Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50

Thread: I've never seen such a bunch of hooey...

  1. #26
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,304
    I didn't know that, about tintable "stock" being worse for AR coatings. Huh. Even CR39?

    As to decreased transmittance from the tint offsetting increased transmission from the AR, yes, that's right, but sometimes we just care about anti-reflection disability glare, right? That's why we do backside AR on sunnies, right?

  2. #27
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    But humans have always been exposed to "bad blue light" (I think you meant 400-450) from being outside. Vision Ease states that 15 minutes spent outside in full sun is equivilent to 10 HOURS of expose from an iPhone at 12". The additional blue light received from electronic devices is a drop in the ocean compared to what one receives from being outside. Couple that with the fact that these lenses are only blocking 10-20% of the "bad blue light" and we are really getting down to a very inconsequential amount of added exposure from electronic devices.

    I think most people have given up or at least quieted down on the Health and Safety front of blue light from electronic devises front, other than the plano online sellers that just make up whatever they want. All the big boys are too smart to make actual unsubstantiated medical claims for fear of fines or lawsuits.

    It has been years since the blue light craze started. I would think by now they could produce some peer reviewed clear evidence supporting the use of these lenses. Instead they (the big lens makers) have just blasted out marketing and forced others to disprove their marketing. What an unscientific sham. If the claim is that these lenses do something, state the specific claims and show the evidence. Until then it's nonsense. If they cared about ocular health and blue light they would be spending their blue light marketing dollars on getting people to wear sunglasses outside. The first few years of blue light lenses were only marketed at current glasses wearers. As if emmetropes were somehow immune to the dangers of the bad blue light. That should tell you all you need to know right there.
    ^^^This and this and this

  3. #28
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,705
    Would a blue blocking lens also filter UV @ 400nm? I put a Prevencia lens over a transitions lens and hit it with a UV light and the transitions lens reacted to the UV light.
    How does one test a lens to see if it deflecting blue light?

  4. #29
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,941
    There may indeed be bright individuals in the industry, and they may also be either willingly or required to toe the company marketing department line about "dangerous" light. All without any actual science to back it up. When we have peer reviewed, in vivo studies that can in any repeatable manner, show consistent damage to human retinal cells and can rationally quantify bandwidth and radiation intensity over time to any form of retinopathy, I'll take them a bit more seriously. Until then, blasting cultured rat cells in petri dishes with high powered LASER energy is hardly a scientific basis on which to assert broad claims of "danger" for the public, and then rush to market "solution" lenses. But hey! It's all ok if you make lots of bucks, right?

    It seems almost anyone can be bought for the promise of an easy dollar. Yes, even in our industry. I've attended many many many "master" optician CE courses over the years, as have many here. And sadly, the designation is no guarantee of the quality of material presented, as I know others have experienced as well. In the end, if researchers are going to move forward with the study of "dangerous light" let them get on with it already. Regardless however I don't expect we will see any great reduction in the blue light fad/craze anytime in the immediate future. More's the pity.

  5. #30
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    162
    I guess I don't understand why it bothers you guys so much. I tell customers what I believe the truth to be, that the sun is the single greatest source of blue light our eyes will get. That if they are not wearing sunglasses when they are outside but wear blue light lenses indoors its like wearing a seatbelt when you are in your neighborhood but not wearing a seatbelt when you are on the freeway. But I am not going to try and dissuade them from their belief if they think it helps. I have too many other things to do in my day. It's similar to when I hear a customer tell me Luxottica owns the eyewear market as they buy a pair of Nike glasses with their VSP insurance. I don't have the time in my day to explain how there are several monopolies, they saw 60-Minutes, they know what they are talking about!

  6. #31
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,193
    Quote Originally Posted by wmcdonald View Post
    But this board keeps me thinking,
    Odds are you just put a pretty big smile on our host's face.

    Although I just retired, I plan on sticking around for the same reason, and to keep me honest.

    Best regards,

    Robert Martellaro
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  7. #32
    Compulsive Truthteller OptiBoard Gold Supporter Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At a position without dimension...
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Odds are you just put a pretty big smile on our host's face.

    Although I just retired, I plan on sticking around for the same reason, and to keep me honest.

    Best regards,

    Robert Martellaro
    I am so glad to read this!

    And I hope Doctor McDonald doesn't give up on us as well!

  8. #33
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    There may indeed be bright individuals in the industry, and they may also be either willingly or required to toe the company marketing department line about "dangerous" light. All without any actual science to back it up. When we have peer reviewed, in vivo studies that can in any repeatable manner, show consistent damage to human retinal cells and can rationally quantify bandwidth and radiation intensity over time to any form of retinopathy, I'll take them a bit more seriously. Until then, blasting cultured rat cells in petri dishes with high powered LASER energy is hardly a scientific basis on which to assert broad claims of "danger" for the public, and then rush to market "solution" lenses. But hey! It's all ok if you make lots of bucks, right?

