>'Amazon said customers who did not receive an email purchased glasses that were safe to use.'
Or they did receive an email and it went into their spam/junk folder. In a situation like this it might be better to email everyone if only to say your glasses are safe. Although that would open them to legal liability if they're wrong.
Interesting... the real issue here is Amazon's long-standing implicit tolerance of counterfeit goods from disreputable suppliers. I wonder how many more incidents like this it will take before Amazon finally does something.
That's what the civil court system is for. Nothing invisible about that hand. They are in a world of $#!+ if anyone receives permanent eye damage from counterfeit glasses purchased on Amazon, especially if their insane "inventory commingling" policy turns out to be implicated.
The article only talks about the sun appearing too bright through counterfeit glasses, but the real hazard is a pair of glasses that blocks out enough visible light to allow your pupils to dilate, letting in plenty of the UV they don't block.
No, Amazon is not a monopoly, they are a very large and influential player. You can still buy eclipse glasses (and practically all other products) from other vendors, both physical and online. It may not be as smooth, cheap, fast or convenient as Amazon, but that's pretty damn far from the bar for a monopoly.
There was never any guarantee that the invisible hand would fix badness overnight, merely that it will nudge them in the right direction. Which it does.
I wanted to buy some Tasty Bites meals. Normally I get them from Costco but they only have one kind and I wanted to try some other flavors. So I went online, found them on Amazon, and literally said to myself "I'd rather buy these directly from the manufacturer". So I went to tastybite.com and filled up my shopping cart and when I went to checkout, it redirected to amazon.com which asked if it was okay to put these items in my Amazon cart.
Bravo? Amazon sells counterfeit shit all over. They're panicking and trying to avoid a tiny bit of the inevitable damage. I bet they'll settle quickly versus risk the full extent of their malicious behaviour become public knowledge.
> "Customers may have purchased counterfeit versions of legitimate products," an Amazon spokesperson said when asked about the issue.
Does this have to do with Amazon's practice of commingling goods from various sources together? I imagine in some warehouse, a big box of Panjwani's legit goods all mixed together with some not-so-good-goods.
This is exactly why I purchased my eclipse glasses directly from the manufacturer (American Paper Optical) even though shipping from them was very expensive (relative to the cost of the glasses). Even if I'd bought a reputable brand directly from Amazon (instead of a reseller) I had no trust that I wouldn't get a counterfeit commingled from an untrustworthy reseller inside Amazon's warehouse.
I can't find a link so not 100% sure it is a true story but I was told (from a normally reliable source) of a L'Oréal factory in Russia many years ago which was producing shampoo. Unknown to L'Oréal was the fact that at night the factory would run producing counterfeit shampoo with inferior products. L'Oreal found out when they started getting customer complaints from people losing their hair, and I think pulled from Russia.
Even though inventory tracked using the manufacturer barcode is commingled within the network, the source of the inventory is tracked by our fulfillment systems and is taken into consideration if inventory problems arise.
Given the article, it seems they're not completely sure what was sent where. It would seem that using the manufacturer barcodes in Amazon's network opens you up to an unexpected risk.
Funny you got donwoted the exact last time amazon inventory practices were under scrutiny here at hn there was plenty stories of people getting empty boxes and ipad cardboard cutouts
Just tried to sell 2 ipod nano's on Amazon today, I had to get approval to sell Apple branded items with an invoice or an authorisation from Apple that I'm a reseller.
As I understand it, doesn't really matter what seller you buy from. Amazon says "The supplies all said these are the same item, so they're interchangeable" and they treat all the inventory the same regardless of who it came from.
Maybe legit sellers that aren't "fulfilled by Amazon" are safer because they ship it themselves?
Are you sure it is not the other way around, that you have to opt out as a seller?
Anecdotally, a friend of mine runs a company that produces a unique fitness product, never opted into any kind of co-mingling as far as I know, as they are the only supplier in the world - and suddenly found themselves with comingled fake stock.
You have to opt in as far as I know because the full name is stickerless comingled. It has its benefits but the sellers I know refuse to touch the stuff because of the potential issues.
This is incorrect, kind of. There are essentially 3 ways to sell on Amazon. 1. Amazon can buy your product wholesale and they sell it. The manufacturer still has a lot of control on pricing and listing and etc. But Amazon has more control. In this case Amazon uses the UPC (or equivalent) to come up with the ASIN. In this case any 3rd party seller can list the same item with the UPC and it will show up on the same listing. They can even sell it via FBA where it is labeled as prime and stocked in Amazon's warehouses and if priced cheaper then will often get the buy box. So you could have 1000 positive reviews for your product and then all of a sudden a counterfeiter ships Amazon a bunch of what they say is the exact same product with the same UPC and it gets listed on the same listing. They can even make these stand out more by making variations on the product that then show up (like a 2-pack) that maybe you never sold.
Secondly there is Fulfilled By Amazon (FBA) this is when you sell the products and Amazon takes a commission and all the fulfillment fees to store and ship the product for you. In this case the seller has MUCH MUCH more control over every aspect of the listing. They can choose to have the ASIN generated by the UPC which can result in the same problem as above OR they can choose to have the ASIN generated by a number and barcode that is unique to the particular seller. This is called a FNSKU. Even if you know the FNSKU number which would be on a barcode on the product, ONLY the particular seller can create /ship product to Amazon using it. So Only the seller can variate listing or sell the product.
And thirdly you can do seller fulfillment which works list the last option in terms of listing, just with your own warehousing and fulfillment.
I buy everything from Amazon, including all my food. You make me wonder what I've been eating. Still, I can't see going back to fighting crowds at Safeway.
There's always Instacart, and many stores are offering order online and pickup (in Houston, I know of Walmart and Kroger) - no line to speak of, you have a scheduled time.
Curious if this commingling applies to third party seller (Amazon seller accounts) only or if it also includes items marked as "ships and sold by Amazon" at time of purchase.
I could see Amazon having enough volume of the items they sell directly that they have less need to do this commingling, and of course they have some incentive to preserve their own image.
Yes, commingling can be, and often is, a source of fake goods hiding in a legit ASIN. I have never and would never commingle. Remember Amazon workers checking in goods are not checking for authenticity.
I purchased my glasses off the website in the comments directly below bc this is one thing I did not trust Amazon on.
Also, I'll play devil's advocate, but this is one area where eBay actually wins over Amazon as each listing is tied to 1 particular seller and viewing seller history on eBay is rather easy compared to Amazon.
It would be nice to know from a listing if a product is eligible for commingling and whether the item I'm buying is commingled or stickered. I would pay more to not purchase commingled items from Amazon.
I do feel sorry for the legit sellers bc they are going to lose ALOT of money, many through no fault of their own. I haven't been on my private groups in a while but I'm sure I "know" a few of the sellers.
This isn't limited to glasses. I purchased a 12x12 sheet of solar filter film from a seller on Amazon, manufactured by Thousand Oaks Optical (who are listed on the American Astronomical Society's list of reputable vendors), and I'm also being refunded.
I checked the Thousand Oaks Optical site and they have a list of legitimate resellers of their products, and the Amazon seller I used is listed. I'm surprised Amazon didn't do the same basic checks before e-mailing me.
When I was searching for more information after receiving the e-mail, I also found someone on an astronomy forum[1] who is being refunded for a telescope that appears to retail for around $1199.
I've gotten counterfeit body wash (Shiseido Super Mild) and counterfeit microSD cards off Amazon, and, ironically, the only things I buy off amazon.com now are books, because if they're counterfeit, it'll be obvious, and it certainly won't cause me any harm.
Everything else I'd rather buy from the manufacturer (and pay the full, unsubsidised shipping cost -- not Amazon Prime) or a reputable distributor (digi-key/mouser for electronics, CS Hyde for films/tapes, etc). The prospect of having my eyes fried because of counterfeit PPE is kinda horrifying.
If it was "fulfilled by Amazon", it doesn't matter what seller you chose, you could have been sent a counterfeit item from another seller.
Sellers using fulfillment-by-Amazon send their stock to Amazon's warehouse, where it gets thrown in the same bin as all the other stock of that item from everyone else selling it. When it gets pulled to ship to you, there's no guarantee you get one that came from the authorized seller, versus a counterfeit someone else sent in with the same SKU.
Sellers can opt-out of commingling inventory at extra cost but most don't. Given you got a proactive refund, that seller probably has commingled inventory with everyone else, and Amazon is worried they sent you a fake that'll get someone injured and cause them liability.
That's what I would've expected too, but it seems not. Then again, if you still have eyes after this event you might see others filing class acts afterwards.
I just ordered a set from B&H Camera Store in NYC. These are the Lunt glasses that are mentioned in the article, but are also identified by NASA as "safe" [1]. I'm hoping that B&H does not suffer the same counterfeit problems as Amazon. Shipping from NYC to the Bay Area is still a concern though (I'm a lot closer to NYC and just got the e-mail that they shipped on yesterday's order).
I specifically ordered from B&H because I was familiar with them and felt I could trust them to have a legit product. The glasses are still in transit, but I should have them in time.
