Safety Glasses not rated for impact

[billooms]

At the AAW symposium, I attended Lynne Yamaguchi's excellent presentation on safety in the shop.

One of the things she mentioned regarding prescription safety glasses was that for ANSI impact rating the frames needed to be marked “Z87-2+†and the lenses also marked with a “+†after the manufacturer's letter. When I got back in my shop and looked at my safety glasses — there was no “+†on the frames or lenses!!! I verified from several sources on the internet that what she said was indeed correct. I guess my safety glasses are no more than expensive splash guards!

So today I went into town to confront my eye care provider. They said that I should trust them that my glasses were impact rated, but none of their frames had the “+†marking. I argued that my “safety consultant†said if they weren’t marked, they weren’t ANSI rated. Eventually they let me talk with their lens/frame provider (Hoya, which is apparently a major company). That person said that they didn’t know anything about a “+†for impact rating. Eventually, the Hoya person agreed to investigate and get back to my eye care provider. About 1/2 hour later, they called back and agreed to provide “+†marked frames and lenses at no additional charge to me.

Anyway, if I had not known to ask I would not have known that my safety glasses didn’t provide even the minimal ANSI impact protection. I wonder how many other folks are out there in the same situation?

Knowledge is power -- check your prescription safety glasses for the "+" marking.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

Bill,

Not only is knowledge power, but it may well save an eye.

I live in an area where "Z rated" safety glasses are available by the thousands. Every fab shop, ship yard and dock requires them. I wear trifocals and had a set made and can tell you first hand that I've been very glad to have them. Kickback from a waste piece on my table saw would have cost me an eye were it not for the safety glasses.

Amazingly, there was only a tiny scratch on the lens after the incident. I wear them with my face shield now when turning.

They're very expensive indeed, about the cost of a first class scroll chuck.

Thanks for posting this. I'll never go cheap on eye or respiratory protection again.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I worked for an aircraft manufacturer and safety equipment was also a high priority. The company had a safety store inside one of the manufacturing buildings that included an optical shop to get prescription safety glasses. They didn't look as stylish as other glasses, but you had to have them to enter certain areas. There was also a shoe store in the plant that had steel toed safety shoes.They looked better than the glasses, but you could still tell that they were safety shoes. The cost of glasses and shoes were subsidized by the company so a lot of cheap engineers did a lot of their shopping there. There aren't too many engineers who are slaves to fashion. 🙄

 

[Donna Banfield]

My bifocal prescription glasses are Wiley-X, acquired more than 4 years ago. They are military goggles, and rated for industrial use as well as impact, the reason I bought them. The rating is Z87-2. And I still wear the Airstream helmet, too. Now you all have me wondering....

 

[billooms]

My bifocal prescription glasses are Wiley-X, acquired more than 4 years ago. They are military goggles, and rated for industrial use as well as impact, the reason I bought them. The rating is Z87-2. And I still wear the Airstream helmet, too. Now you all have me wondering....

The new regs went into effect in 2010. So if yours are 4 years old, they fell iunder the marking requirements of the earlier 2003 regulations which were a bit different.

 

[Paul M. Kaplowitz]

Glasses wouldn't have helped

Even if Lynn had on impacted rated glasses it wouldn't have prevented the damage to her face, jaw and eye socket. If you are turning without a good face shield you are rolling the dice. I have use an Airmate 3 for 19 years. The face shield has withstood chunks of bark, bark inclusions and foreign objects in the wood. I also turn at appropriate speeds, throw away cracked wood and make sure my face plate or chuck is securely attached. But the best advice I can give is pay attention to what your doing.

 

[Owen Lowe]

Out of curiosity and too lazy to research it...

I have use an Airmate 3 for 19 years.

* Do the face shields degrade over time with exposure to UV and such? Should polycarb shields be replaced at regular intervals?

* Do previous impacts weaken the material in any way?

* Are there upgrades replacements available for the Airmate as standards become more strict?

Thanks, in advance.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Out of curiosity and too lazy to research it...



* Do the face shields degrade over time with exposure to UV and such? Should polycarb shields be replaced at regular intervals?

* Do previous impacts weaken the material in any way?

* Are there upgrades replacements available for the Airmate as standards become more strict?

Thanks, in advance.

If you wear eyeglasses, they are most likely polycarbonate and you can answer your own question. Since turning is mostly done indoors, UV is not an issue, but FWIW, I suspect that other factors such as spider webbing (light reflection haziness due to fine scratches is the predominant reason for replacement. Aircraft windshields are polycarbonate and so are the passenger windows in jet airliners. Most aircraft spend much of their life in the sun and rain and whatever else the weather brings. They last a very very long time and are very expensive (only because everything in aviation is unreasonably expensive). When I was part owner of a plane and the windshield eventually developed a lot of spider webbing haze, we bought Micromesh to polish out the scratches. Micromesh was used on aircraft windshields decades before woodturners started using it.

If the replacement visor is like that on the Airstream, replacements have updated markings from those sold many years ago, HOWEVER, the updated markings are the only difference. The material (polycarbonate) and thickness remains unchanged. The reason is that the visors that met the old standard also meets the new standard. For the most part, the changes aren't more stringent. The primary intent of the revised standard is to make the tests easier to correlate to what we might encounter in real world use. There will always be some amount of ambiguity because the real world conditions have a lot of uncertainty.

What do you mean by previous impacts? Wood chips, bark pieces, and dust or "bell ringers"? All these things cause hazing and scratching. The bell ringers might cause cracks if there was deformation from the impact. If you are wondering about the cumulative effect of bell ringers, maybe it would be more appropriate to think about what you are doing wrong. I'm sure that your cranium can't handle as much as the polycarbonate.