| |
In lugnet.general, Brian Pilati wrote:
| |
In someways I knew this would happen and I have been expecting this day.
Hopefully, it means the downfall of MegaBloks forever!
|
Now, now, let’s not be too hasty. Remember, competition is GOOD; it keeps TLG
on their toes.
On a different note, I saw this quotation in the article and it made me wonder:
“Lead is sometimes added to plastics to give them yellow or red color, Mr. Mays
said.”
Now, the discontinued colors of dark gray, gray, and brown were “warm”; that is,
they contained yellow and/or red in their pigment. The replacement colors are
markedly cooler, presumably without as much yellow/red (if any). Could this
change reflect a lead concern? Possibly. And if that were the case, I could
see why TLG wouldn’t necessarily want to come clean as to their rationale for
switching.
Just a thought.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Brian Pilati wrote:
| |
In someways I knew this would happen and I have been expecting this day.
Hopefully, it means the downfall of MegaBloks forever!
LINK
|
Thanks for the link--product safety is of great concern to fans of the brand,
especially those of us who have small children!
I think that this part is relevant:
Health Canada, a government department, said that the preliminary results of
tests on a random sample of the blocks last week showed “no quantifiable total
lead content in the plastic.” Mega Brands, which unsuccessfully sought a court
injunction against the nonprofit magazine this week, also vigorously denied that
its products exceeded regulatory lead limits.
If true, then the governmental standards are at fault, rather than Mega Bloks.
Time will tell, of course, but it’s difficult to see how this could spell the
downfall of the company forever, since the product in question represents a
small portion of its business. Further, liability claims re: lead toxicity are
famously difficult to prove in any case.
Not that I advocate any sort of shirking of responsibility, but even in the
worst case, this situation is far from cut-and-dried.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Not that I advocate any sort of shirking of responsibility, but even in the
worst case, this situation is far from cut-and-dried.
|
In any event, have you nonetheless preemptively separated your kids from the
clones, Dave!?
From the road where the rubber meets,
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Brian Pilati wrote:
| |
In someways I knew this would happen and I have been expecting this day.
Hopefully, it means the downfall of MegaBloks forever!
LINK
|
Thanks for the link--product safety is of great concern to fans of the brand,
especially those of us who have small children!
I think that this part is relevant:
Health Canada, a government department, said that the preliminary results
of tests on a random sample of the blocks last week showed “no quantifiable
total lead content in the plastic.” Mega Brands, which unsuccessfully sought
a court injunction against the nonprofit magazine this week, also vigorously
denied that its products exceeded regulatory lead limits.
If true, then the governmental standards are at fault, rather than Mega
Bloks.
|
Maybe neither the governmental standards or Mega Bloks are at fault but rather
the “non-profit” magazine which stated that ;
“When the results were returned by a lab, which Mr. Clerk said he could not
identify because of a confidentiality agreement, a yellow Maxi block was the
only toy that exceeded the 600-parts-per-million limit for lead set by Canada
and the United States. Blue and red Maxi blocks showed no lead at all.”
They did not exceed the limit for lead set by Canada because the limit set was
based on one standard test and the magazine decided to do a completely different
test. So that statement is from what I read patently false. All limits imposed
on contaminants also include a Standard Method of testing attached to that
limit. The limit that would be set by Canada or US using the test the unknown
laboratory used--and what kind of confidentiality should be needed for the
lab-very well might be completely different than the limit based on the
methodology of Health Canada.