I bought some for $2 in a Fred Meyer (Kroger grocery store) that are certified safe. Those kinds of stores may not stock them further from the eclipse path, though.
To be honest, it isn't that impressive unless you see the totality, in which case you need no glasses. Completely worth the trip out of the way if you can go see it.
I'll be in Oregon for the eclipse! I'm pretty excited. I haven't done much preparation yet, but I was imagining that it would be quite helpful to have the glasses for the minutes leading up to totality.
Just bought 2. 30 dollars (5 each, 20 dollars for fast shipping). Might not even need them as we have welding helmets, but I don't want to screw around concerning my eyes. Accidently got myself with a camera flash once, that was more than enough.
Libraries are giving them out for free. But call first, because many of them are out of stock or waiting for a shipment: https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/libraries
Here's the email I got, the last sentence had me chuckling. We hope to "see" you soon.
-------
Hello,
We’re writing to provide you with important safety information about the eclipse products you purchased on Amazon (order #---- for TOLOCO Solar Eclipse Glasses,CE and ISO Certified Safe Solar Shades Filter for Solar Eclipse Viewing (3-Black)).
To protect your eyes when viewing the sun or an eclipse, NASA and the American Astronomical Society (AAS) advise you to use solar eclipse glasses or other solar filters from recommended manufacturers. Viewing the sun or an eclipse using any other glasses or filters could result in loss of vision or permanent blindness.
Amazon has not received confirmation from the supplier of your order that they sourced the item from a recommended manufacturer. We recommend that you DO NOT use this product to view the sun or the eclipse.
Amazon is applying a balance for the purchase price to Your Account (please allow 7-10 days for this to appear on Your Account). There is no need for you to return the product. You can view your available balance and activity here:
How do we still have issues with counterfeit products in 2017? There should be electronic records with audit trails for every shipment into the US. This ordeal is probably going to bankrupt several small businesses.
I'm not sure that helps much. You have the audit trail, find an issue. You inform China, and...nothing happens. Factory changes its name for the next shipment.
This problem specifically could be easily solved by not allowing any random seller to sell the same item on Amazon without the purchases having any idea.
I'm not sure what you mean. They do track everything, otherwise they couldn't match up your payment for the product with the vendor it actually came from in order to pay them.
The question is what else are Amazon willing to do with that information, which turns out to be very little or nothing because as soon as Amazon gets humans involved in the transaction making actual decisions, their costs shoot up.
> I'm not sure what you mean. They do track everything, otherwise they couldn't match up your payment for the product with the vendor it actually came from in order to pay them.
They don't, though. All the same-SKU items go into a big box at the warehouse. When you order from a particular seller, they pick one out of that box and send it to you. There's a good chance the specific one they picked out didn't come from that seller's inventory, but another's.
I'm not sure what Amazon does (looks like they don't actually track) but from the consumer side you basically get a random item. Say you order a specific product, like a Macbook charger, Amazon sends you one from any number of vendors and you most likely get a counterfeit one and you have no idea who the product came from. Look at the reviews for a product like this you can often see a bimodal distribution of people who got a legit item and people who got junk.
In NL / Europe, Amazon would be shut down for selling counterfeit products. Or well, they would if it was e.g. brand name stuff. For this kind of thing, not sure. A recall and a fine for selling unsafe products probably.
I bought a set of 15 supposedly iso certified and tested them all when I got them. Couldn't see light bulbs or anything else but the sun. I wonder if they seller sold a mix of counterfit or just wasn't able to get the certification to amazon as a bulk seller?
> Couldn't see light bulbs or anything else but the sun.
Are all the harmful wavelengths visible? What you don't see can hurt you (for instance, see the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#Damage_mechanisms), and depending on the material it could filter some wavelengths but let other wavelengths pass. Testing just with visible light is not enough.
That's not really something I could test readily at home. Additionally, the light bulb test is what the local news was saying is a good quick and dirty test to check for counterfeits. I obviously can't certify them. https://eclipse.aas.org/eye-safety/iso-certification
E1: I'll probably end up getting new ones; I guess you're right.
E2: Because everyone cares about my saga, of course, the seller appears to have sold blatantly fraudulent ones as well. Apparently lowes has certified ones, so I'm going to pop in there tomorrow.
E3: in classic "pay attention to me" style, but also in the hopes of helping someone else out: https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety my glasses look like the counterfeit version listed on the mfg website.
So our metro library system (well respected) is promoting an eclipse education event, with free viewing glasses. Should the sourcing be suspect? (95% viewing area)
Many libraries have received glasses for free from the Space Science Institute, which is a reputable organisation funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, and others.
Selling "eclipse glasses", or anything else cheap that encourages people to look directly at the sun, is a terrible idea to begin with. All it takes is some muppet to misread (or ignore) the directions and the next thing you know, they're blind and you've got a lawsuit on your hands.
That's what we did in elementary school last time it happened in our area years ago. I believe we used a shoe box, took off the lid, poked a pin hole on one side and viewed it.
Just to add one nuance, this is only needed for the partial eclipse. If you are viewing the total eclipse, use the pinhole projector for the partial phases. But during totality only, it is perfectly safe to view the solar corona with the naked eye, even with binoculars.
I went into more detail elsewhere in this thread; search the page for my username for more info.
If you are traveling to (or live in) the zone of totality, don't bother viewing the partial eclipse at all. It's not what you are there for. You are there to experience the total eclipse in all its glory, and you can't use eclipse glasses for that.
Your best viewing tool for the total eclipse is your own eyes and a good pair of binoculars. Yes, plain, unfiltered binoculars. During totality you can look directly at the solar corona. Not only do you not need eye protection, but you'll miss the whole thing if you use any kind of filter.
This is true only during totality, of course.
I recommend doing what hundreds of us did on an Oregon hillside in 1979. During the first partial phase, we put on sunglasses (just ordinary sunglasses) and looked away from the sun. The purpose of this was to get our eyes a bit dark-acclimated, so when it went total we would have an even better view.
By looking away from the sun, you also have a chance of seeing the other interesting effects on the ground: the wavy ripply patterns that appear just before totality, and the shadow of the moon as it rushes toward you at thousands of miles per hour!
As soon as the eclipse became total, people started yelling "totality!" and we took off our sunglasses, turned around, picked up our binoculars, and enjoyed the awesome experience of seeing the solar corona.
The only danger here is that you have to stop looking as soon as the first bit of the Diamond Ring or Baily's Beads appear. Then you're back into the partial eclipse and must use eye protection.
But at that point, most of us just cheered and got ready to go home. After totality, the partial eclipse is not much to get excited about.
If you're not in the zone of totality, then of course you must not look directly at the sun at any time. But if you don't have quality eclipse glasses, you still have some other good options.
One is a piece of #14 arc welder's glass. Another that you can improvise on the spot is a pinhole projector. There are various ways you can make one; at the simplest it can just be two pieces of paper, one that you punch a small hole in with a pin, and the other on the ground or a wall. Hold the paper with the hole so that the sunlight goes through it onto the other. You will get a nice image of the partially eclipsed sun projected onto the other paper.
A pinhole projector is the safest way to view the partial eclipse: you are never looking directly at the sun at all, only its projection.
There are numerous plans for building slightly more elaborate pinhole projectors. This page has some good tips:
Or search for "solar eclipse pinhole projector" to find more.
There is a lot of misinformation going around about eclipse viewing and eye safety. Everything above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, speaking both from personal experience and extensive research. And I've tried to make very clear the difference between the partial and total eclipse. Of course, if I made a mistake or left anything unclear, please let me know!
There are two main dangers regarding eye safety. One is that someone may view the partial eclipse without proper eye protection and will destroy their vision. This has happened many times, and it is a real tragedy.
The other danger, albeit of a lesser sort, is that many people who travel to the total eclipse zone will mistakenly believe that they need some kind of eye protection during totality. As a result, they will completely miss the awesome, life-changing event they went to so much trouble to see.
I think they are useful to wear in the last minute before totality, simply as a safe way to determine when totality arrives. Without them it is too tempting to keep glancing up st the sun to see if it is total yet.
This page seems to imply that you can tell if your glasses are safe by seeing whether they block out all but the brightest lights (direct sun or perhaps a LED flashlight).
But another page from the AAS seems to say you only get a negative result: if you can see anything other than a very bright light through the glasses, they're unsafe. But that doesn't imply the inverse, that if you can't, they're safe, because of UV protection. https://eclipse.aas.org/eye-safety/iso-certification
Can anyone confirm if I've understood that correctly?
I ordered the top-rated eclipse glasses on Amazon a few months ago and they were counterfeit.
If you put them on during daytime you can see indirect sunlight and even my kitchen light. They were shipped from China despite having "Made in the USA" markings and all the proper ISO certification fine print.
I haven't received any communication from Amazon, so people who haven't heard from them should not assume their glasses are safe (contrary to Amazon's statement). I contacted Amazon support and they were quick to initiate a refund. For some reason Amazon rejected my review warning that items from third party sellers may be counterfeit and explaining how to tell.
It seems incredibly careless of them to tell people if they did not get an email they're OK. There's no way the impact from refunding everyone that bought any such product outweighs the coming lawsuits.
