Best Eye Health Info? How Do We Figure Out If We're Safe Enough?

[AVC-Ed]

No Linda, we don't all we have is a copy of the magazine, and unfortunately, it is copyrighted, so I can't photocopy it and send it off to you.

[RSimmons]

I've been pretty busy with the day job and haven't had a lot of extra time. There is this to consider, though. High intensity light exposure from visible wavelengths can cause problems in the retina. Blue light, being of higher energy, is most commonly associated with retinal damage. Most of the time this damage is due to oxidative stress in the retinal layer, specifically inducing free radical formation in the mitochondria of the photoreceptor cells. The end result is DNA damage within the mitochondria and the cells die. Heating effects may also be found, but are less well documented. The retina does not have any pain receptors and damage may not appear for some time (often hours).

These results are not particularly new and are why it is strongly suggested that people wear some sort of shaded eye protection, particularly UV and blue absorbing, when they are outdoors in high exposure conditions. Chronic exposure leads to gradual damage. Much of the literature that you find concerning visible light exposure relates to lasers. Laser light is a fairly special case, though there are some common points when dealing with high energy point light sources.

For our purposes my personal concern is less from the exposure that we get under normal working conditions than those that I have referred to before as high intensity emission events. In my experience these tend to be less a normal working phenomenon and more commonly occur when a lampworker overheats the workpiece, though I have seen a few people who like to work in this condition a lot. You can encounter this when someone heats a rod to the point where the emitted light casts a sharp shadow across the room and their face is less than 18 inches from the source. It also can occur when fuming on the tip of a quartz rod. Most of the time the eye protection that we use is adequate to the task of shielding our eyes from average exposure and even some above average emissions. Often the problem from the biological point of view is more one of intensity than of wavelength. We've all discussed the importance of matching the eye protection to the type of glass we're working. On the other hand, it is important to understand that exposure from these extreme emission events can have cumulative effects. If you're seeing spots after working then you are oversaturating your retina. If you do this a lot you can do permanent damage that may not show up for quite a while.

Robert

[NMLinda]

Ed - thanks for responding. I also want to respect copywrites, so I'll continue to try to get a copy from the journal

Robert - thank you for taking time to respond here, and for such an interesting and thoughtful post. For situations where someone has actually cast a distinct shadow when working, can you comment on the circumstances? As someone who can't comfortably (maybe even physically) hold their work as far away as 18", context for the less common working situation is very helpful to know.

Linda

[RSimmons]

I've see this sort of thing occur most often when I've watched (1) young guys (2) working boro, particularly when working in groups. I don't mean to offend anyone, but those are the circumstances when I've observed people running on the edge of self immolation the most. I've seen guys lean in close for a look at a gather that I can't look at from several feet away, so you know that they're getting a big dose. We all hit peak emissions from time to time, but most of the time it's short duration and we avoid looking into the flame too long.

Some of the guys that I've seen working this way probably don't understand the potential for eye damage. Maybe it's cool (hot, whatever) and they're immortal - the glass equivalent of driving really fast. When you hear someone comment that they're still seeing spots after a working session, though, you can be reasonably sure that they're been working too hot for safety. This is where it is important that anyone working with glass have a clear understanding of what they are doing. Proper education from the beginning makes a difference. That's the reason for good threads like this.

Robert

[Mr. Smiley]

I'm youngish (come on, give that to me... please! ) and i may fit that description some times, but I don't recall ever seeing spots. When I'm working hot and it gets bright, my first reaction is to look away. Kinda like the sun... it's there, I know it's bright and when I look at the clouds, I avoid that bright ball of fire. I have seen exactly what you're talking about though. There was this one guy at AGI... he worked hot and about 4" from his nose. I'm pretty sure he was already blind and that's why he had to get so close.

[Mr. Smiley]

I think safe working positions could be another topic all together.

[pam]

Robert, thanks so much for that information. It really gives us something tangible to look for when we are working.

[lunamoonshadow]

To comment on the UV exposure issue--I worked with sunglasses (high end, high quality) for several years (shop manager for an independently owned shop) & got a LOT of vendor training & a LOT of manufacturer information, both on lenses & on lens testing, and also a LOT of trade magazines (for both the sunglass trade, & the eyeglass world)--when I'm working with anything (I'm a career retail manager), I tend to "absorb" as much information as I can get about whatever it is I'm selling (all puns intended with the "absorb")--and retain as much of it as possible--I'm odd that way--but it makes me extremely effective at my job (& extremely annoying to my employees).

