Tamron 28-75 2.8 Warning

I took out the Fairly new Tamron 28-75 2.8 zoom the other day to put on my Sony A7RIII and noticed the following sticker on the box. " WARNING! Cancer and reproductive harm. www.P65Warnings.CA.gov. This is disconcerting, and I wonder if anyone else has noticed it, and knows what it's all about. Tried calling Tamron, but they were either closed or didn't answer the phone, called Adorama, but they didn't know anything about it either. Bottom line I ain't using it until I know what the Heck this is about.

The warning probably refers to the use of leaded glass for some elements. It might also refer to polymers, including solvents used in the manufacturing process. You should not, under any circumstances, eat this lens, or use it in contact with food.

 

You are fortunate it doesn't contain lanthanides (trans-uranium elements), like some early lenses. Otherwise the warnings would be even more dire.

 

It's California. What else can I say?

California has some of the most aggressive labelling in the country. Almost everything you see, touch, eat carries a warning label so you can make informed decisions. "WARNING - Crossing the street can have serious health consequences as you breathe toxic fumes and are in the direct path of deadly unpredictable vehicles causing potential injury or even death":)

Gimme a break! Your camera body's sensor contains hazardous chemicals, which is why it can't go into landfills...so you had better seal it up and keep it away from all people and wildlife. Oh - and don't even get me started on the batteries.

The warning probably refers to the use of leaded glass for some elements. It might also refer to polymers, including solvents used in the manufacturing process. You should not, under any circumstances, eat this lens, or use it in contact with food.

 

You are fortunate it doesn't contain lanthanides (trans-uranium elements), like some early lenses. Otherwise the warnings would be even more dire.

 

It's California. What else can I say?

 

Thanks Ed, I remember the radioactive lenses, and was worried that it could be something like that. In any event, it's really a shame they couldn't be a little more descriptive on what they're talking about.

In California, commercial marijuana has to be free of pesticides. My garden hose has a California warning. Talk about oxymorons.

Prop 65 might have some ridiculous side effects (like basically warning you not to eat your lens) but it works. In the first 10 years it was in effect it reduced exposure to the listed chemicals by 85%.

Prop 65 might have some ridiculous side effects (like basically warning you not to eat your lens) but it works. In the first 10 years it was in effect it reduced exposure to the listed chemicals by 85%.

I have no problem with the warning as long as they expand on what they're talking about in a particular case, and if the lens is safe to use as intended. Otherwise they're just stoking paranoia.

You are probably viewing this thread on a liquid crystal display, which was manufactured using chlorofluorohydrocarbons (e.g., Freon).

And thanks to regulation, much less chlorofluorocarbon escapes into the atmosphere than did 30 years ago, with the result that ozone layer depletion has been reversed.

I don't know about the Tamron, but this was often caused by radioactive rare earths, etc., used in lenses (thorium oxide [ThO2] was in quite a few lenses):

 

I don't think it was lead (Pb) as in crystal and such that made it dangerous.

Sadly, I don't think that you're allowed to use lead in lens elements anymore. Am I wrong?

The radioactive stuff was mostly thorium, the same stuff as in gas lantern mantles. The lens will be noticeably yellow in the 60 years or so since it was last made. Uranium was once used for decorative glass, making it yellow or green, with green fluorescence. The large resale shop, Replacements, in Greenville, NC, has uranium glass in a small, roped off area in their warehouse.

Ed wrote: "My garden hose has a California warning. Talk about oxymorons."

I think it's fair to warn people when common objects---like PVC garden hoses--- are hot with multiple toxic chemicals.

Is Your Garden Hose Toxic?

Years and years ago, I turned up to an auction expecting to bid on a lot of 10 ex-military wristwatches. When the lot came up, it was announced that they could now only sell them two at a time, because the luminous dials made them too hazardous in bundles of 10!

 

So remember folks; no more than two luminous watches to be worn on the same arm at any one time.

 

"It's Elf an Safety gorn mad I tell yer."

And thanks to regulation, much less chlorofluorocarbon escapes into the atmosphere than did 30 years ago, with the result that ozone layer depletion has been reversed.

Has it?

I thought they were still finding growth in the Polar ozone layer holes, but of course they wouldn't over-publicise the conclusion-jumping that led to a link between CFCs and ozone depletion.

 

A much simpler conversion is:

CO + O3 > CO2 + O2. But targeting CFCs is an easier option than trying to cut the world's output of carbon monoxide.

Has it?

I thought they were still finding growth in the Polar ozone layer holes, but of course they wouldn't over-publicise the conclusion-jumping that led to a link between CFCs and ozone depletion.

 

A much simpler conversion is:

CO + O3 > CO2 + O2. But targeting CFCs is an easier option than trying to cut the world's output of carbon monoxide.

 

For at least the past 15 years, the ozone layer has been increasing instead of decreasing, which is due to regulations on CFCs and similar chemicals being used in ways that leak into the atmosphere. Without regulations that would not have happened and we would still be using freon. These are the situations where government intervention works best - changes that need to happen for everybody’s benefit, but that individuals and companies won’t make on their own.

 

It’s how we fixed lead in gas and if we’re going to get anything done about global warming we’ll need the government to intervene there as well.

Who is John Galt?

Who is John Galt?

Is he a photographer?

For at least the past 15 years, the ozone layer has been increasing instead of decreasing, which is due to regulations on CFCs and similar chemicals being used in ways that leak into the atmosphere. Without regulations that would not have happened and we would still be using freon. These are the situations where government intervention works best - changes that need to happen for everybody’s benefit, but that individuals and companies won’t make on their own.

 

It’s how we fixed lead in gas and if we’re going to get anything done about global warming we’ll need the government to intervene there as well.

I'm not a climate change sceptic. It's easy to see the upward trend in average annual temperature from openly available meteorological records dating back over 100 years. All I'm taking issue with is the rather convoluted link between CFCs and ozone levels, when other pollutants could be just as blameful, and have also been diminished coincidentally - by use of catalytic converters and electronic engine management, etc.

 

No, it wasn't right that Silicon Valley allowed CFC fumes to escape into the atmosphere unchecked in huge quantities, and yes, we do need to dispose of refrigerants responsibly. But to replace efficient CFC refrigerants with less efficient substitutes is just throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

The same will happen with the (forced) transition to electric vehicles. Pollution will be transferred to power stations instead of the roads, the cost of transport will increase phenomenally, and nobody seems to have considered what we'll do with all the spent battery waste.

 

It's a complex issue that needs complex solutions, not a one-size-fits-all blanket ban on this substance or that. The fact that our 'rulers' are mainly technically ignorant self-serving pillocks who rely on advice from only slightly less ignorant bodies with a vested interest definitely doesn't help.

Sensible science-based restrictions are essential if we're going to make headway on a variety of problems. Unfortunately, neither leaders or public have much scientific grasp, so we tend to get a crude or ineffective action. I don't think being "exposed" to labels and inks and plastics is of much concern. Even the radioactive lenses don't usually amount to a hill of beans if you don't eat them. Pollution during the manufacturing process is probably way more important. AFAIK, we're still sending large amounts of mercury out of power plants, and we've got to stop filling the oceans with plastic. As for the OP, throw that sticker away and use the lens without fear.

The most sensible warning label was supposedly applied by Germany to soda with artificial sweetener. "Consuming more than 244 bottles a day of this product may cause cancer." Many potent medications are derived from natural poisons. The adage is, "It's the dose, not the poison." If California were required to include the toxic dose, you could probably hear laughter all the way to Texas (where their small companies seem to be moving).

So I called Tamron, and they told me at issue is something called carbon black I believe. They said it's in many everyday items people use. I asked them if the lens is safe to use, but they wouldn't say. I asked them if it's in other lenses, but again they wouldn't, or couldn't say. I got the impression that it's something they don't want to talk about. From a little research I've done it's apparently used to color things, and strengthen some other stuff. It would be nice to know if the lens is safe to use for sure, and if any of you have new lenses of any brand bought in CA I'd be interested if such a warning sticker is on the box. Possibly the lens would have to be black in color, or with black rubber on it somewhere. I'd probably think that it's not dangerous, as the only thing I've seen about it referenced breathing it in during manufacture, but the unwillingness to say it's safe do make one wonder.

. . . I'd probably think that it's not dangerous, as the only thing I've seen about it referenced breathing it in during manufacture, but the unwillingness to say it's safe do make one wonder. . .

 

I think that you are asking for the impossible.

 

It would be an absolute business risk to say "it is safe". Any well managed business would not do that for any product which has been labelled as potentially harmful, by Government legislation.

 

As a, bye-the-way re Nanny State Legislation: we have labeling laws which require Sea Salt to have a "Use by Date", after which it is illegal to sell for human consumption - that date is typically two years after packaging date; I guess salt ages "OK, and safe for human consumption" before it goes into air tight containers?

 

WW

So sell the lens and quit obsessively worrying about it. Honestly it isn't a big deal. While you're at it, get rid of all battery powered devices as they contain toxic materials. Oh yes, also get rid of your TV and computer screen as well as your pc. Some of the components contain harmful chemicals and can't be normally recycled because of potential landfill contamination. And definitely ditch your cellphone/Iphone. Check the rugs and underlying pads in your home for traces of formaldehyde, and don't forget to check the gypsum in your wallboard as it is often contaminated when dug up. Lastly, check the substrate your home is built upon...if it is granite, you may need to remediate emissions before you sell it. The point of all this is that almost everything we touch, smell, eat has some level of toxicity...the question is how much and do we know what the long term effects will be with or without it, alone or incombination with other chemicals.