I feel bad for people about to be injured. But hopefully this will screw Amazon hard and make them change their ways.
For a given SKU, Amazon commingles inventory, so who you bought from may not be the company who stocked the FBA shelf with the product. Surely Amazon can trace it back, but I think Amazon lost the "just a marketplace" defense a long time ago as a result.
Is the process of commingling inventory documented? That policy is slightly alarming. What would stop someone from sending boxes full of rocks to the fulfillment center with the sku of an iPad?
When you sell products through Amazon FBA (ship to Amazon, and they sell and ship it with the Prime logo), they give you the option to commingle inventory for most products if they have a UPC on them. They scan the UPC and then credit your account with 1 of the product. Your product is then mixed in with the rest [0].
They put some sort of deadly chemical in baby milk to make it more frothy, because that's a sign of more protein... they don't give a shit ("they" being some turbo-capitalists...).
No, "they" are not "turbo-capitalists." "They" are criminals. Or were, in any case. At least some of the executives responsible for that incident were executed.
There most certainly is a difference. Have you been to China? These "turbo-capitalists" are all Communist Party connected scumbags that literally would rather see people die and make a yaun than worry about safety.
Parts of China is pure filth. There is no quality control until bad PR surfaces. Then it's all about saving face.
It was a more mundane horror. The melamine acts as a filler but also tests as protein. In the body it causes kidney trouble. In the end, 0.001% of the babies fed the adulterated formula died. (3 out of 300000). That makes being fed the tainted formula roughly as deadly as traveling 500 miles in a car in the United States.
So it wasn't a case of adding deadly poison, it was a case of adding an almost safe ingredient because the manufacturers needed to get their cost down to compete. Amazingly, it appears that melamine was even too expensive and they bought scrap melamine from the manufacturing process which was not pure enough to be used in plastics, beacuase it contained the actual kidney damaging chemical rather than just the precursor.
Speaking as somebody who has chronic kidney disease but is very much not dead (last I checked), I feel compelled to point out that the car analogy omits the vast majority of the people impacted, many of whom will have lifelong battles with cardiovascular health and increased risk of serious illnesses (e.g. gout). Kidney damage is permanent and irreversible. Renal tissue does not regenerate.
Just because only six babies died from acute kidney damage (according to the article you linked, which does not quite agree with your numbers) does not mean that's where the damage ends. Evidently there were 54,000 babies who were impacted severely enough to be hospitalized -- that's 18%, a far cry from 0.001%, and most definitely not an indication that an ingredient is "almost safe". Ignoring 53,997 of them makes your analogy incomplete to the point of being specious.
It looks like a lot of crazy people are going to trust their eyesight to a cheap piece of plastic from some company they've never heard of. Hope for the best.
Hell, I understand Amazon extremely well, yet still got confused when a Prime item that wasn't FBA never showed tracking information (stuck in Preparing for Shipment), had wife email Jeff Bezos and not more than 10 minutes later the damned thing arrived. The whole time I was thinking "WTF, Amazon?" wondering why it was taking so long to fulfill the order, all because I didn't notice the absence of three words on the product page.
So yeah, point of the anecdote: even veteran Amazon shoppers can forget how the site works.
Prime item that wasnt FBA = MF Prime.
Appears there was an error from the seller uploading tracking info. If that occurs frequently (more than 2%..? of orders) the seller will no longer be able to offer MF Prime.
Your email to Jeff had no effect whatsoever.
I assume your understanding of Amazon is from a consumer perspective only?
You're right, though I did get a $30 credit out of it.
> I assume your understanding of Amazon is from a consumer perspective only?
Yes, but I'm generally aware of how Amazon works behind the scenes as well. I know the difference between FBA and MF Prime, but even so I had managed to overlook it until the item arrived and my wife had already sent the email.
I am not an expert, so take this with a grain of salt: but you cannot visually check whether it blocks ultra-violet or infrared. So, this visual inspection seems bogus to me, since you cannot be sure whether all wavelengths are blocked.
This is correct. Visual inspection can't verify glasses, but it can identify clearly fake ones. Being able to see a house light through these glasses is a bad sign IMO.
Amazon should do a sampling of inventory and check whether they pass or not.
And it may happen to be that blocking the visual with the counterfeits also blocks the invisible wavelengths. Or it may not.
There should be some statistical evidence provided.
I did read from one of the recommended manufacturers that they tried to warn Amazon about this for months. They also tested them and they appeared safe in the tests they ran even though they were not legitimate.
But only Amazon knows what they have actually sold.
Heh, when I was a kid I remember our "eclipse viewing equipment" was a piece of glass blackened over a gas hob or a lighter. If someone's dad had access to welding equipment then welder's mask worked just as well.
I don't mean to say that people shouldn't take safety seriously - just saying that it's interesting how we used homemade solution to this and don't have any (obvious) sight problems.
to be clear gas welding masks are 5, its more like wearing sunglasses.
arc welding gear is generally around 10-11.
many newer electronic helmets go up to 13/14 which is enough, you have to remember to turn up the sensitivity on the sensors so that its always dark. otherwise it will stay open at around 3-4
If yours also claim to be manufactured by American Paper Optics, as the pair in the parent comment claim to be, the (real) manufacturer has some information to help determine if they're counterfeit:
Top-rated on Amazon, and shipped from China on the same product seems kind of suspect. It's pretty rare for a top-rated item to be fulfilled by a party other than Amazon.
I have ordered these as well. I believe I have the correct ones. For example, I can stare directly at two CFLs and see nothing. Sunlight I can see the sun, and the sun bouncing off like a car window really bright.
The Amazon seller, GSM, assured me in a comment that if in my order history GSM Sales is listed I should be good to go, and it is.
I don't believe mine shipped from China or anything as they were ordered with other Amazon Prime products so I'm not even sure how that would work.
I bought mine 4 months ago, and they looked right too, but I got an email as well. Which is fine. I ended up getting verified ones from my father-in-law's astronomy club.
I too made this mistake and can see my kitchen light with these glasses. They didn't send me an email about the recall. Amazon will refund the money if you chat with them, but this in no way absolves them. I blame them fully. This counterfeit problem has been going on for years and they haven't addressed it, other than banning accounts of people who return too many of their shitty, counterfeit products. If people do get injured, I hope there are extreme punitive damages. Unfortunately, people will have to get hurt before anything changes. Fuck Amazon.
I really hope that some massive lawsuits finally put and end to this. Amazon deserves anything bad that comes their way. The amount of fake items I've received from them is awful.
I have the exact opposite situation. I got 9 pairs of plastic framed glasses on Amazon. They seem really legit. Only thing I can see through them is the sun unless I hold a light source directly up to the lenses. Amazon gave me a refund and told me not to use them. I'm going to try to research some more research on Monday like getting a hold of the company that gave them the ISO rating.
This is apparently the source of the glasses although the seller was third party. I don't want to toss out perfectly good glasses because Amazon freaked out and banned anyone not on an exclusive list of suppliers.
Is it really worth your eyes and the extra money to take a risk on the glasses that you're still not giving up on them and planning on researching them? Why not just buy one that you know is reputable?
See if any local welding supply stores have #14 or higher glass (or helmets) in stock. Some auto-shades can go that high, but many cap out at #13, and they're generally going to be >$300 for the ones that can darken to $14 or higher. If you end up using an auto-shade helmet you'll have to set the sensitivity and delay to their maximum values. Don't buy an auto-shade helmet that doesn't have these controls. It's also possible to stack a #10 welders glass plate inside an auto-shade helmet and tune the shade value to get to #14 if the auto-shade can't get that dark on its own. It should be impossible to see anything but the sun through the helmet + glass combination.
This is why I bought my glasses from an astronomical equipment store. I really hope this clusterfuck causes amazon to get their act together in regards to fraudulent listings.
This is my concern. Regarding the supply chain, perhaps the (re)sellers are not aware of the goods being counterfeit. Chinese manufacturers have been known to adjust product without informing the brand. Brands don't usually have someone spot checking every item that rolls off the assembly line. These glasses are one-off purchases and I'd assume demand is multiple orders of magnitude higher than normal. Corner cutting at the manufacture in China is where I'd start investigating. Again, more often than not, a Chinese manufacturer (boss) would rather deliver unsafe products and save face then to tell the buyer I can't make them. Especially smaller fly-by-night "factories" that are constantly appearing in the countryside or factories facing a giant surge in demand.
As a comparison to the counterfeits, I took some pictures of my 'real' Soluna glasses, which I ordered a couple weeks ago from Amazon (and didn't get an email.) Also they pass the manufacturer's tests for verifying real glasses. 100 W equivalent CFL is very dimly visible.
I've been testing mine with a red laser pointer (NOT into my eye!). The glasses reflect a lot, even at a high angle. What does get through does not project beyond the filter itself, and is very dim, even in a darkened room (yes, I'm being careful, I know a reflection can cause damage). When I look at a 100W equiv CFL bulb, it resembles what you photographed. I've also looked briefly at my smartphone flash when in flashlight mode, it is quite dim and 'shifted' toward yellow. Just wondering if I can extrapolate these into a transmission spectrum.
