Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
1$ Sun Glasses From The Dollar Store
134 views
Skip to first unread message
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 9, 2018, 5:33:16 AM1/9/18
to
IMO
The Real Bev
Jan 9, 2018, 2:22:34 PM1/9/18
to
On 01/09/2018 02:33 AM, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> IMO
Unclear. I've bought them, as well as reading glasses, and have been
happy. Just hold them at arm's length and move them around to make sure
that there are no waves in the lenses.
--
Cheers, Bev
"I won't allow the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden
of the other half who aren't paying their fair share." -- Guess Who
> IMO
Unclear. I've bought them, as well as reading glasses, and have been
happy. Just hold them at arm's length and move them around to make sure
that there are no waves in the lenses.
--
Cheers, Bev
"I won't allow the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden
of the other half who aren't paying their fair share." -- Guess Who
pf...@aol.com
Jan 9, 2018, 2:29:28 PM1/9/18
to
On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:33:16 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> IMO
You get only one set of eyes.
The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses, unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away!
Peter Wieck
Melroes Park, PA
> IMO
You get only one set of eyes.
The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses, unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away!
Peter Wieck
Melroes Park, PA
The Real Bev
Jan 9, 2018, 3:17:39 PM1/9/18
to
who make the expensive ones. Talk to your ophthalmologist, not somebody
who's trying to sell you $300 sunglasses.
--
Cheers, Bev
There is no such thing as a foolproof device
because fools are so ingenious.
pf...@aol.com
Jan 9, 2018, 3:40:23 PM1/9/18
to
As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
$300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When one is -4, high-index is an issue. And optically flat lenses would be very nearly useless.
As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
$300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When one is -4, high-index is an issue. And optically flat lenses would be very nearly useless.
As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
The Real Bev
Jan 9, 2018, 5:46:08 PM1/9/18
to
On 01/09/2018 12:40 PM, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA
> and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
>
> https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
Good to know. I was really annoyed that my prescription plastic
> As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA
> and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
>
> https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
photogrey lenses didn't darken in the car because of insufficient UV --
in my defense, nobody worried about UVA back in the dark ages :-(
> $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for
> graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also
> scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When
> one is -4, high-index is an issue. And optically flat lenses would be
> very nearly useless.
designer frames if they don't want their glasses to fall apart at the
first sneeze. +3 with 2D of astigmatism is no fun either :-(
> As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
a variety of distortions as humans do? Maybe the ones that did just
died before they reproduced...
--
Cheers, Bev
"If you were trying to be offensive, you would have succeeded if I
hadn't realized you have no idea what you are talking about."
-- FernandoP
rickman
Jan 10, 2018, 10:10:52 AM1/10/18
to
pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/9/2018 3:40 PM:
> As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
>
> https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
>
> $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When one is -4, high-index is an issue.. And optically flat lenses would be very nearly useless.
> As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
>
> https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
>
>
> As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
Do you wear sunglasses every time you go out into the sun? Do you put on
> As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
sun screen every time you go out into the sun? You only get one skin!
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
pf...@aol.com
Jan 10, 2018, 10:40:31 AM1/10/18
to
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:10:52 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
> pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/9/2018 3:40 PM:
> > As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
> >
> > https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
> >
> > $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When one is -4, high-index is an issue.. And optically flat lenses would be very nearly useless.
> >
> > As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
>
> Do you wear sunglasses every time you go out into the sun? Do you put on
> sun screen every time you go out into the sun? You only get one skin!
>
OK, let me preface my remarks by stating, for the record, that I think you are a single-minded individual, unencumbered by the thought process, who can hold only one single idea in his mind at any given moment. Further, that you have no use for actual facts, most especially those that are counter to the single idea-of-that-moment. Further, that you are spectacularly guilty of the fallacy of reasoning from the specific to the general (AKA - Leaping to Conclusions). I could add more, but I am sure that is enough for now.
> pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/9/2018 3:40 PM:
> > As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
> >
> > https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
> >
> > $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When one is -4, high-index is an issue.. And optically flat lenses would be very nearly useless.
> >
> > As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
>
> Do you wear sunglasses every time you go out into the sun? Do you put on
> sun screen every time you go out into the sun? You only get one skin!
>
a) All my corrective lenses are coated against UVA and UVB. Since such coatings were available. Whether tinted or not.
b) As a fair-skinned Irish-German individual who is also bald, yes, I am quite careful about the sun. I have been conscious of these things since childhood. That I have lived and worked in the Middle East is also applicable.
And you?
Pete Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
pf...@aol.com
Jan 10, 2018, 10:49:57 AM1/10/18
to
On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:46:08 PM UTC-5, The Real Bev wrote:
> And they should have been designed a lot better. Do dogs have as wide
> a variety of distortions as humans do? Maybe the ones that did just
> died before they reproduced...