UV is ongoing, cumulative, lifetime, permanant damage & does not repair over time. You (& your kids) should be wearing eye protection EVERY time you go outside, every day. (80% of the UV gets through the cloud cover, so even if you live in a "never sunny place", you're STILL getting UV exposure). I find it really interesting that lampworkers are soooo concerned about a relatively SMALL amount of exposure for beginning lampworkers (particularly when they ask "can I torch one time before I get my didy's if I wear safety glasses") & yet freely admit they NEVER wear sunglasses--you're exposing yourself to HOURS of UV every time you go to the park, every time you drive, every time you walk in & out of a store. That's a HUGE deal. UVA-aging, UVB-burning, UVC-cancer causing (that's cheating, but, that's the simple way to explain it)--you want eyewear for EVERY DAY that protects against all THREE of those things--you're risking cataracts, & all the things you'll later blame on "faulty lampwork eyewear"

I torched outdoors with my hothead for the first 3 years I had it & chose to wear polarized lenses with 100% UVA/UVB/UVC protection, with a 8% light transmission rating that met OSHA safety ratings for *outdoor* work * & for impact ratings. The same kind/brand that we were selling at the shop to the guys who worked at the local IronWorks (they'd bring us their uniform/safety equipment slips, we'd provide the glasses, they'd pay the difference). The same brand that a lot of the guys who go to Iraq wear. (Yep, sold to lots of them too--"had to be plain black, no logos for with the uniform") & I happen to know that the company has manufactured a IR specific lens (not available to the public ) for the Gov't as well.

My *choice* was based on the fact that when I sat OUTSIDE & torched, I'd see spots (likely from the sun) if I wore the didy's (they were the ugly ones--with the side sheilds ) but if I wore crazy expensive glasses, I could SEE after torching when I went back in the house & took them off. Oh & I didn't get a headache with *my* glasses . I could also SEE the torch flame & not set myself on fire (helpful!!)

I switched to a set of downtown's from phillips about 4 months ago...but if I was going to torch outside again, I'd *definitely* go back to my sunglasses.

[NMLinda]

Originally Posted by RSimmons

I've see this sort of thing occur most often when I've watched (1) young guys (2) working boro, particularly when working in groups. I don't mean to offend anyone, but those are the circumstances when I've observed people running on the edge of self immolation the most...Maybe it's cool (hot, whatever) and they're immortal - the glass equivalent of driving really fast...

Oh Robert, that's too funny! Having survived my own youth, I'd forgotten about Super Dude Syndrome - and not that us gals are necessarily innocent of that phenomenon (my 70 year old neighbor used to pick bar fights, and she's smaller than me).

But, you make some candid and fair observations about torching habits you've seen. It makes me think of the story that circulated here in LE, and probably elsewhere, about the young man in New Mexico who was purportedly died because he didn't take the right precautions with ventilation. Unless these folks accidentally light their hair on fire, the greater risk is trashing their eyesight (and maybe their skin), which would also be terrible to have happen. And, if they were made aware of the risks, perhaps they'd choose not to be so gonzo. Any time I saw Kevin O'Grady do a demo (usually a good-sized boro piece), he would continually scan the audience to make sure no one was staring at the flame and remind folks not to do that. I really appreciate his conscienciosness now.

Luna - what a great perspective! You make many good points both about remembering to carry over lessons-learned from glassworking to daily life, something many folks might not connect.

I think your points are very important since many folks either can or choose to work outside. Now you really do have UV concerns as well as the visible and IR contributions from the torch. Your experiences are also a great example of using an eyewear product - didys in your case - in circumstances it probably wasn't designed to handle. For those working outside, it can be easy to remember to worry about the miniature sun burning on your bench and forget to worry about the one overhead.

Linda

[AVC-Ed]

Originally Posted by RSimmons

I've been pretty busy with the day job and haven't had a lot of extra time. There is this to consider, though. High intensity light exposure from visible wavelengths can cause problems in the retina. Blue light, being of higher energy, is most commonly associated with retinal damage. Most of the time this damage is due to oxidative stress in the retinal layer, specifically inducing free radical formation in the mitochondria of the photoreceptor cells. The end result is DNA damage within the mitochondria and the cells die. Heating effects may also be found, but are less well documented. The retina does not have any pain receptors and damage may not appear for some time (often hours).

