Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2008
The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Zetsu - 21 Apr 2008 19:28 GMT [...The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye
The theory that errors of refraction are due to permanent deformations of the eyeball leads naturally to the conclusion, not only that errors of refraction are permanent states, but that normal refraction is also a continuous condition. As this theory is almost universally accepted as a fact, therefore, it is not surprising to find that the normal eye is generally regarded as a perfect machine which is always in good working order. No matter whether the object regarded is strange or familiar, whether the light is good or imperfect, whether the surroundings are pleasant or disagreeable, even under conditions of nerve strain or bodily disease, the normal eye is expected to have normal refraction and normal sight all the time. It is true that the facts do not harmonize with this view, but they are conveniently attributed to the perversity of the ciliary muscle. This muscle is believed to control the shape of the lens, and is credited with a capacity for interfering with the refraction in some very curious ways. In hypermetropia (farsight), it is believed to alter the shape of the lens sufficiently to compensate, in whole or in part, for the shortness of the eyeball. In myopia, or nearsight, on the contrary, we are told that it actually goes out of its way to produce the condition, or to make an existing condition worse. In other words, the muscle is believed to get into a more or less continuous state of contraction, thus keeping the lens continuously in a state of convexity, which, according to accepted theories, it ought to assume only for vision at the near-point. This theory serves the purpose of explaining to the satisfaction of most eve specialists why persons who at times appear to have myopia, or hypermetropia, appear at other times not to have them. After people have reached the age at which the lens is not supposed to change it does not work so well, while in astigmatism it is available only to a limited extent even at the earlier ages; but these facts are quietly ignored.
When we understand how the shape of the eyeball;is controlled by the external muscles,.and how it responds instantaneously to their action, it is easy to see that no refractive state, whether it is normal or abnormal, can be permanent. This conclusion is confirmed by the retinoscope, and I had observed the facts long before my experiments upon the eye muscles of animals, reported in 1915 [1] (to be described again in my forthcoming book) had offered a satisfactory explanation for them. During thirty years devoted to the study of refraction, I have found few people who could maintain perfect sight for more than a few minutes at a time, even under the most favorable conditions; and often I have seen the refraction change half a dozen times or more in a second, the variations ranging all the way from twenty diopters of myopia to normal.
Similarly I have found no eyes with continuous or unchanging errors of refraction, all persons with errors of refraction having, at frequent intervals during the day and night, moments of normal vision, when their myopia, hypermetropia, or astigmatism, wholly disappears. The form of the error also changes, myopia even changing into hypermetropia and one form of astigmatism into another.
Of twenty thousand school children examined in one year more than half had normal eyes, with sight which was perfect at times; but not one of them had perfect sight in each eye at all times of the day. Their sight might be good in the morning and imperfect in the afternoon, or imperfect in the morning and perfect in the afternoon. Many children could read one Snellen test card with perfect sight, while unable to see a different one perfectly. Many could also read some letters of the alphabet perfectly, while unable to distinguish other letters of the same size under similar conditions. The degree of this imperfect sight varied within wide limits, from one-third to one-tenth, or less. Its duration was also variable. Under some conditions it might continue for only a few minutes, or less; under others it might prevent the subject from seeing the blackboard for days, weeks, or even longer. Frequently all the pupils in a classroom were affected to this extent.
Among babies a similar condition was noted. Most investigators have found babies hypermetropic. A few have found them myopic. My own observations indicate that the refraction of infants is continually changing. One child was examined under atropine on four successive days, beginning two hours after birth. A three per cent solution of atropine was instilled into both eyes, the pupil was dilated to the maximum, and other physiological symptoms of the use of atropine were noted. The first examination showed a condition of mixed astigmatism. On the second day there was compound hypermetropic astigmatism, and on the third, compound myopic astigmatism. [2] On the fourth, one eye was normal and the other showed simple myopia. Similar variations were noted in many other cases.
What is true of children and infants is equally true of adults of all ages. Persons over seventy years of age have suffered losses of vision of variable degree and intensity, and in such cases the retinoscope always indicated an error of refraction. A man eighty years old, with normal eyes and ordinarily normal sight, had periods of imperfect sight which would last from a few minutes to half an hour or longer. Retinoscopy at such times always indicated myopia of four diopters or more.
During sleep the refractive condition of the eye is rarely, if ever, normal. Persons whose refraction is normal when they are awake will produce myopia, hypermetropia and astigmatism when they are asleep, or, if they have errors of refraction when they are awake, they will be Increased during sleep. This is why people waken in the morning with eyes more tired than at any other time, or even with severe headaches. When the subject is under ether or chloroform, or unconscious from any other cause, errors of refraction are also produced or increased.
