My eyes can't take daylight - I squint all the time...
Ricky
I'm really uncomfortable with how I feel right now. I wake up in the
mornings feeling sluggish, tired and lack energy.
I walk to work and squint all the time - I find the daylight too
bright for me. Even if it's not sunny and is very cloudy I still
squint all the time - it makes me feel really uncomfortable. Opening
my eyes fully causes them to water.
I also get a very very dry mouth. This happens worse after a day in
the office (I drink some coffee and think this might not be helping).
But my dry mouth is really making me uncomfortable. It stops me from
smiling (making me look awkward) and my lips get all chapped cause I
end up licking them. I chew a lot of sugar free gum but I think this
sometimes makes it worse instead of better. I drink loads and loads
of water too - definitely more than enough. My urine is clear so that
means I'm getting enough water.
I work out in the gym twice a week, I've had a blood test and I have
nothing wrong at all.
In summary, any advice on these problems really appreciated:-
a) my squinting light sensitivity problem (photophobia?) it tends to
go away by the late afternoon.
b) my dry mouth problem.
Thanks!!
Ricky.
Rishigg
drfrank21
You need a good pair of sunglasses - even for cloudy days.
> b) my dry mouth problem.
>
There are some medications available for a dry mouth. Have a visit
with your primary care provider for your options.
frank
Rishigg
> You need a good pair of sunglasses - even for cloudy days.
So you can start to become blind as all the stupid people who wear them.
Tom Legerton
send you blind? How do you explain how lots of normally sighted people wear
them with no ill effects?
"Rishigg" <g.g...@agora.it> wrote in message
news:X89Ma.4276$FI4.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Rishigg
answer you.
Excuse me.
Francine Eisner
Tom, I believe that UV-protective sunglasses are recommended these days,
isn't this true? From what I've heard, the down side of wearing
sunglasses is that your pupils remain large, and they would have
contracted in bright sunlight to protect the retina. While they are
large the retina is more vulnerable.The UV-protective sunglasses are
designed to prevent retinal damage, from what I've heard.
Cheers,
Fran
"Tom Legerton" <tp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bduis8$rff$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk
> You really are a w#?!#$ aren't you Rishigg? How's a pair of shades going to
> send you blind? How do you explain how lots of normally sighted people wear
> them with no ill effects?
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
mcldanl
A person should always protect their retinas. I really enjoy your thoughtful
comments. Going in the bright sun without sunglasses produces much eye
strain and will start the development of cataracts.
Charles
"Francine Eisner" <francin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7b21e4f5ba5b74462f5...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Mike Tyner
> isn't this true? From what I've heard, the down side of wearing
> sunglasses is that your pupils remain large, and they would have
Check the math, Francine. If the pupils dilate 3 f-stops then uv flux increases
by 8x. But tinted plastic alone cuts 90-95% of UV, and UV-coated 99.99....
Where's the increase?
-MT
in message news:7b21e4f5ba5b74462f5...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Robert Martellaro
<mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Francine Eisner" <francin...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> isn't this true? From what I've heard, the down side of wearing
>> sunglasses is that your pupils remain large, and they would have
>
>Check the math, Francine. If the pupils dilate 3 f-stops then uv flux increases
>by 8x. But tinted plastic alone cuts 90-95% of UV, and UV-coated 99.99....
>Where's the increase?
>
>-MT
>
>in message news:7b21e4f5ba5b74462f5...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>> Re: A "good" pair of sunglasses:
>>
>> Tom, I believe that UV-protective sunglasses are recommended these days,
>> isn't this true? From what I've heard, the down side of wearing
>> sunglasses is that your pupils remain large, and they would have
>> contracted in bright sunlight to protect the retina. While they are
>> large the retina is more vulnerable.The UV-protective sunglasses are
>> designed to prevent retinal damage, from what I've heard.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Fran
Fran,
Here is my understanding of the issue at hand. The crystalline lens
protects the retina from UV light. High Energy Visible light
corresponding to the blue and violet portion of the sunlight spectrum
does reach the retina. If there is any risk to the retina from
sunlight it's going to come from HEV not UV. The UV protection reduces
the incidence of, and the premature acquisition of cataracts. Even
here the increased risk not significant and is a life long exposure
issue. Furthermore, my pupils do not seem to increase in diameter when
I put my sunglasses on when in the sun. I believe you would have to
have an extremely dark lens like a #9 welders lens in a wrap for there
to be a notable pupil response.