These results are not particularly new and are why it is strongly suggested that people wear some sort of shaded eye protection, particularly UV and blue absorbing, when they are outdoors in high exposure conditions. Chronic exposure leads to gradual damage. Much of the literature that you find concerning visible light exposure relates to lasers. Laser light is a fairly special case, though there are some common points when dealing with high energy point light sources.

For our purposes my personal concern is less from the exposure that we get under normal working conditions than those that I have referred to before as high intensity emission events. In my experience these tend to be less a normal working phenomenon and more commonly occur when a lampworker overheats the workpiece, though I have seen a few people who like to work in this condition a lot. You can encounter this when someone heats a rod to the point where the emitted light casts a sharp shadow across the room and their face is less than 18 inches from the source. It also can occur when fuming on the tip of a quartz rod. Most of the time the eye protection that we use is adequate to the task of shielding our eyes from average exposure and even some above average emissions. Often the problem from the biological point of view is more one of intensity than of wavelength. We've all discussed the importance of matching the eye protection to the type of glass we're working. On the other hand, it is important to understand that exposure from these extreme emission events can have cumulative effects. If you're seeing spots after working then you are oversaturating your retina. If you do this a lot you can do permanent damage that may not show up for quite a while.

Robert

And this is precisely the information that is in Mike's document: http://mikeaurelius.wordpress.com/20...e-glassworker/ (did anyone read it?)

[AVC-Ed]

Originally Posted by RSimmons

I've see this sort of thing occur most often when I've watched (1) young guys (2) working boro, particularly when working in groups. I don't mean to offend anyone, but those are the circumstances when I've observed people running on the edge of self immolation the most. I've seen guys lean in close for a look at a gather that I can't look at from several feet away, so you know that they're getting a big dose. We all hit peak emissions from time to time, but most of the time it's short duration and we avoid looking into the flame too long.

Robert

Mike writes:

Robert -- I certainly don't discount what you are saying and in fact support it. However, I think it is far more prevalent than you suggest. Brent mentioned (I think in this thread) about the brilliant silver flare in one of the soft glass colors (Raku I think). Certainly fuming is a short-term event, maybe 30 to 45 seconds, and like Brent mentioned, most people will squint or close their eyes, but when you are working with a color like Raku or any of the other high silver content glasses, you simply cannot look away.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that by saying "not everyone does it" or "I've only seen idiots do it" sets up a situation where the ordinary person (especially the newbie) can quite easily rationalize that it's not going to happen to them.

As I've written and you put additional weight to, the consequences are staggeringly awful for a persons vision. I don't want this discussion to lean towards any possibility of rationaling NOT wearing proper protective eyewear. Every single lampworking situation is different. We simply cannot make a broad statement that it only happens on occasion or if you are being stupid.

[AVC-Ed]

Originally Posted by lunamoonshadow

To comment on the UV exposure issue--I worked with sunglasses (high end, high quality) for several years (shop manager for an independently owned shop) & got a LOT of vendor training & a LOT of manufacturer information, both on lenses & on lens testing, and also a LOT of trade magazines (for both the sunglass trade, & the eyeglass world)--when I'm working with anything (I'm a career retail manager), I tend to "absorb" as much information as I can get about whatever it is I'm selling (all puns intended with the "absorb")--and retain as much of it as possible--I'm odd that way--but it makes me extremely effective at my job (& extremely annoying to my employees).

UV is ongoing, cumulative, lifetime, permanant damage & does not repair over time. You (& your kids) should be wearing eye protection EVERY time you go outside, every day. (80% of the UV gets through the cloud cover, so even if you live in a "never sunny place", you're STILL getting UV exposure). I find it really interesting that lampworkers are soooo concerned about a relatively SMALL amount of exposure for beginning lampworkers (particularly when they ask "can I torch one time before I get my didy's if I wear safety glasses") & yet freely admit they NEVER wear sunglasses--you're exposing yourself to HOURS of UV every time you go to the park, every time you drive, every time you walk in & out of a store. That's a HUGE deal. UVA-aging, UVB-burning, UVC-cancer causing (that's cheating, but, that's the simple way to explain it)--you want eyewear for EVERY DAY that protects against all THREE of those things--you're risking cataracts, & all the things you'll later blame on "faulty lampwork eyewear"

