Testing Sunglasses UV Protection

Consumer correspondent Susan Koeppen tested sunglasses at all price points to find out if they really offer UV protection.

[@choolikyoon9939]

Testing uv 400 should be mandatory for vendors or vending machine. It’s the government responsibility. ✅

[@chubbyluna4467]

More often than not, one is just paying for the brand name and all the marketing hype and designs for expensive sunglasses. Nice to know that only one failed the test for UV protection.

[@sarizonana]

Chubby Luna definitely agree with it. I also believe we can find good quality sunglasses which don’t have to have to be super expensive. This was a nice video, though I wish she would have named the brands which did have the good protection. I bet the bad ones were the ones getting on the street market but I’m sure we can get a good pair at let’s Zara. the problem is going to get them checked. Imagine going to an optical and instead of buy them just asking them to check the ones you bought if are good I feel kind of guilty about doing that but probably it would save us all a good cash. Has anyone ever tried to check them? Maybe a Mango or Zara Pair.

[@justinitsthatguyme010]

60 minutes did a great news story on the cost of sunglasses that people should check out. You really are mostly just paying for a name

[@RoseRose-nn3ir]

Searching for uv400 / 100% uv protection sunglasses. Please suggest some

[@oldrudedog]

Is they're 100% 0 to 400 uv protection or 300 to 400. There is a difference. If you have macular degeneration you need 0 to 400. Be careful.

[@Lizathla]

Where do they have a photometer? I asked at a glasses store, but they didn't have one

[@LoveLikeaHurricane]

My ray ban failed the UV light test

[@E_l_l_i_e]

Counterfeit?

[@denilsonthomas]

They are fake homie lmfaoo

[@angelosstamatopoulos1312]

I think it's an old model of extreme living inc

[@curiousbat5368]

I'm amazed

[@luisgalleguillos4868]

Are you sure ? 0 in my uv test machie means NO uv protection.

[@joesr31]

Anyone here knows if polarized sunglasses means they are UV protected?

[@talesthesalesman3106]

joesr31 It means you won't see such a dark shady view, it does not imply it is %100 UV protection

[@SIPEROTH]

No, polarized sunglasses reduce glare but it doesn't mean they are protecting you from harmful UV. Polarization and UV protection are two different things.

[@beeruwu]

@@SIPEROTH does a uv flashlight test work on polarized sunglasses?

[@LoveLikeaHurricane]

Beerus - God of Destruction tried it on my polarized glasses, a few of them in total. The polarized ones I have failed the UV flash light test.

[@optimusprime1598]

@@SIPEROTH thank you, that answered my long lasting question...

[@hatim1720]

But the question is how long till the cheap pair lenses get all scratched up ..and then you have to go and buy another and another and so on

[@aussieexpat]

Expensive brands scratch too...

[@tzetzo_tzetzov]

After all pure glass filters out most of the UV rays. And glass is cheap therefore the producers of cheap shades can offer UV protection to their customers.

[@TheNYgolfer]

Glass blocks UVB. About 75% of UVA passes through ordinary glass. UVA leads to skin damage and genetic mutations that can lead to cancer

[@aussieexpat]

That's a very weird conclusion... $5 sunglasses are fine... yeah get them tested or stick to better brands.

[@hal8238]

but we buy versace for its brand or style, thats why we pay more,lol

[@Sudhakarsen10]

Blue t shirt girl behind trying to impress me... N see i like her ♥️

[@mentuemhet]

old post, but for me it was the young girl with the "i love Louisiana." this video is 10 years old. they probly all fat by now.

[@powerband5235]

Creeps

[@kerinohwithatwist]

You buy style 😂😂😂 I just payed for Ray bans that look just like my $12 glasses sunglasses.

[@czechkvapil000]

I actuall bought a Perfect 5$ pair of sunglasses. You WILL immediately know if they are good if they are perfect.

[@firelordsozin3677]

I'm no research professor, but if one is to conduct a test to determine a physical property of a material....wouldn't one find it best to follow a scientific method? -The sample size alone of 31 pairs is horribly low to make any proper conclusions. also 31 is a horribly arbitrary number. Why not 100 or 50. 1 in 31 pairs that's about 3.2 percent of glasses that are not safe, with 100million bought a year (as reported), then that's at least 3.2MILLION unsafe sunglasses!!!!!!! IS THAT NOT SOMETHING ALARMING??? They write it off as negligible, that's 6.4MILLION eyeballs exposed to UV rays.. -The report did not seem to keep track of what pairs where bought where, what price each one was, blah blah ...a lot of information could have been extrapolated - Worse of all, the reporters made grand conclusions, and statements based on their "results", and they misinterpreted what the doctor tells them about the "tint" being bad. They are not educating the public, how can they if they don't understand the mechanism themselves... Wearing sunglasses that were determined to be unsafe, and then admitting it like the reporter did makes you lose credibility, don't reporters NEED credibility? Mispronouncing a word like "Photometer" furthers that lost credibility... It is my hope that a reporter would be credible and understand what they are reporting, and know HOW to report. Bad methods lead to bad results, that leads to bad conclusions and bad advice. If one is conducting research then one should understand fundamentals in order to make a SIMPLE report like this effective. Now i find myself thinking, " What are these reporters doing that I cant? Why do I need them, or why do i need to watch them to be informed? A bit of critical thinking, and I can know more about them on a subject I know little about" Glad i didn't go to journalism school ...Pssshhhhhhhhhhhhh

[@aaronbueno1653]

your post is like a novel.

[@RagingBad]

Francisco Heredia stfu

[@rogue_spirit]

Great comment bro! Salam!

[@TheNYgolfer]

@Francisco Heredia - Man you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Hope you sleep better after 3 years..lol This video drove home a great point that the average Joe would not have gone through the trouble to find. That cheap glasses can , and often do, offer just as much UV protection as the most expensive models. Yes it wasn't a scientific study but that takes millions of dollars to conduct and would have bored to death the average viewers of that program and the results would still have been that expensive glasses do not translate to better UV protection than most cheap models. As for her mispronouncing "Photometer", that in no way diminished anything. No reporter can be an expert in every field they report on. If they were that knowledgeable, they wouldn't be reporters.

[@zxracer636]

If anyone is interested I have a professional photometer just like the one in video...

[@ramij429]

01Rooster how much is it?

[@otaviogomes1624]

interested

[@pistachiosandpopcorn7146]

Well I love my Ray Bans and I know I'm safe! So there's that!

[@juliewestron5260]

1:17

[@dathyr1]

So another words, we haven't a clue what we are buying - cheap or expensive. Glasses are all a gimmick to get your money. Just because it is a well known glasses manufacturer, doesnt mean a rats A^^ to me.