    It seems almost anyone can be bought for the promise of an easy dollar. Yes, even in our industry. I've attended many many many "master" optician CE courses over the years, as have many here. And sadly, the designation is no guarantee of the quality of material presented, as I know others have experienced as well. In the end, if researchers are going to move forward with the study of "dangerous light" let them get on with it already. Regardless however I don't expect we will see any great reduction in the blue light fad/craze anytime in the immediate future. More's the pity.
    Good post.

  9. #34
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by NAICITPO View Post
    I guess I don't understand why it bothers you guys so much.
    Because it is anti-scientific nonsense presented in a medical setting. If BS isn't called out when it is BS they will just keep piling on more. Pretty soon we will all need special IR flash mirrors to go along with our blue protection lenses.

  10. #35
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    Because it is anti-scientific nonsense presented in a medical setting. If BS isn't called out when it is BS they will just keep piling on more. Pretty soon we will all need special IR flash mirrors to go along with our blue protection lenses.
    ^^This.

    It's a sad state when it needs to be explained why on these boards.

  11. #36
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    ^^This.

    It's a sad state when it needs to be explained why on these boards.
    I can know that it is BS and still sell it. That is all I am saying. I don't want to waste the time arguing with customers, if they want blue light protection I sell them blue light protection. I tell them there are no definitive studies, and that wearing sunglasses outside is much more important if they are worried about blue light than blue light lenses. But at the end of the day, it is not a hill I am willing to die on. I sell them blue light protection. We sell prevencia at the same price point as sapphire, and we are around 80% AR, so they are most likely getting an AR anyway, it's not upselling blue light protection.

    It's probably caused me to get more AR honestly, especially on kid's glasses. They wouldn't normally get an AR but they want blue light protection, the kids get the benefit of AR which is a good thing. If blue light is the reason parents want to do what's best for their kid's vision, certainly not going to argue with them. Please sir, pay me less and get a worse product for your child... Not something I am going to do.
    Last edited by NAICITPO; 10-19-2021 at 11:38 AM.

  12. #37
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,941
    Interesting. I've literally never had an argumentative patient when taking a quick moment to properly educate them about actual science vs marketing and perceptions. I'd hate working in any practice that didn't put the pt's best interests first.

  13. #38
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    162
    I have the free reign to sell what I like, and I like AR. We are predominantly an essilor shop, and I have never sold blue light as a feature outside of AR. I don't sell blue protect or whatever they call it, or talk about the eyezen lens as a blue light filtering lens. I like eyzen because its a digital lens and I have had customer feedback on it that is positive. For me if blue light gets the customer to purchase AR I am not going to go out of my way to tell them they are wrong. I tell them there are no definitive studies that say blue light from computer screens is bad for our eyes. I also tell them the sun is the largest source of blue light we will ever get by a mile, so you should get sunglasses too! If they still want prevencia, I am fine with it, it doesn't bother me.

  14. #39
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,941
    You are, of course, free to dispense as you see fit. *shrug* None of us are impacted by what you chose to dispense to patients of course. The larger discussion here is the continued misinformation sold to consumers by lens manufacturers. It seems that it doesn't bother you so long as you get an enhanced sale out of the mess. That's fine too - plenty do that very thing. Just don't be surprised when many of us who actually have read the papers, understand the science and complete lack of any evidence to support the wild and misleading claims, and can call a spade a spade, or call snake oil, well, snake oil.

    But if your $ales are up, I ju$t don't under$tand why that bother$ you $o much. Again, *$hrug* All in good fun Mate, . We are here to learn from each other and be supportive. And also to care enough to point out and help if we start to stray down crooked paths. As an industry, we should all be far better than marketing malarkey. It's good to see many of us still are.

    Cheers

  15. #40
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    162
    Tell people the facts and let them decide what they want to do. What's most important to me is AR, I don't care about blue light. If people get more AR because they are afraid of blue light I don't think that is a bad thing. AR is something I do know there are many studies that show the benefit of. But again I am not misleading people, I tell them there are no studies that show blue light is important to protect against. I show them the lens blanks and tell them I prefer Sapphire, and I show them that is what I wear. But the price point is the same for both in my office, I am not making additional money for selling blue light protection.

    That was clever what you were doing with the $ $igns though, good on you.
    Last edited by NAICITPO; 10-19-2021 at 02:13 PM.