I torched outdoors with my hothead for the first 3 years I had it & chose to wear polarized lenses with 100% UVA/UVB/UVC protection, with a 8% light transmission rating that met OSHA safety ratings for *outdoor* work * & for impact ratings. The same kind/brand that we were selling at the shop to the guys who worked at the local IronWorks (they'd bring us their uniform/safety equipment slips, we'd provide the glasses, they'd pay the difference). The same brand that a lot of the guys who go to Iraq wear. (Yep, sold to lots of them too--"had to be plain black, no logos for with the uniform") & I happen to know that the company has manufactured a IR specific lens (not available to the public ) for the Gov't as well.

My *choice* was based on the fact that when I sat OUTSIDE & torched, I'd see spots (likely from the sun) if I wore the didy's (they were the ugly ones--with the side sheilds ) but if I wore crazy expensive glasses, I could SEE after torching when I went back in the house & took them off. Oh & I didn't get a headache with *my* glasses . I could also SEE the torch flame & not set myself on fire (helpful!!)

I switched to a set of downtown's from phillips about 4 months ago...but if I was going to torch outside again, I'd *definitely* go back to my sunglasses.

Mike writes:

Luna -- you bring up some very good points, however, when indoors behind the torch, there is little to no UV being generated. This has been proven out time and again in the NIOSH studies cited elsewhere over the past week or so.

Additionally, all of the filters for glassworking (didymium and ACE/AUR-92) provide good UV-A, and excellent UV-B & C filtration, because additional UV filtering was introduced into all glass materials back in the 1970's. This is true for all glass lenses. There are no glass lens materials on the market that transmit UV-A below 390 nm. None.

As a manufacturing optician, I can debate the pros and cons of the UV issue all day long (but that would be getting off topic LOL), but suffice to say, that IMHO, the UV issue in eyewear is nothing more than a huge cash cow for the dispensing optician. All opthalmic lenses manufactured in the world and sold in Europe and the US/Canada markets (which essentially requires that all lenses manufactured period) are required to have UV-A filtration in the material. This was an OMA regulation put in place back in the 1970's and still continues in force today. As I wrote, the UV-A filtration starts at 390 nm. This is built into the glass, plastic, polycarbonate, etc. It is part of the chemical constituency of the lens.

So, the bottom line for the consumer, is that as long as they use proper sunglasses when they are outside, they do NOT need additional UV filters on their ordinary prescription eyewear. Paying extra for a coating or "dip" that is going to wear off in about 3 months is ... well ... not smart.

A little off-topic, but one of my favorite pet peeves with the retail side of the optical industry.

[NMLinda]

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

And this is precisely the information that is in Mike's document: http://mikeaurelius.wordpress.com/20...e-glassworker/ (did anyone read it?)

Ed - I can't speak for others, but I did. As I read both Robert's comments and Mike's article, they both agree with each other on the key risk points. Robert's post adds a little bit about physical processes not in Mike's article which I found interesting. Mike's article is longer and naturally expands quite a bit more: I consider it recommended reading to those following this thread - it contains a great deal of valuable information.

I think the bigger point in Luna's post is the consideration of working outdoors vs indoors. I appreciate Mike adding the observation on UV coatings and their association with a 1970 OMA regulation and the built in protection conforming lenses provide. That's important to know for those who weren't aware. But very much to the point of the article by Mike that you referenced, and to Luna's post, working outdoors adds all that much more visible light intensity and increases the need for eye protection beyond what someone working indoors would need. I think her personal experiences were meant to illustrate that not only did she need eye protection, she had to step it up to handle her bright outside working conditions.

[AVC-Ed]

From Mike:

Luna -- my apologies if I came off a bit gruff or rude in my last post. I'm just getting over 3 days of stomach flu and I've been feeling rather <the usual expletives deleted>. Sorry if it came across badly...

Linda is correct of course, that working outside IS a huge additional protection factor that needs to be addressed, even working under an awning or on a sundeck, even, in an older house without those new-fangled UV filtering windows, on a 3 or 4 season porch.