When the eye regards an unfamiliar object an error of refraction is always produced. Hence the proverbial fatigue caused by viewing pictures, or other objects, in a museum. Children with normal eyes who can read perfectly small letters a quarter of an inch high at ten feet always have trouble in reading strange writing on the blackboard, although the letters may be two inches high. A strange map, or any map, has the same effect. I have never seen a child, or a teacher, who could look at a map at the distance without becoming nearsighted. German type has been accused of being responsible for much of the poor sight once supposed to be peculiarly a German malady; but if a German child attempts to read Roman print, it will at once become temporarily myopic. German print, or Greek or Chinese characters, will have the same effect on a child, or other person, accustomed to Roman letters. Cohn repudiated the idea that German lettering was trying to the eyes [3]. On the contrary, he always found it "pleasant, after a long reading of the monotonous Roman print, to return to 'our beloved German'." Because the German characters were more familiar to him than any others he found them restful to his eyes. "Use," as he truly observed, "has much to do with the matter." Children learning to read, write, draw, or sew, always suffer from defective vision, because of the unfamiliarity of the lines or objects with which they are working.
A sudden exposure to strong light, or rapid or sudden changes of light, are likely to produce imperfect sight in the normal eye, continuing in some cases for weeks and months.
Noise is also a frequent cause of defective vision in the normal eye. All persons see imperfectly when they hear an unexpected loud noise. Familiar sounds do not lower the vision, but unfamiliar ones always do. Country children from quiet schools may suffer from defective vision for a long time after moving to a noisy city. In school they cannot do well with their work, because their sight is impaired. It is, of course, a gross injustice for teachers and others to scold, punish, or humiliate, such children.
Under conditions of mental or physical discomfort, such as pain, cough, fever, discomfort from heat or cold, depression, anger, or anxiety; errors of refraction are always produced in the normal eye, or increased in the eye in which they already exist.
The variability of the refraction of the eye is responsible for many otherwise unaccountable accidents. When people are struck down in the street by automobiles or trolley cars, it is often due to the fact that they,were suffering from temporary loss of sight. Collisions on railroads or at sea, disasters in military operations, aviation accidents, etc., often occur because some responsible person suffered temporary loss of sight.
---------------------------------
[1] Bates: The Cure of Defective Eyesight by Treatment Without Glasses, N. Y. Med. Jour., May 8, 1915 [2] In astigmatism the eye is lopsided. In simple hypermetropic astigmatism one principal meridian is normal, and the other, at right angles to it, is flatter; hence the eye is farsighted in one curvature and normal in another. In simple myopic astigmatism the contrary is the case, one principal meridian is normal and the other, at right angles to it, more convex, making the refraction normal in one curvature and shortsighted in another. In mixed astigmatism one principal meridian is too flat, the other too convex. In compound hypermetropic astigmatism, both principal meridians are flatter than normal, one more so than the other. In compound myopic astigmatism both are more convex than normal, one more so than the other. [3] Eyes and School-Books, Pop. Sci. Monthly, May, 1881, translated from Deutsche Rundscau...]
- Dr. W. H. Bates, January 1920
Jan - 21 Apr 2008 19:52 GMT Zetsu schreef:
> [...The Variability of the Refraction of the Eye Major snip in some very old articles (years 1881 till 1915)
> [1] Bates: The Cure of Defective Eyesight by Treatment Without > Glasses, N. Y. Med. Jour., May 8, 1915 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Dr. W. H. Bates, January 1920 Zetsu schreef:
> Well I didn't know about the difference of convention for writing > prescriptions with some of them in 'minus cylinder' and others in > 'plus cylinder', so I didn't know there wasn't really a big difference > in the two prescriptions, so it just sounded like a huge amount of > accommodative spasm, so I was surprised. I am just a layperson, how am > I to know these things =P By keeping your eyes open and your mouth shut when reading the messages in this newsgroup.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Mike Tyner - 21 Apr 2008 22:27 GMT > refraction, all persons with errors of refraction having, at frequent > intervals during the day and night, moments of normal vision, when > their myopia, hypermetropia, or astigmatism, wholly disappears. On some other planet, maybe.
For actual human beings, he's sadly wrong and you're painfully gullible.
-MT
Ms.Brainy - 21 Apr 2008 23:04 GMT > > refraction, all persons with errors of refraction having, at frequent > > intervals during the day and night, moments of normal vision, when > > their myopia, hypermetropia, or astigmatism, wholly disappears. Yeah, you should tell this to the person on the other thread with the -30D Rx. I am sure he would be glad to trade his contact lenses for palming, sunning and resting.
Mike Tyner - 21 Apr 2008 23:34 GMT > Yeah, you should tell this to the person on the other thread with the > -30D Rx. I am sure he would be glad to trade his contact lenses for > palming, sunning and resting. I couldn't help but wonder how many clear flashes you get per day with -30 D.
Since, as we know, it ALWAYS happens. Not just rarely or occasionally, but ALL cases, several times EVERY day, ALL types of refractive error momentarily VANISH!
It's too bad that so many of these magazines were lost during the toilet paper shortage of 1922.
-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 25 Apr 2008 18:42 GMT >> refraction, all persons with errors of refraction having, at frequent >> intervals during the day and night, moments of normal vision, when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > For actual human beings, he's sadly wrong and you're painfully gullible. I was told that the children errors "jumps". Is it truth?
We have agreed that the accomodation is automatically started with converging. This is done by parasympathetic nerves. Is it not possible that this nerve system works incorrectly? S*
Mike Tyner - 25 Apr 2008 20:17 GMT > I was told that the children errors "jumps". Is it truth? In children, refraction can vary drastically due to accommodation.
The sclera and other anatomical structures do not suddenly grow or shrink.
> We have agreed that the accomodation is automatically started with > converging. This is done by parasympathetic nerves. Is it not possible > that this nerve system works incorrectly? Yes. Sometimes the parasympathetic overaction serves a purpose, so we don't say "incorrect".
In any event, parasympathetic overaction is not anatomical refractive error. It goes by many names - spasm of accommodation, latent hyperopia, tonic accommodation, all the same mechanism.
It is the reason children are often given atropine or cyclopentolate before measurements are made.
-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 26 Apr 2008 09:41 GMT >> I was told that the children errors "jumps". Is it truth? > > In children, refraction can vary drastically due to accommodation. I wrote "I was told". It was women. The four ODs tell her that her error jumps like at children.
> The sclera and other anatomical structures do not suddenly grow or shrink. Growing or shrinking must have a beginning. Does myopia start only in childhood?
>> We have agreed that the accomodation is automatically started with >> converging. This is done by parasympathetic nerves. Is it not possible [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It is the reason children are often given atropine or cyclopentolate > before measurements are made. Drugs work quickly. The same but in longer time do the diet. You have admit that if diabetes is cured successfully the myopia decrease. You are sceptical about the excercise. Me too. But I am sure that here must be some error in nutrition when myopia start. Do you agree? S*
Mike Tyner - 26 Apr 2008 13:21 GMT > I wrote "I was told". It was women. The four ODs tell her that her error > jumps like at children. For good refraction you must relax. Some do not relax, men and women.
> Does myopia start only in childhood? Mostly true.
>> It is the reason children are often given atropine or cyclopentolate >> before measurements are made. > > Drugs work quickly. The same but in longer time do the diet. Those drugs relax accommodation. When the drug goes away, accommodation comes back. This is not a cure, and diets do not relax accommodation.
> You have admit that if diabetes is cured successfully the myopia decrease. Mostly false.
1) Diabetes only causes refractive error when blood sugar is VERY high. We say "out of control."
2) Most diabetics I know are "controlled" If they have refractive error, it is because they have refractive error, not because they have diabetes.
3) Refractive error from high blood sugar is not always myopia.
> You are sceptical about the excercise. Me too. But I am sure that here > must be some error in nutrition when myopia start. Do you agree? No. I think it's foolish.
-MT
Zetsu - 26 Apr 2008 13:55 GMT > > I wrote "I was told". It was women. The four ODs tell her that her error > > jumps like at children. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Those drugs relax accommodation. When the drug goes away, accommodation > comes back. OK ,why does it come back? My understanding of it so far is this: when you instill the cycloplegic drops, this freezes the muscle that causes excess accomodation so that it is no longer able to change shape. So this acts as a 'temporary fix'. But after a while, when the drugs lose their effect, why does this tonic accomodation return? Is it like an elastic rubber band kind of thing? I mean, when you stretch it and then it goes back to normal?
>Yes. Sometimes the parasympathetic overaction serves a purpose What's the purpose?
Mike Tyner - 26 Apr 2008 15:02 GMT > OK ,why does it come back? Same reason your feeling comes back after a shot of anesthetic.
In most cases, tonic accommodation is a good thing.
>>Yes. Sometimes the parasympathetic overaction serves a purpose >What's the purpose? There are more farsighted people than nearsighted, except in certain parts of the world. Tonic accommodation keeps farsighted people in focus.
-MT
Zetsu - 26 Apr 2008 15:30 GMT > > OK ,why does it come back? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -MT OK. What causes tonic accomodation?
Mike Tyner - 26 Apr 2008 18:02 GMT > OK. What causes tonic accomodation? Your brain stem maintains a low-level, unconscious stimulation in each of the three motor nervous systems.
In the parasympathetic system, tonic stimulation keeps several digestive sphincters closed and your bladder from turning loose when you sleep. The ciliary muscle is a smooth-muscle sphincter of the very same sort.
