Home Depot MSA "Safety Works" faceshield blurry and generally useless

Tonight I bought an MSA "SafetyWorks" Faceshield Model 10103487, UPC code 641817021569 at Home Depot. I thought it was a good idea, especially after the thread about DerbyDad's nearly poking his eye out.
It was packaged in a plastic bag so I could see that it looked very sturdy, with lots of adjustments, padded head bands and a built in "cap" to seal the area above the eyes. It looked just like what I needed to work on the ceiling in my basement. The unit is very nice. It fit comfortably over my glasses - most goggles do not and the ones that do allow dirt to come in from above.
When I put it on, I thought the shield was tinted light blue. No biggie, I thought, but I would have preferred clear. I put it on, looked through it and discovered it was NOT TRANSPARENT. Then I sheepishly realized it had one of those protective plastic films and I felt a little dumb for not seeing it. But when I peeled the blue skin from the clear plastic shield it was STILL just as blurry!!! It just wasn't tinted blue anymore. )-:
Using the shield the whole world suddenly became too blurry to see clearly. It's like trying to look through a shower curtain. The loss of visual acuity with the shield on, IMHO, wouldn't eliminate danger, it would just change its nature. While nothing can hit your eyes, neither can you see anything clearly. I wouldn't think of operating a saw, a grinder or any other dangerous tools wearing this dumb thing. You just can't see well enough to be safe. I'll have to take some photographs to demonstrate HOW blurry it made things.
If anyone else has a face shield, my question is this: Is your "lens" (as the call it) crystal clear or is there substantial optical degradation? I want to figure out if the plastic was bad to start with or did it change from transparent to translucent just sitting on the floor shelf?
The unit was stored on a floor level shelf in the paint department, so there were lots of solvent bottles sitting around and my hypersensitive wife assures me at least some of them are leaking. (-: I assume solvent fumes could affect the transparency of the lens, but I've got to say, it looks blurry through and through, not just on the surface. There's no date of manufacture anywhere on the unit or the package, so I can't tell if it's age, storage or manufacturing defect that's caused the unit's opacity to increase to the point of uselessness.
I'm reluctant to return this to Home Depot if these units are somehow defective in manufacturer because they'll just resell it to someone who might injure themselves trying to see through the blurry plastic. If I do return it, I will at least bring a big, black Sharpie to write "DEFECTIVE CUSTOMER RETURN" on it to insure they don't resell it. That may not help - tonight I saw a reciprocating saw on the shelf that had the same words scrawled on the outside of the box.
To me, it looks like a serious enough defect to alert the Consumer Product Safety Commission, OSHA and ANSI. The package says it meets ANSI Z87.1 specifications, but I can't see how a shield that obscures vision so severely would meet Federal and industrial standards. What a disappointment and a real setback for the weekend project. Back to my homemade faceshield. It may not stop a chipped grindstone, but it certainly keeps the dust that falls from the basement ceiling when I drill through the joists from getting in my eyes AND I can see through it. I suppose for now I can dismount the shield, trace it/mark the mounting holes onto some thick, optically clear plastic sheeting and use their better constructed shield until I hear from MSA.
I was thinking of ordering extra "lens" because I assume that like plastic goggles, it doesn't take long for them to get scratched and hard-to-see through. MSA has eliminated that step! They're pre-blinded. )-" Now I have to wonder whether buying extra lenses makes any sense if they become opaque over time. The lack of dust on the package seems to indicate it is fairly new, but it could have sat in a warehouse for years.
Also, in the fine print *inside* the package they say: "Some conditions, such as shattering grinding wheels or explosive devices may break the lens. Avoid areas where the chance of severe lens impact exists." So WHY did I buy this POS? (-:
I know what some of you are thinking. That's what you get for buying cheap Chinese crap but it wasn't made in China! First one to guess correctly gets a virtual gold star.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

Are you sure you got all the film? I have one of those shields that I got recently and I don't recall it being blurry. I do seem to recall that it had film on both sides of the lens and possible one side was clear film.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Call MSA for advice, there may be some adhesive remaining on the shield
I reported a safety hazard to UL many years ago. they were polite, took the info and did absolutely nothing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How do you know they did nothing? They might have had meetings, and then formed a committe to reccomend a list of actions, such list was sent to Congress for a vote, which was then tabled, sent to Senate, voted, tabled, and then sent to the President for consideration.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
I reported a safety hazard to UL many years ago. they were polite, took the info and did absolutely nothing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:53:34 -0500, "Robert Green"

This could explain your warped political views. Maybe they will improve now that you can see clearly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/7/2012 6:23 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

I haven't bought birth control pills recently.
A republican in the Minnesota house (?senate) was quoted in the newspaper yesterday as saying insurance costs for birth control for a year was $1200. I certainly trust republicans to get the number right.
But is comforting to know there are 2 experts on women's health at a.h.r.