As someone pointed out to me in an e-mail the other day, our tag line on our website says it all:

Without vision, there cannot be art!

[kebira]

Why do I feel I'm following some new marketing ploy, an infomercial for AuraLens, and being tag-teamed by NMLinda and AVC-Ed? Or Mike? Ed, you seem to have uncannily taken on the persona of Mike in all his past ( and I'm talking hundreds) arguments on who's data, glass, etc is of any worth. I watched and waited at the announcement of the sale of AuraLens and the moving on of Mike, as to the direction of the business and, more importantly,to how relationships in the glass community would evolve. I see no change is the order of the day. Tch,tch.
You have an opportunity to move the business to a new place and you're pissing it away by beating us over the head with data that most uf us roll our eyes at due to it's history. Move on.
And NMLinda, you seem to be serving as an opening statement to the continuation of the infomercial. This is starting to play weirdly. I own Auralens glasses and are happy with them. I don't know how good or bad other glasses are because as a newby when I needed glassware, Mike was assuring many of us as to the dangerousness of other suppliers.And I swallowed. As I'm happy with my glasses, I move on.This thread does not serve anyone moving into glasswork, just AuraLens business. This thread really belongs in a vendors section.

Kevin

[pam]

Kevin, I really think you are taking this whole thread wrong and particularly Linda's voice in it. It just happens that the only real authority on our eye protection that will come online and speak and attempt to answer questions are Ed, and Mike speaking through him. I haven't as yet seen anyone say in this thread that other lenses are bad and Auralens is the only one that is good. Mike, through Ed, is answering lots of questions and giving lots of good information, along with others, like Robert.

Linda, thanks again for taking on the moderator role, so to speak, in this discussion. I think you are doing a tremendous job.

[kebira]

No offense, Pam. But apparently you haven't followed this saga over the past couple of yrs on other glass sites. And to assume Ed or Mike or the hellish combo of both are the only experts is foolish. Mike / Ed are in business. Period. It's ok to advertise and feel good about your product, but that does not make them the only experts.
And Linda's role has not been to moderate in any sense of the term.

[pam]

I didn't say they were the ONLY experts, just the only ones available to us that post on this forum. And yes, I have followed these threads over the years. Linda is trying to get information and we are all trying to evaluate the information we get. Perhaps I have missed something, but what has been referred to so far is the ACE/AUR92 lens which both Phillips and Aura use - at least from what I have been told - the didymium lens which can be gotten from a number of vendors and the welders lenses, which we can all pick up at our local welding store. In this thread I haven't seen anyone comparing manufacturer to manufacturer, but I could have missed it.

As far as experts go, I do consider Mike and his father to be experts as they started the products available to us glassworkers. Before Aura, I had a pair of didymiums and a pair of glasses with gold covering them that I used for furnace work. I am not saying there are no other experts, just none that have made themselves available in this discussion to answer questions posed.

[AVC-Ed]

I watched and waited at the announcement of the sale of AuraLens and the moving on of Mike, as to the direction of the business and, more importantly,to how relationships in the glass community would evolve. I see no change is the order of the day.

Where did you see an announcement of a sale? No such thing was ever written by anyone associated with the company, I can assure you. What was said is that there is a new management team.

And as far as Mike moving on, his statement elsewhere said that he is concentrating on manufacturing and production as well as new product development. He is still the "expert" on safety.

I'm not sure where you are going with this Kevin, or why, but your information about the company is dead wrong.

And if you don't like what you are reading, why continue? Seems pretty obvious to me. You are satisfied with your safety, and that's fine, apparently you aren't interested in learning anything more, and that's fine too. Move on. Let it go. Don't worry about what Mike and I are doing. We are working together just fine, exactly as we had planned it would be.

[GlassyEyedGirl]

Originally Posted by kebira

Why do I feel I'm following some new marketing ploy, an infomercial for AuraLens, and being tag-teamed by NMLinda and AVC-Ed? Or Mike? Ed, you seem to have uncannily taken on the persona of Mike in all his past ( and I'm talking hundreds) arguments on who's data, glass, etc is of any worth. I watched and waited at the announcement of the sale of AuraLens and the moving on of Mike, as to the direction of the business and, more importantly,to how relationships in the glass community would evolve. I see no change is the order of the day. Tch,tch.
You have an opportunity to move the business to a new place and you're pissing it away by beating us over the head with data that most uf us roll our eyes at due to it's history. Move on.
And NMLinda, you seem to be serving as an opening statement to the continuation of the infomercial. This is starting to play weirdly. I own Auralens glasses and are happy with them. I don't know how good or bad other glasses are because as a newby when I needed glassware, Mike was assuring many of us as to the dangerousness of other suppliers.And I swallowed. As I'm happy with my glasses, I move on.This thread does not serve anyone moving into glasswork, just AuraLens business. This thread really belongs in a vendors section.