I'm leaning toward throwing on an ordinary UV blocking pair of sunglasses on top and then limiting my time anyway, you can basically see the same thing with the pinhole technique. This is a risk I would take for myself, if my children were still young I would not risk their eyes, nor do it in front of them and tell them they couldn't.
Also, I can distinctly remember staring directly at the sun as a (dumbass) kid on multiple occasions for as long as I could stand it.
"Also, I can distinctly remember staring directly at the sun as a (dumbass) kid on multiple occasions for as long as I could stand it."
Yes, nature has made it so that we can't do that and harm ourselves, since the sun has been there for a long time. The problem is precisely that during the eclipse you'll be able to "stand it" for much, much longer. Eclipses don't happen often enough for us to be protected against them, and I also have to imagine most animals aren't as fascinated with them as we are...
I can get why Chinese would manufacture items and then slap on a logo and resell it for much higher price, but what kind of person ships something that could blind a user for s couple bucks? Insane.
What goes around comes around. Amazon has been turning a blind eye to counterfeit products for a long time, it's been getting worse, not better. And now that they got a clue this particular fraud could CAUSE WIDESPREAD BLINDNESS, they have to take responsibility for their own cesspool.
Yeah I hope the discovery resulting from the lawsuit from this issue will be explosive enough to force Amazon to change. If it surfaces that they've been knowingly selling counterfeit products... Wow.
The mylar composite used in floppy disks seems opaque... to visible light. 54% of the Sun's energy output is in other wavelengths. There is no certification that a floppy disk cookie will block those. Plus it has a big hole in the middle, danger of inadvertent viewing.
This is like the argument I have with other photographers every eclipse when they try to use their 'super-dark' neutral-density filters. Sure they block ten stops of light, but the IR and UV just sails on through.
Unless it's designed and certifed as a Solar viewing material just don't even contemplate it. You're better watching the eclipse on TV in that case.
> Unless it's designed and certifed as a Solar viewing material just don't even contemplate it.
People have been using dark pieces of photographic film to see eclipses since ever. I wonder if there has been studies on its UV transmissibility
Thought you're right about the super-dark film and I don't think those are dark enough even on the visible range
Though I do agree if you want to stare at it directly your best choice is to get solar viewing glasses (preferably not a fake one)
This page has some tests: astronexus.com/gatfaq/solar-filters besides poor optical quality floppy disks allow wavelenghts > 800nm to pass (this is IR range)
A good suggestion that seems easy to obtain: welder's glass
> People have been using dark pieces of photographic film to see eclipses since ever.
Fully exposed and developed black and white film is safe, color negative film, however, is totally unsafe, regardless of how dark it might seem. The film has to contain real silver particles, not color dyes.
Beware of monochromatic film that looks black and white but it’s really a color negative film developed using C41 process. It has to be real black and white film.
I may be "old school" but the "traditional" way is to use a welding mask glass, something you can usually buy "around the corner" for a very little amount of money and I see that NASA also advises about it:
>One of the most widely available filters for safe solar viewing is a number 14 welder's glass, available through welding supply outlets.
And both colour fim and non-silver B&W film are listed by them among the unsafe:
>Unsafe filters include color film, some non-silver black and white film, medical x-ray films with images on them, smoked glass, photographic neutral density filters and polarizing filters.
Another longer article on that same site (by a different author) actually mentions the grandparent's suggested method of looking through a floppy disk medium:
> Many experienced solar observers use one or two layers of black-and-white film that has been fully exposed to light and developed to maximum density. The metallic silver contained in the film emulsion is the protective filter. Some of the newer black and white films use dyes instead of silver and these are unsafe. Black-and-white negatives with images on it (e.g., medical x-rays) are also not suitable. More recently, solar observers have used floppy disks and compact disks (both CDs and CD-ROMs) as protective filters by covering the central openings and looking through the disk media. However, the optical quality of the solar image formed by a floppy disk or CD is relatively poor compared to mylar or welder's glass. Some CDs are made with very thin aluminum coatings which are not safe - if you can see through the CD in normal room lighting, don't use it!! No filter should be used with an optical device (e.g. binoculars, telescope, camera) unless it has been specifically designed for that purpose and is mounted at the front end (i.e., end towards the Sun). Some sources of solar filters are listed in the following section.
> Unsafe filters include all color film, black-and-white film that contains no silver, photographic negatives with images on them (x-rays and snapshots), smoked glass, sunglasses (single or multiple pairs), photographic neutral density filters and polarizing filters.
This second NASA author seems to believe that floppy disk media (with the hole covered) may actually be safe for eclipse viewing, just not very effective.
A viable safe test would be a clear (unfrosted) incandescent or halogen bulb on a rheostat. Glasses on, bulb off, turn up the brightness somewhat slowly. You should be able to look directly at the filament comfortably if you have good glasses. If you have fakes, as long as you ramp up brightness slow enough, your natural response to squint will kick in before you wreck your retinas.
You definitely do not want to test this on the sun.
I'd say about 50-60% of the electronic items I buy from amazon end up being counterfeit. For this reason, I avoid amazon unless it's unimportant stuff.
Yup for me I would say over 30%. I'm sure Consumer Reports will do a study soon and find that near 50% are counterfeit and the stock will drop like a rock.
Is there anything particularly dangerous about viewing the sun directly? When I was dumb and young I'd look at the sun for seconds at a time without any problems developing so far. Is the danger that an eclipse encourages you to stare at the sun without encountering any pain?
> When I was dumb and young I'd look at the sun for seconds at a time without any problems developing so far.
Hopefully this was during hazy sunsets. Or maybe you just have mega-strong pupils that can contract more than normal and that's why you're not blind.
> Is the danger that an eclipse encourages you to stare at the sun without encountering any pain?
Exactly. Human eyes aren't very good at handling ultra-high-dynamic-range scenes. During an eclipse, your surroundings are somewhere between twilight and night-time in brightness, so your pupils dilate. The small un-covered sliver of sun is still as bright as it is during the day, and can damage your eyes without triggering a painful 'too-bright' response. It's somewhat similar to the danger posed by a laser.
So did I, usually in while bored in class, so a window between me and the sun (blocking UV, for what that's worth). I'd stare until the sun developed an outline in my vision, then look elsewhere until the sunspot in my vision wore off, then I'd do it again.
But there are documented cases of eye damage, so the danger is real.
Exactly. The light doing damage isn't necessarily the visible light that gives you the impulse to avert your eyes, it's the UV. In one study, 50% of the people looking at the eclipse had caused permanent damage to their eyes (sans any precautions or averting their eyes).
There's a short term condition called arc eye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photokeratitis). Basically a sun burn on your eyes that heals after a day, and supposedly doesn't really have long term damage. I have experienced it several times (both from welding and hiking in the snow), and haven't noticed any major changes in my vision since.
I stared at a partial eclipse as a child without eye protection for several periods of about 10-12 seconds (remembering that I used to occasionally look at the regular sun for 3-4 seconds without apparent injury). Unfortunately, this gave me an afterimage of the eclipse in one eye that lasted for six months (!) -- although I was fortunate that it didn't last even longer than that.
The optometrist I consulted the day after the eclipse said that there didn't appear to be significant permanent damage to my eye, but the subsequent six months of the afterimage, and not being sure whether or not it would last my whole life, were certainly no fun. Overall, I feel like I got very lucky, and I wouldn't have been surprised if the afterimage had lasted for decades rather than months. Maybe it would have if I had continued looking for just a few more seconds!
My impression is that the risk of different kinds of damage is complicated, but there are several things that can go very wrong. One is that the sun during an eclipse is much more interesting than usual, so it's so much more tempting to look longer than momentarily; another is the UV exposure that people have mentioned (where there may still be enough UV to cause damage even at times when the visible light is weak enough not to cause significant discomfort). UV is a big factor that means that we shouldn't trust our intuition about whether something may harm our eyes. In industrial settings, too, people sometimes get significant eye injuries because they're staring at UV (or IR) sources that don't subjectively feel dangerous or painful.
(Edit: taneq in this thread also mentions a problem about dynamic range where your pupillary contraction may not be enough to protect you.)
While permanent damage might not happen quite as quickly as some people may have been led to believe, and some risks may be slightly exaggerated in certain accounts, there's just no reason to take the risk of not having proper eye protection, especially when you can't really judge from the level of discomfort or lack of discomfort whether damage may be happening. As far as I know, every eclipse leads to emergency follow-up optometrist visits, and I can testify that it's no fun to be the patient in one of those visits waiting to hear the news about whether the aftereffects are likely to be permanent.
As a child, I got to see a perfect full solar eclipse at mid day on a clear sky. I took the glasses off for a few seconds when the sun was perfectly behind the moon and it was amazing. It felt very comfortable to look at, no afterimage at all; except in my memory... The memory is still there after 15+ years.
When the sun is fully eclipsed, you can look at it without damage.
When it's not, you can't. But it may not appear "as bright" when it's partially eclipsed, it may be "easier" to stare at it, without reflexes kicking in to stop it, and do permanent damage to your eyes.
