Effects of Space Weather On Health

2 views
Skip to first unread message

skh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
Are there any known (or suspected) conditions/afflictions caused or
triggerred by solar events (flares, sudden increase in solar flux, proton
events, etc.) and/or geomagnetic activity (high--i.e., major and severe
storms--"A" and "K" indices, Sudden Impulses, GICs, etc.), in particular
affecting the endocrine, autoimmune and nervous systems? I'm not talking
about Holistic-New Age type pap, but legitimate biological influences.

Back in September of '79 (I was 13 at the time) I awoke one morning with my
LEFT eye flooded with floaters and mild sinus pain above both eyes, when I
rolled them. Within a week, the left eye became severely inflammed: It was
suspected, at the time, to be toxoplasmosis. After being on Prednisone (both
drops and a few shots near the eye) for awhile, the eye did clear up, though
it left major scarring around the edges and the vitreous was detached.

Around the next fall, I started getting various gastrointestinal
disturbances, including (rather acidic) acutely crampy "mud-like" loose stool
passages, as well as other, weird idiopathic maladies (e.g., occasional
moments of--altered perceptions/syncopy type--"funny feelings", episodic
clusters of heart palpitations and proneness to trembling at times--such as
when leaning on elbow or sitting with legs partially spread). These seemed
to be present, off and on (mostly during the colder months), for a year or
two.

Jumping ahead to the start of MLK weekend in January '89, suddenly, out of
nowhere, I realized there were a couple of black spots near the central
vision of my RIGHT eye. These turned out to be apparent cold sores on my
optic nerve! Once again, severe inflammation set in, treatment was started
and the inflammation started to clear up. But in March (the night the news
was reporting major solar events in the previous few days), I noticed a thick
patch within the clearing inflammation, which turned out to be fresh
inflammation! Unfortunately, this was too much for the eye to take, with
vision being permanently lost (compounded by the subsequent forming of a
cataract). This time the original cold sores were diagnosed as herpes in
nature (though tests weren't conclusive), with the first (left) eye now also
believed to be herpes in nature: I had also been prone to getting "hangnail"
type sores on my fingers as well as cracked and dry lip induced/aggravated
sores on my lips.

Once again, within a few months, various G.I. disturbances became common
(though, this time, mostly of a more benign, "semi-loose/normal" nature) as
well as other idiopathics (including palpitations and momentary "altered
perceptions/syncopy"), including a more pronounced, high frequency feeling,
"vibrational" tremor (like sitting next to a motor or holding a steering
wheel)--some adrenal effect?--and elevated diastolic blood pressure (upper
80's and 90's). There was also sudden, momentary retinal blotches noted in
the vision of my old (left) eye (some were black, others were grayish--?--and
others were black with a white to grayish halo) lasting a few seconds
afterwhich they quickly faded out (sometimes a handful noted a day) as well
as an occasional, sudden, pinhead size (singular) "twinkle" (like a star).
My retinologist couldn't find anything and just believed I was seeing things
(from the trauma 10 years ago) I just never noticed before.

Also like before, things quieted down within a couple of years, including the
blood pressure.

After the first eye, I thought the G.I. disturbances were just remnants of
the (toxoplasmosis) parasite still passing through my system. Then after the
second eye, I suspected all the G.I. activity, elevated blood pressure and
other idiopathics (after both eyes) may have been either some reaction to the
Prednisone or that both the post-symptoms AND the original eye infections
were from some endocrine/autoimmune disorder (such as MS, lupus or carcinoid
syndrome).

Shortly after my second eye's finale, however, I had started monitoring WWV's
space weather
reports (for radio propagation purposes). At some point, I realized a lot of
G.I. and idiopathic
activity was seemingly occurring during periods of major geomagnetic storm
activity. And, it seemed,
everything (including the elevated diastolic blood pressure and the retinal
"blotches" and "twinkles")
settled down as the solar/geomagnetic activity thinned out: Or, if the actual
culprit IS herpes, could
the solar/geomagnetic activity be the trigger? When looking at some of the
various SEC's (Space
Environment Center--the "space weather service") chronological solar cycle
graphs, Sept. '79 and
Jan. & March '89 appear to be the peak spikes of activity!

With all that in mind, this upcoming cycle has already begun to manifest
itself.

This past November, there was the first, definitely apparent, prime
solar/geomagnetic event of the new cycle, lasting for a few days, though no
real, tangible symptoms were noted.

Then, the first week of May, the first severe period occurred, with multiple
major flares and sudden impulses, creating severe storm levels (K values
equaling 8-9 and A values in the 80s!). Within a few days, I started
noticing some vague unsettledness, though nothing that you could pin down to
a particular symptom.