  16. #41
    OptiBoard Professional KrystleClear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    136
    I like that there are different opinions discussed in this thread. It helped me look at it from another standpoint and see where others are coming from. I think it's important to remember that we're all in different situations and environments in this field. Some own their own shops and some of us are employees who have to make sales that meet our employer's expectations. I know from experience working for a chain (rhymes with Buy Eye Dr) where there wasn't room for us to make moral distinctions about what is actually best for patients - they wanted everyone leaving the office with two pairs of glasses with all the possible lens upgrades, and if you weren't meeting those expectations, your job was not guaranteed. We do have a duty to do right by our patients/customers, but sometimes we also have to tow the company line too, unfortunately. I forget that sometimes, now that I work for a more laid back private practice where I don't have someone breathing down my neck about why Joe Schmoe didn't get one coating or another.
    Krystle

  17. #42
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,705
    Is no one here able to answer this?
    Would a blue blocking lens also filter UV @ 400nm? I put a Prevencia lens over a transitions lens and hit it with a UV light and the transitions lens reacted to the UV light.
    How does one test a lens to see if it deflecting blue light?

  18. #43
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by CME4SPECS View Post
    Is no one here able to answer this?
    Would a blue blocking lens also filter UV @ 400nm? I put a Prevencia lens over a transitions lens and hit it with a UV light and the transitions lens reacted to the UV light.
    How does one test a lens to see if it deflecting blue light?
    Well you would need to know exactly what range of wavelengths cause Transitions to react, I don't. We all know it UV causes is it to react, but does it stop at 350-380-400nm? Then you would need to know what range your UV light is transmitting. Obviously it's not just a UV light or we couldn't see it. So it goes up to something like 440nm maybe? Then you need to know what wavelengths and what percent of light Privencia blocks(it isn't much). I think like 20% between 415-440 or something like that.

    Or the easy way is a spectrometer. So you can get the graphs like these http://216.144.236.77/tools/transmittance.php?number=11

  19. #44
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,304
    Quote Originally Posted by NAICITPO View Post

    That was clever what you were doing with the $ $igns though, good on you.
    Aha! Location: Earth has just been narrowed down to either Australia or Great Britian!!!!!

  20. #45
    Master OptiBoarder lensgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by KrystleClear View Post
    A blue blocker will not make you blink more. It won't make reading the text on screens easier either, on it's own, as that's really up to the near/intermediate correction in the lens. As far as the blue light disrupting your sleeping patterns - most devices now have a nighttime mode where the screen brightness and color can be adjusted, so that the disruption to a circadian rhythm is possibly reduced. The best thing is to just stop using your phone in bed when you're supposed to be falling asleep.

    These are very good points!
    Using a blue blocking lens that reduces blue violet light will increase the contrast of the screen and may lead to a reduction of symptoms common to digital eye strain.
    We have all seen that white light is broken up into its component parts when it travels through a prism, where shorter wavelengths are refracted more than longer ones.
    Blue light is refracted more than green or red, where there is up to 2.00D of difference. This difference can lead to blurred images.
    Digital eye strain can also be caused by focusing and re-focusing multiple times during the day as well as the fact that we hold our digital devices closer (roughly 30 - 35 cm) than we do printed material. Will a blue blocker always help, no. Which is why you have an array of products to choose from.
    From a ZEISS point of view we are not suggesting that our lenses block light past 455 nm. We want to transmit blue-turquoise light as not to suppress melatonin.






    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    Maybe ask Optiboard meember Brent McCardle, he seems to be selling the blue flavored koolaid. https://www.2020mag.com/ce/blue-light-lenses-with-more


    When the industry is granting CEs for a marketing piece disguised science, we are in a pretty bad place.

    I believe a marketing piece would be something that shows features and benefits without explaination of the technology behind the product. I do mention our product at the end, but I do not believe the full article was marketing.
    The intent of the article was to be educational and I believe I accomplished that. I could also be a little biased.


    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    For the record I like Brent.


    In truth, a 10% tan tint with a standard AR does the same thing. And costs about the same.

    Thanks DRK, I like you as well, but let's keep that between you and me.


    A tan lens will block a decent portion of the blue spectrum, it will also continue to reduce blue-turquoise light which is what we do not want to block. It will roughly transmit 80% of the light around 530 nm and above.