I haven't gotten it from the sun, but I got a minor case of it from welding with the incorrect lenses (it may seem fine to use gas welding goggles for MIG welding, but it's really not). It's really not pleasant, your eyes feel all scratchy and too large for their sockets.
> It's really not pleasant, your eyes feel all scratchy and too large for their sockets.
I've had hints of that from welding when using a proper mask, but inadvertently not wearing a dark enough shirt (worst case is a white t-shirt - can bounce the UV up under the mask; it's not as bad as "arc eye", but can still be uncomfortable afterward).
Other welding safety lessons:
1. Be very careful welding on zinc-coatings (galvanized steel); have plenty of ventilation, and don't inhale any of the fumes (a fan to blow the fumes away can help). You can get zinc-poisoning, which feels like a very bad flu-like symptoms. I'm sure it can be fatal, but mostly you'll feel really terrible afterward, and there's no cure except to wait it out. Better - remove the galvanization (grinding or with pool acid), or use a respirator under your mask (specifically one rated for it - there's a particular one 3M makes that if you research this topic, people recommend).
2. Less known: Never weld on steel that has been cleaned using chlorine-based solvents (like certain kinds of brake cleaner). There's a tale out there from a guy who did it, and lived to tell about it. Basically, the intense heat creates a change in the chemical to form phosgene gas; even a small amount can kill you. This poor soul managed to live, but not without some major after-effects that will cause him trouble the rest of his life:
Note that not all brake cleaners have chlorine (they are banned in California, for example), but this is one of those things that if you've never heard of it, but you find yourself welding (especially if you also do your own brake fluid changes or brake jobs, or other auto work) - and you clean your parts (hey, let's use brake cleaner - that'll do it!) - you wouldn't think there'd be a problem - until it's much too late.
Get the word out on this last one, too - not many people know about it (most welders know about welding on galvanized steel).
I too have stared at the sun for far longer than is recommended (30s+), and had no issues, but it certainly is a risk:
> In a study after an eclipse in Turkey in 1976, around 10%of [sic] those with damage had permanent visual loss to the extent that they were not able to read a car number plate at 25 yards (23 metres) with the affected eye or eyes.[0]
IIRC, an eclipse is particularly dangerous because the lack of light doesn't trigger your pupils to constrict as much or a "too-bright" response to look away, but the visible portion is still sufficient to cause damage.
Just to add to the other replies, there's another thing very different about a partial eclipse vs. when you looked at the sun as a kid. You were looking at a full sun, not a smidgen of a sun. There was so much light hitting your eyes that they stopped down naturally, giving you some protection.
And there was so much bright light that you really couldn't look at it for very long without involuntarily looking away or closing your eyes. But of course if you kept looking at the sun no matter how much it hurt, you would damage your eyes.
In a partial eclipse, most of the sun is covered, and there is a lot less light reaching your eyes. So they don't stop down as much as they would for a normal full sun.
However, that fraction of the sun that is visible is just as bright as before! With such an interesting sight to look at, you will be much more tempted to stare. And with your pupils wide open, there is even more sunlight hitting that small area of your retina than there would have been in normal conditions.
Now if you are fortunate enough to experience the total eclipse, that is another matter entirely. It is perfectly safe to look at the solar corona during totality, even with binoculars! The corona is only about as bright as a full moon. The sun itself is completely blocked by the moon.
Your caution is well advised, but the sun doesn't instantly burn your retinas. You do get a tiny bit of time to look away before any damage is done.
I viewed the 1979 total eclipse with binoculars, and when totality ended and the diamond ring and Baily's beads started to appear, I lingered a few seconds longer than I should have, and still no harm was done. I didn't suffer any temporary or permanent vision damage, even viewing those through the binoculars.
My grandmother (at age 70) had a crescent-shaped burn on the back of her eye (edit: ie. retina) from viewing a partial eclipse as a child. She couldn't "see" the burn, likely because her brain adjusted to it.
My understanding is that the human eye has pain receptors that respond to wavelengths in the visible spectrum. As the moon occludes the sun, the level of visible light drops below the level where prolonged viewing causes pain.
But visible light is not the only frequency. Sunlight also contains UV and IR wavelengths. The human eye does not have pain receptors that respond to these frequencies.
The end result is that during an eclipse it becomes more likely that a person will fries their eyes due to the presence of UV and IR wavelengths.
What kind of piece of shit makes these things? It's one thing to make a crappy knockoff phone charger. It may be less efficient and even less safe, but you can probably rationalize it away since they mostly work OK.
But this is a piece of safety equipment with a single function, and people only buy it to use it in one way, which will cause direct and immediate harm if the product fails. How can someone live with themselves after doing this?
> How can someone live with themselves after doing this?
By being able to feed their family and keep shelter over their heads.
At least that's the only charitable explanation I can think for the absolutely shocking lack of respect for human life that comes out of China (see fake food, gutter oil, electrical safety, construction scandals etc etc)
People like my ex's dad. Not involved with this in particular, but lots of fake/knockoff/cheap Chinese shit. Dude is rich as fuck. Rich enough to have bought her a $750k house with cash a few years ago, like it was nothing. Don't know if anything he was involved with ever actually harmed anybody, but from what I've heard he'd have no qualms about it. I'm sure whoever is responsible for this is similar. No rules in China if you're fucking over foreigners. At least none that you can't just bribe your way out of.
"Après moi le déluge! is the watchword of every capitalist and of every capitalist nation. Hence Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under compulsion from society."
You know, it does seem like some people need to be reminded that China is nominally Communist.
("It's not real Communism." But it's a real outcome of the attempt to create Communism, so it counts just fine.)
The thing is, if you want safety, what you want is a separation between the manufacturer and the regulator. In Communism, the manufacturer and the regulator are de facto the same entity. Communism lacks any entity that is capable of coming out and saying independently that there's a problem. If you've ever complained about "regulatory capture", you've just explained why Communism is non-functional; Communism institutionalizes 100% total regulatory capture from day one and holds it up as an ideal.
I doubt the factories making these faulty eclipse glasses are government-owned. The problem here isn't that it's the same entity on both sides, the problem is just that the regulator doesn't care.
While I have no experience with sellers in this field, I once had a conversation with a vendor who sold 2GB FIFO USB sticks as 64GB USB sticks. This does not exactly blind people, but customers who use these for backups are in for a rude surprise.
The seller confessed to the fraud, but was utterly unrepentant.
I'm trying to have the same conversation with "Microsoft Support" callers trying to install ransomware in my computer. Not much luck getting answers out of that crowd, but no pangs of conscience either.
Buying any PPE from Amazon is probably a bad idea. Counterfeit or not, the barrier to entry is just too low.
eg, there are specialized climbing harnesses on Amazon which confuse the CE EN standard and the concept of notified bodies. (Which certify conformity.) Leads to hilarity like a climbing harness claiming conformity with the standards for intubation tubes.
Or, climbing equipment which is mislabeled as to its country of origin, with basic specs like dimensions being inaccurate.
The sellers just don't care, and Amazon doesn't care enough to stop them. It's barely one step above ebay for a lot of items.
> It's barely one step above ebay for a lot of items.
Is it, though? At least with eBay I know who the product I ordered came from and whom to blame if something goes wrong. If I'm ordering from the manufacturer's official account on eBay I know I'm not getting sent a cheap Chinese knock-off by some other random eBay seller.
Trying to work out what I need to buy to get free shipping becomes impossible because of the Prime Only deals, the Add On items, the difference in shipping between books only or other stuff.
Now I just buy all books from Wordery and everything else from eBay.
I once took for granted that that was in Amzn's best interests and thus their goal, but it really just seems like they're hoping to bank on consumar ignorance/apathy and being the biggest game in town.
It sucks because I recently picked up an amzn gift card from a change conversion machine (my bank now requires you roll your change yourself and I discovered those machines are fee-free if you use them for a giftcard), but I've fewer and fewer needs from Amzn now.
I posted 32 days ago asking how to tell if they are real [1]. Amazon informed me that they are fake. Unfortunately I have no way to buy glasses now and will use the pin whole method, but its pretty dissapointing. I hope no one gets hurt
I've got some extras that I'm willing to share. E-mail me your address and I'll mail you a pair. I'm in SoCal so they should arrive in SF in time for the eclipse.
I got mine directly from one of the NASA-approved suppliers, precisely because I don't trust Amazon anymore. Had to order a small batch, even though I only needed a few: I figured not going blind is worth ~$30.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'd love to grab a pair from you too if you have extra :) ; and to pay for its cost / shipping to SF of course.
254 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 219 ms ] threadOr they did receive an email and it went into their spam/junk folder. In a situation like this it might be better to email everyone if only to say your glasses are safe. Although that would open them to legal liability if they're wrong.
Their price advantage has eroded anyways. I don't see any advantage to buying from them relative to straight from the manufacturer most of the time.
Amazon has done a great job squeezing shipping costs and margins. I doubt I pay more than 5% more on anything but I know I'm not getting any fakes
The article only talks about the sun appearing too bright through counterfeit glasses, but the real hazard is a pair of glasses that blocks out enough visible light to allow your pupils to dilate, letting in plenty of the UV they don't block.
There was never any guarantee that the invisible hand would fix badness overnight, merely that it will nudge them in the right direction. Which it does.