At about a week after the main event started, the retinal "blotches" and
"twinkles" (perhaps something in the blood briefly detaching a piece of
retina, as its passing by?) and a few of the vague idiopathics returned
(including a few cankers on the rear inside cheek--that I am susceptible to,
though usually after eating greasy food--at about molar teeth level), after
being mostly absent for the past several years. And, within a day or two,
while in the drug store, I checked my blood pressure on the store machine and
the diastolic was about 96-97! In SEC's July "User Notes", the event was
acknowledged as a major happenning: "...(on) May 4, the first major GIC
(Geomagnetic-Induced Current) event of Solar Cycle 23 occurred....The May 4
storm was a strong storm but not in the class of the March 1989 storm." Thus
the March '89 storm (when the reinflammation of the second eye occurred) was
one of the major events of the previous cycle.

In these 2-3 months since, I've been tracking the blood pressure, and it has
receeded back to mostly
the upper 70's-low 80's (I should point out that I have been taking 1100mg of
Potassium Gluconate
for the past several months, as it seems to modify and lessen any G.I.
disturbances). Also, the retinal
"blotches" and "twinkles" have become rarer and rarer, with an occasional day
more noticeable (on
days of increased geomagnetic activity?).

So, at this point, it's just a matter of waiting until the next major event
(probably in September or
October), to see if anything--such as the blood pressure--corresponds.

Given all these symptoms and the apparent timing, I strongly believe there is
a connection, though neither my retinologist nor anyone else has ever heard
of such a thing. Has anyone else?

--- "Scott"

----------
32-year old, white male; never had any sense of smell; hyperactive when
young.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Raymond A. Chamberlin

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:26:01 GMT, skh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>Are there any known (or suspected) conditions/afflictions caused or
>triggerred by solar events (flares, sudden increase in solar flux, proton
>events, etc.) and/or geomagnetic activity (high--i.e., major and severe
>storms--"A" and "K" indices, Sudden Impulses, GICs, etc.), in particular
>affecting the endocrine, autoimmune and nervous systems?

Never heard of such a thing, but not a medical type. You wouldn't
have an excess of magnetite (Fe3O4) in your brain, would you? How's
your native sense of true north?

Ray

Raymond A. Chamberlin

unread,
Aug 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/4/98
to
Of course, I meant to say magnetic north.

Ray

STL137

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
Vague idiopathic symptoms? *alarm blares* I think that's a placebo effect.
Anyways electromagnetic fields and charged particles from our sun hardly ever
effect things on the Earth - our magnetic shield shuts out most of that. Except
sometimes our power lines act as huge antennas and we get massive blackouts,
I.E. the Canadian one. The evidence for what you're talking about is:
A) Ancedotal, from one person.
B) "vague and idiopathic"
C) probablly coincidental.
D) All of the above and more.
------
STL...@aol.com
"I live for books" - Thomas Jefferson

Dick Dead-Eye

unread,
Aug 29, 2005, 3:19:20 PM8/29/05
to
To begin with, my eyes have always been subpar.
I've worn glasses since whenever I can remember, for myopia with a
strong astigmatism and had surgery to correct amblyopia (not sure which
eye) when I was about 6 or 7.
Then back in the fall of '79, when I was 13, I awoke with floaters in my
left eye, which becane inflamed with a rip roarin' case of
chorioretinitis (at the time they suspected it was caused by
toxoplasmosis), with the vision deteriorating to less than 20/200.
The inflammation cleared up and, while technically my vision returned to
20/20, the field was reduced by scarring around the edges and the
vitreous was--at least partly--detached.
Fast forward to Jan.'89 when, one morning, I suddenly noticed a couple
of small, pure black spots in the near center vision of my right eye.
It turned out to be a "cold sore" on my optic nerve! Like my left eye,
10 years earlier (which they now believe may have also been caused by a
herpes infection, not toxo), the right eye became inflamed, started to
recover, then reinflamed, this time totally cooking it, to be followed
in a few months by a trauma induced cataract! P=(
So now I am totally blind in one eye and half blind in the other (in the
sense of the field is reduced and the detached vitreous has greatly
reduced the quality of the remaining vision in that eye: It takes
longer for the eye to adjust to darkness {and, even then, it's only
about half--or even less--sensitive than my [previously] "good" eye},
there is a mild reduction in overall "brightness contrast" {a slight
"film"?} and there is a mostly transparent--except when I squint, when
it looks "bubbley/sudsy"--wrinkly wad of "pie/cake dough" {i.e., when
you stir or kneed the dough, it holds together but "wrinkles"} swishing
around in my vision, which sometimes looks--albeit, usually faintly and
out of focus--like either a fishing net sprawling around in water or a
dim puff of smoke).
In the past few years, I've had a few--what I believe are--"vitreous
events", where, when I shifted my vision, I'd notice a litte spot (or
strand?) that visually seemed to slightly flap or pull--it didn't look
like the retina, but maybe a piece of loose but tethered vitreous (at
least one of them looked like a small air bubble under a transparent
sticker stuck to a window). After a couple of weeks or so, it would
seem to have just about disappeared when, suddenly, (at the
correspondingly opposite side of my vision field?) I'd notice a real
vivid, small patch or strand of floaters that was tethered/anchored to
that one area. After 2-3 weeks that tethered patch/strand would start
to "weather" and fade into the background, never completely disappearing
(other than the accompanying floaters), just adding to the vitreal
artifacts.
A couple of years ago, I had a couple of similar episodes, though these
times the eye fluid (vitreous?) became not blurry, hazy or
cloudy--suggesting inflammation--but a bit "gooey", yet certain things I
could see off in the distance, relatively clear, while at the same time
the facial features of someone standing 20-30 feet away may be a
blur--it actually looked like if you squinted to *almost* a blur. As it
cleared up, the (vitreous?) fluid had a slight, but definite, greasy,
shiny slick to it. It was after those episodes cleared up that I started
noticing that real small print--like the newspaper stock market
results--started to become difficult (albeit, just slightly) to read.
Then, last Feb ('04), another episode started, this time to the point of
causing some mild inflammation: The distant "wall chart" vision
remained relatively close to 20/20, but I needed a magnifying glass to
be able to read even regular newspaper size print!
Even a couple of months after the inflammation cleared up, it was
apparent I now needed reading glasses/bifocals: Do I nned reading
glasses because of the event, or was the vitreous event caused by my eye
(focus) muscles changing?
The recent eyeglass history for my left eye is so:

