This thread is really silly. The original message is based on a
subjective superficial observasion of one person, not on any factual
data or statistics. Sometimes people may "discover" new phenomena
just because they pay attention to someting that they haven't before.
This doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
>This doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
What is 'it'?
Ms.Brainy - 26 Mar 2007 00:53 GMT
> >This doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
>
> What is 'it'?
>
> --
The supposedly "newly discovered" phenomenon.
Dear Ms. Brainy,
Subject: The original poster simply observed that
the refractive STATE goes DOWN in our
modern "environment" as a natural process.
Here is the data to confirm her initial observations
about the eye's dynamic behavior.
============================================
REPORT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATES OF THE EYE.
A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have
shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the
progress of the myopia. Children selected for the study were
between the ages of 9 and 12. All were nearsighted, with 1.00
to 5.00 D of myopia. The children were separated into three
groups. Each group was given a different type of eyeglasses
to wear for the two-year period of the study. The first group
wore single vision lenses with a full correction; the second
group wore progressive lenses with a +1.50 add; the third
group wore progressive lenses with a +2.00 add. All children
were examined at 6-month intervals to check the progression of
their myopia. Sixty-eight children completed the study. As
expected, more undercorrection meant slower myopia
progression.
Minus vision lenses: - 1.23 D increase (2 years)
-0.625 per year
Progressive lenses with +1.50 add: - 0.76 D increase (2 years)
- 0.38 per year
Progressive lenses with +2.00 add: - 0.66 D increase (2 years)
-0.33 per year
Source: Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong
Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive
lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354. Published 10/07/00.
==================
The results of the natural eye "adapting" to
12 to 16 years in a "school" environment:
MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT
FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS
Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components
among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year
period.
******************
1) In Singapore, the vision of 421,116 males between the ages of
15 and 25 was examined. In 1974-84, 26.3% were myopic; in
1987-91, 43.3% were myopic. Both the prevalence and severity
of myopia were higher as the level of education increased.
The prevalence rate was 15.4% in males with no formal
education and increased steadily through the education levels
to reach 65.1% among the university graduates in 1987-91. The
authors state that their findings confirm indications from
other sources that the association between the prevalence and
severity of myopia and education attainment is real (M.T.
Tay, K.G. Au Eong, C.Y. Ng and M.K. Lim, "Myopia and
Educational Attainment in 421,116 Young Singaporean Males,"
Ann Acad Med Singapore, 1992, Nov;21(6):785-91).
2) Regarding the prevalence of myopia in Asian countries, Lam and
Goh (Lam, C.S. and Goh, W.S., "The incidence of refractive
errors among schoolchildren in Hong Kong in relationship with
the optical components", Clin. Exp. Optom., 74:97-103, 1991)
found that in 383 school children from ages 6 to 17 years, the
prevalence of myopia increased from 30% at ages 6-7 years, to
70% at ages 16-17 years.
3) Lam and Yap (Lam, C.S. and Yap, M. "Ocular dimensions and
refraction in Chinese Orientals", Proc. Int. Soc. Eye Res.,
6:121, 1990) found that in a group of optometry students at
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the prevalence of myopia
was 75% in females and 69% in males.
4) Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S. and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive
trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39
years," Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that
in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong,
the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%.
5) Lin et al (Lin, L.-K, Chen, C.J., Hung, P.T., and Ko, L.S.,
"National- wide survey of myopia among schoolchildren in
Taiwan, Acta Ophthalmol.", 185:29-33, 1988) found that in a
national survey of children in Taiwan, the prevalence of
myopia was over 70%.
6) Lin et al (Lin, L.K., Shih, Y.F., Lee, Y.C., Hung, P.T., and
Hou, P.K., " Changes in ocular refraction and its components
among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year
period.
> This thread is really silly. The original message is based on a
> subjective superficial observasion of one person, not on any factual
> data or statistics. Sometimes people may "discover" new phenomena
> just because they pay attention to someting that they haven't before.
> This doesn't mean that it didn't exist before.
Neil Brooks - 26 Mar 2007 03:21 GMT
On Mar 25, 5:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Subject: The original poster simply observed that
> the refractive STATE goes DOWN in our
> modern "environment" as a natural process.
That's really not what she said at all.
Nope. Not at all....
Ms.Brainy - 26 Mar 2007 03:52 GMT
> On Mar 25, 5:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Nope. Not at all....
Correct. She actually said that SHE had noticed so many people in
London with low prescription eyeglasses. Did she count them? Did she
count them in the past and has data to compare? Did she have a sample
of the London population (which she counted, of course) and determined
the percentage of the low Rx people in the general population? Did
she count them in other places? Did she check their Rx? How? Any
statistical data or analysis?
She only said SHE had NOTICED the phenomenon and the trend. I, on the
other hand, have noticed that less people now wear glasses (except in
Korea, where it SEEMS to ME that about 90% of the population wears
glasses, but I may be mistaken, maybe it's only 46.5%, or perhaps
62.83%, or something like this, I am not sure :-). I believe that
more people now use contact lenses or had refractive surgery,
therefore less people on the street are visible with specacles... As
I said, this thread is silly
callimico66@yahoo.com - 26 Mar 2007 07:07 GMT
> I said, this thread is silly
'Tis true. Mireille, in a reply, thought it "strange" that people with
low Rx's would wear glasses--but hey, they want to recognize their
friends from across the street, too.
Perhaps the sheer availability of good-looking frames and thinner
lenses, plus an overall acceptance of glasses-wearing these days, has
helped people feel good about wearing glasses, instead of feeling
"ugly" in them. There are some terrific glasses designs--very sleek,
modern, colorful, unusual, and unique. There is the mystique of "who
is behind the glasses"--something a bit "brainy," or mysterious, or
alluring.
C66
Mike Tyner - 26 Mar 2007 08:32 GMT
> Source: Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong
> Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive
> lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354. Published 10/07/00.
Ah.. you finally found that one. I wish there were more like it.
Do you wonder why other bifocal studies contradict it?
> MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT
> FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS
Prevalence statistics tell how important this research is but they say
nothing about cause or prevention or remediation.
-MT
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 26 Mar 2007 11:39 GMT
On Mar 25, 9:11 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Ms. Brainy,
>
> Subject: The original poster simply observed that
> the refractive STATE goes DOWN in our
> modern "environment" as a natural process.
thats not what the original poster said. you are a stupid idiot.
you just can't resist an opportunity to jump up on you soapbox
can you Otis? well lets just look at it that way then-- if everyone
is
getting so nearsighted as you claim then why is the market
for eyeglasses and contacts essentially flat?
now go drink your warm milk you old fool.