The walmart i know still has them for $1.
It is not too late ever for a company to admit they made a mistake. Look at the catholic church
My bad
Does this have to do with Amazon's practice of commingling goods from various sources together? I imagine in some warehouse, a big box of Panjwani's legit goods all mixed together with some not-so-good-goods.
After a quick search I found this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
Even though inventory tracked using the manufacturer barcode is commingled within the network, the source of the inventory is tracked by our fulfillment systems and is taken into consideration if inventory problems arise.
Given the article, it seems they're not completely sure what was sent where. It would seem that using the manufacturer barcodes in Amazon's network opens you up to an unexpected risk.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13343682/fake-apple-char...
edit: dug out that discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13924546
but there are plenty similar.
Maybe legit sellers that aren't "fulfilled by Amazon" are safer because they ship it themselves?
Anecdotally, a friend of mine runs a company that produces a unique fitness product, never opted into any kind of co-mingling as far as I know, as they are the only supplier in the world - and suddenly found themselves with comingled fake stock.
Secondly there is Fulfilled By Amazon (FBA) this is when you sell the products and Amazon takes a commission and all the fulfillment fees to store and ship the product for you. In this case the seller has MUCH MUCH more control over every aspect of the listing. They can choose to have the ASIN generated by the UPC which can result in the same problem as above OR they can choose to have the ASIN generated by a number and barcode that is unique to the particular seller. This is called a FNSKU. Even if you know the FNSKU number which would be on a barcode on the product, ONLY the particular seller can create /ship product to Amazon using it. So Only the seller can variate listing or sell the product.
And thirdly you can do seller fulfillment which works list the last option in terms of listing, just with your own warehousing and fulfillment.
In fact I don't buy anything from Amazon anymore...
Safeway delivers
"The customer purchased a counterfeit item!"
Actually, no. The customer purchased an authentic item but Amazon shipped the customer a counterfeit item. Guess whose responsibility that is?
I could see Amazon having enough volume of the items they sell directly that they have less need to do this commingling, and of course they have some incentive to preserve their own image.
I purchased my glasses off the website in the comments directly below bc this is one thing I did not trust Amazon on.
Also, I'll play devil's advocate, but this is one area where eBay actually wins over Amazon as each listing is tied to 1 particular seller and viewing seller history on eBay is rather easy compared to Amazon.
It would be nice to know from a listing if a product is eligible for commingling and whether the item I'm buying is commingled or stickered. I would pay more to not purchase commingled items from Amazon.
I do feel sorry for the legit sellers bc they are going to lose ALOT of money, many through no fault of their own. I haven't been on my private groups in a while but I'm sure I "know" a few of the sellers.
I checked the Thousand Oaks Optical site and they have a list of legitimate resellers of their products, and the Amazon seller I used is listed. I'm surprised Amazon didn't do the same basic checks before e-mailing me.
When I was searching for more information after receiving the e-mail, I also found someone on an astronomy forum[1] who is being refunded for a telescope that appears to retail for around $1199.
[1] https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/587658-amazon-eclipse-gla...
Everything else I'd rather buy from the manufacturer (and pay the full, unsubsidised shipping cost -- not Amazon Prime) or a reputable distributor (digi-key/mouser for electronics, CS Hyde for films/tapes, etc). The prospect of having my eyes fried because of counterfeit PPE is kinda horrifying.
If it was "fulfilled by Amazon", it doesn't matter what seller you chose, you could have been sent a counterfeit item from another seller.
Sellers using fulfillment-by-Amazon send their stock to Amazon's warehouse, where it gets thrown in the same bin as all the other stock of that item from everyone else selling it. When it gets pulled to ship to you, there's no guarantee you get one that came from the authorized seller, versus a counterfeit someone else sent in with the same SKU.
Sellers can opt-out of commingling inventory at extra cost but most don't. Given you got a proactive refund, that seller probably has commingled inventory with everyone else, and Amazon is worried they sent you a fake that'll get someone injured and cause them liability.
[1]. https://eclipse.aas.org/resources/solar-filters
[0] https://eclipse.aas.org/resources/solar-filters
Just bought 2. 30 dollars (5 each, 20 dollars for fast shipping). Might not even need them as we have welding helmets, but I don't want to screw around concerning my eyes. Accidently got myself with a camera flash once, that was more than enough.
-------
Hello,
We’re writing to provide you with important safety information about the eclipse products you purchased on Amazon (order #---- for TOLOCO Solar Eclipse Glasses,CE and ISO Certified Safe Solar Shades Filter for Solar Eclipse Viewing (3-Black)).
To protect your eyes when viewing the sun or an eclipse, NASA and the American Astronomical Society (AAS) advise you to use solar eclipse glasses or other solar filters from recommended manufacturers. Viewing the sun or an eclipse using any other glasses or filters could result in loss of vision or permanent blindness.
Amazon has not received confirmation from the supplier of your order that they sourced the item from a recommended manufacturer. We recommend that you DO NOT use this product to view the sun or the eclipse.
Amazon is applying a balance for the purchase price to Your Account (please allow 7-10 days for this to appear on Your Account). There is no need for you to return the product. You can view your available balance and activity here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/css/gc/balance/
For more information about safely viewing a solar eclipse please see the NASA and AAS websites.
If you purchased this item for someone else, please pass along this information to the recipient.
We hope to see you again soon.
Sincerely,
Customer Service
Fairly poor choice of words..
The question is what else are Amazon willing to do with that information, which turns out to be very little or nothing because as soon as Amazon gets humans involved in the transaction making actual decisions, their costs shoot up.
They don't, though. All the same-SKU items go into a big box at the warehouse. When you order from a particular seller, they pick one out of that box and send it to you. There's a good chance the specific one they picked out didn't come from that seller's inventory, but another's.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-amazon-pooled-merchandise-op...
Are all the harmful wavelengths visible? What you don't see can hurt you (for instance, see the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#Damage_mechanisms), and depending on the material it could filter some wavelengths but let other wavelengths pass. Testing just with visible light is not enough.
E1: I'll probably end up getting new ones; I guess you're right.
E2: Because everyone cares about my saga, of course, the seller appears to have sold blatantly fraudulent ones as well. Apparently lowes has certified ones, so I'm going to pop in there tomorrow.
E3: in classic "pay attention to me" style, but also in the hopes of helping someone else out: https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety my glasses look like the counterfeit version listed on the mfg website.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14877216#14877731
There's a map of libraries on their website:
http://spacescience.org/software/libraries/map.php
If yours is on that list, you should be pretty safe, I think.
Use a simple lens, or even a pinhole, to project the image onto another surface and view it that way.
Here's a link to it's construction.
https://www.livescience.com/33906-solar-eclipse-viewer.html
I'd say the box the glasses come in from Amazon is probably more useful than the glasses in many cases. :)
Just to add one nuance, this is only needed for the partial eclipse. If you are viewing the total eclipse, use the pinhole projector for the partial phases. But during totality only, it is perfectly safe to view the solar corona with the naked eye, even with binoculars.
I went into more detail elsewhere in this thread; search the page for my username for more info.
If you are traveling to (or live in) the zone of totality, don't bother viewing the partial eclipse at all. It's not what you are there for. You are there to experience the total eclipse in all its glory, and you can't use eclipse glasses for that.
Your best viewing tool for the total eclipse is your own eyes and a good pair of binoculars. Yes, plain, unfiltered binoculars. During totality you can look directly at the solar corona. Not only do you not need eye protection, but you'll miss the whole thing if you use any kind of filter.
This is true only during totality, of course.
I recommend doing what hundreds of us did on an Oregon hillside in 1979. During the first partial phase, we put on sunglasses (just ordinary sunglasses) and looked away from the sun. The purpose of this was to get our eyes a bit dark-acclimated, so when it went total we would have an even better view.
By looking away from the sun, you also have a chance of seeing the other interesting effects on the ground: the wavy ripply patterns that appear just before totality, and the shadow of the moon as it rushes toward you at thousands of miles per hour!
As soon as the eclipse became total, people started yelling "totality!" and we took off our sunglasses, turned around, picked up our binoculars, and enjoyed the awesome experience of seeing the solar corona.
The only danger here is that you have to stop looking as soon as the first bit of the Diamond Ring or Baily's Beads appear. Then you're back into the partial eclipse and must use eye protection.
But at that point, most of us just cheered and got ready to go home. After totality, the partial eclipse is not much to get excited about.
If you're not in the zone of totality, then of course you must not look directly at the sun at any time. But if you don't have quality eclipse glasses, you still have some other good options.
One is a piece of #14 arc welder's glass. Another that you can improvise on the spot is a pinhole projector. There are various ways you can make one; at the simplest it can just be two pieces of paper, one that you punch a small hole in with a pin, and the other on the ground or a wall. Hold the paper with the hole so that the sunlight goes through it onto the other. You will get a nice image of the partially eclipsed sun projected onto the other paper.
A pinhole projector is the safest way to view the partial eclipse: you are never looking directly at the sun at all, only its projection.
There are numerous plans for building slightly more elaborate pinhole projectors. This page has some good tips:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/how-to-look-at...