(Sph = "Sphere", Cyl = "Cylinder", Axs = "Axis";
Adj.Sph, Adj.Cyl = Adjusted Sph, Cyl = Sph/Cyl + Add)

Year Sph Cyl Axs Add
==== ===== ===== === =====
1988? -0.25 +2.75 80 ---
1990 -3.00 +4.00 85 --- Adj.Sph Adj.Cyl
2002 -2.00 +3.00 80 --- ======= =======
2004 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.25 -0.75 +4.25
2005 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.75 -0.25 +4.75

The vision didn't really change between 1988-90, it was just that, until
the right eye went down the tubes, I had used my eyes complementarily:
My (then) "bad" (left) eye was used for close-up vision and the (then)
"good" (right) eye was used for distance.
Once the right eye became useless, the left eye was re-evaluated.
A couple of other characteristics/properties that may be contributing
factor(s):

--- The left eye pressure is relatively low (7-13--whereas the right eye
is usually 1 or less!)--so don't even THINK of suggesting anything
surgical (vitrectomy, LASIK, etc.)! P=/
--- The left eye also has a slight "reverse sided" cataract (whereas a
"normal" cataract develops on the outside of the lens, this one is on
the *inside* of the lens).

With all that said, here is the $50 question: Is there such a thing as
"dual focus"?
In other words, could my distance vision be both -2.00/+3.00 *AND* about
-0.25/+2.75, with perhaps some tweaking of the Cyl and/or Axs?
It was during the time I had my order in for my first pair of bifocals
last summer, that I tried on all of my old glasses and found that my
"1988" pair seemed perfect for reading--and not half bad for distance!
Over the past year, since I got the bifocals, I've checked my distance
vision through the bifocal and it seems less and less clear: When I
first looked though the "1988" glasses and the bifocals, the distance
didn't really look blurry, everything just had a slight "ghosting" to it
(like looking though binoculars or a telescope that is out of focus:
When you adjust the focus of the binoculars/telescope, are you changing
the Sph, Cyl, both or neither?); recently, though, I've found that
looking in the distance through the new bifocals (and "1988" glasses)
does introduce a definite blurriness, besides the "ghosting" (which my
oculist said was going to start happening as the "Add" increased, even
at mid-distance, thus requiring either trifocals or progressives--which
I *have* considered).
Even more "perverse", if I turn my glasses backwards so that the outside
face of the glasses is "facing my face" with the (normally positioned)
left eyeglass in front of my left eye and the (normally positioned)
right eyeglass hanging off to the left of my head: If I rest the top
edge of my left eyeglass against my left eyebrow, tilt the bottom of the
resting eyeglass out/up slightly (15°-30°--The Sph and/or Cyl
component/action?)) and turn the tilted glass slightly counterclockwise
(5°-15°--The Cyl and/or Axs component/action), (albeit, everything looks
a little smaller) looking through the upper part of the bifocal section,
the distance looks almost as clear as through the regular distance part
of the lens! The kicker is that when I turn my attention to up close
(intended "bifocal") vision, holding the glasses in the same position,
at the same angle, looking out through the same area of the bifocal, I
can still read up close, perfectly clear (maybe even *slightly* better
than via the prescribed way!), whereas the non-bifocal part is just as
fuzzy as the other way!!
Thus the main question: Is it possible to have two (or more) equally
valid focal values, at least for distance?
One difference I notice is that, looking through the regular distance
lens, the "vitreous wad" is more like a "puff of smoke" and out of
focus, whereas, through the bifocal, everything looks "watery" (at
times, anyways, even a little greasy?), like I am looking through a
clear piece of "Saran Wrap" that is spread out but anchored underwater
(i.e., I am looking *through* the vitreal fluid--at least more--in focus?).
Could the "ghosting"/slight double imaging (at least partly) be the
image reflecting (refracting?) off of the vitreous, like looking through
a double paned window, thus what may be my "natural" 20/20 vision with
-0.25/+2.75 is "ghosted" by the "double pane" effect of the vitreous,
which is cancelled out with the -2.00/+3.00 values--and now that it is
starting to present itself, presbyopia isn't compatible with the
-2.00/+3.00 values???
Can the Cyl and Axs have two different values for bifocals or does the
bifocal and rest of the glass have to have the same values?