Dogs, yes they most certainly do have the same issues with their eyes as humans. That it does not commonly manifest is because most dogs are either reasonably close to their ancestral DNA (wolves) and/or do not live long enough.
> And they should have been designed a lot better. Do dogs have as wide
> a variety of distortions as humans do? Maybe the ones that did just
> died before they reproduced...
But two of our Golden Retrieves who passed age 13 had cataracts, and our present Golden is somewhat near-sighted. Frisbees 'go away' after about 30' or so. As we breed our dogs away from their ancestry, we will be seeing more and more of this.
One more interesting thought: Corrective lenses were once quite uncommon. After several wars (and better diagnoses available), they are now necessary for 71% of the population, with leaps after each significant war.
The Real Bev
Jan 10, 2018, 1:41:47 PM1/10/18
to
On 01/10/2018 07:49 AM, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:46:08 PM UTC-5, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> And they should have been designed a lot better. Do dogs have as
>> wide a variety of distortions as humans do? Maybe the ones that
>> did just died before they reproduced...
>
> Dogs, yes they most certainly do have the same issues with their eyes
> as humans. That it does not commonly manifest is because most dogs
> are either reasonably close to their ancestral DNA (wolves) and/or do
> not live long enough.
>
> But two of our Golden Retrieves who passed age 13 had cataracts, and
> our present Golden is somewhat near-sighted. Frisbees 'go away' after
> about 30' or so. As we breed our dogs away from their ancestry, we
> will be seeing more and more of this.
Near us there is a small vet complex including a doggie ophthalmologist.
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:46:08 PM UTC-5, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> And they should have been designed a lot better. Do dogs have as
>> wide a variety of distortions as humans do? Maybe the ones that
>> did just died before they reproduced...
>
> Dogs, yes they most certainly do have the same issues with their eyes
> as humans. That it does not commonly manifest is because most dogs
> are either reasonably close to their ancestral DNA (wolves) and/or do
> not live long enough.
>
> But two of our Golden Retrieves who passed age 13 had cataracts, and
> our present Golden is somewhat near-sighted. Frisbees 'go away' after
> about 30' or so. As we breed our dogs away from their ancestry, we
> will be seeing more and more of this.
I wonder how many dogs will tolerate having contacts inserted/removed,
or if they have to be sedated each time, as well as during the diagnosis.
> One more interesting thought: Corrective lenses were once quite
> uncommon. After several wars (and better diagnoses available), they
> are now necessary for 71% of the population, with leaps after each
> significant war.
as technology improves. I'm still bitter about having too much
astigmatism to benefit from the really nice multi-focal IOLs available
now for cataract surgery, and 30 years ago I would have just been happy
to see SOMETHING clearly again :-(
--
Cheers, Bev
Judges are our only protection against a legal system that can
afford lots more prosecution than we can afford defense.
rickman
Jan 10, 2018, 3:37:29 PM1/10/18
to
pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/10/2018 10:40 AM:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:10:52 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/9/2018 3:40 PM:
>>> As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
>>>
>>> https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
>>>
>>> $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When one is -4, high-index is an issue.. And optically flat lenses would be very nearly useless.
>>>
>>> As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
>>
>> Do you wear sunglasses every time you go out into the sun? Do you put on
>> sun screen every time you go out into the sun? You only get one skin!
>>
>
> OK, let me preface my remarks by stating, for the record, that I think you are a single-minded individual, unencumbered by the thought process, who can hold only one single idea in his mind at any given moment. Further, that you have no use for actual facts, most especially those that are counter to the single idea-of-that-moment. Further, that you are spectacularly guilty of the fallacy of reasoning from the specific to the general (AKA - Leaping to Conclusions). I could add more, but I am sure that is enough for now.
Given those statements it is clear there is no reason for me to try to
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:10:52 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/9/2018 3:40 PM:
>>> As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
>>>
>>> https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
>>>
>>> $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea? Perhaps $180 for graduated bifocal, high-index tinted lenses that are also scratch-resistant. Optically 'flat' lenses would be under $50. When one is -4, high-index is an issue.. And optically flat lenses would be very nearly useless.
>>>
>>> As stated, one gets only one set of eyes.
>>
>> Do you wear sunglasses every time you go out into the sun? Do you put on
>> sun screen every time you go out into the sun? You only get one skin!
>>
>
> OK, let me preface my remarks by stating, for the record, that I think you are a single-minded individual, unencumbered by the thought process, who can hold only one single idea in his mind at any given moment. Further, that you have no use for actual facts, most especially those that are counter to the single idea-of-that-moment. Further, that you are spectacularly guilty of the fallacy of reasoning from the specific to the general (AKA - Leaping to Conclusions). I could add more, but I am sure that is enough for now.
discuss anything with you.
