Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Solar eclipse idiots

127 replies

Irregularelephant · 13/08/2026 08:38

The amount of people on my social media feed i have seen using a colander to stare directly at the sun through it rather than casting a shadow with it to view. Or people who have permanently damaged their phones from the glare. Or the knock off glasses from dodgy websites that arent certified.
IABU: they will all be fine
IANBU: They have damaged there eyes and are silly

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Hohumbrumbrum · 13/08/2026 17:53

QuintadosMalvados · 13/08/2026 16:27

I don't know.

Obviously it would be very, very unwise to stare at the eclipse for minutes on end.

Not disputing that at all.
The trouble is though does a quick accidental glance do damage?

How is having a quick accidental glance any different from seeing the sun on a normal day?

I know that the reply will be dim to strong light but people with blackout blinds often open them and are confronted with strong sun.

So I'm thinking staring for minutes on end is stupid.
Quick accidental glance OK?

If so why not just say that in the advice.
Probably lots of people panicking now as they accidentally saw it for a second.

Is it just about the lowest common denominator?

I'm not being goady or anything. I'd appreciate input.

Yes. Lowest common denominator and covering their own backsides.

It's no different from

  • zero alcohol in pregnancy, because they don't trust women to not interpret that as three bottles of wine. There's no evidence that a very small amount of harmful.
  • not heating baby bottles in the microwave, because some idiots in the past took it to boiling and then fed their baby. So it's safer to have it as an absolute no, even though if you do it for the minimum time, swirl well and test it, there is no risk.
  • often where there are limits (safety, dosing etc), they are done in the knowledge that many people will push the boundaries, so you make them lower, to create a buffer so it's not dangerous if they break the rules a bit.

On a national level it is much safer to be overly rigid with rules than assume people will use common sense.

QuintadosMalvados · 13/08/2026 18:38

Hohumbrumbrum · 13/08/2026 17:53

Yes. Lowest common denominator and covering their own backsides.

It's no different from

  • zero alcohol in pregnancy, because they don't trust women to not interpret that as three bottles of wine. There's no evidence that a very small amount of harmful.
  • not heating baby bottles in the microwave, because some idiots in the past took it to boiling and then fed their baby. So it's safer to have it as an absolute no, even though if you do it for the minimum time, swirl well and test it, there is no risk.
  • often where there are limits (safety, dosing etc), they are done in the knowledge that many people will push the boundaries, so you make them lower, to create a buffer so it's not dangerous if they break the rules a bit.

On a national level it is much safer to be overly rigid with rules than assume people will use common sense.

Thank you.
Of course the downside is people panicking because they saw it for a second and also using up health services.

I stayed in and accidentally saw it for under a second.
I admit to a mild bit of panic until I talked myself out of it.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page