Dick Dead-Eye

unread,
Aug 29, 2005, 3:21:31 PM8/29/05
to

William Stacy

unread,
Aug 29, 2005, 4:20:41 PM8/29/05
to
Before I look in detail at all this stuff, and might come up with some
ideas for you, I know for sure that I will be making this one
suggestion: If you already haven't done so, get a vitreo-retinal
specialist to do a complete vitreo-retinal examination of your eyes. You
may need a referral from an o.d. or an o.m.d., or just faxing this reply
with your post included, to the retinologist might do the trick. Make
sure if you're going to use insurance, that your insurance will accept
the retinologist and vice-versa.

You need a definitive vitreo-retinal diagnosis, a more definitive one
that would come from either an o.d. or a general o.m.d.

w.stacy, o.d.

Jim Klein

unread,
Aug 29, 2005, 8:10:11 PM8/29/05
to
Wow!

My heart goes out to you.

I'll never feel bad about going bald again.

Jim Klein

Dick DeadEye

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 6:06:26 PM9/3/05
to
To begin with, my eyes have always been subpar.
I've worn glasses since whenever I can remember, for myopia with a
strong astigmatism and had surgery to correct amblyopia (not sure which
eye) when I was about 6 or 7.
Then back in the fall of '79, when I was 13, I awoke with floaters in my
left eye, which becane inflamed with a rip roarin' case of
chorioretinitis (at the time they suspected it was caused by
toxoplasmosis), with the vision deteriorating to less than 20/200.
The inflammation cleared up and, while technically my vision returned to
20/20, the field was reduced by scarring around the edges and the
vitreous was--at least partly--detached.
Fast forward to Jan.'89 when, one morning, I suddenly noticed a couple
of small, pure black spots in the near center vision of my right eye.
It turned out to be a "cold sore" on my optic nerve! Like my left eye,
10 years earlier (which they now believe may have also been caused by a
herpes infection, not toxo), the right eye became inflamed, started to
recover, then reinflamed, this time totally cooking it, to be followed
in a few months by a trauma induced cataract! P=(
So now I am totally blind in one eye and half blind in the other (in the
sense of the field is reduced and the detached vitreous has greatly
reduced the quality of the remaining vision in that eye: It takes
longer for the eye to adjust to darkness {and, even then, it's only
about half--or even less--sensitive than my [previously] "good" eye},
there is a mild reduction in overall "brightness contrast" {a slight
"film" caused by the vitreous?}--though, since that is the only eye I
see out of, I don't notice it--and there is a mostly transparent {except
when I squint, when it looks "bubbley/sudsy"} wrinkly wad of "raw
causing (besides the "gooiness") some mild inflammation: The distant

"wall chart" vision remained relatively close to 20/20, but I needed a
magnifying glass to be able to read even regular newspaper size print!
Even a couple of months after the inflammation cleared up, it was
apparent I now needed reading glasses/bifocals: Do I need reading

glasses because of the event, or was the vitreous event caused by my eye
(focus) muscles changing?
The recent eyeglass history for my left eye is so:

(Sph = "Sphere", Cyl = "Cylinder", Axs = "Axis";
Adj.Sph, Adj.Cyl = Adjusted Sph, Cyl = Sph/Cyl + Add)

Year Sph Cyl Axs
==== ===== ===== ===
*** 1976? -1.50 +3.25 80 (Right eye = -1.25 +3.75 105)
1988? -0.25 +2.75 80
1990 -3.00 +4.00 85 Add Adj.Sph Adj.Cyl
2002 -2.00 +3.00 80 ===== ======= =======


2004 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.25 -0.75 +4.25
2005 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.75 -0.25 +4.75

The vision didn't really change between 1988-90, it was just that, until
the right eye went down the tubes, I had used my eyes complementarily:
My (then) "bad" (left) eye was used for close-up vision and the (then)
"good" (right) eye was used for distance.
Once the right eye became useless, the left eye was re-evaluated.
A couple of other characteristics/properties that may be contributing
factor(s):

--- The left eye pressure is relatively low (7-13--whereas the right eye
is usually 1 or less!)--so don't even THINK of suggesting anything
surgical (vitrectomy, LASIK, etc.)! P=/
--- The left eye also has a slight "reverse sided" cataract (whereas a

"normal" cataract develops on the outside of the lens, this one, caused
by the inflammation and scarring, is on the *inside* of the lens).

