|
|
Post by the light works on May 31, 2014 0:51:05 GMT
my original thought was that they test the myth that just any glasses will protect your eyes, but since there are lots of eye related myths out there, I figured we should open the thread to all.
but my first submission - that glasses = eye protection - is the one I've had the most recent exposure to.
in short - I have found that really, the only thing glasses do for me in relation to airborn contaminants is give me a clear look at what is about to go into my eye. so perhaps they could run tests with ordinary glasses, wraparound sunglasses, safety glasses, and safety goggles, to determine just how much incidental peril each will protect from. (I expect, of course, that there will be no real surprised about what gives the best protection - but some people may be surprised at how much the protection decreases.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 31, 2014 0:57:23 GMT
My prescription glasses actually once *did* protect me from injury.
A spring-loaded missile from a toy I was examining fired unexpectedly (I suspect either a worn safety catch or an overly-tense spring), and bounced off of one of my lenses.
Had I not been wearing my glasses, the missile would have hit my eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 31, 2014 1:33:08 GMT
My prescription glasses actually once *did* protect me from injury. A spring-loaded missile from a toy I was examining fired unexpectedly (I suspect either a worn safety catch or an overly-tense spring), and bounced off of one of my lenses. Had I not been wearing my glasses, the missile would have hit my eye. yes, everything should fare well against direct strikes. its the stuff that gets in around regular glasses, that thought covers. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 31, 2014 7:21:01 GMT
All eye-wear in UK is "Toughened" to a certain extent...
Therefore, they will protect from most low force impacts.
But only from frontal trajectories?....
I have had paint in the eye from a exploding paint can that went UNDER the safety glasses supplied.
That was fun... they took me to hospital and ran me under a tap for a couple of hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 31, 2014 12:33:00 GMT
All eye-wear in UK is "Toughened" to a certain extent... Therefore, they will protect from most low force impacts. But only from frontal trajectories?.... I have had paint in the eye from a exploding paint can that went UNDER the safety glasses supplied. That was fun... they took me to hospital and ran me under a tap for a couple of hours. did they add insult to injury by accusing you of not wearing the glasses? my one industrial accident was due to a conduit rack pulling out of a wall because the blocking supplied by the carpenters wasn't secure. the insurance company analysis said the accident happened because the tugger was improperly positioned (it was in the equipment trailer, because we didn't use it) and the conduit was not properly secured to the rack. (it would have been even funnier if the injury had been caused by the rack) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 31, 2014 12:51:33 GMT
Interesting thought, and something that might be of interest to the cast given that Adam at least wears glasses.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 31, 2014 13:01:58 GMT
Interesting thought, and something that might be of interest to the cast given that Adam at least wears glasses. And Jamie I see a lot of room for expanding the premise, too. it could also cover allegedly bulletproof safety glasses, and other things as well - all without much risk at all of having people interpret it to mean safety glasses are unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 31, 2014 13:05:38 GMT
one challenge I see with the test is simulating the blink reflex. anyone who has gotten stuff in their eye should be well aware that the blink reflex isn't foolproof; but they still should try to replicate it. they also need to come up with a good artificial eye for the test - something with the correct properties for having stuff cling to it would make a significant difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 31, 2014 13:09:59 GMT
I wonder if a hard-boiled egg would be a suitable stand in for a human eye?
Blink reflex might be a none-issue. In a lot of cases you could not have time to react and 'blink' if something is coming at your eyes - certainly not in the case of, say, something that 'explodes' in your face.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 31, 2014 14:03:11 GMT
I wonder if a hard-boiled egg would be a suitable stand in for a human eye? Blink reflex might be a none-issue. In a lot of cases you could not have time to react and 'blink' if something is coming at your eyes - certainly not in the case of, say, something that 'explodes' in your face. you know the audience as well as I do... they may be able to do a separate segment and measure the blink reflex - to demonstrate its ineffectiveness; but it has to be accounted for to deny the "you did it wrong because you didn't get the results I wanted" reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 31, 2014 14:03:48 GMT
I like the hard boiled egg idea - and it would make for a larger scale demo.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 31, 2014 22:48:11 GMT
Situations I've witnessed where people substituted safety goggles/masks with regular glasses with the argument that "they work just as well":
New Years eve (or 4th of July for the US): People running around outside at midnight while fireworks are flying around
Tool use: People welding, grinding or cutting things for which you would normally use a mask/goggles
Airsoft weapons: I've witnessed multiple eyeglass wearers play airsoft games without masks/goggles
Chemicals: I've seen people work with everything from battery acid to sulfuric acid with nothing but their regular glasses on
I'd like to see the following tested:
Fireworks: Setting them off both directly in front and to the sides of a dummy of some sort wearing regular glasses and then compare that to a dummy wearing safety glasses. Can an explosion from fireworks that will burn the skin/hair and possibly cause some flesh damage, but not completely destroy the face/head (goggles are pointless anyway if you're dead) break the glasses and create small projectiles that are launched at the eyes, or will the glasses protect the eyes, as some think? And how about side protection? How do regular glasses compare to safety goggles on that point? I think we all know the answer, but still... A demonstration might be a healthy wakeup call for some people.
Tools: How protected are you against sparks and the like from welding/grinding/cutting equipment if you only wear regular glasses compared to safety goggles/masks?
Airsoft weapons: How much damage can a 6mm plastic BB do to a regular pair of glasses? Some of these weapons fire well in excess of 350 fps and I personally have one that has a rate of fire (ROF) of about 300 rounds per minute. And that's in the low end! I've heard of weapons with a ROF of up to 1300 rounds per minute, so while one plastic BB might not do that much damage to a regular pair of glasses, what if it's within 6 feet and someone gets off 20-40 rounds on full auto straight onto the glass?
Chemicals: Pretty straight forward. Get some chemicals that would be harmful to the eyes and splash them on a dummy with safety goggles/mask. Do the same test with regular glasses and compare the results.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 1, 2014 8:09:28 GMT
Small story of a refused load.
I was asked to transport a pallet of chemical under ADR, Very caustic chemical known as "Etch".
The guy I spoke to at the pick-up site said he would go get it, and proceeded to put on not just safety glasses, but a FULL NBC/fire suit...... "You dont want this stuff in your eyes" he said....
I know Etch, I have transported it in the past.
The name he gave me was something "Acid" that I did not recognise at that time, and I wont repeat on here, because I still dont actually believe it was that anyway....
So, Unbeknown to me, the load had changed.
But not the paperwork..............
Dont care if its going to the same place, I do NOT transport a ADR load that I do not recognise, nor do I transport some "Unknown hazard" without prior knowledge.
Prior knowledge?.. "Unknown" is not even a word I want on the back or my Wagon.
"You dont want this stuff in your eyes" he said....
I dont want it on my Wagon, I said, and stopped him from loading it.
I informed him that as I had the wrong paperwork, the load was Illegal, and I dont do that kind of thing.
And Left.(Yes I phoned it in at the earliest convenience... several miles down the road...)
Yes there were further phone calls about me refusing a load...
In discussions afterwards with various people, I repeated my mantra of "Legal decent and honest".....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 1, 2014 15:10:54 GMT
as for welding - I have had slag spatter INSIDE a welding mask... from MIG welding. but fortunately, arc welders pretty much have to wear the full mask to get dark enough lenses.
what I normally get inside my glasses is debris knocked off joists or rafters above my head. - nuisance level stuff. I try to have my chain saw helmet with me when I do a major drill out - because it also has hearing protection and reduces the number of chips that go down my collar.
|
|