Kevin

I agree. I thought at first that this was going to be something positive and good, but I find myself wondering about the same things as you do Kevin. I believe I shall excuse myself from any further participation.

[Mr. Smiley]

There may be good information here, but honestly Ed, given the past, you'll have to excuse people for not taking anything Mike says at face value. There are a few folks who will speak up and agree that he's an expert. Many more will quietly wait to see if these are indeed viable concerns. Don't let that upset you... Mike has a history of writing papers that are more for the benefit of Aura than anybody else and while that's just an opinion, it's not an uncommon one. If you want to move ahead, you'll have to understand the past and try to see where people are coming from.

The selective kudos just muddy the water for some of us. We just got to a point of near agreement on the IR issue and a new danger is presented by Mike. I don't have time right now to go over what Mike is saying now. On the surface it sounds interesting... It also tends to contradict itself in places... ACE is ok for soft glass... well, most soft glass... but never ok for boro. I work boro and soft glass. I have experience with both and know how bright it gets when it's worked. I really wish I had time to check a few things out... hopefully soon enough.

There are several people who know a lot and would probably post on this topic if the tone is kept open and welcoming. I hope they do speak up. Telling people who might say something you don't like to "move along", isn't going to further the purpose of this thread. This is a discussion and if you're going to tell people to move along, that's counter productive. We need to hear all sides...

[AVC-Ed]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

Mike has a history of writing papers that are more for the benefit of Aura than anybody else and while that's just an opinion, it's not an uncommon one.

A history?? That implies that there are a whole lot of them. Cite some examples please. He owns Aura, shouldn't he write things that benefit Aura? The most interesting point, however, is everything he's written, while copyrighted, have certainly been put out in such a way so that everyone who wants to can read them. Even Phillips. So in a way, even Phillips has benefitted from what Mike has written. I'm quite sure that Phillips does in fact use what Mike has written in order to sell more eyewear -- because that is what Mike writes about: eye safety. And as long as Phillips isn't violating any copyrights, they are well within their lawful usage rights to use it.

And, as long as I'm on the subject, where is the research that Phillips has done? Where are their papers on eye safety? Oh, that's right, there aren't any. They haven't written any because they've never researched the product or the hazards involved in glassworking. They have historically relied on the work that Mike has done to sell their products. We don't have a problem with that, once again, as long as they don't violate any copyrights. And that's the main reason you will never see Phillips on any these threads, because they don't have the research knowledge (apart from the seminal work that Mike has done) and it would soon become obvious that all they were doing was parroting Mike's original work.

So, what's the beef?

The selective kudos just muddy the water for some of us.

And aren't you guilty of exactly the same thing? You give props to those answers you like the best and either ignore or nitpick the ones you don't like. That's just plain human nature.

We just got to a point of near agreement on the IR issue and a new danger is presented by Mike.

NEW? Oh really... http://mikeaurelius.wordpress.com/20...e-glassworker/ look at the publishing date...December 25, 2007. Almost 15 months ago. That's not new. And as Robert indicated as well, it is an issue whether you choose to believe Mike or not.

I don't have time right now to go over what Mike is saying now. On the surface it sounds interesting... It also tends to contradict itself in places... ACE is ok for soft glass... well, most soft glass... but never ok for boro. I work boro and soft glass. I have experience with both and know how bright it gets when it's worked. I really wish I had time to check a few things out... hopefully soon enough.

I think I understand your position, Brent. You don't believe a damn thing Mike has ever written. And it's probably that personal thing again, the one you don't ever acknowledge. It's cool, no worries. But to take it to the next level, Brent, as a teacher, putting your students at possible risk of injury just because you don't believe the papers that a person you don't like has written and so therefore ignore them...that sets you up nicely for some major legal problems down the road, don't you think?