Or search for "solar eclipse pinhole projector" to find more.
There is a lot of misinformation going around about eclipse viewing and eye safety. Everything above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, speaking both from personal experience and extensive research. And I've tried to make very clear the difference between the partial and total eclipse. Of course, if I made a mistake or left anything unclear, please let me know!
There are two main dangers regarding eye safety. One is that someone may view the partial eclipse without proper eye protection and will destroy their vision. This has happened many times, and it is a real tragedy.
The other danger, albeit of a lesser sort, is that many people who travel to the total eclipse zone will mistakenly believe that they need some kind of eye protection during totality. As a result, they will completely miss the awesome, life-changing event they went to so much trouble to see.
https://www.space.com/37698-solar-eclipse-glasses-safety-che...
But another page from the AAS seems to say you only get a negative result: if you can see anything other than a very bright light through the glasses, they're unsafe. But that doesn't imply the inverse, that if you can't, they're safe, because of UV protection. https://eclipse.aas.org/eye-safety/iso-certification
Can anyone confirm if I've understood that correctly?
If you put them on during daytime you can see indirect sunlight and even my kitchen light. They were shipped from China despite having "Made in the USA" markings and all the proper ISO certification fine print.
I haven't received any communication from Amazon, so people who haven't heard from them should not assume their glasses are safe (contrary to Amazon's statement). I contacted Amazon support and they were quick to initiate a refund. For some reason Amazon rejected my review warning that items from third party sellers may be counterfeit and explaining how to tell.
Here are a couple photos of the counterfeits: https://goo.gl/photos/1XRKw8KBgo3hjHx6A
I feel bad for people about to be injured. But hopefully this will screw Amazon hard and make them change their ways.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId...
Parts of China is pure filth. There is no quality control until bad PR surfaces. Then it's all about saving face.
So it wasn't a case of adding deadly poison, it was a case of adding an almost safe ingredient because the manufacturers needed to get their cost down to compete. Amazingly, it appears that melamine was even too expensive and they bought scrap melamine from the manufacturing process which was not pure enough to be used in plastics, beacuase it contained the actual kidney damaging chemical rather than just the precursor.
Lots of detail in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
Just because only six babies died from acute kidney damage (according to the article you linked, which does not quite agree with your numbers) does not mean that's where the damage ends. Evidently there were 54,000 babies who were impacted severely enough to be hospitalized -- that's 18%, a far cry from 0.001%, and most definitely not an indication that an ingredient is "almost safe". Ignoring 53,997 of them makes your analogy incomplete to the point of being specious.
I'm wondering how these practices have been able to go on without any reports of poisoning.
I'm a lot more concerned about potential counterfeit medication than I am breakfast cereal.
http://www.fbamaster.com/ungate-health-beauty-grocery/
If I recall correctly, the process for Grocery and H&B have the same requirements. I am ungated for both.
So yeah, point of the anecdote: even veteran Amazon shoppers can forget how the site works.
Your email to Jeff had no effect whatsoever.
I assume your understanding of Amazon is from a consumer perspective only?
You're right, though I did get a $30 credit out of it.
> I assume your understanding of Amazon is from a consumer perspective only?
Yes, but I'm generally aware of how Amazon works behind the scenes as well. I know the difference between FBA and MF Prime, but even so I had managed to overlook it until the item arrived and my wife had already sent the email.
A company I've never heard of, but one that NASA specifically recommended as safe, and that Amazon was supposed to verify as the real manufacturer.
Be careful!
Guess I won't be looking at the sun :)
And it may happen to be that blocking the visual with the counterfeits also blocks the invisible wavelengths. Or it may not.
There should be some statistical evidence provided.
I did read from one of the recommended manufacturers that they tried to warn Amazon about this for months. They also tested them and they appeared safe in the tests they ran even though they were not legitimate.
But only Amazon knows what they have actually sold.
I don't mean to say that people shouldn't take safety seriously - just saying that it's interesting how we used homemade solution to this and don't have any (obvious) sight problems.
arc welding gear is generally around 10-11.
many newer electronic helmets go up to 13/14 which is enough, you have to remember to turn up the sensitivity on the sensors so that its always dark. otherwise it will stay open at around 3-4
https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety
See the photo at the very bottom of the page for an illustration of the (very minor) differences.
The sun still hurts my eyes if I look close to it so.. looks like I'm out of luck.
Any chance you can share a link to the item?
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N9T9CZL
The seller that sold me the glasses is no longer listed. The only remaining seller is the actual manufacturer.
The Amazon seller, GSM, assured me in a comment that if in my order history GSM Sales is listed I should be good to go, and it is.
I don't believe mine shipped from China or anything as they were ordered with other Amazon Prime products so I'm not even sure how that would work.
This is apparently the source of the glasses although the seller was third party. I don't want to toss out perfectly good glasses because Amazon freaked out and banned anyone not on an exclusive list of suppliers.
http://www.prosolareclipse.cc/products_list.html
The Eclipse is 1 week away after all
AAS approved - https://eclipse.aas.org/resources/solar-filters
Someone on this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jmdo5jJIeQ) got this ISO certification - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5zcT8x8808gOE82aks3NUpPSTA...
Another product page - https://www.daylightsky.co.uk/collections/eyeware/products/p...
I think they might be safe enough.
Update: Looks like the seller "Tried and true products" is Joseph Harwood, who works at this company, https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09572536/officers which owns the trademark Daylight sky, https://trademarkalertz.com/owner/DE-BIRD%20LIMITED "Tried and true products" also sells de-bird products. I guess they might just be sister companies or something.
http://www.prosolareclipse.cc/imageRepository/dff59a28-760c-...
And where do you think that place got their glasses from?
I could write a book re: Fake China.
http://imgur.com/a/5hMfu
I'm leaning toward throwing on an ordinary UV blocking pair of sunglasses on top and then limiting my time anyway, you can basically see the same thing with the pinhole technique. This is a risk I would take for myself, if my children were still young I would not risk their eyes, nor do it in front of them and tell them they couldn't.
Also, I can distinctly remember staring directly at the sun as a (dumbass) kid on multiple occasions for as long as I could stand it.
Yes, nature has made it so that we can't do that and harm ourselves, since the sun has been there for a long time. The problem is precisely that during the eclipse you'll be able to "stand it" for much, much longer. Eclipses don't happen often enough for us to be protected against them, and I also have to imagine most animals aren't as fascinated with them as we are...
It seems opaque, but it is transparent enough to see the sun
The mylar composite used in floppy disks seems opaque... to visible light. 54% of the Sun's energy output is in other wavelengths. There is no certification that a floppy disk cookie will block those. Plus it has a big hole in the middle, danger of inadvertent viewing.
This is like the argument I have with other photographers every eclipse when they try to use their 'super-dark' neutral-density filters. Sure they block ten stops of light, but the IR and UV just sails on through.
Unless it's designed and certifed as a Solar viewing material just don't even contemplate it. You're better watching the eclipse on TV in that case.
People have been using dark pieces of photographic film to see eclipses since ever. I wonder if there has been studies on its UV transmissibility
Thought you're right about the super-dark film and I don't think those are dark enough even on the visible range
Though I do agree if you want to stare at it directly your best choice is to get solar viewing glasses (preferably not a fake one)
This page has some tests: astronexus.com/gatfaq/solar-filters besides poor optical quality floppy disks allow wavelenghts > 800nm to pass (this is IR range)
A good suggestion that seems easy to obtain: welder's glass
Fully exposed and developed black and white film is safe, color negative film, however, is totally unsafe, regardless of how dark it might seem. The film has to contain real silver particles, not color dyes.
Beware of monochromatic film that looks black and white but it’s really a color negative film developed using C41 process. It has to be real black and white film.
http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality2/TotalityCh11.html#Film
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/safety.html
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/safety.html
>One of the most widely available filters for safe solar viewing is a number 14 welder's glass, available through welding supply outlets.
And both colour fim and non-silver B&W film are listed by them among the unsafe:
>Unsafe filters include color film, some non-silver black and white film, medical x-ray films with images on them, smoked glass, photographic neutral density filters and polarizing filters.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/safety2.html
> Many experienced solar observers use one or two layers of black-and-white film that has been fully exposed to light and developed to maximum density. The metallic silver contained in the film emulsion is the protective filter. Some of the newer black and white films use dyes instead of silver and these are unsafe. Black-and-white negatives with images on it (e.g., medical x-rays) are also not suitable. More recently, solar observers have used floppy disks and compact disks (both CDs and CD-ROMs) as protective filters by covering the central openings and looking through the disk media. However, the optical quality of the solar image formed by a floppy disk or CD is relatively poor compared to mylar or welder's glass. Some CDs are made with very thin aluminum coatings which are not safe - if you can see through the CD in normal room lighting, don't use it!! No filter should be used with an optical device (e.g. binoculars, telescope, camera) unless it has been specifically designed for that purpose and is mounted at the front end (i.e., end towards the Sun). Some sources of solar filters are listed in the following section.
> Unsafe filters include all color film, black-and-white film that contains no silver, photographic negatives with images on them (x-rays and snapshots), smoked glass, sunglasses (single or multiple pairs), photographic neutral density filters and polarizing filters.