And why, for example is the magazine new standard more realistic than that of
Health Canada. This is a classic case of testing for apple and using an orange
test Tommy Armstrong
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Not that I advocate any sort of shirking of responsibility, but even in the
worst case, this situation is far from cut-and-dried.
|
In any event, have you nonetheless preemptively separated your kids from the
clones, Dave!?
|
As it turns out, we own very few of the maxi-scale Mega Bloks--probably under
two dozen of them--and only one or two of those are yellow. My younger doesn’t
yet care at all for interlocking blocks, and my older is into the mega-scale
Mega Bloks (that’s Duplo scale, to you purists). He’s just about ready to
make the move to micro-scale, which coincides with the time that I recall myself
to have first encountered LEGO in that
scale.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
| |
Maybe neither the governmental standards or Mega Bloks are at fault but
rather the “non-profit” magazine which stated that ;
“When the results were returned by a lab, which Mr. Clerk said he could not
identify because of a confidentiality agreement, a yellow Maxi block was the
only toy that exceeded the 600-parts-per-million limit for lead set by Canada
and the United States. Blue and red Maxi blocks showed no lead at all.”
They did not exceed the limit for lead set by Canada because the limit set
was based on one standard test and the magazine decided to do a completely
different test. So that statement is from what I read patently false. All
limits imposed on contaminants also include a Standard Method of testing
attached to that limit. The limit that would be set by Canada or US using
the test the unknown laboratory used--and what kind of confidentiality should
be needed for the lab-very well might be completely different than the limit
based on the methodology of Health Canada.
And why, for example is the magazine new standard more realistic than that of
Health Canada. This is a classic case of testing for apple and using an
orange test
|
Excellent points, Tommy! The need for transparency in a situation like this is
great, especially when the burden of proof is upon the party making the
accusation. In this case, the magazine must support its claim in a verifiable
way. Instead, the magazine is simply making an assertion and requiring the
readership to take it on faith.
I suspect that this fact played into Mega Brands’ decision to seek an
injunction against the magazine.
Dave!
|
|
| |
Keep in mind, what the magazine asserted was that there was lead in the yellow
maxi block, not that lead could be passed on to a child swallowing it.
Hydrochloric acid (stomache) is not sulfuric acid. The magazine went on to
recommend the product as a children’s toy in their article.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
Now, the discontinued colors of dark gray, gray, and brown were “warm”; that
is, they contained yellow and/or red in their pigment. The replacement
colors are markedly cooler, presumably without as much yellow/red (if any).
Could this change reflect a lead concern? Possibly. And if that were the
case, I could see why TLG wouldn’t necessarily want to come clean as to their
rationale for switching.
Just a thought.
JOHN
|
You mean to say I’m stockpiling lead saturated toys?! ; )
God Bless,
Nathan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Nathan Todd wrote:
| |
You mean to say I’m stockpiling lead saturated toys?! ; )
|
I’m not sayin’; I’m just sayin’. Know what I’m sayin’?
0:-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
Cedar Sith wrote:
> In someways I knew this would happen and I have been expecting this day.
>
> Hopefully, it means the downfall of MegaBloks forever!
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/business/worldbusiness/19safety.html?_r=3&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
>
> --Brian
Actually, that is an interesting article about a controversial article.
The test that the magazine had done involved scratching off the plastic,
heating plastic in a solution of nitric acid (this is a typical way a
lab tests for lead in paint or soil, for example) and then testing for
lead presumably with any one of a variety of analytical instruments.
This test will certainly determine whether there is lead in the sample.
The position that MegaBloks maintains is that their toys are safe (in
other words, they conform to the law). According to the article, the
legal requirement is a "migration test" where the toy is soaked in
acetic acid (the acid in vinegar, which is much weaker than nitric acid)
for a while (the length of time is probably set by statute) and the
vinegar solution is tested for lead. This is a much less stringent test,
and is a reasonable test to perform on a brand new toy. If the lead
doesn't leach out of the new toy, then it should be safe for a child who
is mouthing the toy. This of course assumes two things. First, the
plastic is not scratched off by a toothing child. Second, the plastic
doesn't break down with time.
If a child can scratch off the plastic with his or her teeth or if
plastic degrades the lead can be released. The observation that plastic
degrades is exactly why there was a big deal made about inexpensive
blinds a few years back (many of which still contain lead). As the
plastic in the blinds breaks down, a powdery plastic dust forms. If the
plastic in the blinds contains lead, the plastic dust released by the
break down of the plastic also contains lead. I'm making no claims about
the safety of MegaBloks, but if a plastic breaks down and that plastic
contains lead, the lead will be released. If the plastic doesn't break
down, then the lead should stay reasonably well locked up in the plastic.