    Quote Originally Posted by Uilleann View Post
    As for the AR style lenses [Prevencia, Recharge, et al] they do more than a tint, in that they all ADD large amounts of reflection in the blue/purple band. The very antithesis of what an AR lens is designed to do. So why bother? Not being arrogant here - genuinely why? If you want a tint, get a tint. Your AR stack quality will suffer greatly of course, but that's just the way of things with porous, tintable lens stock. Of course, a light tint negates the increased transmittance of AR anyway, so we're back to square one again regardless. Feel free to slap that devil's advocate label firmly on my forehead Doc. :)

    I can speak for our blue blocking coating. Up until we released BlueGuard using a coating allowed us to block certain wavelengths while allowing others through. This coating also has much more transmittance than an uncoated lens. Keep in mind you are reflecting a small portion of the overall visible light. With BlueGuard we are able to block the lower ends of blue light allowing the upper ends through.


    Quote Originally Posted by KrystleClear View Post
    Just saw the CE course in 20/20 mag on Zeiss's Blue Guard. Notice how they always say "potentially harmful."


    I wonder why UV protection isn't as valued as blue light protection? I see people driving around squinting because of bright sunlight all the time. I do not understand why so many people go without sunglasses. I have NEVER been asked during a sale if UV protection can be added to their lenses. I get asked about blue light protection fairly often by my younger customers.

    The term potentially harmful is used because currently there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that lighting from indoor sources is harmful, however, they continue to study blue light and there may be conclusive evidence one day.
    AO released the first UV protective product in 1925, however, it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that a growing body of clinical evidence confirmed the connection between UV light and cataracts. It was not until the mid-nineties that there was a standard for UV protection.






    Quote Originally Posted by wmcdonald View Post
    Brent is one of the brightest young men in this industry. You should like him and continue to review the material on blue light. I agree with most here, but I also believe in Brent. He would not present information he does not believe to be true and accurate and we may be grasping at straws here on the term "damage"? Can the retina be negatively impacted by blue light? Studies are inconclusive but do point to needing further investigation, and I like most feel the computer screen is not a big issue, but I have talked with some excellent folks from the field who claim they get some relief with these lenses on the computer! Curt Duff.....if you still read this, chime in. Can other ocular tissue be affected? More research is needed, and from independent sources. Opticianry schools provide no real contribution to the literature, but Optometry's research output in many areas is improving every year! Lets see more data.


    I am retired now, and do not get to see many of my lifelong colleagues here any longer at meetings. My health just won't allow me to travel like I did when a young man! But this board keeps me thinking, and no matter what your feelings about blue light...…whether you see it as marketing hogwash or the real deal, I am enjoying the conversation! Just let me encourage you to be as objective as possible to new things. I just had to state my strong support for a former student who I know personally to be a man of integrity. Thanks Brent for all you have accomplished. I know you have much more to go and I hope to be here to see it!


    Best regards to all!
    Warren

    Thanks Warren!
    I am trying to provide information on our lenses and how we measure the amount of blue light blocked. Before I can do this I provided some paragraphs on solar blue light as a whole which then discusses the blue light hazard function, which is used in standards and publications.
    My point in discussing damage from outdoor sources with regards to the blue light hazard function is to show that we are not using this function in our calculations as this function is not relevant to artificial light sources. We simply calculate the amount of blue light blocked without applying any weighting function to the calculation.


    Quote Originally Posted by optical24/7 View Post
    Deservedly so….






    Agree whole heartedly! You can shoot the message (in this case) but don’t shoot the messenger. Brent is extremely a man of integrity. I have every confidence his presentation was exactly as hi​s​ research showed.

    Thank you!


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    The additional blue light received from electronic devices is a drop in the ocean compared to what one receives from being outside.

    This is true, solar blue light is 33 times greater than artificial blue light.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    Couple that with the fact that these lenses are only blocking 10-20% of the "bad blue light" and we are really getting down to a very inconsequential amount of added exposure from electronic devices.

    There is no standard way to calculate the amount blocked and I list in the article how we at ZEISS calculate this for our lenses.
    Blocking the small portion of blue light from 400 - 455 nm can provide some relief over time for some individuals, but it does not protect you from "harmful" or "bad blue light". As I mentioned there is no evidence currently to suggest that artificial blue light is harmful, but this is a highly studied topic and we do not know what will come out in the future.








    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    If they cared about ocular health and blue light they would be spending their blue light marketing dollars on getting people to wear sunglasses outside.



    ZEISS has been discussing the importance of UV with our UVProtect because only 21.2 % of eyeglass wearers have sunglasses so we wanted to provide full UV protection in their clear lenses. These lenses give you full UV protection(up to 400 nm) in all ZEISS lenses. The majority of the materials sold in the US(80%) are CR-39 and Polycarbonate. Polycarbonate only has protection up to 380 nm and an uncoated CR-39 lens has protection up to around 340 nm.
    This product has been marketed quite heavily from ZEISS.






