As you all know there are 2 types of Blue filter available in the market one is blank based and the other is coating based. Wanted to know which is the best blank based or coating based
Printable View
As you all know there are 2 types of Blue filter available in the market one is blank based and the other is coating based. Wanted to know which is the best blank based or coating based
Embedded is always better than coated, IMHO. We like the ClearBlue pucks, as it leaves minimal residual color compared to other brands. There are also Thin films with various reflex colors, as well as the old tint based solutions. All else fails, go the photochromic route.
Supposedly all Essilor digital blanks have blue filter , any other manufacturers ?
Yup, love this. Now the whole blue light discussion/argument is a non-issue for me. All my customers get blue light protection at no charge and with no perceptible effect, like UV protection. If in 10 years the evidence shows blue light isn't that bad, no biggie it cost nothing. If in 10 years the evidence shows it is definitively harmful, hurrah I've been protecting all my customers the whole time!Quote:
Originally Posted by rdcoach5
What if it 10 years the evidence shows that blocking 20% of whatever range of nanometers they deem "harmful blue light" is actually is no different than blocking nothing, But blocking 30% would have been very useful? Then all you got was warm fuzzies in your tummy for the last 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanLiv
Huzzah! Everyone gets blue light protection! Does everyone who leaves your store also get sunglasses? If not, then its all still just warm fuzzies.
I also disagree that it costs you nothing. Essilor lenses are consistently some of the most expensive lenses available. IMHO, Comparable or better products can be had for less expense to you, and ultimately if you chose, your customers. It also costs you that you have to support Essilor, a company that would rather see all of us out of business.
Having lens companies add whatever they feel is good for our patients into lenses with no choice about it sparks a dystopian looking future for optical. Even more so than it already looms. If Essilor had the technology, I bet they would build in some type of DRM into their lenses. Please pay 12 more credits to continue using the blue light filter in your lenses.
I realise some of that might be a a bit of a stretch, more of a just some thoughts to discuss and a little bit of devils advocate. Nothing personal.
does blue lights really has a negative effect on us?
Since Blue light causing harm to the retina has been found to be not true in everyday life the industry has moved to hyping the benefits for helping us get better sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by varzay
Here's an article discussing this from a respected UK news organization with many MD's adding to the discussion.
My favorite piece of advice is to just turn off your devices an hour before going to bed.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...-health-issues
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanLiv
Now this is refreshing to read! Evidence regarding the dangers of blue light and the efficacy of filtering and attenuating products hasn't done much to support claims made by distributors, retailers and manufacturers. I haven't been swayed by aggressive marketing tactics and cannot justify recommending it to patients primarily because of the price tag my employer attached to it. While there is no scientific consensus regarding the dangers of blue light or products designed to protect us from it I realize that scientific findings are provisional. It's clear to me that something is going on and that merits continued research.
Unfortunately I hear a lot of ECPs use the argument that the health and well-being of their patients is of paramount importance and they'd rather err on the side of caution than risk endangering their patients. It sounds like a noble motive but in most cases it's a flimsy justification to increase revenue. In fact many who make such claims are prone to make similar arguments justifying their unwillingness to sell anything but expensive "premium" products e.g. refusing to sell any lens without A/R, reluctance to put patients in bifocals, pushing hi-index on patients with low prescriptions etc. Any ECP worth their weight knows there are occasions where the best solution is to go with something simple and basic
If an ECP has a product they believe might truly protect a patient's visual health and feels it's important enough for them all to have...make it available at no charge (if realistically feasible) or reduce the price enough to make price objections less likely! Instead, it seems, ECPs resort to "fear marketing" rather than risk making it less profitable. Quoting statistics about how much time people spend on their devices, especially children, and how close these devices are held. It's marketing designed by corporations to play on our societal concerns about our reliance on electronic devices and that we need to do what's best for the children. It's manipulative, deceitful and potentially dangerous! Scientific evidence has shown the intensity blue light emitted from natural sun light to be significantly higher than our devices. Many sources say as much as 30 times greater! If these marketing tactics give parents the impression that frequent exposure to electronic devices might put their children at risk for developing retinal disease and choose for them to engage in more frequent outdoor activities as a way to minimize this risk. They have just inadvertently put their child at more risk because the misinformation they received from "professionals" more interested in profitability than the health of their patients.
But you sir, you have done it the respectable way! It's admirable and I doff my hat to you! Making this product available at no charge shows ensuring your patients visual health is of the utmost importance even if it means foregoing the marginal financial gain that charging for an add-on like blue light filters can provide