If you have an old account and cannot remember how to log in, please contact us at mlpchief @ gmail.com. Additionally, if you want a different screen name, please contact us instead of making a new account! Thanks!
Site Announcements Arena Tutorials Sigs & Site Support Introductions Pony Corral Swap Talk! Pony Fairs! MLP Nirvana Nirvana Sales Pony Brag Arena Off Topic Dollhouse Toy Box & Games Cupboard Customs Custom Sales Arts & Crafts Corral Adoptables For Sale - For Auction For Trade Wanted Trader & Classifieds Support What's Your Problem Private Messages Contact Us!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I think we would need firm actual proof as to whether this is a risk factor for g1 or whether it is general guidance for old toys rather than specifically relevant to us. Probably we would need someone to do lab tests. I would personally rather react to proven data in the right way than general data without firm guidance.Maybe toy safety regulations would also provide clues...I know here in the UK lead was already strictly regulated in kids toys by the 1970s. Of course regulated does not necessarily mean absent. It might also be a concern with sone Nirvana of poorer production quality more than mainstream ponies which probably had to meet global rather than specific requirements.
Quote from: Taffeta on June 10, 2017, 12:35:52 AMI think we would need firm actual proof as to whether this is a risk factor for g1 or whether it is general guidance for old toys rather than specifically relevant to us. Probably we would need someone to do lab tests. I would personally rather react to proven data in the right way than general data without firm guidance.Maybe toy safety regulations would also provide clues...I know here in the UK lead was already strictly regulated in kids toys by the 1970s. Of course regulated does not necessarily mean absent. It might also be a concern with sone Nirvana of poorer production quality more than mainstream ponies which probably had to meet global rather than specific requirements.https://neha.org/node/1310You can find the PDF research document through that webpage. I assume this is what OP is referring to
We haven't suffered any ill effects. Just don't chew on em or give em to little ones who chew on em and you should be fine.
Are G1 ponies safe?
Quote from: banditpony on June 10, 2017, 05:25:07 AMQuote from: Taffeta on June 10, 2017, 12:35:52 AMI think we would need firm actual proof as to whether this is a risk factor for g1 or whether it is general guidance for old toys rather than specifically relevant to us. Probably we would need someone to do lab tests. I would personally rather react to proven data in the right way than general data without firm guidance.Maybe toy safety regulations would also provide clues...I know here in the UK lead was already strictly regulated in kids toys by the 1970s. Of course regulated does not necessarily mean absent. It might also be a concern with sone Nirvana of poorer production quality more than mainstream ponies which probably had to meet global rather than specific requirements.https://neha.org/node/1310You can find the PDF research document through that webpage. I assume this is what OP is referring toYeah, I've seen that report before, but I'll explain what I mean by it not being overly clearcut from my perspective. Please remember I'm not a scientist, so I may just be being an idiot, but looking at it as I would analyse anything in my research field, what I'm getting from it is the following:Spoiler-Old toys can contain lead.-MLP is listed as a tested toy under the category 1970s-1980s PVC. That is a very wide category, taking into consideration two decades of toys. You'd expect therefore a wide range of products to fit into this category.-Number of toys tested overall in this category was apparently 26 (presume different brands) This is fewer than the non PVC test, which means by definition that each item carries heavier weight in the % calculation (26/100 vs 77/100).- The smaller testing pool probably also indicates higher likelihood of each toy containing some material, but again it is not clear how many or which, because it is not possible to add up the number recorded (over 26) because of duplicated results that are not identified as such. Remember we are also talking about 26 toys selected from potentially any year of production from 1970-1989, and any production company and country. Those are not specified, although I think for this investigation they are really important (especially for those of us who collect multiple old toys).-The report figures doesn't state which toys contained which material. It only states number of toys in the category, and number that contained a material. So the numbers are vague, not specific. They indicate a potential problem but don't tell us what it is or how far it extends in terms of vintage toys. We need to look at the write up for that information.The write up of the experiment for this category does not mention my Little Pony once. It mentions specifically different shades of tone and the impact of lead, but it cites examples of Barbie skin tone and barbie shoes rather than anything relating to MLP. We could draw the assumption from this that darker coloured MLPs are more dangerous, or we could draw the assumption that MLP were not toys in the category that contained lead. The reality is that because we don't have a specific reference to MLP here, we just don't know.Barbie were made by Mattel in Mattel factories, and there's nothing specific in that report for Hasbro made pony products in the same time period, made in different factories from a different balance of ingredients. We need to know for sure with a test specifically on MLP rather than general information before we know to what degree there might be danger in our toys. From what I can see, this report does not say anything about lead in MLP. The only mention it makes of MLP that I can see is that they were included in the tests, not that they form part of either the 69% or the 31%. Therefore as I said before we need actual specific lab tests on MLP that give us specific readings and information before we can know if this is or isn't something we need to pay attention to.If I misread the science, then I am open to correction xD. But I don't think this tells us anything at all about whether or not G1 is safe.
That's not to say there are no toxins, but the level of risk, if any, is the thing which is not clear.
As long as you don't eat the ponies...you'll all be fine.