Paranoia can be treated.

Um, maybe because the house majority refused to let the house minority witness testify at a hearing a few days before, so the minority arranged to have her testify separately?

Not too bright are you?
Democrats had her as the only minority witness at a hearing a few days before. Republicans did not allow her to testify. That was the famous hearing with 5 men testifying about women's health related issues.
Race card? Do you think Sandra was black? In the US house the majority party is the republicans. The minority party is the democrats.
The majority=republicans did not allow the minoritymocrat witness testify at the rather famous hearing with the 5 men testifying about women's health related issues.
If you don't understand what is going on maybe you should not say anything.
"It is better to not say anything and have people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If everyone were covered under single-payer it would cost $4T over ten years. Obviously we can't afford "free" birth control (or single payer).

Crap. You're all we need.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/8/2012 4:44 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Cite.
What is the cost of birth control if not included in insurance? That gets paid anyway.
It is very common for insurance plans to cover contraceptives. For instance I believe there is a mandate in 26 states. There may be copays, which would be eliminated under the recent fed requirement. What is the cost of eliminating copays?
What is the cost of medical care that is avoided by providing birth control?
Can we afford Viagra under insurance?
It is comforting to know there are 3 experts on women's health at a.h.r.
Women are taking note of the republican efforts to change women's health. Keep up the good work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What, can't multiply?

$9/month (since you can't multiply) = $108

Common, sure. An inalienable right?

Are you really this dense?

Completely irrelevant.

Completely irrelevant.

Utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with "health" and everything to do with "lifestyle" and the "First Amendment", but you certainly wouldn't care about the latter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/9/2012 11:22 AM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I have no idea where your $4T number came from.

And I have no idea what your argument is.
A lot of insurance plans cover contraceptives now, sometimes with a copay. I have not seen figures that the change would have a prohibitive cost (or that total costs would go up, not down). I have heard a rumor that women also pay for insurance, not just men.

It is a benefit that has significant enough advantage that about 26 states mandate it.
The fed rule change is based on a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine, which is a national academy set up to give science based advice to the government on medical issues.

You brought up the cost of birth control. When comparing costs you have to consider all costs, including the cost incurred if it is not provided.

Somehow women don't agree (if contraceptive coverage is limited). You know how unreasonable they can be.

Yes, keep up the message. Women love it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

It's fascinating to watch the Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They insist on preaching to the choir instead of the unconverted, just as they do here. It's apparently a congenital defect. This article just about sums it all up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/centrist-women-tell-of-disenchantment-with-gop.html
<<"We all agreed that this seemed like a throwback to 40 years ago," said Ms. Russell, 57, a retired teacher from Iowa City who describes herself as an evangelical Christian and "old school" Republican of the moderate mold . . . just two weeks ago, she had favored Mitt Romney for president. Not anymore. She said she might vote for President Obama now . . . As for the Republican presidential candidates, she added: "If they're going to decide on women's reproductive issues, I'm not going to vote for any of them. Women 's reproduction is our own business." . . . some Republican-leaning women like Ms. Russell said they might switch sides and vote for Mr. Obama - if they turn out to vote at all. "Everybody is so busy telling us how we should act in the bedroom . . ." said Fran Kelley, a retired public school worker in Seattle who voted for Senator John McCain . . . Of the Republican candidates this year, she added, "They're nothing but hatemongers trying to control everyone, saying, 'Live as I live.'" . . . Joyce Kimball, a retired secretary in Greenville, Ill., who voted for Mr. McCain in 2008, said she had recently become "fed up," adding that it was not out of the question for her to vote for a Democrat in November.
Mr. Santorum has made himself a champion of the traditional family with two parents, arguing in speeches that single motherhood increases a child's chances of poverty and related problems. The stance particularly vexes Meredith Warren, a Republican strategist in Andover, Mass. "Well, guess what?" she said. "There are a lot of single moms out there. That's reality. I don't think he does himself any favors denigrating that situation." Mr. Romney's reaction to Mr. Limbaugh's statements about the Georgetown student cemented a negative view of him. "I expected him to have the guts to stand up and say what Rush did was wrong," she said. "Wrong, wrong, wrong in every sense of the word wrong." . . . "The G.O.P. has never been so clear about their agenda for women. I'm afraid if we get a Republican president, my health will be up to their personal discretion." >>
--
Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

