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.
On 1/10/18 5:46 PM, rickman wrote:
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.
What do you know of my education exactly?
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 to say. I'm done with you.
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.
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:29:23 -0800 (PST), pfjw@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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com
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