Legality of Solar Filter eyepieces in Oz? - Page 2

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #21 25-09-2006, 06:02 PM

Even the Dept. of Education only says 'Do not use these filters as they 'MAY' produce a build up of heat and explode.

Page 31 here: http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/ohs/files/...ar%20filter%22

It would be nice to find the actual law/regulation.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #22 25-09-2006, 06:20 PM

Ken, that document also says that 1/1000 equals 1%.

Dept of Education. Heaven help your kids.

Deimos · #23 25-09-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casstony

I don't understand the need to keep the dealer's identity secret. If they were actually selling these filters knowing they are dangerous they need to cop some flak. If it's just a misunderstanding, all good and well.

Tony

Hi Tony,

As I said earlier I don't have a legal background, but still three little words are the problem for me: Defamation, Libel and Slander. Unfortunately Australia is starting to follow trends set by other countries and spending more time in the courts than outside in the sun.

I think we all agree that solar/sun eyepiece filters can be very dangerous when misused, but that doesn't make them illegal per se. Knives and cars are very dangerous when misused, but they aren't illegal either.

If solar/sun eyepiece filters are actually illegal I'd like to know what makes them so (whether that be legislation or a "banned goods" import list) before asking the dealers to stop selling the products.

Someone else here must agree, otherwise snowyskiesau's post which named one of the dealers would not have been removed.

Deimos.

Deimos · #24 25-09-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janoskiss

Ken, that document also says that 1/1000 equals 1%...

Not exactly. When I read it I saw "This filter allows only 1/1000 of 1% of the sun’s light to pass through the filter."

casstony · #25 25-09-2006, 06:53 PM

Regardless of the law regarding eyepiece-end sun filters, I don't see how an individual could get into trouble by writing to a dealer saying "I don't like your business pratices; I want you to stop selling dangerous filters". Many individual such letters might have an impact.

In the same vein, I don't think you'd run foul of the law by saying "I don't like xyz dealer because they sell this type of solar filter".

janoskiss (Steve H) · #26 25-09-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deimos

Not exactly. When I read it I saw "This filter allows only 1/1000 of 1% of the sun's light to pass through the filter."

My bad! Humble apologies Dept of Edu!!

How much diff one letter makes! (of/or)

Deimos · #27 25-09-2006, 07:20 PM

Hi Tony,

Common sense would support what you say as true. But let me put some spin on it...

It's not actually a legal matter (I think), but a civil one. Let's say someone did acuse a company of doing something illegal. Whether it actually had any effect or not, that company could turn around and claim a damaged reputation, lost customers, lost potential sales, etc. and then take the "perpetrator" to civil court. All they have to do is convince a judge that the original statements had a measurable and adverse affect on their business. If a police investigation proved that they weren't doing anything illegal at all it would only add more weight to their argument.

But this is getting off-topic... all I want to know is: are solar/sun eyepiece filters actually illegal in Australia?

Deimos.

CoombellKid · #28 25-09-2006, 08:04 PM

It amuses me that your still going on about it. A responsible citizen would
just do the right thing and report the product to consumer affairs. No
use be a sheriff in something you know nothing about : ) let the people
who's job is to protect consumers do their job. And instead bleating around
the bush here Repoert IT! Dont talk about it! End of argument.

regards,CS sunny days

Rob

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #29 25-09-2006, 08:59 PM

Someone in here (Laurie or Houghy) emailed a complaint thru to Consumer Affairs once before about a shop in Oz selling these blasted things. The ad was removed from their site.

As Rob said above: Just do it!

iceman (Mike) · #30 26-09-2006, 08:03 AM

Rob I think your comment is uncalled for and inappropriate, and would've been better kept to yourself.

Deimos has his reasons for taking the cautious approach, and I can understand why. There have been instances in the past of a vendor threatening legal action because of what was said about them in this forum. Maybe a state of blissful ignorance is great for most people, but other times, there are very good reasons to be careful what you say.

Sending an email is one approach, actually trying to find out if they ARE illegal is another. Everyone talks about them being bad, it's great that someone is actually doing some research to find out if they are illegal. If they're not, then they should be.

