Remembering the days when UV protection was important ...........

[Chris Ryser]

~FDA on Sunglasses 2012 ~

FDA on Sunglasses

Choose sunglasses that are labelled with a UVA / UVB rating of 100% to provide the most UV protection.

Do not mistake dark-tinted sunglasses as having more UV protection. The darkness of the lens does not indicate its ability to shield your eyes from UV rays. Many sunglasses with light-colour tints, such as green, amber, red, and gray offer the same UV protection as very dark lenses.
Children should also wear sunglasses that indicate the UV protection level. Toy sunglasses may not have any UV protection, so be sure to look for the UV protection label.

Large, wraparound-style frames may provide more efficient UV protection because they cover the entire eye-socket. This is especially important when doing activities around or on water because much of the UV comes from light reflected off the water’s surface.

Sunglasses are the most effective when worn with a wide-brimmed hat and sunscreen.

• Use extra caution near water, snow, and sand because they reflect damaging UV rays and increase your chance of sunburn and other damage to the skin and eyes.

Comment: How test sunglasses for UV protection
Many opticians are using UV Meters to test if lenses absorb all the UVA and UVB.

Warning: However many of these UV Meters have been made and sold to the optical retail industry, and indicate full UV 100% absorption at 382 nm which is only 50% of the UVA range. They give a faulty reading.

Examples of Broad-Spectrum Ingredients

Ingredients	Other Names
Benzophenones	Oxybenzone
Cinnamates	Octinoxate Cinoxate
Ecamsule	Mexoryl SX
Sulisobenzone
Salicylates
Titanium Dioxide
Zinc Oxide
Avobenzone	Parsol 1789

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emittin...116445.htm#top

---

[Dustin.B]

I guess I'm fairly lucky when it comes to this topic being in Alaska and all. People here change their opinions real quick when you tell them that snow reflects UV and can actually blind you during our 7 month winters. I won't let them skip it either.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I also do not trust the UV meter built into my auto-lensometer. Wish they made a real UV meter for clinical use that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

Meanwhile, I also don't trust any 100% claims for much of anything, including UV protection. According to the laws of physics, there is no such thing as 100% in nature unless you're rounding up all significant decimal places.

I would be comfortable with "almost 100%" if and only if the actual measurement were above 99.000% across the entire harmful uv spectrum.

[Chris Ryser]

I also do not trust the UV meter built into my auto-lensometer. Wish they made a real UV meter for clinical use that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

That is very easy to check in your own office. If any clear white CR39 lens that has been UV treated in a UV solution shows full UV absorption at 400 nm your UV meter is not measuring right.

A CR lens has to show a yellowish tinge to measure full absorption at 400 nm. At that point the UV solution used will go only to 835-850, which is half way without yellowish tinge..

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I already know my lensometer UV meter is whacky, so I don't use that feature. Do any of them work? If so, which ones and how accurate are they? What do YOU use or recommend to use for testing UV ?

[Uncle Fester]

Who's using cr39 these days anyway???

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Who's using cr39 these days anyway???

I do whenever I can. After all, they are the most affordable for the patient and have the best optics. Certainly not the safest, lightest, thinnest or most scratch resistant, but pretty darned good for a lot of Rxs. I don't believe in "upgrading" a patient when there's no reason for it other than the bottom line.

BTW I just queried my database and since jan 2014, here are my numbers:

Pairs Material

2 Glass

5 Mid index other than trivex

307 High index

619 Trivex

679 CR-39

3549 Poly

I'm pretty sure the numbers are currently shifting away from poly towards all other materials except glass

[Uncle Fester]

I don't believe in "upgrading" a patient when there's no reason for it other than the bottom line.

You're the last of the Mohicans out there doc! I'd venture to guess the vast majority of us out there are under constant pressure to "upgrade".

Am I correct that today's lens IOL's are uv filtering? Anyone??

[Don Gilman]

I do whenever I can. After all, they are the most affordable for the patient and have the best optics. Certainly not the safest, lightest, thinnest or most scratch resistant, but pretty darned good for a lot of Rxs. I don't believe in "upgrading" a patient when there's no reason for it other than the bottom line.