With all that said, here is the $50 question: Is there such a thing as
"dual focus"?
In other words, could my distance vision be both -2.00/+3.00 *AND* about

-0.25/+2.75 Sph, with perhaps some tweaking of the Cyl and/or Axs?


It was during the time I had my order in for my first pair of bifocals
last summer, that I tried on all of my old glasses and found that my
"1988" pair seemed perfect for reading--and not half bad for distance!
Over the past year, since I got the bifocals, I've checked my distance
vision through the bifocal and it seems less and less clear: When I
first looked though the "1988" glasses and the bifocals, the distance
didn't really look blurry, everything just had a slight "ghosting" to it
(like looking though binoculars or a telescope that is out of focus:
When you adjust the focus of the binoculars/telescope, are you changing
the Sph, Cyl, both or neither?); recently, though, I've found that
looking in the distance through the new bifocals (and "1988" glasses)
does introduce a definite blurriness, besides the "ghosting" (which my
oculist said was going to start happening as the "Add" increased, even
at mid-distance, thus requiring either trifocals or progressives--which
I *have* considered).
Even more "perverse", if I turn my glasses backwards so that the outside
face of the glasses is "facing my face" with the (normally positioned)
left eyeglass in front of my left eye and the (normally positioned)
right eyeglass hanging off to the left of my head: If I rest the top
edge of my left eyeglass against my left eyebrow, tilt the bottom of the
resting eyeglass out/up slightly (15°-30°--The Sph and/or Cyl
component/action?)) and turn the tilted glass slightly counterclockwise

(5°-15°--The Cyl and/or Axs component/action?), (albeit, everything


looks a little smaller) looking through the upper part of the bifocal

section, the distance looks almost as clear as through the regular


distance part of the lens! The kicker is that when I turn my attention
to up close (intended "bifocal") vision, holding the glasses in the same
position, at the same angle, looking out through the same area of the
bifocal, I can still read up close, perfectly clear (maybe even
*slightly* better than via the prescribed way!), whereas the non-bifocal
part is just as fuzzy as the other way!!

*** Now, just a few days ago, I found a few more pairs of even older
glasses (maybe even my first two pairs???--I don't even think the lenses
are even an inch high and the bulky black --> grayish-white framed
{i.e., classic "geek" glasses} earpieces only go back to about .5-.75
way to my ears!), and one of the more recent of them (I suspect from
about 1976, well before my left eye became afflicted: They actually
half fit!)--I kid you not--provides ALMOST PERFECT vision, both for
distance AND close-up!!!
The distance looks almost as good as through my current distance
lens--and a lot better than the bifocals/"1988" pairs--while the near
and far intermediate distances seem about right (whereas both the
distance and bifocal parts of my current glasses appear a bit fuzzy) and
the close-up is also mildly to moderately fuzzy (as compared to major to
severe fuzziness with my distance lens--almost like I'm not wearing
glasses!), *BUT* there *is* the classic urge to move away whatever it is
I am looking at (and it *does* lessen the fuzziness a bit), unlike with
the distance lens, where the fuzziness appears constant, even as you
move it away! And, like with the "1988" pair, if you turn the "1976"
pair backwards and tilt them a certain way, it seems to improve the
vision (at all distances) slightly (as well as by looking out the
extreme edge, where the frame seems to modulate it slightly, like when
you look through pinholes).

Thus the main question: Is it possible to have two (or more) equally
valid focal values, at least for distance?
One difference I notice is that, looking through the regular distance
lens, the "vitreous wad" is more like a "puff of smoke" and out of
focus, whereas, through the bifocal, everything looks "watery" (at
times, anyways, even a little greasy?), like I am looking through a
clear piece of "Saran Wrap" that is spread out but anchored underwater
(i.e., I am looking *through* the vitreal fluid--at least more--in focus?).

Another, related analogy is fresh vs. salt water: A "normal" eye sees
things through fresh, clear pond water, whereas I'm looking through
relatively clear, but still slightly hazy, salty seawater.


