Crizal Sapphire with UV???

[chip anderson]

Hate to beg the question but... Does anyone have any evidence that eyeglass wearers have any less skin cancer or retinal problems or cataracts than non-eyeglass wearers? Does anyone have any evidence that eyeglass wearers with addittional UV filters have any less eye problems than those without?
It's one thing to say that Floridians have more skin cancer than those from Maine, quite another to say we have evidence that specificly shows our sheep dip reduces lid/eyecancer/eye-problems than those not using it.
Do not miss-understand me I am not against these things I am must aware that one can "prove" anything with statistics expecially if it will sell a product.

Chip

Chip

[rdcoach5]

OK, if they can do this with UV, why can't they invent something to stop the blinding glare that comes from the edge of the lens. Other than a dark color coat, that is not very appealing cosmetically.

[optilady1]

Hate to beg the question but... Does anyone have any evidence that eyeglass wearers have any less skin cancer or retinal problems or cataracts than non-eyeglass wearers? Does anyone have any evidence that eyeglass wearers with addittional UV filters have any less eye problems than those without?
It's one thing to say that Floridians have more skin cancer than those from Maine, quite another to say we have evidence that specificly shows our sheep dip reduces lid/eyecancer/eye-problems than those not using it.
Do not miss-understand me I am not against these things I am must aware that one can "prove" anything with statistics expecially if it will sell a product.

Chip

Chip

My totally un-scientific evidence is this: In my current job for an MD, we obviously do a lot of cat surgery, and it seems that my patients who have been wearing glasses from very early ages have their cataracts removed much later in life than those who haven't

[MikeAurelius]

My totally un-scientific evidence is this: In my current job for an MD, we obviously do a lot of cat surgery, and it seems that my patients who have been wearing glasses from very early ages have their cataracts removed much later in life than those who haven't

That's pretty good unscientific evidence IMO, now, even better, would be to go back in history (I know it can't be done, but it would be a fun investigation) and find out what they were wearing (material, coatings, etc) for all those years. Also then compare that to the non-glass wearing (assume no Rx, right?) to see if they wore sunglasses and what type.

[optilady1]

That's pretty good unscientific evidence IMO, now, even better, would be to go back in history (I know it can't be done, but it would be a fun investigation) and find out what they were wearing (material, coatings, etc) for all those years. Also then compare that to the non-glass wearing (assume no Rx, right?) to see if they wore sunglasses and what type.

I see lot's of long wearing PGX/transition patients going into their late 80's before having their cataracts removed. It's very hard to say who's had sunglasses, since most of the time when I'm filing post cataract surg. glasses, the patients are able to do non-rx suns, so I'm not discussing it at the time. I would definitely say that the 50-60 year old surgery crowd are fair and blue eyed. But there are plenty of examples to the opposite.

There's also the fact that these generations of patient were not typically sun worshipers. While they weren't wearing bonnets or using parisols, they still thought that lighter skin was more attractive than tan skin. But even that fact can be argued by my many many patients who winter in Florida.

[MikeAurelius]

I would definitely say that the 50-60 year old surgery crowd are fair and blue eyed.

And yet more proof of the "melanin link".

I've got plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to many of my glassblowing customers who have dark(er) skin and dark eyes (brown mainly) are much less sensitive to the bright color flares and intense heat from hot glassworking operations than the typical nordic blonde, blue-eyed or celtic red haired, green-eyed.

[rdcoach5]

OK, if they can do this with UV, why can't they invent something to stop the blinding glare that comes from the edge of the lens. Other than a dark color coat, that is not very appealing cosmetically.

Just answered my own question. While walking 3 miles, I noticed I don't get the blinding glare with my new glasses. I didn't order my -9.00 Rx with polished edges. What a difference. DUH !!!

[optilady1]

And yet more proof of the "melanin link".

I've got plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to many of my glassblowing customers who have dark(er) skin and dark eyes (brown mainly) are much less sensitive to the bright color flares and intense heat from hot glassworking operations than the typical nordic blonde, blue-eyed or celtic red haired, green-eyed.

The fact that so many African-American and other dark skinned ethnicities look freaking fabulous well into their 50's, 60's and 70's is proof that their skin doesn't age the same way as white skin does. One time, I had a beautiful man and woman come in to pick out glasses, so I asked the guy what his wife thought, and he looked at me like I was crazy, and said, "Um, that's my mom."

[Darryl Meister]

he looked at me like I was crazy, and said, "Um, that's my mom."

And then comes that awkward moment in which you must quickly come up with a clever response to extract your foot from your mouth as casually as possible...

Best regards,
Darryl

[optilady1]

And then comes that awkward moment in which you must quickly come up with a clever response to extract your foot from your mouth as casually as possible...

Best regards,
Darryl

With my disposable socks...

[Darryl Meister]

With my disposable socks

I'd probably be more worried about disposable underwear at the point.

[optilady1]

I'd probably be more worried about disposable underwear at the point.

Still better than edible

[braheem24]

The fact that so many African-American and other dark skinned ethnicities look freaking fabulous well into their 50's, 60's and 70's is proof that their skin doesn't age the same way as white skin does. One time, I had a beautiful man and woman come in to pick out glasses, so I asked the guy what his wife thought, and he looked at me like I was crazy, and said, "Um, that's my mom."