BTW I just queried my database and since jan 2014, here are my numbers:

Pairs Material

2 Glass

5 Mid index other than trivex

307 High index

619 Trivex

679 CR-39

3549 Poly

I'm pretty sure the numbers are currently shifting away from poly towards all other materials except glass

Why the shift away from Poly?

[AngeHamm]

I do whenever I can. After all, they are the most affordable for the patient and have the best optics. Certainly not the safest, lightest, thinnest or most scratch resistant, but pretty darned good for a lot of Rxs. I don't believe in "upgrading" a patient when there's no reason for it other than the bottom line.

+1. We do a lot of Trivex and CR-39, HI for higher-powered patients, and very little poly. CR-39 is great.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

You're the last of the Mohicans out there doc! I'd venture to guess the vast majority of us out there are under constant pressure to "upgrade".

Am I correct that today's lens IOL's are uv filtering? Anyone??

Don't get me started. Aw, Snap, too late...

I have to purposely train my staff who all of course are looking out for my bottom line, that sometimes what they might think is an "upgrade" is actually a downgrade optically (e.g. a +2.00 sphere in a small frame) and while I appreciate them having my back, I'd rather do what's in the patient's best interest. Now don't get me wrong, that same patient might want poly or trivex if they are gonna play tennis with them. But I'd rather fit them with another pair or 2 in other lens types for other functions than do an optical downgrade.

As for IOLs, yes, optional, extra cost, yellow tint. I'm not sold on this upgrade completely, unless the recipient plans on spending a significant amount of time outdoors without real UV and blue protection. Why? Most people getting IOLs are up in years and would prefer the crisp white clarity of standard IOLs for night vision. \

I'm glad you didn't mention multifocal or focusing IOLs. My biggest pet peeve in eye care today. Maybe another time, another thread...

[Uncle Fester]

Curious- About how much is the uv IOL upgrade? I don't recall the MD even mentioning this 14 years ago when my mother had them done. I thought the material did it.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Curious- About how much is the uv IOL upgrade? I don't recall the MD even mentioning this 14 years ago when my mother had them done. I thought the material did it.

I imagine that varies from surgeon to surgeon, no clue. I'm pretty sure my silicone Technis IOLs have minimal UV protection, if any. When I had mine done 6 years ago, my surgeon mentioned them, but commented that since I'm an optometrist he knew I problably wouldn't want to "upgrade". I stayed with him (David Chang, M.D.) because he didn't push those or any others like some of my local surgeons do.

[Chris Ryser]

You're the last of the Mohicans out there doc! I'd venture to guess the vast majority of us out there are under constant pressure to "upgrade".

maybe you will still be around when opticians will upgrade to a "deathbed".

.............unless you have the guts to tell a patient that this or that new gimmick is more expensive because it can only be done in a lab that has special equipment do do it and charges a lot more for it, but actual change is only minimal.

They, the manufacturers are all geared to make extinct dinosaurs of living and working opticians. I wonder when you all are going to see the light.

The first testrun is geared for the population in the India back provinces with a flood of automatised eye testing and free glasses.

Once it is working seamlessly it will be introduced into more advanced countries like the ones in North America where the on-line glasses are doing more and more sales at this stage.

[Chris Ryser]

I already know my lensometer UV meter is whacky, so I don't use that feature. Do any of them work? If so, which ones and how accurate are they? What do YOU use or recommend to use for testing UV ?

Since optical retailers have embraced Polycarbonate as already being UV absorbent the market for UV solutions has gone down big time.

Less work and already included, but time consuming. while doing a decent UV 400 in house was very profitable.

That includes also the tinting of lenses which has gone down big time. Today's opticians that are facing all the bad things that are being thrown at them by the large corporations are taking the easy but more expensive way out.