Could the "ghosting"/slight double imaging (at least partly) be the
image reflecting (refracting?) off of the vitreous, like looking through
a double paned window, thus what may be my "natural" 20/20 vision with
-0.25/+2.75 is "ghosted" by the "double pane" effect of the vitreous,
which is cancelled out with the -2.00/+3.00 values--and now that it is
starting to present itself, presbyopia isn't compatible with the
-2.00/+3.00 values???
Can the Cyl and Axs have two different values for bifocals or does the
bifocal and rest of the glass have to have the same values?

Another possible culprit/"irritant" I've wondered about is the lens type.
These newly found ("1976") glasses--I believe--have pure glass lenses,
while the "1988" pair have simple plastic lenses. All the more recent
pairs, however, are "UV coated" (polycarbonate?--that option isn't
circled on the prescription: But isn't all "UV coated" lens
polycarbonate?) plastic, which seems prone to fogging/greasing up in the
upper inside corner of the lens (by the nose), and which the optician
advises should be cleaned with a wet (not dry) cloth/tissue.
It *could* just be my imagination, but it seems that the bifocal in my
current glasses gives a slightly hazier view than the "1988" pair (and
they both work out to a Sph of -0.25, though there is a 2.00 difference
in Cyl), with, maybe, even slightly lesser haziness with the "1976" pure
glass lens.
Given the compexities of my situation, would it be advisable to consider
finding an optometrist (who may be up on all of the obscure optic tricks
of optometry) rather than have my regular opthamologist do it--or is
an opthamologist just as advancedly versed as an optometrist, in terms
of lens and glasses (I'm thinking like, while a general opthamologist
may be *qualified* to treat my retinal problems, at the onset of my
right eye's event, I was referred to a retinologist, with all of the
special equipment, etc.)?
After finding the "1976" pair and having the prescription evaluated, it
*is* between my current distant and close-up vision--though a lot closer
to the distant value, and there seems to be a lot less fuzziness
close-up (and even intermediate) than with my current distance lens,
given that there is only a 0.50 Sph and 0.25 Cyl difference between the
two, the fuzziness difference between the two doesn't right!?!--so
considering trifocals or even progressives does seem a lot more
palatable now.
Trifocals
_______________ _______________ _______________
| \ | \ | \
| | |________________| |_______________|
| ___________| | | | |
| |___________| | | | |
| | | |----------------| | +----------|
| | / | / | | /
| | / | / | | /
\_____\_______/ \_____________/ \_____\______/
Traditional Other Variations?

While the first figure is the traditional trifocal, are there any
variations (my optician says that there is one that he knows of, known
as "computer glasses"{?}--but they are real expensive)?

-"Dick DeadEye"

Dick DeadEye

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 6:07:50 PM9/3/05
to

Dick DeadEye

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 6:09:31 PM9/3/05
to

Dick DeadEye

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 6:20:15 PM9/3/05
to Dick DeadEye
Whoooooeee!

Sorry about then earlier and multiple copies, I didn't intend on them
going out!!! P=(

This IS the intended posting:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/msg/9b9daa68c98e9b62

or, if the ASCII "pictures" came out bad:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/msg/9b9daa68c98e9b62?dmode=source

Dick DeadEye wrote:
> To begin with, my eyes have always been subpar.

> -"Dick DeadEye"

Dick DeadEye

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 6:35:54 PM9/3/05
to
William Stacy wrote:
> Before I look in detail at all this stuff, and might come up with some
> ideas for you, I know for sure that I will be making this one
> suggestion: If you already haven't done so, get a vitreo-retinal
> specialist to do a complete vitreo-retinal examination of your eyes. You
> may need a referral from an o.d. or an o.m.d., or just faxing this reply
> with your post included, to the retinologist might do the trick. Make
> sure if you're going to use insurance, that your insurance will accept
> the retinologist and vice-versa.
> You need a definitive vitreo-retinal diagnosis, a more definitive one
> that would come from either an o.d. or a general o.m.d.
>
> w.stacy, o.d.

Oh yes, as I note in my fresh, intended posting, I do have a
retinologist (well known), with my file about 6 inches thick(!), full of
pictures, -grams, bloodwork--everything!

-"Dick DeadEye"

Dr Judy

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 2:24:45 PM9/4/05
to
"Dick Dead-Eye" <anony...@rodent.mx> wrote in message
news:4313603B...@rodent.mx...
snip

<Then, last Feb ('04), another episode started, this time to the point of
causing some mild inflammation: The distant "wall chart" vision
remained relatively close to 20/20, but I needed a magnifying glass to
be able to read even regular newspaper size print!>

How old are you? It is normal to start to have trouble with fine print
sometime between the ages of 38 and 45.

snip

<The recent eyeglass history for my left eye is so:

(Sph = "Sphere", Cyl = "Cylinder", Axs = "Axis";
Adj.Sph, Adj.Cyl = Adjusted Sph, Cyl = Sph/Cyl + Add)