You just want to walk into a classroom to teach boro and have everyone in the classroom using ACE lenses, don't you? That's what all of this has been about, isn't it?

I would think that it would behoove ANY teacher to be as well informed on the issues of personal safety, regardless of their personal feelings about the author. Safety is everyones responsibility. I've seen your post, I think it was here, perhaps on the propane safety thread, that you think people worry too much about safety, that they should just melt glass and have fun. If that's your attitude as a teacher, wow.

There are several people who know a lot and would probably post on this topic if the tone is kept open and welcoming. I hope they do speak up. Telling people who might say something you don't like to "move along", isn't going to further the purpose of this thread. This is a discussion and if you're going to tell people to move along, that's counter productive. We need to hear all sides...

Linda asked that issues such as this be kept out of this thread. Kevin chose to ignore that request and you just threw gasoline on the fire by claiming that Mike has written papers for the best interests of Aura.

[NMLinda]

Kevin,

I have no affiliation with Ed's company, and have never met either Ed or Mike. If you notice at the begining of the thread, I put out an open-ended question of whether there's any measured data out there. I posted one I found, although it wasn't as applicable as one might like and might have been poorly executed. Through Ed, Mike posted references to other sources. You'll also notice that I've continued to ask if there are other references. You might have seen that in one of my more recent posts, I asked if any non-US organizations have done tests like NIOSH. Nobody's responded yet, but I'm hoping some of the other international members of this forum will participate with their sources.

I don't think it's a crime to like Mike's updated analysis/example set, by the way. I can just as easily use it to pick his competitor's products as his, and as Pam said, I have made no product endorsement of any kind. I happen to like Mike's work because it's out in the public domain and can be independently verified. If it holds up under scrutiny (which it got quite a bit of recently) then it's useful. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't be used. His other posts about visible risks were corroborated by intelligent people like Robert, and can be independently verified by reading his references, or any host of other references. I'm one of those people who DO read other references, by the way.

From other discussions related to this topic, it seemed like there might be an un-filled need in our community for some objective way of picking out the right protective eyewear. An independently verified model with a recognized scientific basis is one source that can be used. Measured data is another. Mike's model is the only one I've seen anyone discuss in any of the glass forums I visit, and there seems to be a dearth of data.

If you know of other good models or data, Kevin, by all means please post them!!

If the only measured data out there are the three reports that have been discussed so far, and if folks would rather have more specific data than a model, then we can go back to that part of the discussion in this thread. I'd be willing to participate in helping get measurements done, but I thought it would be worth asking if this had already been done instead of launching into re-inventing a wheel that may already exist.

If it truly doesn't exist and this community feels it should, then the next topics of this thread can explore which trusted agency should do such testing and what kind of testing do we think we need.

Or, we can terminate this thread right now if this is of no value to anyone

Linda

[Mr. Smiley]

Ed, the fact is, you don't know enough about what Phillips does or does not do to make half the statements you just made about them.

As far as the rest of it goes, typical Aura reply... I'm out. I can do without this high and mighty BS from Aura again. You just keep on being the forum expert and run anybody that doesn't believe it or agree with you off. Business as usual. Take care...

[pam]

Brent, he is only one of the forum experts. I actually think we have quite a few "experts" in this thread besides Mike. We have Linda and Robert and there are some others who have added very interesting information. I'm hoping that something will come of this discussion that will be good for our community.

Linda, I spoke with the President of ISGB, Kendra Bruno, this week on another matter and mentioned to her that there may be a proposal presented to the organization with regards to efforts in determining what eye protection is necessary for our art form and she was interested in reviewing any such proposal, just as I am sure GAS would be. It could also be funded privately, but that is a choice once we find that the necessary information is not available.