> a) All my corrective lenses are coated against UVA and UVB. Since such coatings were available. Whether tinted or not.
> b) As a fair-skinned Irish-German individual who is also bald, yes, I am quite careful about the sun. I have been conscious of these things since childhood. That I have lived and worked in the Middle East is also applicable.
>
>
> And you?
of your claims. They only support that you believe the claims. Looks like
you are trying to draw a conclusion from the singularity of your own
experience.
Like I said, I won't be discussing this with you since you feel nothing I
say is worthwhile.
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jan 10, 2018, 3:50:07 PM1/10/18
to
On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 3:40:23 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
> As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
>
> https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
>
> $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea?
Sunglasses Hut? in the mall?
> As it happens, only coated plastics or glass will stop 100% of UVA and UVB radiation, not the plastic or glass itself.
>
> https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316
>
> $300 sunglasses? Where would you get that idea?
Fox's Mercantile
Jan 10, 2018, 4:05:54 PM1/10/18
to
On 1/10/18 2:37 PM, rickman wrote:
> Like I said, I won't be discussing this with you since you feel nothing
> I say is worthwhile.
You're learning.
> Like I said, I won't be discussing this with you since you feel nothing
> I say is worthwhile.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
pf...@aol.com
Jan 10, 2018, 4:24:08 PM1/10/18
to
Rick:
You are incapable of discussion. At any level, either reasonable or not. You are ignorant. Not stupid, just full-bore, invincibly and irreducibly ignorant.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
- Harlan Ellison
You insist on your right to be ignorant and hold onto it as you would your favorite blanket or binky. You are unfailingly boorish, dense, often silly, always at least a few cats short of a clowder. This is who you are. Very sadly.
With that in mind, find a mirror and work with it. Work HARD with it.
- You will be preaching to the converted.
- There will be no confusion over the facts.
- There will be no embarrassment or misunderstanding.
- And, you will WIN every discussion, every time.
Which, given your state and level of achievement, is certain to be unusual, refreshing and rewarding. As it is now, you have nothing to offer other than further opportunities for laughter, and those hardly with you.
You are incapable of discussion. At any level, either reasonable or not. You are ignorant. Not stupid, just full-bore, invincibly and irreducibly ignorant.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
- Harlan Ellison
You insist on your right to be ignorant and hold onto it as you would your favorite blanket or binky. You are unfailingly boorish, dense, often silly, always at least a few cats short of a clowder. This is who you are. Very sadly.
With that in mind, find a mirror and work with it. Work HARD with it.
- You will be preaching to the converted.
- There will be no confusion over the facts.
- There will be no embarrassment or misunderstanding.
- And, you will WIN every discussion, every time.
Which, given your state and level of achievement, is certain to be unusual, refreshing and rewarding. As it is now, you have nothing to offer other than further opportunities for laughter, and those hardly with you.
pf...@aol.com
Jan 10, 2018, 4:50:48 PM1/10/18
to
I would be purblind and in a wheelchair, also in great pain if even still alive were it not for Medical Science. My wife much worse.
Corrective lenses, vaccinations, artificial hip (and the next one scheduled within 6 months), antibiotics, and so forth.
My wife would be either dead or a C2 paralytic from galloping stenosis. Also a hip, lenses, vaccinations and antibiotics.
rickman
Jan 10, 2018, 6:47:10 PM1/10/18
to
you can feel superior by being obnoxious. Nothing about your posts are
substantive, just ad hominem based on virtually nothing other than the
person disagrees with you.
et...@whidbey.com
Jan 10, 2018, 6:50:15 PM1/10/18
to
after her appendicitis was mis-diagnosed by a quack. My older brother
would have died long ago if it wasn't for surgery to remove a chunk of
colon that would have killed him from cancer. I avoided paralysis by
about 6 months from stenosis. My wrists both move after being crushed.
All that hardware they put in to hold all the tiny pieces bone is
pretty impressive. I am a year out from being declared most likely
cancer free after being diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer.
Eric
The Real Bev
Jan 10, 2018, 7:04:08 PM1/10/18
to
suck and I have minimal aerobic capacity (neither does Dr. Michael
Mosley [Brit presenter of very good medical programs, definitely worth
watching]) which has limited my athletic performance and I have some
protruding disks which are a nuisance, but not debilitating. I get
pissed when I have something wrong and just expect to have everything
work. Goddammit, I pay enough for medical insurance, it should damn
well WORK!!!!
I just had my cataracts done because of lifetime unclear vision, not
anything having to do with the cataracts themselves.
