Guest
IMO
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
T
The Real Bev
Guest
On 01/09/2018 02:33 AM, bruce2bowser@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
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
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
T
The Real Bev
Guest
On 01/09/2018 11:29 AM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
Plastic and glass block UV. The cheap ones are made by the same people
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.
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!
Plastic and glass block UV. The cheap ones are made by the same people
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.
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
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
T
The Real Bev
Guest
On 01/09/2018 12:40 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
Good to know. I was really annoyed that my prescription plastic
photogrey lenses didn't darken in the car because of insufficient UV --
in my defense, nobody worried about UVA back in the dark ages :-(
Opticians are amazingly good at convincing people that they need
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.
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...
--
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
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
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.
Opticians are amazingly good at convincing people that they need
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.
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...
--
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
R
rickman
Guest
pfjw@aol.com wrote on 1/9/2018 3:40 PM:
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!
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
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!
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:10:52 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
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.
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
pfjw@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.
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
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:46:08 PM UTC-5, The Real Bev wrote:
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.
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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
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.
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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
T
The Real Bev
Guest
On 01/10/2018 07:49 AM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
Near us there is a small vet complex including a doggie ophthalmologist.
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.
I wonder if people are just increasingly less tolerant of imperfection
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if people are just increasingly less tolerant of imperfection
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.
R
rickman
Guest
pfjw@aol.com wrote on 1/10/2018 10:40 AM:
Given those statements it is clear there is no reason for me to try to
discuss anything with you.
Me what? Do you realize that nothing in these two paragraphs supports any
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.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:10:52 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
pfjw@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
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?
Me what? Do you realize that nothing in these two paragraphs supports any
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.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
Guest
On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 3:40:23 PM UTC-5, pf...@aol.com wrote:
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?
Sunglasses Hut? in the mall?
F
Fox's Mercantile
Guest
On 1/10/18 2:37 PM, rickman wrote:
You're learning.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
Like I said, I won't be discussing this with you since you feel nothing
I say is worthwhile.
You're learning.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
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.
âYou are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.â
- 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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
You are incapable of discussion. At any level, either reasonable or not. You are ignorant. Not stupid, just full-bore, invincibly and irreducibly ignorant.
âYou are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.â
- 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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
P
pfjw@aol.com
Guest
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:41:47 PM UTC-5, The Real Bev wrote:
Mpffff... Agreed on the spirit of all that.
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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
On 01/10/2018 07:49 AM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
I wonder if people are just increasingly less tolerant of imperfection
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 :-(
Mpffff... Agreed on the spirit of all that.
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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
R
rickman
Guest
pfjw@aol.com wrote on 1/10/2018 4:24 PM:
I think it is clear why you post here. You like to have conversations where
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.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
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.
âYou are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.â
- 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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
I think it is clear why you post here. You like to have conversations where
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.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
Guest
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:50:43 -0800 (PST), "pfjw@aol.com"
<pfjw@aol.com> wrote:
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
<pfjw@aol.com> wrote:
Yeah, ain't modern medicine great? My wife was saved by a good docOn Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:41:47 PM UTC-5, The Real Bev wrote:
On 01/10/2018 07:49 AM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
I wonder if people are just increasingly less tolerant of imperfection
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 :-(
Mpffff... Agreed on the spirit of all that.
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.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
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
T
The Real Bev
Guest
On 01/10/2018 01:50 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
All my life I've been healthy. Organs fine, rarely get sick. My eyes
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
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:41:47 PM UTC-5, The Real Bev
wrote:
On 01/10/2018 07:49 AM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:
I wonder if people are just increasingly less tolerant of
imperfection 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 :-(
Mpffff... Agreed on the spirit of all that.
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.
All my life I've been healthy. Organs fine, rarely get sick. My eyes
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
F
Fox's Mercantile
Guest
On 1/10/18 5:46 PM, rickman wrote:
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.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
pfjw@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.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
H
Harry Newton
Guest
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:29:23 -0800 (PST), pfjw@aol.com wrote:
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.
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...
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.
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...