This second NASA author seems to believe that floppy disk media (with the hole covered) may actually be safe for eclipse viewing, just not very effective.
You definitely do not want to test this on the sun.
Hopefully this was during hazy sunsets. Or maybe you just have mega-strong pupils that can contract more than normal and that's why you're not blind.
> Is the danger that an eclipse encourages you to stare at the sun without encountering any pain?
Exactly. Human eyes aren't very good at handling ultra-high-dynamic-range scenes. During an eclipse, your surroundings are somewhere between twilight and night-time in brightness, so your pupils dilate. The small un-covered sliver of sun is still as bright as it is during the day, and can damage your eyes without triggering a painful 'too-bright' response. It's somewhat similar to the danger posed by a laser.
But there are documented cases of eye damage, so the danger is real.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/...
The optometrist I consulted the day after the eclipse said that there didn't appear to be significant permanent damage to my eye, but the subsequent six months of the afterimage, and not being sure whether or not it would last my whole life, were certainly no fun. Overall, I feel like I got very lucky, and I wouldn't have been surprised if the afterimage had lasted for decades rather than months. Maybe it would have if I had continued looking for just a few more seconds!
My impression is that the risk of different kinds of damage is complicated, but there are several things that can go very wrong. One is that the sun during an eclipse is much more interesting than usual, so it's so much more tempting to look longer than momentarily; another is the UV exposure that people have mentioned (where there may still be enough UV to cause damage even at times when the visible light is weak enough not to cause significant discomfort). UV is a big factor that means that we shouldn't trust our intuition about whether something may harm our eyes. In industrial settings, too, people sometimes get significant eye injuries because they're staring at UV (or IR) sources that don't subjectively feel dangerous or painful.
(Edit: taneq in this thread also mentions a problem about dynamic range where your pupillary contraction may not be enough to protect you.)
While permanent damage might not happen quite as quickly as some people may have been led to believe, and some risks may be slightly exaggerated in certain accounts, there's just no reason to take the risk of not having proper eye protection, especially when you can't really judge from the level of discomfort or lack of discomfort whether damage may be happening. As far as I know, every eclipse leads to emergency follow-up optometrist visits, and I can testify that it's no fun to be the patient in one of those visits waiting to hear the news about whether the aftereffects are likely to be permanent.
When it's not, you can't. But it may not appear "as bright" when it's partially eclipsed, it may be "easier" to stare at it, without reflexes kicking in to stop it, and do permanent damage to your eyes.
It's likely that some of the afterimage is still there but your brain has been rewired to eliminate it.
I haven't gotten it from the sun, but I got a minor case of it from welding with the incorrect lenses (it may seem fine to use gas welding goggles for MIG welding, but it's really not). It's really not pleasant, your eyes feel all scratchy and too large for their sockets.
I've had hints of that from welding when using a proper mask, but inadvertently not wearing a dark enough shirt (worst case is a white t-shirt - can bounce the UV up under the mask; it's not as bad as "arc eye", but can still be uncomfortable afterward).
Other welding safety lessons:
1. Be very careful welding on zinc-coatings (galvanized steel); have plenty of ventilation, and don't inhale any of the fumes (a fan to blow the fumes away can help). You can get zinc-poisoning, which feels like a very bad flu-like symptoms. I'm sure it can be fatal, but mostly you'll feel really terrible afterward, and there's no cure except to wait it out. Better - remove the galvanization (grinding or with pool acid), or use a respirator under your mask (specifically one rated for it - there's a particular one 3M makes that if you research this topic, people recommend).
2. Less known: Never weld on steel that has been cleaned using chlorine-based solvents (like certain kinds of brake cleaner). There's a tale out there from a guy who did it, and lived to tell about it. Basically, the intense heat creates a change in the chemical to form phosgene gas; even a small amount can kill you. This poor soul managed to live, but not without some major after-effects that will cause him trouble the rest of his life:
http://www.brewracingframes.com/safety-alert-brake-cleaner--...
Note that not all brake cleaners have chlorine (they are banned in California, for example), but this is one of those things that if you've never heard of it, but you find yourself welding (especially if you also do your own brake fluid changes or brake jobs, or other auto work) - and you clean your parts (hey, let's use brake cleaner - that'll do it!) - you wouldn't think there'd be a problem - until it's much too late.
Get the word out on this last one, too - not many people know about it (most welders know about welding on galvanized steel).
> In a study after an eclipse in Turkey in 1976, around 10%of [sic] those with damage had permanent visual loss to the extent that they were not able to read a car number plate at 25 yards (23 metres) with the affected eye or eyes.[0]
IIRC, an eclipse is particularly dangerous because the lack of light doesn't trigger your pupils to constrict as much or a "too-bright" response to look away, but the visible portion is still sufficient to cause damage.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116382/
And there was so much bright light that you really couldn't look at it for very long without involuntarily looking away or closing your eyes. But of course if you kept looking at the sun no matter how much it hurt, you would damage your eyes.
In a partial eclipse, most of the sun is covered, and there is a lot less light reaching your eyes. So they don't stop down as much as they would for a normal full sun.
However, that fraction of the sun that is visible is just as bright as before! With such an interesting sight to look at, you will be much more tempted to stare. And with your pupils wide open, there is even more sunlight hitting that small area of your retina than there would have been in normal conditions.
Now if you are fortunate enough to experience the total eclipse, that is another matter entirely. It is perfectly safe to look at the solar corona during totality, even with binoculars! The corona is only about as bright as a full moon. The sun itself is completely blocked by the moon.
I viewed the 1979 total eclipse with binoculars, and when totality ended and the diamond ring and Baily's beads started to appear, I lingered a few seconds longer than I should have, and still no harm was done. I didn't suffer any temporary or permanent vision damage, even viewing those through the binoculars.
But visible light is not the only frequency. Sunlight also contains UV and IR wavelengths. The human eye does not have pain receptors that respond to these frequencies.
The end result is that during an eclipse it becomes more likely that a person will fries their eyes due to the presence of UV and IR wavelengths.
But this is a piece of safety equipment with a single function, and people only buy it to use it in one way, which will cause direct and immediate harm if the product fails. How can someone live with themselves after doing this?
By being able to feed their family and keep shelter over their heads.
At least that's the only charitable explanation I can think for the absolutely shocking lack of respect for human life that comes out of China (see fake food, gutter oil, electrical safety, construction scandals etc etc)
People like my ex's dad. Not involved with this in particular, but lots of fake/knockoff/cheap Chinese shit. Dude is rich as fuck. Rich enough to have bought her a $750k house with cash a few years ago, like it was nothing. Don't know if anything he was involved with ever actually harmed anybody, but from what I've heard he'd have no qualms about it. I'm sure whoever is responsible for this is similar. No rules in China if you're fucking over foreigners. At least none that you can't just bribe your way out of.
--Karl Marx
s/labourer/consumer/
("It's not real Communism." But it's a real outcome of the attempt to create Communism, so it counts just fine.)
The thing is, if you want safety, what you want is a separation between the manufacturer and the regulator. In Communism, the manufacturer and the regulator are de facto the same entity. Communism lacks any entity that is capable of coming out and saying independently that there's a problem. If you've ever complained about "regulatory capture", you've just explained why Communism is non-functional; Communism institutionalizes 100% total regulatory capture from day one and holds it up as an ideal.
The seller confessed to the fraud, but was utterly unrepentant.
I'm trying to have the same conversation with "Microsoft Support" callers trying to install ransomware in my computer. Not much luck getting answers out of that crowd, but no pangs of conscience either.
There is a part two as well.
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/long-distance/
eg, there are specialized climbing harnesses on Amazon which confuse the CE EN standard and the concept of notified bodies. (Which certify conformity.) Leads to hilarity like a climbing harness claiming conformity with the standards for intubation tubes.
Or, climbing equipment which is mislabeled as to its country of origin, with basic specs like dimensions being inaccurate.
The sellers just don't care, and Amazon doesn't care enough to stop them. It's barely one step above ebay for a lot of items.
Is it, though? At least with eBay I know who the product I ordered came from and whom to blame if something goes wrong. If I'm ordering from the manufacturer's official account on eBay I know I'm not getting sent a cheap Chinese knock-off by some other random eBay seller.
With Amazon I apparently don't have that luxury.
Amazon is, for me, full of bafflement pricing.
Trying to work out what I need to buy to get free shipping becomes impossible because of the Prime Only deals, the Add On items, the difference in shipping between books only or other stuff.
Now I just buy all books from Wordery and everything else from eBay.
That's a bit rich, what with the 2nd hand camera lens scam the other day and all.
It sucks because I recently picked up an amzn gift card from a change conversion machine (my bank now requires you roll your change yourself and I discovered those machines are fee-free if you use them for a giftcard), but I've fewer and fewer needs from Amzn now.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755020
I got mine directly from one of the NASA-approved suppliers, precisely because I don't trust Amazon anymore. Had to order a small batch, even though I only needed a few: I figured not going blind is worth ~$30.
Anyway, my e-mail is [HN account name] at x0.ms.