--
Cheers, Bev
"If you expect to score points by whining, join a European soccer team."
--Demotivators poster
Fox's Mercantile
Jan 10, 2018, 10:13:56 PM1/10/18
to
On 1/10/18 5:46 PM, rickman wrote:
> pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/10/2018 4:24 PM:
>> Rick:
>>
>> You are incapable of discussion.
>
> pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/10/2018 4:24 PM:
>> Rick:
>>
>> You are incapable of discussion.
>
> I think it is clear why you post here.
You have no idea.
The response you elicited from Mr. Weick is
just what I'd expect from someone with a proper
education.
Which is something you apparently lack.
So, dropping down to your level of education:
Go park your nose back up Harry's ass and stop
posting here.
Harry Newton
Jan 11, 2018, 7:24:54 PM1/11/18
to
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:29:23 -0800 (PST), pf...@aol.com wrote:
> You get only one set of eyes.
> The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts
> amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses,
> unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away!
I have asked at the eye doctor's offices why humans need glasses and no
> You get only one set of eyes.
> The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts
> amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses,
> unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away!
other animal does to protect their eyes from the sun.
If UV-protective glasses were *really* needed, *everyone* would wear them,
and they'd be mandated just like seat belts are and bicycle helmets,
especially at OSHA regulated work sites.
I'd like to see a study of cataracts statistics to see if eyglass wearers
are represented differently than non eyeglass wearers though...
rickman
Jan 11, 2018, 7:31:29 PM1/11/18
to
Fox's Mercantile wrote on 1/10/2018 10:13 PM:
> On 1/10/18 5:46 PM, rickman wrote:
>> pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/10/2018 4:24 PM:
>>> Rick:
>>>
>>> You are incapable of discussion.
>>
>> I think it is clear why you post here.
>
> You have no idea.
> The response you elicited from Mr. Weick is
> just what I'd expect from someone with a proper
> education.
> Which is something you apparently lack.
>
> So, dropping down to your level of education:
> Go park your nose back up Harry's ass and stop
> posting here.
What do you know of my education exactly?
> On 1/10/18 5:46 PM, rickman wrote:
>> pf...@aol.com wrote on 1/10/2018 4:24 PM:
>>> Rick:
>>>
>>> You are incapable of discussion.
>>
>> I think it is clear why you post here.
>
> You have no idea.
> The response you elicited from Mr. Weick is
> just what I'd expect from someone with a proper
> education.
> Which is something you apparently lack.
>
> So, dropping down to your level of education:
> Go park your nose back up Harry's ass and stop
> posting here.
Fox's Mercantile
Jan 11, 2018, 8:10:17 PM1/11/18
to
On 1/11/18 6:31 PM, rickman wrote:
>
> What do you know of my education exactly?
From the rest of your ignorant posts here on S.E.R
>
> What do you know of my education exactly?
rickman
Jan 11, 2018, 8:14:19 PM1/11/18
to
Fox's Mercantile wrote on 1/11/2018 8:10 PM:
> On 1/11/18 6:31 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>> What do you know of my education exactly?
>
> From the rest of your ignorant posts here on S.E.R
You know zip, absolutely zip. You just like to run your mouth with nothing
> On 1/11/18 6:31 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>> What do you know of my education exactly?
>
> From the rest of your ignorant posts here on S.E.R
to say. I'm done with you.
Fox's Mercantile
Jan 11, 2018, 9:16:58 PM1/11/18
to
On 1/11/18 7:14 PM, rickman wrote:
>
> You know zip, absolutely zip. You just like to run your mouth with
> nothing to say. I'm done with you.
Don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out.
>
> You know zip, absolutely zip. You just like to run your mouth with
> nothing to say. I'm done with you.
Rheilly Phoull
Jan 11, 2018, 10:14:51 PM1/11/18
to
On 12/01/2018 10:16 AM, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
> On 1/11/18 7:14 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>> You know zip, absolutely zip. You just like to run your mouth with
>> nothing to say. I'm done with you.
>
> Don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out.
>
Geez you're a happy mob of guys!!
> On 1/11/18 7:14 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>> You know zip, absolutely zip. You just like to run your mouth with
>> nothing to say. I'm done with you.
>
> Don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out.
>
The Real Bev
Jan 12, 2018, 12:56:46 PM1/12/18
to
On 01/11/2018 04:24 PM, Harry Newton wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:29:23 -0800 (PST), pf...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> You get only one set of eyes.
>> The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts
>> amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses,
>> unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away!
>
> I have asked at the eye doctor's offices why humans need glasses and no
> other animal does to protect their eyes from the sun.
No answer? I'd guess that (a) we don't know much about cataracts in
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:29:23 -0800 (PST), pf...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> You get only one set of eyes.