I have one of the first UV meters in the 1980s and manufactured over 2000 of them until the Chinese started to come out at prices we could not compete.
So I ended up selling some Chinese units that were pretty good and measured exactly at 400 nm.
I tried a re-order last year and both companies i dealt with are no longer in business.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Don't worry about it. I think if they can provide cheap eyecare to the masses of India, great. In the USA, it ain't happenin' friend. Oh sure, there will be a fringe that buy optical crap on line, but most of Americans want to get a service along with their hardware. My answer is, if you want me to work on your glasses you got somewhere else, that'll be $50 please. Too much?, ok then best of luck to you. Oh and by the way, it's at your risk. If I break that piece of junk, sorry, you still owe me the $50. You're leavin? Dont let the door hit your butt on the way out...

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Sorry if that was harsh, but that's how this O.D. who is practicing in a beautiful outdoor mall is doing it...

[Chris Ryser]

Don't worry about it. I think if they can provide cheap eyecare to the masses of India, great. In the USA, it ain't happenin' friend. Oh sure, there will be a fringe that buy optical crap on line, but most of Americans want to get a service along with their hardware.

I actually do worry, because it is not the Chinese doing it, it is our friends and largest optical suppliers originating from France called "Essilor".

............and furthermore the optical crap are their own high quality lenses and frames from the same suppliers you get them from.

[King.Matthew]

Don't worry about it. I think if they can provide cheap eyecare to the masses of India, great. In the USA, it ain't happenin' friend. Oh sure, there will be a fringe that buy optical crap on line, but most of Americans want to get a service along with their hardware. My answer is, if you want me to work on your glasses you got somewhere else, that'll be $50 please. Too much?, ok then best of luck to you. Oh and by the way, it's at your risk. If I break that piece of junk, sorry, you still owe me the $50. You're leavin? Dont let the door hit your butt on the way out...

Where did our "customer service" go? I'm not sure how many customers I've gained by actually doing my job. It's interesting to see where our industry is going, the main reason I've encountered people buy online is because their getting the same "customer service" through the internet that they get when they go to the doctor, NONE. I personally would much rather give away a little time or eat a budget frame and gain a life long customer who will brag about our services.
"Customer Service is Worthless Customer Loyalty is Priceless" an awesome read.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I actually do worry, because it is not the Chinese doing it, it is our friends and largest optical suppliers originating from France called "Essilor".

............and furthermore the optical crap are their own high quality lenses and frames from the same suppliers you get them from.

All the more reason to charge for servicing these products. I'm reminded of a sign I saw I think in a lawnmower shop. Something like

MINIMUM REPAIR CHARGES

$25.00

If you want to watch the repair: $50.00

If you want to help: $100

Anyway, you get the idea. Doing free repairs/adjustments is fine if you have the time and MIGHT get a "customer for life", but some of these freebies take a lot of time and I'd rather see them wasting time over at Stanton or Costco than in my office. 2 quotes might be apropos: The service you get is often worth what you paid for it. No good deed will go unpunished.

[Chris Ryser]

Anyway, you get the idea. Doing free repairs/adjustments is fine if you have the time and MIGHT get a "customer for life", but some of these freebies take a lot of time .................................

I got raised in Switzerland and learned my basic optics there. There was no free repairs of any type and it was a steady income. People would stop in on the way to work, starting at 7.30 am and pick them up done and repaired on the way to Lunch around noon.

The only freebie where the adjustments, even if the glasses were purchased at a discount store, and people understood that our service was a heck better than they got purchasing the glasses for cheaper. Many of them came back when needing another good fitting pair.

[King.Matthew]

Totally agree, a repair and an adjustment are two completely different items! And a "lawn mower mechanic shop" and "ECP" are on such different spectrum's that I will leave that alone! But I will add, if your staff does not have time to do "free" adjustments your under staffed. Our business is about "Customer Service", if only the price separates the "ECP" from say the retail/online stores then my friend you will find a decline in time.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Since I moved to a more "retail" location a couple of years ago, it's not so much the time as it is the room. Our 1600 ft office can only hold so many people without getting bogged down. It's a nice problem to have, having to turn away some business to make room for the more profitable stuff. Plus I've always hated the idea of working for free. Seems somehow communistic.