    Quote Originally Posted by CME4SPECS View Post
    Would a blue blocking lens also filter UV @ 400nm? I put a Prevencia lens over a transitions lens and hit it with a UV light and the transitions lens reacted to the UV light.
    How does one test a lens to see if it deflecting blue light?



    I can only comment on ZEISS products, but all of our lenses block 100 % of UV up to 400 nm even our blue blocking lenses.
    Our photochromic lenses block as much blue light as our blue blocking products, I would not suggest using another blue blocking filter on that lens as it will not have any benefit.

  21. #46
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    162
    To the people who think blue light is a farce, what do you think of digital eye strain? Is it also a solution looking for a made up problem?

  22. #47
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter lensmanmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by NAICITPO View Post
    To the people who think blue light is a farce, what do you think of digital eye strain? Is it also a solution looking for a made up problem?
    i think that the issue revolves around rushed "science" by marketing. HEV is a thing, but the levels of HEV from digital devices is negligible. No real studies have involved indoor LED lighting, which is becoming more prevalent. To complicate this, studies have shown that the lack of HEV exposure may be a contributor to myopia. Again, this is more of a causation, and the rise in myopia may be related to multiple sources in today's world.

    Is HEV bad? Does it really contribute to MD? If so, what are the thresholds? White papers have not gone into this. There have been no real peer reviews. Digital Eye Strain? Yes, it is a thing. Studies show that eye strain is directly related to contrast and pixelation. Will DES coatings help this In short, yes. What about clear HEV lenses? No. Its a placebo for most. However, there is this. Blocking UV to 420nm is not a bad ting. So, instead of marketing these products as HEV, why not market them as extended UV protection? There is truth to that, at least, right?
    I bend light. That is what I do.

  23. #48
    Master OptiBoarder AngeHamm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by NAICITPO View Post
    To the people who think blue light is a farce, what do you think of digital eye strain? Is it also a solution looking for a made up problem?
    People mean two things when they use the term "Digital Eye Strain:" 1) "strain" from HEV blue light, which is almost certainly a bunch of bunkum, and/or 2) strain from slowed blinking, which is not an issue eyewear can in any way address.
    Last edited by AngeHamm; 11-01-2021 at 08:26 AM.
    I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.

  24. #49
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,304
    Yeah, I get a lot of different kinds of complaints over the past 30+ years, and "eyestrain" is extremely non-specific, and, frankly, not that big an issue, considering all the negative press it gets.

    Look, your eyes are dry or they aren't. Use drops. Take breaks.

    And you can accommodate for a long time or you can't. Use low plus if you can't. (On the order of +0.50-0.75, which is suprisingly effective. If the accommodative demand for a desktop monitor is 1/66cm = +1.50, reducing it by a mere 33-50% does wonders.)

    And you're blurry because you're a full-blown presbyope or you aren't. Use low to moderate plus if you are.

    And you have convergence insufficiency or you don't (this is actually rare). A teensy bit of BI is all there is for you (unless you like VT).

    And if you're into karma and auras and spirits, go ahead and get a blue blocking lens or a light tint. It's largely psychological/psychosomatic but there's nothing wrong with a little "soft science", as long as you know why you're doing it, and to whom.


    That's all there is to it, unless I'm missing something.

  25. #50
    One eye sees, the other feels. OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,193
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post

    Look, your eyes are dry or they aren't. Use drops. Take breaks.

    And you can accommodate for a long time or you can't. Use low plus if you can't. (On the order of +0.50-0.75, which is suprisingly effective. If the accommodative demand for a desktop monitor is 1/66cm = +1.50, reducing it by a mere 33-50% does wonders.)

    And you're blurry because you're a full-blown presbyope or you aren't. Use low to moderate plus if you are.
    Beautiful. I hope the three Os are paying attention.

    I think many folks confuse eye strain with poor ergonomics resulting in muscular and nerve irritation, with some of that due to improper lens design and implementation, primarily with presbyopes.

    Robert M.
    Roberts Optical Ltd.
    Wauwatosa Wi.
    www.roberts-optical.com
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A bunch of new Kors Suns need to be gone!
    By Discount-Eyewear in forum Optical Marketplace
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2016, 04:19 PM
  2. A Bunch of Designer Overstock - Both Sun & Opthalmic
    By Discount-Eyewear in forum Optical Marketplace
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-14-2015, 12:37 PM
  3. Essilor aquires another bunch of Labs.....................
    By Chris Ryser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-06-2007, 07:13 AM
  4. Sad bunch we are....
    By John R in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-04-2003, 08:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •