
Amazon recalls eclipse glasses - alister
http://www.kgw.com/news/eclipse/amazon-recalling-some-solar-eclipse-glasses-week-before-event/463899601
======
typpo
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.

Here are a couple photos of the counterfeits:
[https://goo.gl/photos/1XRKw8KBgo3hjHx6A](https://goo.gl/photos/1XRKw8KBgo3hjHx6A)

~~~
hellbanner
I just checked my "Soluna" glasses - I can see a high watt bulb in a lamp,
previously I couldn't see any lower watt bulb :/

~~~
danieldk
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.

Be careful!

~~~
typpo
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.

~~~
hellbanner
This has happened for 2 brands of glasses I've ordered, 1 from Amazon & 1 from
manufacturer directly.

Guess I won't be looking at the sun :)

------
dboreham
Reading the comments here, I wonder if folks have read the article? The
problem seems to be not that Amazon has recalled counterfeit items but rather
they have recalled legitimate product, blaming the legitimate seller for the
fact that Amazon can't keep straight where their safety-critical inventory
came from. It is as if they have a bin for "Viagra" in the warehouse into
which they put shipments from Pfizer, along with whatever comes in from their
eBay-grade sellers. Then they blame Pfizer for the eBay drugs not being
properly traceable and tested.

Source: I received the emails, read the article, and at least one of the
products I received is certainly not counterfeit.

~~~
panarky
The article does not say Amazon commingled glasses from multiple sources.

Before I purchased eclipse glasses from Amazon, I first checked with NASA for
approved brands, purchased an approved brand, and have not received a recall
email from Amazon.

The fact is that we don't know what happened at Amazon, whether they
commingled inventory or incorrectly included legitimate suppliers in the
recall or if there were real issues with the products provided by the supplier
in the article.

~~~
snowwrestler
Short of an elaborate test apparatus, there is actually no way for a consumer
to independently confirm they have safe glasses.

It's easy to make fakes that look _exactly_ like the real thing. So a printed
ISO code or brand name is only sufficient if the supply chain is secure.

And unfortunately, there have been plenty of stories lately about seeming lax
stock management at Amazon that makes it hard to know exactly what you're
going to get.

------
joeframbach
> "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.

~~~
amirmc
I didn't know Amazon did this. It'll make me think twice next time I purchase
certain items.

After a quick search I found this:
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200243180)

 _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.

~~~
wlesieutre
Never buy an Apple USB charger from Amazon, 90% of them are fake.

[https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13343682/fake-apple-
char...](https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13343682/fake-apple-chargers-
amazon-lawsuit)

~~~
voodooranger
Never buy _any_ Apple product from Amazon. I've been burned several times.
Didn't realize it until I had already bought several products.

~~~
sleepychu
I've been pretty pleased with my MacBook air, for big ticket items like
iPod/iPhone/Macbook do you think there's significant risk of counterfeit?

~~~
jowsie
You're more likely to get a brick or clay than you are an actual counterfeit.

~~~
LoSboccacc
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

edit: dug out that discussion
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13924546](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13924546)

but there are plenty similar.

------
projectileboy
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.

~~~
slackingoff2017
They won't until consumers wise up. I've stopped using them completely, not
worth the gamble.

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

~~~
6t6t6t6
Amazon is de-facto a monopoly. The "invisible hand" does not apply here.

~~~
mseebach
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.

~~~
y-satellite
Not anymore, you can't. Just about every supplier on the Internet is sold out
at this point.

------
abirkill
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.

[1] [https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/587658-amazon-eclipse-
gla...](https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/587658-amazon-eclipse-glasses-
refund/)

~~~
dangrossman
> the Amazon seller I used is listed

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.

~~~
avip
Are they actually liable? If so, we should have seen class acts by now no?

~~~
kevin_b_er
Mandatory binding arbitration. You may not sue amazon in a court of law.

~~~
gamblor956
Binding arbitration is generally not allowed with respect to product liability
suits, except in the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits.

------
yAnonymous
Not only are there massive amounts of counterfeit products on Amazon, they
also encourage it by letting the sellers fake reviews. Here's how they do it:

* Collect positive reviews on a cheap article.

* Change the product, but not the article ID. The new article then has the reviews of the old one.

* Finally, they lock the reviews by setting the article to "not released yet", even though the product is for sale.

That way, you get positive reviews for a shitty product and customers can't
add negative reviews.

Amazon don't do anything about this, even though it's clearly deceptive and,
at least here, against the law.

------
oasisbob
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.

~~~
slavak
> 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.

------
sixQuarks
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:

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/css/gc/balance/](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

~~~
Zhenya
"We hope to see you again soon."

Fairly poor choice of words..

~~~
iamatworknow
They'll see you, but you may or may not see them.

------
mikeash
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?

~~~
microtherion
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.

~~~
QuotedForTruth
You should listen to the latest episodes of Reply All podcast. They go pretty
far to investigate one of those tech support call centers.

There is a part two as well.

[https://gimletmedia.com/episode/long-
distance/](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/long-distance/)

------
Cozumel
>'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.

~~~
concede_pluto
This. Even before the collapse of email as a writing medium, it was never a
life-critical system.

------
jdavis703
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?

~~~
schoen
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.

~~~
DiThi
> although I was fortunate that it didn't last even longer than that

It's likely that some of the afterimage is still there but your brain has been
rewired to eliminate it.

~~~
schoen
I've definitely considered that possibility, and I figure there's probably no
way to know!

------
twoodfin
zzalpha predicted this a couple of weeks ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14877216#14877731](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14877216#14877731)

------
stevewillows
Instead of risking my vision on some goofy glasses from an unknown supplier,
I'm banking on recreating a small camera obscura setup that I did in
elementary school. [1]

[https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/make-pinhole-
projector.h...](https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/make-pinhole-
projector.html)

------
dwaltrip
Does anyone have good recommendations for getting a pair as of today (before
next weekend)? I'm in the bay area, if that helps.

~~~
hndamien
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.

~~~
stordoff
Even in totality, the coolest part for me (1999 eclipse) wasn't the visuals -
it was the way you could feel the cold/shadow set in during the eclipse.

------
cmurf
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.

~~~
MichaelGG
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.

------
halfnibble
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.

~~~
s0rce
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.

~~~
simonh
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.

~~~
ceejayoz
> 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.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-amazon-pooled-merchandise-
op...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-amazon-pooled-merchandise-opens-door-
to-knockoffs-1399852852)

------
quesera
If you don't trust Amazon's vendor commingling practices, be sure to test the
film:

[https://www.space.com/37698-solar-eclipse-glasses-safety-
che...](https://www.space.com/37698-solar-eclipse-glasses-safety-check.html)

~~~
hyperpape
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](https://eclipse.aas.org/eye-safety/iso-certification)

Can anyone confirm if I've understood that correctly?

~~~
bdibs
That's about right, we can't see (with our eyes at least) if the infrared or
UV is being filtered.

------
sundvor
> "We want customers to buy with confidence anytime they make a purchase on
> Amazon.com"

That's a bit rich, what with the 2nd hand camera lens scam the other day and
all.

~~~
nebabyte
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.

------
kevinthew
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.

~~~
forgotpw1123
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.

------
ams6110
I was always taught to never view an eclipse directly with any kind of
filter/glasses.

Use a simple lens, or even a pinhole, to project the image onto another
surface and view it that way.

~~~
Clubber
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.

Here's a link to it's construction.

[https://www.livescience.com/33906-solar-eclipse-
viewer.html](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. :)

------
Houshalter
How dangerous is it to watch a solar eclipse without proper dark glasses? I
recall a Feynman story where he watched the first nuclear bomb test without
eye protection, just through the window of a truck. Under the theory that
normal glass filters most UV light.

~~~
Stratoscope
Well, Feynman was one of the most brilliant scientists in history, but he was
also quite insane. (As one of his students, I say this with a great deal of
love and respect for him!)

To answer your question, though, we need to distinguish between a partial
eclipse and a _total_ eclipse. You had best use eye protection for a _partial_
eclipse, or even better, use a pinhole projector as I described elsewhere in
this thread. (Search the page for my username.)

But a _total_ eclipse is perfectly safe to view with the naked eye, and even
with binoculars! You could use a telescope, but binoculars give you a better
field of view. Either way, you're not looking at the sun any more, you're
looking at the solar corona.

During totality, the sun is completely blocked by the moon itself. This is a
much more substantial filter than anything you could ever buy on Amazon.

~~~
DiThi
> But a total eclipse is perfectly safe to view with the naked eye, and even
> with binoculars!

But one must be careful. As soon as the moon stops blocking the sun, there are
sun rays concentrated in a tiny point. Like looking at the point of a powerful
laser, it doesn't feel as powerful as it actually is. Esp. regarding invisible
wavelengths.

------
Stratoscope
You don't need eclipse glasses.

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...](http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/how-to-look-at-the-sun/)

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.

~~~
Angostura
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.

~~~
Stratoscope
That is an excellent point; thank you for mentioning it!

------
dboreham
Poorly handled by Amazon because the _absence_ of an email (there is no other
way to tell, for example from the order page on the amazon web site) signifies
that the glasses are safe. So if the email get spam filtered or otherwise
doesn't reach the appropriate person, they have no idea that the product isn't
safe. The order page should say "not safe" or "safe" so people can check
themselves.

------
davidmurdoch
American Paper Optics made a page showing the differences between their
glasses and some knock offs.
[https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety](https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety)

This doesn't mean the shape can't also be copied perfectly though, so I'm not
sure if it's helpful or just doing even more harm.

------
taneq
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.

~~~
nebabyte
Talking out of your ass aside, ignoring directions and then suing gives you no
recourse. If it did, Mcdonald's would not sell hot coffee.

------
imroot
This is one of the serious problems with FBA and serious problems with FBA's
co-mingled inventory.

When I was selling inventory on Amazon, I actually paid the extra cash to have
my inventory placed in a separate location so that I didn't have to deal with
other seller's stock/quality issues. It was worth the additional cost (from my
point of view) and it worked quite well in ensuring that Amazon's customers
who sourced from my stock got the correct product and that I didn't have to
deal with angry customers or unexplained returns.

------
Bulkington
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)

~~~
abirkill
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.

There's a map of libraries on their website:

[http://spacescience.org/software/libraries/map.php](http://spacescience.org/software/libraries/map.php)

If yours is on that list, you should be pretty safe, I think.

------
cmurf
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.

~~~
concerned_user
How does it test the fact that glasses block UV part of the spectrum? That is
where the damage is coming from not from the the visible part.

------
wtvanhest
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

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755020](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755020)

~~~
TAeGTrVNmP
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.

~~~
wtvanhest
Wow, thanks! What is your email? Mine is in my profile.

~~~
TAeGTrVNmP
Hmm, I don't see it. Maybe my karma's not high enough? Looks like my e-mail's
not visible either; sorry I'm not too familiar with HN's system.

Anyway, my e-mail is [HN account name] at x0.ms.

~~~
wtvanhest
I just saw this. I appreciate you offering, but I missed my window as I will
be out of town for a wedding. I appreciate the offer!

------
jimktrains2
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?

~~~
cesarb
> 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](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.

~~~
jimktrains2
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](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](https://www.eclipseglasses.com/pages/safety)
my glasses look like the counterfeit version listed on the mfg website.

------
jlarocco
I hope this is a wake up call for Amazon and they start cleaning up and
cutting back the third party sellers.

It's to the point where I don't bother checking Amazon for a lot of things
because I know it will be too hard to find a legit seller.

------
losteverything
Better now than the 22nd. Bravo Amazon.

The walmart i know still has them for $1.

~~~
MichaelGG
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.

~~~
losteverything
Well... Bravo in the sense that by recalling they admit they have counterfeit
problem.

It is not too late ever for a company to admit they made a mistake. Look at
the catholic church

~~~
valleyer
I don’t think you’re helping your case there with that comparison.

~~~
losteverything
Yeah. Do over. I was trying to think of an organization that didnt admit to a
problem until confronted and obvious.

My bad

------
zelos
>"Safety is among our highest priorities...

That's an odd way for Amazon to put it. Presumably not injuring your customers
is priority number one in most businesses?

------
PhrosTT
So how long can I safely look at the eclipse WITHOUT glasses.

Can I take like 5 second glances?

Is there some minimum rest period between them?

(I ordered glasses but will assume they are fake).

~~~
jayofdoom
If you look at the eclipse at all without glasses, you will cause permanent
eye damage. It's worse than looking directly at a sun NOT during an eclipse.

Don't do what you suggest. Seriously.

~~~
PhrosTT
OK.. I just assumed it was the same at staring at the sun... except without
the blinding light that normally forces you to look away due to pain.

On further research looks like something about your eye having a specific
point to focus on which gets damaged immediately.

Thanks.

------
raverbashing
Use an old floppy disk to see the eclipse. I'm serious

It seems opaque, but it is transparent enough to see the sun

~~~
dingaling
That is horrific and likely dangerous "advice".

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.

~~~
raverbashing
> 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

~~~
4ad
> 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.

[http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality2/TotalityCh11.html#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)