[Mr. Smiley]

Yes we do Pam and my point is that one of them routinely gets nasty with people that speak up on this topic. As if he's the only one who has anything of value on this topic. If there was a more open minded approach, the bad information about IR would not have been such a tough issue to discuss and that information would not have been presented to this industry as fact for 2 unnecessary years. There are not many people who will discuss this topic on the forums, because it's a struggle. Robert stepped in and posted his perspective and Auras response was kind of rude, even though Robert was in agreement. I'm almost afraid to look at what Mike presents, because if there is a problem with it, it's like pulling teeth to get the point across. A willingness to listen on the part of Aura would be a refreshing change and one I had hoped for. Time will tell if Aura is ready to listen and discuss the finer points of this topic or if they just want to claim they have it all figured out. Recent events about the IR issue show that maybe Aura could listen to somebody else, for the sake of the industry... JMO

[lunamoonshadow]

Um.
The information I added about UV SUN EXPOSURE was *not* in any way to dispute the need/not need for protection when working glass. It was simply to point out the weird (yes, I find it weird) insane rabidness I find in the community about "protect your eyes from the torch flame at all costs" that does NOT carry over into "protect your eyes from the sun" at the SAME amount of value, which is a constant, day-to-day, exposure.
If you wear PRESCRIPTION glasses 100% of the time, that's great, yes, you have UV protection in them. If not, then you NEED TO WEAR SUNGLASSES! (and 80% of the UV rays get through the cloud cover, so "it's cloudy" is NOT a reason to not wear lenses!)

I'm quite aware of what Mike's responses were to me in the other threads (and really, was there a point in dragging them over here? Though, thank you for bringing both his defense & his apology for freaking out at me--because I wasn't "disputing" the need for protection. I was actually advocating for more people to wear MORE protection MORE of the time. And I haven't been involved with glasses for over 6 years now--so it's not "financial" for me either.)

I didn't wear didy's outside (again) because I couldn't see the flame AND BECAUSE THE LIGHT TRANSMISSION WAS TOO HIGH. (No one has EVER answered my question as to what the basic light transmission % is on any of the glass working lenses. Which is a huge annoyance to me, as I've asked it in multiple threads, in multiple places.) What I *did* wear had an 8% transmission, which is quite dark & was polarized & is what I generally wear on sunny days because I'm light sensitive & a bit of a freak about sun/uv protection & I get migraines. I tan easily (so I don't freak over sunscreen, weird, huh?) but I protect my EYES from the sun.


I'm REALLY glad that NMLinda actually read what I was typing & understood my puzzlement about some of the attitudes .
~luna

[pam]

Luna, I wanted to thank you for bringing up the sunglasses. Unfortunately for the past five years I haven't felt the need for sunglasses outside - since my lasik surgery - and had been foregoing wearing them, although I wore them all the time before that. However, you bringing up the issue made me rethink my decision and I am now wearing sunglasses again. So, thank you for bringing up the issue.

[pam]

Brent, there are several people that have personalities on various forums that I don't appreciate, nasty or egotistic or whatever, but I try not to discount the information they can give just because of that. I think with any person that posts anywhere, we have to look at what could be coloring their information, their comments, and take what they say with a grain of salt, if necessary. I think there has been a tremendous amount learned from this thread already and I hope we can continue. And, a stroke for you, if you hadn't so persistently brought this to everyone's attention, we wouldn't be where we are today. So, thank you.

[NMLinda]

Originally Posted by pam

Brent ..... if you hadn't so persistently brought this to everyone's attention, we wouldn't be where we are today. So, thank you.

Originally Posted by pam

Linda, I spoke with the President of ISGB, Kendra Bruno, this week on another matter and mentioned to her that there may be a proposal presented to the organization with regards to efforts in determining what eye protection is necessary for our art form and she was interested in reviewing any such proposal, just as I am sure GAS would be. It could also be funded privately, but that is a choice once we find that the necessary information is not available.

I agree with Pam - thank you, Brent.

I vote we all go back to trying to figure out what might already be in the public domain, deciding if it's enough, and deciding if there's a course of action we'd all like to take. Thanks for taking an important first step in a potential action plan, Pam, and talking with the current ISGB president. Thanks also to Beth who started researching test equipment sources.

Glassworker eye safety appears to have been a concern since the 1700's. Glassblowing and glass bead-making are centuries old. Since people have been poking at eye safety for hundreds years, I struggle with the notion that there's only three US NIOSH reports and one perhaps poorly executed journal study at our disposal. Further, glassblowing and glass beadmaking have been going on longer than the US has been in existance. I can't help but think - or hope at least - that smart people in Italy, Germany, the Chech republic, Japan, India or other countries have perhaps performed and published studies of their own.

If such international studies exist, they may not be listed in easily searched databases and may therefore be hard to find. Does anyone have access to foreign studies or know about any?

Linda