They can't really be compared to knives - knives have another purpose (cutting food). Eyepiece solar filters are for one purpose, looking at the sun. They're clearly not fit for that purpose, are very dangerous, and any vendors selling them should be made to stop.

Finding out if they're illegal, and then reporting it, is a very good way of stopping vendors from selling what could be a very harmful device.

CoombellKid · #31 26-09-2006, 03:21 PM

Sorry Mike,

But I dont, Here there is an issue with a product being sold to consumers,
which is highly dangerous. Now we can sit around here and debate it all you
like, or until someone actually comes up with the legislation/law/code of
conduct. Where these thing are taken care of by a _body_ called consumer
affairs. I dont see why Diemos seems to think it is up to him to approach
this company only when and once he has some sort of amunition.

When Starkler notified consumer affairs they did something about it. WITH
no legal ramifications to Starkler. So why is this taking so long to resolve.
Yes I guess calling Diemos a sheriff, but I fear while he's playing about
these things apparently are still on the self. Maybe some well intended
grandma brought one over the weekend for her 8 yrs grandson. While
it would of been easier for Diemos to just ring consumer affairs.

I dont think he should contact the seller, the seller then notifies the
importer who may of been warned before, then escape prosecution
for any possible breach.

just my 2 cents worth, where talking about peoples safety here

Rob

janoskiss (Steve H) · #32 26-09-2006, 03:30 PM

Rob, if you are so concerned for unsuspecting grandmothers and the like and fancy yourself a "responsible citizen", why don't you ring Consumer Affairs? I'd be curious to see how long it takes them to do something about it.

CoombellKid · #33 26-09-2006, 03:41 PM

Fair enough Steve,

What am I going to tell them, ummm somewhere in australia, ummm you
could try googling solar filter and you might find a couple of references....

give me the dealers name, PM me and I'll call consumer affairs myself no
problem : )

be happy to

regards

Rob

ving (David) · #34 26-09-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoombellKid

Yes I guess calling Diemos a sheriff, but I fear while he's playing about
these things apparently are still on the self. Maybe some well intended
grandma brought one over the weekend for her 8 yrs grandson. While
it would of been easier for Diemos to just ring consumer affairs.

just my 2 cents worth, where talking about peoples safety here

Rob

you have seen the adverts attached to this thread, what are you doing?

deimos is doing something, and he is doing it the correct way... no rushing in with guns blazing.

CoombellKid · #35 26-09-2006, 03:55 PM

First time I have seen the advert is when you just now point them out Ving.
I've been away in Grafton doing maternity things for the last few days : )

regards

Rob

ving (David) · #36 26-09-2006, 03:58 PM

preparing the house for the newcomer hey?

CoombellKid · #37 26-09-2006, 04:06 PM

Yup kinda, lol

The hospital is near 100kms away, and it's costing to much to stay
down there for me and Jake. Rather spend it on mum and babs. But
Boy I sure am missing them. Evening ringing them is a toll call but
it's cheaper than gas.

regards,CS

Rob

janoskiss (Steve H) · #38 26-09-2006, 04:06 PM

Rob, sent you a PM with a couple of leads.

Go get them!

snowyskiesau · #39 26-09-2006, 04:17 PM

I've spoken with the one supplier I previously identified. The advertised item is not in stock and will be replaced by an 'upgraded' model when the next shipment arrives in two weeks time. The person at the store who is the specialist/expert on the telescope line is on holidays until then so getting any useful information was not possible.

The next step would be to place an inquiry with the Dept of Fair Trading (seeing the store is in NSW). The first question they ask is 'Has the issue been discussed with the trader in an attempt to resolve the problem?'

Talk to the supplier, express your concerns and if they don't want to do anything about it, or don't understand the issue, then talk to the Dept of Fair Trading. They will follow it up - your taxes at work.

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #40 26-09-2006, 04:23 PM

Pity 'Current Affair' wouldn't touch it.

They would only do a story on it if some poor kid got blinded. Too late then for that kid! Like putting a band-aid on an amputated leg.

And I don't wish for someone to be injured or blinded just to get the item mentioned. But until something bad happens, it's not a story to them.