>> The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts
>> amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses,
>> unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away!
>
> I have asked at the eye doctor's offices why humans need glasses and no
> other animal does to protect their eyes from the sun.
wild animals and/or (2) they don't live long enough to develop them.
> If UV-protective glasses were *really* needed, *everyone* would wear them,
> and they'd be mandated just like seat belts are and bicycle helmets,
> especially at OSHA regulated work sites.
> I'd like to see a study of cataracts statistics to see if eyglass wearers
> are represented differently than non eyeglass wearers though...
interesting, though.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pricey-vs-cheap-shades-put-to-the-uv-test/
https://www.aao.org/eye-health/glasses-contacts/sunglasses-3 says
"A number of scientific studies indicate that spending long hours in the
sun without eye protection can damage your eyes by contributing to
cataracts and growths on the eye, including cancer. Based on these
studies, ophthalmologists recommend that you wear 99 percent and higher
UV (ultraviolet radiation)-absorbent sunglasses and a brimmed hat
whenever you're in the sun for long periods of time."
Long hours. Can. No footnotes, of course.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Don't you wish there were a knob on the TV to turn up the
intelligence? There's one marked "brightness", but it
doesn't work." -- Gallagher
Harry Newton
Jan 12, 2018, 1:58:15 PM1/12/18
to
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:56:41 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
> No answer? I'd guess that (a) we don't know much about cataracts in
> wild animals and/or (2) they don't live long enough to develop them.
My main point is that if uv protection was *really needed* (as opposed to a
> No answer? I'd guess that (a) we don't know much about cataracts in
> wild animals and/or (2) they don't live long enough to develop them.
convenience to have), then *all* people would be wearing glasses with uv
protection, and not just those who need their sight corrected.
> Welding glasses have specifications, as do eclipse glasses.
I'm talking about the mantra that you must have UV protection in
prescription glasses, which if it *really* were needed, then *everyone*
would be wearing glasses with UV protection, whether or not they needed eye
corrections.
At some point, some gob'ment agency would mandate it, e.g., OSHA for
workers who work outdoors.
>> I'd like to see a study of cataracts statistics to see if eyglass wearers
>> are represented differently than non eyeglass wearers though...
>
> I hunted until I got tired of hunting with no success. This is
> interesting, though.
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pricey-vs-cheap-shades-put-to-the-uv-test/
>
> https://www.aao.org/eye-health/glasses-contacts/sunglasses-3 says
>
> "A number of scientific studies indicate that spending long hours in the
> sun without eye protection can damage your eyes by contributing to
> cataracts and growths on the eye, including cancer. Based on these
> studies, ophthalmologists recommend that you wear 99 percent and higher
> UV (ultraviolet radiation)-absorbent sunglasses and a brimmed hat
> whenever you're in the sun for long periods of time."
>
> Long hours. Can. No footnotes, of course.
your skin look like those old photos of the American Indians of the wild
west.
All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
The Real Bev
Jan 12, 2018, 4:48:03 PM1/12/18
to
On 01/12/2018 10:58 AM, Harry Newton wrote:
> All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
> doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
> dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
> carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do.
> All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
> doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
> dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
> carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery
late in life. Sometimes early in life. Nobody is going to run
double-blind studies. Before some regulation like those you mentioned
happens, somebody has to convince enough congresspersons that getting
behind it is in THEIR interest.
Everybody I've known for a long time has worn glasses most of their
life. About half have had their cataracts fixed, some just to improve
their vision at Medicare expense rather than due to any detriment
actually caused by the cataracts.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Yahoo has released its own search engine. For more info,
type 'yahoo search engine' into Google." -D.Miller
rickman
Jan 12, 2018, 5:17:30 PM1/12/18
to
The Real Bev wrote on 1/12/2018 4:47 PM:
> On 01/12/2018 10:58 AM, Harry Newton wrote:
>
>> All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
>> doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
>> dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
>> carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
>
> You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do.
>
> Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery
> late in life. Sometimes early in life.
Ophthalmologists would disagree with you. There is risk associated with
> On 01/12/2018 10:58 AM, Harry Newton wrote:
>
>> All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
>> doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
>> dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
>> carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
>
> You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do.
>
> Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery
> late in life. Sometimes early in life.
cataract surgery and even if your cataracts are impacting your quality of
life, they won't do the surgery until you reach a certain point of
degradation. This is measured in an objective way which does not factor in
things like not being able to see to drive at night. They don't do this
surgery frivolously.
> Nobody is going to run double-blind
> studies.
talking without knowledge. The medical profession is famous for dispensing
advice based on very little science.
> Before some regulation like those you mentioned happens, somebody
> has to convince enough congresspersons that getting behind it is in THEIR
> interest.
> Everybody I've known for a long time has worn glasses most of their life.
> About half have had their cataracts fixed, some just to improve their vision
> at Medicare expense rather than due to any detriment actually caused by the
> cataracts.
The Real Bev
Jan 13, 2018, 1:35:18 AM1/13/18
to
On 01/12/2018 02:17 PM, rickman wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote on 1/12/2018 4:47 PM:
>> On 01/12/2018 10:58 AM, Harry Newton wrote:
>>
>>> All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
>>> doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
>>> dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
>>> carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
>>
>> You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do.
>>
>> Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery
>> late in life. Sometimes early in life.
>
> Ophthalmologists would disagree with you. There is risk associated with
> cataract surgery and even if your cataracts are impacting your quality of
> life, they won't do the surgery until you reach a certain point of
> degradation. This is measured in an objective way which does not factor in
> things like not being able to see to drive at night. They don't do this
> surgery frivolously.
Of course not, but mine didn't cause any problem even though they were
> The Real Bev wrote on 1/12/2018 4:47 PM:
>> On 01/12/2018 10:58 AM, Harry Newton wrote:
>>
>>> All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
>>> doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
>>> dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
>>> carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
>>
>> You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do.
>>
>> Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery
>> late in life. Sometimes early in life.
>
> Ophthalmologists would disagree with you. There is risk associated with
> cataract surgery and even if your cataracts are impacting your quality of
> life, they won't do the surgery until you reach a certain point of
> degradation. This is measured in an objective way which does not factor in
> things like not being able to see to drive at night. They don't do this
> surgery frivolously.
within whatever the limits are. I had to pay extra for IOLs with
astigmatism, which pissed me off. NOT a luxury in my case. Probably
not in anybody's case if glasses couldn't correct it.
>> Nobody is going to run double-blind studies.
>
> Mostly because they know people believe what they say even though they are
> talking without knowledge. The medical profession is famous for dispensing
> advice based on very little science.
incompetent doctors.
>> Before some regulation like those you mentioned happens, somebody
>> has to convince enough congresspersons that getting behind it is in THEIR
>> interest.
>
> No, the government is not in the business of mandating medical treatments.
>> Everybody I've known for a long time has worn glasses most of their life.
>> About half have had their cataracts fixed, some just to improve their vision
>> at Medicare expense rather than due to any detriment actually caused by the
>> cataracts.
>
> There's some BSing going on somewhere. Isn't poor vision a detriment?
with the cataracts. When the first one was removed I noticed perhaps 1
stop or less of yellowish darkening in the virgin eye, which was
surprising. Interesting, not bothersome. Still, it qualified.
What are we arguing about? I seem to have forgotten.
--
Cheers, Bev
"We don't know how smart people can be, but we know that
dumb goes all the way to zero." -- Joe Chew
rickman
Jan 13, 2018, 3:08:09 AM1/13/18
to
The Real Bev wrote on 1/13/2018 1:35 AM:
> On 01/12/2018 02:17 PM, rickman wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote on 1/12/2018 4:47 PM:
>>> On 01/12/2018 10:58 AM, Harry Newton wrote:
>>>
>>>> All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
>>>> doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
>>>> dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
>>>> carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
>>>
>>> You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do.
>>>
>>> Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery
>>> late in life. Sometimes early in life.
>>
>> Ophthalmologists would disagree with you. There is risk associated with
>> cataract surgery and even if your cataracts are impacting your quality of
>> life, they won't do the surgery until you reach a certain point of
>> degradation. This is measured in an objective way which does not factor in
>> things like not being able to see to drive at night. They don't do this
>> surgery frivolously.
>
> Of course not, but mine didn't cause any problem even though they were
> within whatever the limits are. I had to pay extra for IOLs with
> astigmatism, which pissed me off. NOT a luxury in my case. Probably not in
> anybody's case if glasses couldn't correct it.
I don't know what an IOL is. Should I know that? I know what an IOU is.
> On 01/12/2018 02:17 PM, rickman wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote on 1/12/2018 4:47 PM:
>>> On 01/12/2018 10:58 AM, Harry Newton wrote:
>>>
>>>> All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye
>>>> doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that
>>>> dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do
>>>> carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc.
>>>
>>> You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do.
>>>
>>> Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery
>>> late in life. Sometimes early in life.
>>
>> Ophthalmologists would disagree with you. There is risk associated with
>> cataract surgery and even if your cataracts are impacting your quality of
>> life, they won't do the surgery until you reach a certain point of
>> degradation. This is measured in an objective way which does not factor in
>> things like not being able to see to drive at night. They don't do this
>> surgery frivolously.
>
> Of course not, but mine didn't cause any problem even though they were
> within whatever the limits are. I had to pay extra for IOLs with
> astigmatism, which pissed me off. NOT a luxury in my case. Probably not in
> anybody's case if glasses couldn't correct it.
>>> Nobody is going to run double-blind studies.
>>
>> Mostly because they know people believe what they say even though they are
>> talking without knowledge. The medical profession is famous for dispensing
>> advice based on very little science.
>
> Indeed. And worse -- there's no mechanism for getting rid of incompetent
> doctors.
having a good basis for doing things a given way. Hell, many places I've
worked we had checklists for various aspects of our work. I was taught to
have and use checklists for diving. Even professionals like airline pilots
use checklists. Doctors... not so much. Studies have shown significant
reductions in mortality and complications when doctors use checklists, but
they feel they are above that.
>>> Before some regulation like those you mentioned happens, somebody
>>> has to convince enough congresspersons that getting behind it is in THEIR
>>> interest.
>>
>> No, the government is not in the business of mandating medical treatments.
>
> It's in the business of doing whatever keeps the incumbents in office.
>
>>> Everybody I've known for a long time has worn glasses most of their life.
>>> About half have had their cataracts fixed, some just to improve their vision
>>> at Medicare expense rather than due to any detriment actually caused by the
>>> cataracts.
>>
>> There's some BSing going on somewhere. Isn't poor vision a detriment?
>
> My lifetime poor vision (+3 with 2D of astigmatism) had nothing to do with
> the cataracts. When the first one was removed I noticed perhaps 1 stop or
> less of yellowish darkening in the virgin eye, which was surprising.
> Interesting, not bothersome. Still, it qualified.
>
> What are we arguing about? I seem to have forgotten.
I'm not at all clear on what that means. Isn't the only reason to have
cataract surgery to improve your vision?
pf...@aol.com
Jan 13, 2018, 8:20:00 AM1/13/18
to
Bev:
You are engaging with a troll. There is no logic involved, no making sense, and no point to the conversation from its end.
UV is dangerous. As one gets older, it becomes more dangerous. If we are fair-skinned and/or blue-eyed, yet more dangerous. We may choose to protect ourselves or we may not. Those of us who have worn corrective lenses from an early age and do not suffer from excessive vanity (contact lenses) have an opportunity to protect ourselves "in passing" by having our lenses coated.
Alcohol is dangerous, yet it is largely unregulated and we may choose to abuse it or not. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Government did learn from the failed experiment that was Prohibition. Sadly, it is not learning the same about recreational pharmaceuticals - with a minor exception for cannabis.
Jimmy Neutron embraces the fallacy of reasoning from the specific to the general (AKA: False Premises), and cannot discern the difference between Should and Must - and probably has the same difficulty with Can and May.
He and his equally damaged acolyte, Ricky should get a room somewhere, virtual or real, and engage in mutual nit-picking to their indefinite pleasure.
Animals and cataracts:
a) Most wild animals do not live long enough to get cataracts.
b) Most animal eyes are adaptable to very wide ranges of light. Daylight hunters, most of all.
c) Most predators spend very little time being active. Cats (all varieties) will sleep up to 22 hours per day if food is plentiful, and seldom less than 18 hours.
But:
Dogs, especially exotics, certainly do get cataracts, starting around age 7. Very nearly every dog (or wolf) will have visible cataracts at age 10, and our first Golden lived by Night, Day, Scent at 14. His cataracts effectively blinded him beyond day/night.
Out-door cats will show cataracts around age 15 or so. Indoor cats are not exposed to UV sufficiently for it to be a factor.
Leave Neutron to fester in its own filth.
You are engaging with a troll. There is no logic involved, no making sense, and no point to the conversation from its end.
UV is dangerous. As one gets older, it becomes more dangerous. If we are fair-skinned and/or blue-eyed, yet more dangerous. We may choose to protect ourselves or we may not. Those of us who have worn corrective lenses from an early age and do not suffer from excessive vanity (contact lenses) have an opportunity to protect ourselves "in passing" by having our lenses coated.
Alcohol is dangerous, yet it is largely unregulated and we may choose to abuse it or not. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Government did learn from the failed experiment that was Prohibition. Sadly, it is not learning the same about recreational pharmaceuticals - with a minor exception for cannabis.
Jimmy Neutron embraces the fallacy of reasoning from the specific to the general (AKA: False Premises), and cannot discern the difference between Should and Must - and probably has the same difficulty with Can and May.
He and his equally damaged acolyte, Ricky should get a room somewhere, virtual or real, and engage in mutual nit-picking to their indefinite pleasure.
Animals and cataracts:
a) Most wild animals do not live long enough to get cataracts.
b) Most animal eyes are adaptable to very wide ranges of light. Daylight hunters, most of all.
c) Most predators spend very little time being active. Cats (all varieties) will sleep up to 22 hours per day if food is plentiful, and seldom less than 18 hours.
But:
Dogs, especially exotics, certainly do get cataracts, starting around age 7. Very nearly every dog (or wolf) will have visible cataracts at age 10, and our first Golden lived by Night, Day, Scent at 14. His cataracts effectively blinded him beyond day/night.
Out-door cats will show cataracts around age 15 or so. Indoor cats are not exposed to UV sufficiently for it to be a factor.
Leave Neutron to fester in its own filth.
The Real Bev
Jan 13, 2018, 1:11:13 PM1/13/18
to
On 01/13/2018 12:08 AM, rickman wrote:
> I don't know what an IOL is. Should I know that? I know what an IOU is.
IntraOcular Lens. Yes, if you're discussing cataracts you should know that.
> I don't know what an IOL is. Should I know that? I know what an IOU is.
--
Cheers, Bev
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short.
But scream it at them in Klingon, because life is also
terrifying and confusing." -- D. Moore
rickman
Jan 13, 2018, 3:37:44 PM1/13/18
to
The Real Bev wrote on 1/13/2018 1:11 PM:
> On 01/13/2018 12:08 AM, rickman wrote:
>
>> I don't know what an IOL is. Should I know that? I know what an IOU is.
>
> IntraOcular Lens. Yes, if you're discussing cataracts you should know that.
I know what intraocular lens is. I just don't know the many billions of
> On 01/13/2018 12:08 AM, rickman wrote:
>
>> I don't know what an IOL is. Should I know that? I know what an IOU is.
>
> IntraOcular Lens. Yes, if you're discussing cataracts you should know that.
pointless abbreviations the world uses. Thanks
Tim R
Jan 15, 2018, 10:22:17 AM1/15/18
to
Not sure what this is doing in electronic repair.
It is true that a much larger percent of the population now wears glasses than 50 years ago.
There was an article I think in Scientific American that talked about the influence of sunlight. The conclusion was that kids spending time indoors doing video games contributed to near sightedness, but not in the obvious way. What they thought is that sunlight in the early years serves to prevent some near sightedness, and staying indoors reading or playing computer games instead of being outside for recess etc made the difference.
It is true that a much larger percent of the population now wears glasses than 50 years ago.
There was an article I think in Scientific American that talked about the influence of sunlight. The conclusion was that kids spending time indoors doing video games contributed to near sightedness, but not in the obvious way. What they thought is that sunlight in the early years serves to prevent some near sightedness, and staying indoors reading or playing computer games instead of being outside for recess etc made the difference.
Fox's Mercantile
Jan 15, 2018, 10:37:25 AM1/15/18
to
On 1/15/18 9:22 AM, Tim R wrote:
> What they thought is that sunlight in the early years serves to
> prevent some near sightedness, and staying indoors reading or
> playing computer games instead of being outside for recess etc
> made the difference.
It's not the sunlight.
> What they thought is that sunlight in the early years serves to
> prevent some near sightedness, and staying indoors reading or
> playing computer games instead of being outside for recess etc
> made the difference.
"Outside" almost everything is more that 24" from your face.
It's that simple.
Tim R
Jan 15, 2018, 12:45:32 PM1/15/18
to
See this article:
https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120
The Real Bev
Jan 15, 2018, 1:36:11 PM1/15/18
to
On 01/15/2018 09:45 AM, Tim R wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 10:37:25 AM UTC-5, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
>> On 1/15/18 9:22 AM, Tim R wrote:
>> > What they thought is that sunlight in the early years serves to
>> > prevent some near sightedness, and staying indoors reading or
>> > playing computer games instead of being outside for recess etc
>> > made the difference.
>>
>> It's not the sunlight.
>> "Outside" almost everything is more that 24" from your face.
>> It's that simple.
>
> On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 10:37:25 AM UTC-5, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
>> On 1/15/18 9:22 AM, Tim R wrote:
>> > What they thought is that sunlight in the early years serves to
>> > prevent some near sightedness, and staying indoors reading or
>> > playing computer games instead of being outside for recess etc
>> > made the difference.
>>
>> It's not the sunlight.
>> "Outside" almost everything is more that 24" from your face.
>> It's that simple.
>
> Maybe not quite that simple, but probably a factor.
>
> See this article:
>
> https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120
As usual, nobody gives a shit about the development of hyperopia. Not
>
> See this article:
>
> https://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120
even STARS are in focus!
--
Cheers, Bev
Buckle Up. It makes it harder for the aliens
to suck you out of your car.
0 new messages