My suspicion is that the two different colors are deliberate from the plastic manufacturer. I suspect that one side of the plastic has a scratch resistant coating or similar and the other doesn't and the protective film is colored to designate which side is which. I don't recall anything in the MSA doc that specified which side to face out though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

That makes sense. Although the lens wasn't attached, it was curved with the blue film on the outside so that's the way I attached it to the headgear. The only "doc" I got was the cardboard foldover that was stapled to the top of the bag. I've got an email into them - we'll see if they can shed any light on the two colors and if there's a difference between the two surfaces.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Although the lens wasn't attached, it was curved

The shield was probably a flat sheet that was heat-bent. The blue stuff (also used on PETG and sometimes acrylic) is not heat-stable, but is cheap. MSA probably used the frosted stuff on the side that contacted the heat- bed, and the cheaper blue stuff on the side that didn't.
I've got some PETG here, with blue on both sides. The blue is not vinyl, since it doesn't whiten when stretched. I'm guessing it's polypropylene. I can't guess what your frosted stuff was, since we only heat-bend materials /after/ the protective films have been removed, so we don't need heat- stable coatings.
But if your shield was injection-molded, then I can't explain the use of different colored coatings. In that case two different coatings would make no sense.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 04:33:59 -0500, "Robert Green"

When I was in the 8th grade, the metal shop teacher, Mr. Eds, I believe (before the tv show) told us that his brother had gotten a metal filing in his eye, and it had eventually worked its way through the eyeball into the liquid inside (the aqueous humor, iirc). I don't know if this hurt his health, but I certainly don't want things inside me eye. So I've been pretty careful ever since.
Very careful if you don't count times I only wear regular glasses when grinding materials that have never gotten close to my face or neck before. Though even then I usually wear safety glasses with side guards.
I've never seen anything with film on both sides. Not surprising it fooled you.
I have a fulll face screen but really haven't used it. Is it better?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I've been reading about a bullfighter who got gored through the jaw and had his eye poked out from inside his head. That convinced me to get a full face shield even though I don't fight many bulls. (-:

It just takes a fraction of a second, sometimes, to get into a world of hurt.

Especially using different colored films. (-: That's what threw me.

It's especially useful when working on the ceiling of a very old house in the basement. Years of crumbling plaster come down whenever the joints are hammered on or drilled through. The house was built in 1941 and there was a paper shortage so they did NOT put building paper between the floors. That's what normally keeps the plaster dust from falling through the subflooring cracks and joints.
Turns out that this face shield, while having a bit of a cap, still has enough of a gap that stuff can fall on your head and get onto your face. I had to put kitchen towel on with clips to cover the gap. I looked like a spaceman from Arabia. I tried using a ball cap backwards as a temporary shield but it left a gap, too. I think I'll be attaching velcro to the face shield and then to some cloth to turn it into a faceshield/hat.
Now that I can see through it, I definitely recommend it, especially for people who where glasses. Would I take it to the pistol range? Dunno. It's a little much for that but it's good protection against debris that rains down from above. I will probably use it to leaf blow when it's windy out. I've gotten more than one faceful of airborne leaf litter in my day. Wouldn't ever work on the basement ceiling without it, though.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Something that has to be optically clear, I'd expect film on both sides.

I gotta get one. I can't use safety glasses (not prescription and they fog instantly). I just use a pair of my old glasses (just replaced the lenses, so are they old?) for working around the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/home-depot-msa-safety-works-faceshield-blurry-and-generall-687097-.htm JohnQuinn wrote:
Robert,
I was surfing along and saw your post on our faceshield and visor.
One of the other comments posted below was likely rightthe lens on our visor is crystal clear and to ensure that it stays that way in transit to you we put a removable plastic sheet on both sides of the visorif you pick at the edges of the visor, youll be able to catch an edge and then easily remove the filmsorry for the confusion on thisIf you have any further questions on this, please reach out to our customer care group at 1-888-672-How2 (4692).
Thanks,
JQ
John F. Quinn Vice President, Marketing and Product Development
6051 Wallace Road Ext. Wexford, PA 15090
Service:     800.969.7562
--


*** ***
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.