Which Surefire Chem Coat Is Better?

[GreyShark]

Surefire has switched from a gold colored chem coat on the inside of their light bodies to a new clear one. My understanding is this is to comply with European health regs I don't know much about. It seems to me Surefire was probably using the gold colored chem coat because it was the best for flashlight use but I don't really know if there is a meaningful difference between the two. I'm asking because I bought a spare 6P body to bore out to 18650 and when it came I realized it had the gold chem coat while my main light's body has the clear chem coat. One or the other is going to get bored and I'd rather it be the less desirable one.

 

[Size15's]

The clear coat is better for human health and better for the environment. That's better in my book.

 

[rtt]

Chromate conversion coatings such as the original Chem Cote contained chromium compounds (including hexavalent chromium). Hexavalent chromium is strictly requlated due to the compound's toxicity and suspected carcinogenicity.

Hexavalent chromium vapors are not good for you.

 

[Illum]

The clear coat is better for human health and better for the environment. That's better in my book.

now you tell me
I didn't taste a difference...

 

[asdalton]

Hexavalent chromium vapors are not good for you.

The relevant question then is: how much real risk does the chromium-containing coating pose to humans, given the concentration and availability for ingestion, inhalation, etc.?

It is not enough to say that some product is dangerous just because it contains some substance which--in some context which may or may not be relevant--has toxic effects. Without more detailed evidence, that kind of reasoning commits the fallacy of composition.

 

[Sgt. LED]

I have inhaled chemcoat dust a few times.

Didn't kill me but then again I bet it just loads up in you body to a certain point THEN kills you. Ah the ultimate sacrifice of flashaholism.

 

[65535]

I think the gold looks prettier.

 

[rtt]

The relevant question then is: how much real risk does the chromium-containing coating pose to humans, given the concentration and availability for ingestion, inhalation, etc.?

It is not enough to say that some product is dangerous just because it contains some substance which--in some context which may or may not be relevant--has toxic effects. Without more detailed evidence, that kind of reasoning commits the fallacy of composition.

I suggest you read the following link which is written for the layman. I do not think anyone has the information you are seeking on how much risk is posed by inhaling Hexavalent chromium vapors because each individules tolerance level varies, but all indications are you should minimize your exposure to Hexavalent chromium vapors. Your statements are like asking how many cigarettes can a person smoke before a heart attack or cancer risk occurs...no one can determine that number:shakehead.

http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/pdf/chrom.pdf

 

[asdalton]

Your statements are like asking how many cigarettes can a person smoke before a heart attack or cancer risk occurs...no one can determine that number:shakehead.

But it's an important question to ask, given that we are bombarded constantly with claims of risks. In California, nearly everything is labeled as a cancer risk by law--and as a result, no one knows what the real risks are.

 

[rtt]

But it's an important question to ask, given that we are bombarded constantly with claims of risks. In California, nearly everything is labeled as a cancer risk by law--and as a result, no one knows what the real risks are.

Just noticed that you are located San Jose. I was born in SJ and lived there for 35 years. I know what you mean about everything being a risk to your health in good old CA. I guess we have to research each proclaimed hazard and make our own assesments. I worked for IBM on Cottle Rd and Santa Teresa. I don't know if you were in SJ when we had ten water wells pumping and filtering the water day and night because the claim that IBM contaminated the aquafier around the site. I hear they are starting to build homes on that site now.

 

[asdalton]

I'm in northern San Jose, closer to Santa Clara and Milpitas.

The funny thing is that my apartment complex has a Prop. 65 warning sign on the outside--apparently because some of the people who live there smoke.

 

[rtt]

I wonder when they will outlaw driving on the Bayshore Freeway (thats what it was call back then. Don't know what number they have assigned to it now! I still have fond memories of SJ but that was a long time ago. I really enjoyed talking to you about SJ.

The last time I was there I almost crashed into the light rail on First street!

 

[kramer5150]

Hex-chrome elimination is part of the rohs initiative. Just google it and you can get the details.

OT san jose discussion..

IBM cottle road facility was bought out by Hitachi. They closed the plant within a year and have now sold the land to a shopping mall developer.

 

[yellow]

except for appearance the user should not have any ad-/disadvantage...
during production, there might be a difference

 

[Justin Case]

Old US military C2 filters used hexavalent chromium to aid in removing cyanogen chloride and HCN. Current issue filters are chrome-free and use ASZM-TEDA impregnated activated charcoal. The National Academies conducted a study about 15-20 years ago on chrome inhalation risks for the C2 filters. Lifetime cancer risk was estimated at less than 10^-4.

Wouldn't the chrome in Chemkote be bound and thus not bioavailable? Or does the hexavalent chrome compound dissociate in the body?

 

[leon2245]

(deleted)


:buddies:


:whoopin:

 

[fresh eddie fresh]

Even if it poses a limited risk to the end user, sometimes the person who spends all day applying it ends up with a high health risk from all of that exposure.

Ultimately, it ends up on the inside of a dark, airtight tube that I will only see when I change batteries or install a new drop-in... so ugly and not killing someone has my vote!