In the skeletal muscles, you see the "tonus" phenomenon in abdominal "muscle tone". You can relax it completely, but your belly protrudes more than usual. If your spinal muscles relax completely, you flop over.
In the sympathetic nervous system, you see the same phenomenon in the upper lids. Without continuous sympathetic stimulation, the lids get droopy, a condition called "ptosis".
Many of these tonic functions continue into sleep, and even coma. One of my professors described tonic accommodation as "accommodation you maintain simply because you're alive."
-MT
Zetsu - 09 May 2008 17:51 GMT > There are more farsighted people than nearsighted, except in certain parts > of the world. Why are there more farsighted people than nearsighted? And which parts of the world are most farsighted, and which parts are most nearsighted? Also why do you think this is?
Mike Tyner - 09 May 2008 18:51 GMT > Why are there more farsighted people than nearsighted? And which parts > of the world are most farsighted, and which parts are most > nearsighted? Also why do you think this is? You want to copy my test paper?
-MT
Zetsu - 09 May 2008 19:14 GMT > > Why are there more farsighted people than nearsighted? And which parts > > of the world are most farsighted, and which parts are most > > nearsighted? Also why do you think this is? > > You want to copy my test paper? No, I'm really curious why in some parts of the world people are more farsighted than in others. Could you explain it?
Szczepan Bia³ek - 26 Apr 2008 20:08 GMT > 1) Diabetes only causes refractive error when blood sugar is VERY high. We > say "out of control." > > 2) Most diabetics I know are "controlled" If they have refractive error, > it is because they have refractive error, not because they have diabetes. I understand that such error is bigger in the "out of control." state. If yes, how much?
> 3) Refractive error from high blood sugar is not always myopia. > >> You are sceptical about the excercise. Me too. But I am sure that here >> must be some error in nutrition when myopia start. Do you agree? > > No. I think it's foolish. But myopia sometimes disappear. It must have some reason. The same is with the start. In mainstream literature any suggestion? Is there the Josephson's hypothesis: http://www.i-see.org/josephson.html ? S*
Mike Tyner - 27 Apr 2008 03:45 GMT > I understand that such error is bigger in the "out of control." state. If > yes, how much? Diabetes is only responsible for a certain type of refractive error. That type is usually temporary, and it's well explained by osmosis.
No matter which, farsighted or nearsighted, it is an "excursion" because you expect the lens to return to its "normal" shape when blood sugar comes down. The effect is only temporary.
> But myopia sometimes disappear. It must have some reason. Do you mean axial myopia? Or the temporary shift caused by out-of-control blood sugar?
Szczepan Bia³ek - 27 Apr 2008 10:21 GMT "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com>
>> But myopia sometimes disappear. It must have some reason. > > Do you mean axial myopia? Or the temporary shift caused by out-of-control > blood sugar? Not the temporary shift. Study shown: "that myopia can get worse, be steady or decrease" in long period of time. S*
Mike Tyner - 27 Apr 2008 13:08 GMT > Not the temporary shift. Study shown: "that myopia can get worse, be > steady or decrease" in long period of time. According to textbooks, two reasons myopia often gets better between age 20-40:
1) Tonic accommodation decreases with age 2) The crystalline lens grows slightly flatter.
These things occur in everybody, not just myopes.
Nearsighted people get a little better. Emmetropic people get a little farsighted. Farsighted people get a little more farsighted (sometimes a lot more farsighted)
-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 27 Apr 2008 18:50 GMT >> Not the temporary shift. Study shown: "that myopia can get worse, be >> steady or decrease" in long period of time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 1) Tonic accommodation decreases with age I am here to lern. Lern how to decrease myopia.
Now I have known how to do it temporary: 1. " the lens to return to its "normal" shape when blood sugar comes down." ,Does it mean that the tonic accomodation decreases when blood sugar comes down? 2. "For good refraction you must relax" . Does it means take a rest? If yes, it can allow to take the following conclusions:
Blood sugar go together with the potassium. After effort the potassium in the blood is also higher. So the high tonic accomodation may by caused by high potassium (in Na solution a muscle is relaxed but in K solution contracted). The only remede may be the John Rollo's diet. Is it quite foolish? S*
Mike Tyner - 27 Apr 2008 23:05 GMT > I am here to lern. Lern how to decrease myopia. I've looked for 20 years. I've never found a reliable method for reducing real (anatomical) myopia.
About age 50, tonic accommodation disappears. Still many, many people with myopia.
If you could "cure" all the tonic accommodation in younger myopes, there would still be many, many myopes.
Tonic accommodation is not real myopia. It's OK to reduce tonic accommodation. Sometimes the results are dramatic because a few people show LOTS of tonic accommodation.
But still tonic accommodation causes only a LITTLE of total myopia.
It is naive to say you're "curing myopia" by removing tonic accommodation.
Most real myopia happens because the eye grows too long.
We know a way to slow it down, but our FDA has not approved the treatment.
> Now I have known how to do it temporary: Useless to do it temporary.
> 1. " the lens to return to its "normal" shape when blood sugar comes > down." ,Does it mean that the tonic accomodation decreases when blood > sugar comes down? No. Osmosis has nothing to do with accommodation.
> 2. "For good refraction you must relax" . Does it means take a rest? > If yes, it can allow to take the following conclusions: No, it means effort or "straining" or even thinking about your eyes will tend to stimulate accommodation and create measurement artifact. If you want accurate refraction, relax. If you are too young to understand, like 5 or 6, we use eyedrops to MAKE you relax. Then we know refraction is accurate, not spoiled by tonic accommodation. Tonic accommodation is easy to measure, easy to explain, easy to treat. No great accomplishment to "fix" tonic accommodation.
> Blood sugar go together with the potassium. After effort the potassium in > the blood is also higher. Well you might make a case for elevated potassium in the aqueous but I'm wondering if you know much about osmosis and the normal range of blood electrolytes and solutes. I don't think you could vary K+ or Na+ enough to get the osmotic pressure of 350 mM/L sugar in the aqueous. Hyperkalemia would kill you pretty quick, sodium somewhat longer.
> So the high tonic accomodation may by caused by high potassium This is foolish.
> The only remede may be the John Rollo's diet. I don't think you will find much connection between diet and tonic accommodation.
> Is it quite foolish? You are not likely to find a reliable method for curing real (anatomical) myopia. Tonic accommodation is small potatoes.
-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 28 Apr 2008 09:16 GMT >> I am here to learn. Learn how to decrease myopia. > > I've looked for 20 years. I've never found a reliable method for reducing > real (anatomical) myopia. I subscribed the vision group 3 months ago. I have never heard about Dr Bates and the next.
> About age 50, tonic accommodation disappears. Still many, many people with > myopia. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > accommodation. Sometimes the results are dramatic because a few people > show LOTS of tonic accommodation. This is the key aspect. Blurry is nothing wrong but an big discomfort which accompany the tonic accomodation is very unpleasant..
> But still tonic accommodation causes only a LITTLE of total myopia. But is unpleasent.
> It is naive to say you're "curing myopia" by removing tonic accommodation. > > Most real myopia happens because the eye grows too long. Not at all is better than "LOTS of tonic accommodation".
> We know a way to slow it down, but our FDA has not approved the treatment. Could you describe this treatment in a few words.
>> Blood sugar goes together with the potassium. After effort the potassium >> in the blood is also higher. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > get the osmotic pressure of 350 mM/L sugar in the aqueous. Hyperkalemia > would kill you pretty quick, sodium somewhat longer. Sodium has narrow range (in blood) the potassium much wider. For salt loser is better to keep low potassium in the diet than very high sodium.
>> So the high tonic accomodation may by caused by high potassium > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't think you will find much connection between diet and tonic > accommodation. It will be seen in a short time. I will try it on myself. Cuts on plant starch do not kill me.
> You are not likely to find a reliable method for curing real (anatomical) > myopia. Tonic accommodation is small potatoes. Me not. But thanks your real information - who know. Find do not means discovere - it may be very old but not commonly approved. Up to now I have found the John Rollo, John Schneider and John Bershak. Will be the next John? S*
Mike Tyner - 28 Apr 2008 13:24 GMT >> Sometimes the results are dramatic because a few people show LOTS of >> tonic accommodation. > > This is the key aspect. Blurry is nothing wrong but an big discomfort > which accompany the tonic accomodation is very unpleasant.. Rarely enough to "suffer" in myopia. If you want to relieve suffering, find the uncorrected +4 diopter _hyperopes_ and give them glasses.
>> But still tonic accommodation causes only a LITTLE of total myopia. > > But is unpleasent. Not usually.
> Not at all is better than "LOTS of tonic accommodation". It's pretty rare in myopia. It's common in hyperopia.
>> We know a way to slow it down, but our FDA has not approved the >> treatment. > > Could you describe this treatment in a few words. Pirenzepine gel in each eye at bedtime. Every night for ten years.
> Sodium has narrow range (in blood) the potassium much wider. For salt > loser is better to keep low potassium in the diet than very high sodium. For osmotic pressure to dehydrate the crystalline lens, you'd need fatal levels of sodium or potassium.
>> I don't think you will find much connection between diet and tonic >> accommodation. > > It will be seen in a short time. I will try it on myself. Cuts on plant > starch do not kill me. Tonic accommodation is not myopia.