Year Sph Cyl Axs Add
==== ===== ===== === =====
1988? -0.25 +2.75 80 ---
1990 -3.00 +4.00 85 --- Adj.Sph Adj.Cyl
2002 -2.00 +3.00 80 --- ======= =======
2004 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.25 -0.75 +4.25
2005 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.75 -0.25 +4.75

The vision didn't really change between 1988-90, it was just that, until
the right eye went down the tubes, I had used my eyes complementarily:
My (then) "bad" (left) eye was used for close-up vision and the (then)
"good" (right) eye was used for distance>

snip


<With all that said, here is the $50 question: Is there such a thing as
"dual focus"?
In other words, could my distance vision be both -2.00/+3.00 *AND* about
-0.25/+2.75, with perhaps some tweaking of the Cyl and/or Axs?
It was during the time I had my order in for my first pair of bifocals
last summer, that I tried on all of my old glasses and found that my
"1988" pair seemed perfect for reading--and not half bad for distance!>

snip

<Can the Cyl and Axs have two different values for bifocals or does the
bifocal and rest of the glass have to have the same values?>

No, you can't have two distance prescriptions and yes, the bifocals cyl and
axis is the same in the top and bottom of the glasses. However, by twisting
and tipping the glasses you change the effective power and axis. If you
have progressives, there is induced cyl at various points in the lens
outside the normal viewing area and by twisting, tipping and reversing the
glasses you may well find an area that corresponds somewhat to your
prescription.

The reason you can see (sort of) in the distance with your old near glasses
is your large amount of astigmatism. In one meridan your current distance
prescription for is -2.00 and in the other meridian it is +1.00, and the
equivalent sphere is -0.50. Your current near presciption is -0.25 in one
meridan and +2.75 in the other, equivalent sphere is +1.25. Your 1988 near
glasses prescription is -0.25 in one meridan and +2.50 in the other,
equivalent sphere is +1.00, virtually the same as required for near. You
can also see that the -0.25 meridian is not far off from the +1.00 you need
at distance, so by twisting an angling the glasses you could see at
distance, although a little blurry.

Looking at the equivalent spheres (your prescription if the astigmatism was
not in the glasses and refraction was done using only spherical lenses)
tells the tale: your distance ES is -0.50 and the old glasses provide
+1.00, so you would see about well in the distance with those near glasses
as a 1.00 to150 myope would: somewhat blurry but tolerable.

Dr Judy


Dick DeadEye

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 3:20:28 PM9/5/05
to
Dr Judy wrote:
> "Dick Dead-Eye" <anony...@rodent.mx> wrote in message
> news:4313603B...@rodent.mx...
> snip
>
> <Then, last Feb ('04), another episode started, this time to the point
> of causing some mild inflammation: The distant "wall chart" vision
> remained relatively close to 20/20, but I needed a magnifying glass to
> be able to read even regular newspaper size print!>
>
> How old are you? It is normal to start to have trouble with fine
> print sometime between the ages of 38 and 45.

Yes, I'm right on the edge (currently 39)! P=)

> snip
>
> <Can the Cyl and Axs have two different values for bifocals or does
> the bifocal and rest of the glass have to have the same values?>
>
> No, you can't have two distance prescriptions and yes, the bifocals
> cyl and axis is the same in the top and bottom of the glasses.
> However, by twisting and tipping the glasses you change the effective
> power and axis. If you have progressives, there is induced cyl at
> various points in the lens outside the normal viewing area and by
> twisting, tipping and reversing the glasses you may well find an area
> that corresponds somewhat to your prescription.
>
> The reason you can see (sort of) in the distance with your old near
> glasses is your large amount of astigmatism. In one meridan your
> current distance prescription for is -2.00 and in the other meridian
> it is +1.00, and the equivalent sphere is -0.50. Your current near
> presciption is -0.25 in one meridan and +2.75 in the other, equivalent
> sphere is +1.25. Your 1988 near glasses prescription is -0.25 in one
> meridan and +2.50 in the other, equivalent sphere is +1.00, virtually
> the same as required for near. You can also see that the -0.25
> meridian is not far off from the +1.00 you need at distance, so by
> twisting an angling the glasses you could see at distance, although a
> little blurry.

Did you see my extended, reworked post (which was my intended one P=/),
with the older "1976" pair:

news:431A1F1B...@yahoo.com

> The recent eyeglass history for my left eye is so:
>

#> (Sph = "Sphere", Cyl = "Cylinder", Axs = "Axis";
#> Adj.Sph, Adj.Cyl = Adjusted Sph, Cyl = Sph/Cyl + Add)
#>
#> Year Sph Cyl Axs
#> ==== ===== ===== ===
#> *** 1976? -1.50 +3.25 80 (Right eye = -1.25 +3.75 105)
#> 1988? -0.25 +2.75 80
#> 1990 -3.00 +4.00 85 Add Adj.Sph Adj.Cyl
#> 2002 -2.00 +3.00 80 ===== ==============
#> 2004 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.25 -0.75 +4.25
#> 2005 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.75 -0.25 +4.75

> Looking at the equivalent spheres (your prescription if the stigmatism


> was not in the glasses and refraction was done using only spherical
> lenses) tells the tale: your distance ES is -0.50 and the old glasses
> provide +1.00, so you would see about well in the distance with those
> near glasses as a 1.00 to150 myope would: somewhat blurry but
> tolerable.

