somewhere such as Aberdeen (where I seem to recall the underlying rock is more radioactive than most places in the UK) or where I live, where levels of radon gas tend to be higher than average.

James

If it is down to lanthanum - we would need to wait some time to detect it

only 0.1% of lanthanum is that radioactive isotope and it has half life of about 10 ages of universe - so we would need quite some time for one to decay, even if there is substantial amount of the stuff in the glass.

[JamesF]

16 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

If it is down to lanthanum - we would need to wait some time to detect it

There's probably more radioactive stuff in some of the food we eat

James

[John]

48 minutes ago, Steve said:

My understanding is if an eyepiece has that label then it was originally intended for sale in California. I don’t think the label is required outside of California. 

That is my understanding as well. The Californian requirements very stringent apparently and have resulted on such labeling appearing on a surprisingly wide range of products.

[Zermelo]

In the last century some glass was produced with quite a bit of uranium, but it wouldn't be any use in eyepieces I suspect.

Radioactive thorium sometimes occurs in association with cerium and other rare earths, but I'd be surprised if enough of it remained after separation to leave significant radioactivity.

[Andrew_B]

3 hours ago, vlaiv said:

If it is down to lanthanum - we would need to wait some time to detect it

only 0.1% of lanthanum is that radioactive isotope and it has half life of about 10 ages of universe - so we would need quite some time for one to decay, even if there is substantial amount of the stuff in the glass.

It would be more likely to be the chemically toxic effects of lanthanum that would cause problems. Uranium is similar - the stuff would poison you chemically well before the radiation level was enough to harm you.

Prop 65 is one of those idiotic laws that labels pretty much everything because just about every product will contain something that causes or is suspected to cause cancer. There was a similar flap a few years ago in the UK when a bunch of food products like ready meals were removed from sale in the UK with great fanfare because they contained a cancer-causing additive. When you read the details it turned out that the chemical in question had never been shown to cause cancer in humans in any circumstances or when ingested by animals and it was only when lab rats were injected with absurd quantities of the stuff that it was observed to have an effect. A person would die from overeating or from ingesting a lethal amount of salt long before they could get a similar concentration of the chemical in their body but nevertheless it was considered 'dangerous'.

Unfortunately, when safety labelling is overused people just tune it out and it makes them much less likely in future to pay attention to genuinely important warnings.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Andrew_B

[John]

I think this is what lies behind this labeling:

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65

 

[JamesF]

57 minutes ago, John said:

I think this is what lies behind this labeling:

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/about-proposition-65

 

Which says: "By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless the exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer or is significantly below levels observed to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm."

I guess that means that the manufacturers put the warning on "just in case" as it's easier to do that than to risk the consequences of being sued.

There are some "interesting" things on the list though.  Alcoholic beverages, for a start.  Aloe vera, bracken fern, aspirin, nitrous oxide, warfarin and chinese-style salted fish are also there.  As is lead, so if lead is used to make some of the glass in the eyepiece, which seems quite possible, then I'd guess that's why the label is there.  As long as you don't make a habit of eating eyepieces then I'd imagine it's fine.  I know some of the big Naglers look good enough to eat, but one's my limit, really, and only with a nice pepper sauce and a decent full-bodied red.

James

[Mr Spock]

Yes, a new eyepiece can cause reproductive harm. You will be outside observing with it instead of, well, you know... 😜

[Ags]

The best advice I can give is: don't eat the eyepiece and you'll be fine!

[Voyager 3]

And don't try to use the eyepiece glass as wine glass ... You will be fine .

[Caesardangelo]

Thanks everyone for help. I m much less worried now hahaha. It was the first time that i saw this type of sticker, i got a little worried, but now i actually see that not such big thing like i was thinking... hahha

[John]

Just now, Caesardangelo said:

Thanks everyone for help. I m much less worried now hahaha. It was the first time that i saw this type of sticker, i got a little worried, but now i actually see that not such big thing like i was thinking... hahha

If you peel the sticker off there is probably a small P65 warning notice printed on the reverse side relating to the ink and glue used on the sticker 

[mikeDnight]

On 26/11/2021 at 21:27, JamesF said:

There's probably more radioactive stuff in some of the food we eat

James

Going back to the 1980's there was concern over carrot skins being radioactive. I've eaten countless carrots in the meantime and I still don't glow in the dark. 🐇

[JamesF]

21 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Going back to the 1980's there was concern over carrot skins being radioactive.

Well why not?  Bananas contain potassium-40 which is radioactive so I'd have thought other food items might be likely to do something similar.

James

[Louis D]

Apple, pear, and grape juices often contain trace amounts of arsenic, and I've yet to see a P65 warning on them.

[Louis D]

Basically, since California requires this label, it's cheaper and easier to stick it on every box regardless of where it's being sold.  If CA was a small market, it would probably be ignored and/or boycotted by manufacturers.

California's latest effort to bend the world to its will is P12 which effectively bans the sale of out of state pork in their state.

[JamesF]

26 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Apple, pear, and grape juices often contain trace amounts of arsenic, and I've yet to see a P65 warning on them.

Quite possibly cyanide too unless they manage to pulp and press the fruit without damaging any of the seeds.

James

[Don Pensack]

6 hours ago, Louis D said:

Basically, since California requires this label, it's cheaper and easier to stick it on every box regardless of where it's being sold.  If CA was a small market, it would probably be ignored and/or boycotted by manufacturers.

California's latest effort to bend the world to its will is P12 which effectively bans the sale of out of state pork in their state.

Is that a bad thing if other states raise pigs in a cruel and inhumane manner?

As for Prop.65, more information for the consumer is not a bad thing.  A label that identifies the potential problems with one product allows me to decide whether or not it is important to me.

Lead in eyepieces glass is not important to me, while lead in glassware I drink from is.

Since there are not thousands of knowledgeable inspectors checking each and every product, nor is the state willing to pay for that, the only alternative is to put the label on every product containing lead-containing glass.

Lots of studies of areas with concentrations of particular cancers point to environmental factors being a root cause, and rarely is it a single thing.

We are all lab rats for industry, who basically only responds to a problem AFTER it has caused a problem.

Far better to require they prove safety for humans BEFORE the product comes to market.