-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 28 Apr 2008 18:56 GMT >>> We know a way to slow it down, but our FDA has not approved the >>> treatment. >> >> Could you describe this treatment in a few words. > > Pirenzepine gel in each eye at bedtime. Every night for ten years. Too troublesomeli.
>> Sodium has narrow range (in blood) the potassium much wider. For salt >> loser is better to keep low potassium in the diet than very high sodium. > > For osmotic pressure to dehydrate the crystalline lens, you'd need fatal > levels of sodium or potassium. But I base on "Apparently, the act of convergence lengthens the eye". High potassium in the blood contracts the external muscles. Sodium relax.
>>> I don't think you will find much connection between diet and tonic >>> accommodation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tonic accommodation is not myopia. Step by step. Less of temporary jumps would be nice. S*
Mike Tyner - 28 Apr 2008 23:06 GMT >> Pirenzepine gel in each eye at bedtime. Every night for ten years. > > Too troublesomeli. Unless you're at -3.00 headed for -13.00.
> But I base on "Apparently, the act of convergence lengthens the eye". It is not "apparent". It is a wild, unfounded assumption contrary to the facts. Many farsighted people converge too much. They don't get nearsighted.
> High potassium in the blood contracts the external muscles. Sodium relax. The external muscles do not cause myopia. The internal muscles do not cause myopia. The sclera causes myopia.
> Step by step. Less of temporary jumps would be nice. I don't know what "temporary jumps" are. Myopia is not temporary jumps.
-MT
Szczepan Bia³ek - 29 Apr 2008 10:05 GMT >> But I base on "Apparently, the act of convergence lengthens the eye". > > It is not "apparent". It is a wild, unfounded assumption contrary to the > facts. Many farsighted people converge too much. They don't get > nearsighted. In Turkey it is "apparent": http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=55551
>> High potassium in the blood contracts the external muscles. Sodium relax. > > The external muscles do not cause myopia. The internal muscles do not > cause myopia. The sclera causes myopia. I try to find a correlation between myopia and diet plus nerve system.
>> Step by step. Less of temporary jumps would be nice. > > I don't know what "temporary jumps" are. When error changes during one day. S*
Zetsu - 28 Apr 2008 19:35 GMT > >> Sometimes the results are dramatic because a few people show LOTS of > >> tonic accommodation. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > -MT What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia?
Mike Tyner - 28 Apr 2008 23:24 GMT > What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia? There's no answer without context.
What's worse: being too tall or being too short?
At my age, hyperopia would be worse. At your age, hyperopia might not even matter.
In 16th-century China, the aristocratic families prized literacy and intelligence, lived well into presbyopia, and successful clerics and scholars had many concubines and children to pass on their myopia genes.
In 18th-century America, hunting and fighting and outdoor skills were paramount. Not many lived past 40, and "defective vision" was something kept hidden away in shame.
In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence.
Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work.
-MT
Pramesh Rutaji - 30 Apr 2008 00:24 GMT >> What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work. Occam's razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
I'm not disagreeing with you that the question lacked a framework.
 Signature Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 30 Apr 2008 02:38 GMT Dear Pramesh Rutaji.
Yes, when a scientific concept becomes excessively complex, then a "simplifying" assumption can help clear the air. For instance, checking the eye for its dynamic behavior, is easier that claiming that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the eye's refractive STATE.
Enjoy,
OCCAM'S RAZOR.
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
> >> What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia? > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Neil Brooks - 30 Apr 2008 04:02 GMT On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Dear Pramesh Rutaji. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is easier that claiming that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the > eye's refractive STATE. So ... why are YOU still a 6.00d myope?
I mean ... if your theory has any validity, then .....
Mike Tyner - 30 Apr 2008 03:35 GMT > Occam's razor. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor I'm familiar with Sir William. There are huge ethnic differences to explain.
Fried rice and matzoh balls cause myopia. There - that's simple :).
-MT
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 30 Apr 2008 13:39 GMT Dear Parmesh and Mike,
Mike mentions "Ethnic" difference???
Occam's statement was a scientific concept. Not about "Ethnic", and this bit about "matzoh balls" implies somthing about religion. Mike seems to be "lost" in this discussion of fundamental SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS -- and their development. Further, Occam it is not even about "medicine" -- in any sense of the word.
Perhaps Mike can explain what he means about Occam and his concept about being "Ethnic".
Enjoy,
I'm familiar with Sir William. There are huge ethnic differences to explain.
Fried rice and matzoh balls cause myopia. There - that's simple :).
-MT
> >> What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia? > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Mike Tyner - 30 Apr 2008 14:21 GMT >Perhaps Mike can explain what he means about >Occam and his concept about being "Ethnic". What are you ranting about?
Let's dumb it down just for you...
How would William of Ockham explain the high prevalence of myopia among urban Asians and Hassidic Jews?
My answer was flippant - fried rice and matzoh.
Your answer - wearing glasses makes them nearsighted.
-MT
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 30 Apr 2008 17:25 GMT How would William of Ockham explain the high prevalence of myopia among urban Asians and Hassidic Jews?
My answer was flippant - fried rice and matzoh.
Otis> As most of your answers are -- when the questions involved fundamental science.
Otis> Or you always misconstrue the question -- and insult the person asking the question. What else is new?
Enjoy,
> <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -MT Neil Brooks - 01 May 2008 03:04 GMT Oh, Otis. You're such a TOOL!
Zetsu - 09 May 2008 17:48 GMT > > What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia? > > There's no answer without context. > > What's worse: being too tall or being too short? Too short, because if you're too tall then you can just bend down and get smaller, but if you're smaller you can't 'bend upwards' and get taller. And tall people can reach higher things, which is a more useful human ability than being able to crouch and go through small holes, since humans aren't the type of animal that needs to conceal itself in order to survive. Also, taller people are more likely to reproduce because girls will be attracted, so nature must have intended successful man to be tall and unsuccessful man to be short.
> At my age, hyperopia would be worse. At your age, hyperopia might not even > matter. Howcome?
>In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence. Really? Why?
>Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work. But lots of the time they do, and when they don't work, it's because you're overcomplicating, hehe. All things genius are essentially very simple in their core, don't you think.
Mike Tyner - 09 May 2008 18:49 GMT >> What's worse: being too tall or being too short? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reproduce because girls will be attracted, so nature must have > intended successful man to be tall and unsuccessful man to be short. Wrong answer. The correct answer is "it depends."
>> At my age, hyperopia would be worse. At your age, hyperopia might not >> even >> matter. > > Howcome? At your age, 2-diopter hyperopes often have no symptoms at all. At my age, 2-D hyperopes can't see anything without glasses.
>>In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence. > > Really? Why? Pol Pot attempted to reduce Cambodia to an agrarian society.
>>Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work. > > But lots of the time they do, and when they don't work, it's because > you're overcomplicating, hehe. All things genius are essentially very > simple in their core, don't you think. If you don't think physiology is complicated, then you don't know any physiology.
-MT
Zetsu - 09 May 2008 19:13 GMT > >> What's worse: being too tall or being too short? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > At your age, 2-diopter hyperopes often have no symptoms at all. At my age, > 2-D hyperopes can't see anything without glasses. That's interesting. So would that mean that dioptres often means very little in terms of subjective vision? And why is that? What are the other factors apart from dioptres that cause poor vision?
> >>In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence. > > > Really? Why? > > Pol Pot attempted to reduce Cambodia to an agrarian society. Who's Pol Pot? And why did he want an agrarian society? And why do you use the word 'reduce'? Do you think lowly of agrarian societies? Wikipedia says that: Agrarianism is a social and political philosophy which stresses the viewpoint that the cultivation of plants, or farming leads to a fuller and happier life. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian (profession). What's bad about that?
> >>Simple answers, like simple cures, do not always work. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT I think the idea of 'complicated' is a delusion that creates a barrier to higher knowledge. There's only a simple thing, or many simple things combined together, but in my book there's no such thing as complicated. Would you agree, or not, and why?
Neil Brooks - 09 May 2008 21:14 GMT If you truly demonstrated even a HINT of intellectual curiosity .... you'd get a book ... or two ... or do at least SOME measure of independent inquiry.
The only difference between you NOW and you a month ago is that you're becoming more forthcoming about all the things you don't know.
Go learn something. That's why there are libraries (or well-selected online resources).
Zetsu - 09 May 2008 23:27 GMT > If you truly demonstrated even a HINT of intellectual curiosity .... > you'd get a book ... or two ... or do at least SOME measure of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Go learn something. That's why there are libraries (or well-selected > online resources). I have been to my local library a few times but it seemed completely devoid of any books that focused specifically on ophthalmology or vision related information. Please could you recommend a good book to me that is easy to understand (for a layman) and one that you found helpful. Or could you give me a link to an online bookstore with this stuff.
I don't want to learn about anatomy, it's too boring and I always fall asleep. I want one that just has laconic and blunt information and interesting studies and other general trivia that I can learn to improve my general knowledge. If you know of any, please be kind and tell me.
Pramesh Rutaji - 09 May 2008 22:53 GMT >>>> In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence. >>> Really? Why? >> Pol Pot attempted to reduce Cambodia to an agrarian society. > > Who's Pol Pot? Rent the movie, "The killing fields".