What is the actual equation for finding the equivalent spherical?

-"Dick DeadEye"

Dr Judy

unread,
Sep 6, 2005, 10:15:04 PM9/6/05
to
"Dick DeadEye" <anony...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:431C9A7C...@yahoo.com...

Sphere plus 1/2 the cyl, respecting signs.

So your 1976 Rx eqiv sphere is (-1.50 ) + (+3.25/2) = +0.12 which is even
closer to -0.50. It also is about 0.50 undercorrecting your myopia and thus
it provides some improvement at near as well.

Dr Judy

>
> -"Dick DeadEye"


Dick DeadEye

unread,
Sep 8, 2005, 3:09:24 PM9/8/05
to
Dr Judy wrote:
> "Dick DeadEye" <anony...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:431C9A7C...@yahoo.com...
>
>> Dr Judy wrote:
<snip>

>>> The reason you can see (sort of) in the distance with your old near
>>> glasses is your large amount of astigmatism. In one meridan your
>>> current distance prescription for is -2.00 and in the other
>>> meridian it is +1.00, and the equivalent sphere is -0.50. Your
>>> current near presciption is -0.25 in one meridan and +2.75 in the
>>> other, equivalent sphere is +1.25. Your 1988 near glasses
>>> prescription is -0.25 in one meridan and +2.50 in the other,
>>> equivalent sphere is +1.00, virtually the same as required for near.
>>> You can also see that the -0.25 meridian is not far off from the
>>> +1.00 you need at distance, so by twisting an angling the glasses
>>> you could see at distance, although a little blurry.

Okay, I found a page that seems to give a decent explanation and
illustration:

http://www.eyecarecontacts.com/optical_lens_prescriptions.html

So Cyl is the dioptic spread between meridian boundaries: Sph equals
the meridian's dioptic value at angle Axs 0° ("Meridian_0°"--or is it
"Meridian_90°"?), and Sph + Cyl is the other meridian's value at angle
Axs ("Meridian_Axs°")--why not just express it as "Mer_0,Mer_x"?
So, based on the "1976" glasses, my left eye's lens may be Meridian_0° =
-1.50 and Meridian_80° = -1.50 + 3.25 = +1.75 (Meridian_20° may be
something like -0.65, Meridian_40° may be +0.05 and Meridian_60° may be
+0.90), whereas my current glasses correct for Meridian_0° = -2.00,
Meridian_85° = +1.00 (distance) and Meridian_0° = -0.25, Meridian_85° =
2.75 (close-up).

<snip>

>>#> (Sph = "Sphere", Cyl = "Cylinder", Axs = "Axis";
>>#> Adj.Sph, Adj.Cyl = Adjusted Sph, Cyl = Sph/Cyl + Add)
>>#>
>>#> Year Sph Cyl Axs
>>#> ==== ===== ===== ===
>>#> *** 1976? -1.50 +3.25 80 (Right eye = -1.25 +3.75 105)
>>#> 1988? -0.25 +2.75 80
>>#> 1990 -3.00 +4.00 85 Add Adj.Sph Adj.Cyl
>>#> 2002 -2.00 +3.00 80 ===== ==============
>>#> 2004 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.25 -0.75 +4.25
>>#> 2005 -2.00 +3.00 85 +1.75 -0.25 +4.75
>>
>>
>>> Looking at the equivalent spheres (your prescription if the
>>> stigmatism was not in the glasses and refraction was done using only
>>> spherical lenses) tells the tale: your distance ES is -0.50 and the
>>> old glasses provide +1.00, so you would see about well in the
>>> distance with those near glasses as a 1.00 to150 myope would:
>>> somewhat blurry but tolerable.
>>
>> What is the actual equation for finding the equivalent spherical?
>
>
> Sphere plus 1/2 the cyl, respecting signs.
>
> So your 1976 Rx eqiv sphere is (-1.50 ) + (+3.25/2) = +0.12 which
> is even closer to -0.50. It also is about 0.50 undercorrecting your
> myopia and thus it provides some improvement at near as well.

I see (no pun intended! P=), it's .5*(Meridian_0° + Meridian_Axs°)
--though, would it be safe to say that that is just an approximation (it
is actually the divided difference of a definite integral)?

-"Dick DeadEye"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages