View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Lisa Bloodgood Guest
|
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it would make sense if the law weren't applied retroactively to existing inventory, especially existing inventory known to be safe, more or less, under the old law.
But, those things with Swarovski crystals, I don't know. Swarovski maybe could issue a cert or statement about how safe or unsafe they are and how well they'd stay glued to something.
(For that kind of crystal bead for making jewelry, the Swarovski ones are way prettier, sparklier, and nicer than the non-Swarovski ones.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lisa B wrote: |
I think it would make sense if the law weren't applied retroactively to existing inventory, especially existing inventory known to be safe, more or less, under the old law.
But, those things with Swarovski crystals, I don't know. Swarovski maybe could issue a cert or statement about how safe or unsafe they are and how well they'd stay glued to something.
(For that kind of crystal bead for making jewelry, the Swarovski ones are way prettier, sparklier, and nicer than the non-Swarovski ones.) |
Swarovski's statement:
"Recently, there has been an increased regulatory focus on potential human exposure to lead from various consumer products, including jewellery. Crystal has unique properties. The crystal manufacturing process creates a matrix which inhibits the mobility of lead. In other words, lead is bound into the structure of the crystal. Because of this structure, lead crystal poses no significant risk of excessive lead exposure to human health via surface contact (hand to mouth), mouthing or even ingestion. Indeed, Swarovski crystals have been tested under a variety of test methods for extractable lead. Test conditions and procedures do vary, but lead levels are well below regulatory limits even when the crystal is tested in an acid solution to maximize the release of lead.
Most authorities considering lead in crystal have concluded that limits on total lead should not apply to crystal. In 2006, for example, the California Attorney General settled a lawsuit brought in the state alleging exposure to lead from jewellery. The court-approved settlement agreement, as well as the later legislatively enacted Californian AB 1681, established limits for lead in metals and several other components, with stricter standards for jewellery intended for children 6 and younger. Significantly, in recognition of the limited risk of availability of lead from crystal, the settlement agreement as well as California AB 1681 allows the continued use of crystal without limitation in jewellery not intended for children. For children 6 or younger, up to 1 gram of crystal may be used in such jewellery. These same standards were adopted in the state of Minnesota. Similar bills are pending in other states, but some states are considering or have adopted new limits on lead that do not include an exemption for crystal.
Therefore you are in no danger in touching crystals. This is also the reason that there are no specific recommendations about touching or using crystal, however, we do not recommend that crystals are put in the mouth, swallowed, choked on or inhaled under any circumstances, or are used as children’s toys due to the small parts hazard." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Swarovski is walking a fine line here. Lead oxide is added to glass in different percentages to make leaded crystal glass. And it is stabile for the most part. Exposure to chemicals in wine, liquors, apple juice, orange juice, baby formula, all kinds of drinks (I read over the past few days on medical Web sites) will leach the lead from the crystal into the beverage to some incredible amount in a very short period of time. Not to mention saliva. So no crystal drinking vessels for kids or anybody else over the age of 12, who would prefer to avoid gout. So, yes, touching crystal is safe. Now, pass the law that will make children stop putting jewelry in their mouths it will all work out fine. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anonymous wrote: |
So, yes, touching crystal is safe. Now, pass the law that will make children stop putting jewelry in their mouths it will all work out fine. |
That brings up a good point... what about the difference between using Swarovski crystal beads in jewelry, which could easily find its way into a child's mouth, vs. using hotfix crystals on garments, which are not generally eaten. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Eric H Site Admin
Joined: 02 Feb 2007 Posts: 205 Location: NM Albuquerque
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about NOT putting anything that could break off of children's clothing and find it's way into their mouth AT ALL? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J C Sprowls
Joined: 25 Mar 2006 Posts: 2004
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, wouldn't that constitute a choking hazard and likely fail the pull tests?
Not only is it generally a good design principle to say nix to anything remotely risky, it *would* fail current and conventional tests - if they were performed in the first place. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alison Cummins Official Archivist
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 Posts: 2335 Location: Canada QC Montreal
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: Eating things |
|
|
Wow, this is so weird all these people posting anonymously. Is it ok if I say it bothers me? I’m not used to it on this forum.
*** *** ***
Anyway, about sucking and eating clothes. Lots of tweens and teens have picking/pulling/sucking/chewing tics. It’s not normal the same way the gumming of a five-month-old is normal, but it is common. Most people have found a way around this by adulthood, whether by finding more productive or socially acceptable ways to channel their nervous energy; taking up smoking; cutting their hair short so they can’t chew it; or discipline, using expensive manicures to train themselves not to bite their nails. If you are going to make something for a population group that you know are likely to fidget with their clothes, then it’s responsible to ensure that their clothes can’t poison them.
Another thing about tweens is that they often have contact with younger children. They often even live in the same house with them. It’s not fair to expect eleven-year-olds to assume responsibility for ensuring that eleven-month-olds don’t poison themselves by playing with their clothes.
A manufacturer has no control over what happens with their products once they sell them. They can, however, respect safety standards that apply to everyone.
I don’t think it’s productive to argue against the concept of universal safety standards for consumer products. A bit of creativity in figuring out win-win ways to implement them, however, could go a long way. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Miracle Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 Posts: 946 Location: CA
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Another thing about tweens is that they often have contact with younger children. They often even live in the same house with them. It’s not fair to expect eleven-year-olds to assume responsibility for ensuring that eleven-month-olds don’t poison themselves by playing with their clothes. |
Yeah, this entire law has me rethinking a lot of things. Even as an adult, when you hold a baby or young toddler they tend to have oral contact with your clothes, even by just sleeping against your chest with their mouth open. My five year old has a habit of chewing the necklines of her shirts--- which sometimes are MY shirts. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J C Sprowls
Joined: 25 Mar 2006 Posts: 2004
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How 'bout we just make the bedazzler illegal? Can I get a fashionista amen? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Melissa Huhn Guest
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lol! That comment made me smile -- Amen! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esther Moderator
Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 1919 Location: ID Spudville
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are a lot of things I have seen kids put in their mouths that were never intended for their use. Pens (with the lids on), keys, styrofoam cups...... What about the glass of a door as they look out? I mean really, this law is so silly when you think about it. What about all of the toys in the children's play area at the library or the church nursery? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lisa DOWNTOWN JOEY Guest
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think I'm just going to affix Hot Fix crystals to everyone's xmas presents so I can deplete my inventory. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kathleen F. Site Admin
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 11557 Location: NM Albuquerque
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Esther wrote: |
There are a lot of things I have seen kids put in their mouths that were never intended for their use. |
This is why issues affecting California (haven't discussed that either) are particularly troubling. The move is toward expanding the product list to cover things children will commonly handle -like key chains- that aren't intended for them.
You know, we could solve this problem practically overnight if the law were expanded to include required testing for any product intended for humans regardless of age. Now that would get some attention! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kathleen F. Site Admin
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 11557 Location: NM Albuquerque
|
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anonymous wrote: |
I am def. not an attorney and could certainly be wrong, but I think the legislation applies to commerce |
The CPSC has definitively ruled that "banned hazardous products" which these would be without the GCCs, cannot be given away either. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|