 Signature Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
Zetsu - 09 May 2008 23:22 GMT > >>>> In 1974 Cambodia, wearing glasses was a death sentence. > >>> Really? Why? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply OK, I'll rent that movie. It's not horror is it? I get scared from horror movies.
Pramesh Rutaji - 09 May 2008 22:51 GMT >>> What's worse: hypermetropia or myopia? >> There's no answer without context. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > reproduce because girls will be attracted, so nature must have > intended successful man to be tall and unsuccessful man to be short. Impact of height and weight on life span. Samaras TT, Storms LH.
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego.
The study was conducted to evaluate one aspect of the entropy theory of aging, which hypothesizes that aging is the result of increasing disorder within the body, and which predicts that increasing mass lowers life span. The first evaluation of the impact of human size on longevity or life span in 1978, which was based on data for decreased groups of athletes and famous people in the USA, suggested that shorter, lighter men live longer than their taller, heavier counterparts. In 1990, a study of 1679 decreased men and women from the general American population supported these findings. In the present study data on the height, weight, and age at death of 373 men were obtained from records at the Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Diego, CA, USA. Men of height 175.3 cm or less lived an average of 4.95 years longer than those of height over 175.3 cm, while men of height 170.2 cm or less lived 7.46 years longer than those of at least 182.9 cm. An analysis by weight difference revealed a 7.72-year greater longevity for men of weight 63.6 kg or less compared with those of 90.9 kg or more. This corroborates earlier evidence and contradicts the popular notion that taller people are healthier. While short stature due to malnutrition or illness is undesirable, our study suggests that feeding children for maximum growth and physical development may not add to and may indeed be harmful to their long-term health and longevity.
PMID: 1600586 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
Is height related to longevity? Samaras TT, Elrick H, Storms LH.
Reventropy Associates, 11487 Madera Rosa Way, San Diego, CA 92124-2877, USA. SamarasTT@AOL.com
Over the last 100 years, studies have provided mixed results on the mortality and health of tall and short people. However, during the last 30 years, several researchers have found a negative correlation between greater height and longevity based on relatively homogeneous deceased population samples. Findings based on millions of deaths suggest that shorter, smaller bodies have lower death rates and fewer diet-related chronic diseases, especially past middle age. Shorter people also appear to have longer average lifespans. The authors suggest that the differences in longevity between the sexes is due to their height differences because men average about 8.0% taller than women and have a 7.9% lower life expectancy at birth. Animal experiments also show that smaller animals within the same species generally live longer. The relation between height and health has become more important in recent years because rapid developments in genetic engineering will offer parents the opportunity to increase the heights of their children in the near future. The authors contend that we should not be swept along into a new world of increasingly taller generations without careful consideration of the impact of a worldwide population of taller and heavier people.
PMID: 12586217 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
And for the final question, if one is male, is it better to be taller or have a deeper pitched voice?
Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Apicella CL, Feinberg DR, Marlowe FW.
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. apicella@fas.harvard.edu
The validity of evolutionary explanations of vocal sexual dimorphism hinges upon whether or not individuals with more sexually dimorphic voices have higher reproductive success than individuals with less dimorphic voices. However, due to modern birth control methods, these data are rarely described, and mating success is often used as a second-rate proxy. Here, we test whether voice pitch predicts reproductive success, number of children born and child mortality in an evolutionarily relevant population of hunter-gatherers. While we find that voice pitch is not related to reproductive outcomes in women, we find that men with low voice pitch have higher reproductive success and more children born to them. However, voice pitch in men does not predict child mortality. These findings suggest that the association between voice pitch and reproductive success in men is mediated by differential access to fecund women. Furthermore, they show that there is currently selection pressure for low-pitch voices in men.
PMID: 17895219 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
 Signature Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
Zetsu - 27 Apr 2008 15:50 GMT > > I was told that the children errors "jumps". Is it truth? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > -MT What causes the parasympathetic overaction?
Mike Tyner - 27 Apr 2008 17:46 GMT > What causes the parasympathetic overaction? It's a normal reflex.
In farsighted people, it maintains focused vision, so the "cause" would be the activity of a normal reflex loop.
In young people who aren't farsighted, "overaction" isn't very common.
When it does occur, we call it spasm of accommodation, or pseudomyopia.
Sometimes it provides better binocular balance, as in convergence insufficiency.
Other times there's no measurable benefit and it's actually detrimental to performance.
In those cases, anxiety is usually the most-cited cause.
Mike Tyner - 27 Apr 2008 17:50 GMT These are all distinguished from the normal half-diopter or so of tonic accommodation you find in most people. I don't call that "overaction," because everybody does it.
-MT
>> What causes the parasympathetic overaction? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > In those cases, anxiety is usually the most-cited cause.
|
|
|