Personally, I'd prefer that my plastic toys not have any lead in them,
but apparently my government and the Canadian government don't feel the
same way.
Chris
--
http://mysite.verizon.net/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Brian Pilati wrote:
| |
In someways I knew this would happen and I have been expecting this day.
Hopefully, it means the downfall of MegaBloks forever!
|
Now, now, let’s not be too hasty. Remember, competition is GOOD; it keeps
TLG on their toes.
On a different note, I saw this quotation in the article and it made me
wonder:
“Lead is sometimes added to plastics to give them yellow or red color, Mr.
Mays said.”
Now, the discontinued colors of dark gray, gray, and brown were “warm”; that
is, they contained yellow and/or red in their pigment. The replacement
colors are markedly cooler, presumably without as much yellow/red (if any).
Could this change reflect a lead concern? Possibly. And if that were the
case, I could see why TLG wouldn’t necessarily want to come clean as to their
rationale for switching.
Just a thought.
JOHN
|
John:
Yes, various heavy metals are commonly used in the plastics industry as
colorants. Heavy metal pigments tend to provide very bright, vivid colors and
are usually more heat stable than other organic pigments. The bright/bold
colors are also usually harder to achieve with more conventional (organic)
pigments. However, there is a general industry trend moving away from heavy
metal pigments as many companies such as Clariant are coming out with new
pigment technology negating the need to use heavy metals.
As for the LEGO color change, I have my own theory as to why the change was
made. If you look at old gray bricks, they have a distinct tendency to yellow
when exposed to UV light (including fluorescent). Most of this was due to the
degradation of the butadiene in the ABS (acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene
terpolymer). Butadiene is very susceptible to UV degradation. This coupled
with the more yellow/red tone in the coloring led to some pretty yellowed bricks
with the old gray.
Now, if we assume that the color of the base resin (ABS) is going to shift
yellow over time due to UV exposure, we can do a couple of things. We could try
to stabilize the resin using a radical scavenger, but this can only do so
much...especially in ABS. Since yellow is opposite blue in the CIE LAB
colorspace, the other option is to bias the color initially on the blue side so
that as the base resin yellows, the color shifts more toward neutral gray. My
suspicion is that this is what LEGO was after. Over the years, I suspect our
“bley” pieces may gradually shift to a more neutral gray. But that’s just my
own postulation.
Okay...I’m out.
-Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Patterson wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Brian Pilati wrote:
> > In someways I knew this would happen and I have been expecting this day.
> >
> > Hopefully, it means the downfall of MegaBloks forever!
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/business/worldbusiness/19safety.html?_r=3&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
> >
> > --Brian
>
> Don't get too overjoyed. Since Lego does not make the bricks, never did make
> the plastic, who know were it is made. China comes to mind. And if it is like
> other toys and cat and dog food we may see more on this, Hopefully Lego has
> been watching this since they outsorce so much.
> John P
Look out! It's the Yellow Peril!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Allister McLaren wrote:
> In lugnet.general, John Patterson wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Brian Pilati wrote:
> > > In someways I knew this would happen and I have been expecting this day.
> > >
> > > Hopefully, it means the downfall of MegaBloks forever!
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/business/worldbusiness/19safety.html?_r=3&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
> > >
> > > --Brian
> >
> > Don't get too overjoyed. Since Lego does not make the bricks, never did make
> > the plastic, who know were it is made. China comes to mind. And if it is like
> > other toys and cat and dog food we may see more on this, Hopefully Lego has
> > been watching this since they outsorce so much.
> > John P
>
> Look out! It's the Yellow Peril!
I would think that there are a lot of dead cats and dogs that agree with you.
Bet Mattel is "looking out."
John P
|
|
|