Proof they don't ALL age better ;)

[Uncle Fester]

The fact that so many African-American and other dark skinned ethnicities look freaking fabulous well into their 50's, 60's and 70's is proof that their skin doesn't age the same way as white skin does. One time, I had a beautiful man and woman come in to pick out glasses, so I asked the guy what his wife thought, and he looked at me like I was crazy, and said, "Um, that's my mom."

I'm sure mom didn't see any problem with your confusion.

[jade8975]

I would always try to dispense at least a poly lens unless a pt really insists not to. So my question is since it is already 100% uv proof then what is the big deal to upgrade to Crizal sapphire with uv? What are the advantages?

Some sunglasses and clear lenses made with higher quality material block UV light from transmitting through the front of the lens, but they do not address the UV light from reflecting off the backside of the lens. All Crizal coatings have an Eye Sun Protection Factor index of 25 (E-SPF 25), meaning your eyes are 25 times better protected from dangerous UV light reflecting off the back of the lens than wearing no protection at all.

[edKENdance]

Some sunglasses and clear lenses made with higher quality material block UV light from transmitting through the front of the lens, but they do not address the UV light from reflecting off the backside of the lens. All Crizal coatings have an Eye Sun Protection Factor index of 25 (E-SPF 25), meaning your eyes are 25 times better protected from dangerous UV light reflecting off the back of the lens than wearing no protection at all.

I think it's worth noting that Essilor created the E-SPF rating system to help sell its lenses and coatings.

[Uilleann]

It's also worth nothing that despite what many here think of Essilor, minimizing UV reflectance from the posterior surface of ophthalmic lenses is by no means a negative. They were the first to do so on the broad market, and now everyone and their dog is playing catch up.

Credit where it's due.

[edKENdance]

It's also worth nothing that despite what many here think of Essilor, minimizing UV reflectance from the posterior surface of ophthalmic lenses is by no means a negative. They were the first to do so on the broad market, and now everyone and their dog is playing catch up.

Credit where it's due.

The E-SPF system has more in common with the T-zone created by scientists to sell cigarettes then it has to do with actual science. It's branded science to sell lenses. Do they have the right to do it because they developed a lens coating that eliminates a problem nobody was aware they had to solve? Maybe. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Uilleann]

Comparing UV reduction to selling cigarettes? That's quite a stretch. UV exposure is a known negative factor in human health. Reducing it is good. You can't fault them for being the first out of the gate in doing so. At the end of the day, you don't have to use any of their products, as there are others who have rushed to compete with similar tech now. But I wouldn't want to be one to turn away a patient who asked about it specifically.

Cheers

[edKENdance]

Comparing UV reduction to selling cigarettes? That's quite a stretch. UV exposure is a known negative factor in human health. Reducing it is good. You can't fault them for being the first out of the gate in doing so. At the end of the day, you don't have to use any of their products, as there are others who have rushed to compete with similar tech now. But I wouldn't want to be one to turn away a patient who asked about it specifically.

Cheers

You're not getting me. My issue isn't with the coating. It's about branded "science" like the scale developed by Essilor. When I read posts like the one from Jade8975 up there it sounds like she's referring to something developed by scientists as opposed to something that was created by an incredibly slick marketing team. Everyone knows and trusts SPF ratings. Slapping a big E in front of it is supposed to lend it a lot of credibility and it works and its infuriating.

[Uilleann]

Still...

It gets people aware of ocular health, and perhaps even buying into the concept that they can (and indeed should) be more aware of potential hazards such as UV. Heath care of ANY kind is attached to marketing departments these days. It's how awareness is created - love it or hate it. No one can fault Essilor for taking the financial risk of developing a safer product (even if only slightly so - it's measurable and desirable), and bringing that product to market. The sheer number of companies that copied this move should tell you that others see the value in it as well.

[edKENdance]

Still...

It gets people aware of ocular health, and perhaps even buying into the concept that they can (and indeed should) be more aware of potential hazards such as UV. Heath care of ANY kind is attached to marketing departments these days. It's how awareness is created - love it or hate it. No one can fault Essilor for taking the financial risk of developing a safer product (even if only slightly so - it's measurable and desirable), and bringing that product to market. The sheer number of companies that copied this move should tell you that others see the value in it as well.

Just out of curiosity, who copied it? I'm not aware of anything up here where I live. It's not something that's patented?

[racethe1320]

I think it's worth noting that Essilor created the E-SPF rating system to help sell its lenses and coatings.

Meh...in my opinion it was a very mild change used to jusify the price increase across the board to every lab out there.

[Chris Ryser]

Meh...in my opinion it was a very mild change used to jusify the price increase across the board to every lab out there.

Amild change for a customer can reflect big time for a huge corporation.

[racethe1320]

Amild change for a customer can reflect big time for a huge corporation.

Agree. I remember they reported a growth of a few points after this to make it look as if they were actually "growing" when in fact all they are doing is growing through acquisition and hoping they can continue to do so as every private label lens and the competition continue to clean their clock. Any day now someone from E will walk in our doors offering me a "contract" to lock me down. No thanks. They are doing this daily it seems.