Robert Martellaro
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
rob...@execpc.com
Francine Eisner
Fran
..............
"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bduv2h$29l$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net
> by 8x. But tinted plastic alone cuts 90-95% of UV, and UV-coated 99.99....
> Where's the increase?
Francine Eisner
I usually stay out of the sun, which is likely why I don't need
sunglasses either. No wrinkles, either, at age 50: Another benefit. But
I'm at risk for cataracts, having had an eye accident in 1986. Your post
is thoughtful, too. Maybe I should wear them in any case.
Fran
............
"mcldanl" <lummy37...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vg5r2bb...@corp.supernews.com
> Fran,
> A person should always protect their retinas. I really enjoy your thoughtful
> comments. Going in the bright sun without sunglasses produces much eye
> strain and will start the development of cataracts.
>
> Charles
Francine Eisner
http://www.lipstickkillers.com/comphell/asshole.gif
.....................
"Tom Legerton" <tp...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bduis8$rff$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk
> You really are a w#?!#$ aren't you Rishigg? How's a pair of shades going to
Edward
> > isn't this true? From what I've heard, the down side of wearing
> > sunglasses is that your pupils remain large, and they would have
>
> Check the math, Francine. If the pupils dilate 3 f-stops then uv flux
increases
> by 8x. But tinted plastic alone cuts 90-95% of UV, and UV-coated 99.99....
> Where's the increase?
I agree. I don't know the attenuation at each wavelength for each material,
but I would assume that the 5 to 10% that isn't cut with plastic lenses is
probably spread out over 380 nm to 400 nm. Using your numbers for UV flux
and tinted plastic lenses, one could point out that you will have an 8 times
increase in the amount of 380 nm to 400 nm wavelengths that make it through
the pupil to strike the lens; however, that doesn't seem as significant when
compared to the amount of shorter UV wavelengths that directly strike the
conjunctiva and cornea when someone isn't wearing glasses at all.
Edward
Edward
> > by 8x. But tinted plastic alone cuts 90-95% of UV, and UV-coated
99.99....
> > Where's the increase?
>
Although you could make a reasoned argument for that, be careful that you
aren't simply comparing percentages of UV blocked by each lens to form that
conclusion. Referring to percentage of UV blocked by a particular lens
doesn't necessarily give the whole story because it doesn't indicate how
much of a particular UV wavelength is getting through. For example, a lens
could be blocking 90% of the total number of UV wavelengths, but it could be
allowing to pass through 100% of the 380 to 400 nm wavelengths. It could be
argued that it is important (i.e. NOT a waste of money) to block those
wavelengths, too.
Edward
Francine Eisner
continue to walk on the shady side of the street whenever possible, LOL.
Cheers,
Fran
"Edward" <nos...@please.com> wrote in message
news:UKJMa.22884$fG.10429@sccrnsc01
> "Francine Eisner" wrote:
> > > by 8x. But tinted plastic alone cuts 90-95% of UV, and UV-coated
> 99.99....
> > > Where's the increase?
> >
> > OK...if this is true, UV sunglasses are probably a waste of money.
>
> Although you could make a reasoned argument for that, be careful that you
Robert Martellaro
<francin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>OK...if this is true, UV sunglasses are probably a waste of money.
>
>Fran
>
>..............
>
>"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:bduv2h$29l$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net
>
>> by 8x. But tinted plastic alone cuts 90-95% of UV, and UV-coated 99.99....
>> Where's the increase?
> If the pupils dilate 3 f-stops then uv flux increases
>by 8x. But tinted plastic alone cuts 90-95% of UV, and UV-coated 99.99....
>Where's the increase?
Fran,
Mike is saying that pupil size is inconsequential, not the UV filters
on sunglasses.
Robert
Francine Eisner
side of the street, use sun block SPF 30, and also get a sun hat. I'm
going to purchase the best pair of UV-protective sunglasses I can afford
as well, and use them. This should take good care of both my eyes and
skin.
You guys know that I DO like Bates exercises, but maybe I'll stick to
sunning indoors under an incandescant bulb. Feels good, and no UV to
speak of, as far as I know.
Fran
.....................
> Mike is saying that pupil size is inconsequential, not the UV filters
> on sunglasses.
>
> Robert