Long Term LASIK effect

I wonder if anyone has factored the following:

LASIK causes loss of contrast sensitivity
+ cataract causes loss of contrast sensitvity
Therefore LASIK'd people have higher overall problems with "old sight"
So, older LASIK'd people replace light bulbs with high wattage/output
bulbs
= increased electric utility bills and increased energy production
= the need to build more power plants
= increased CO2 emissions
= increased global warming
= decreased sunlight
= decreased contrast sensitivity and therefore further increase in
wattage of light bulbs and..........

So, therefore, LASIK surgery procedures should incorporate a "use tax"
to offset the future increased costs to the average electric consumer.

Perhaps we need an accountant to figure out the true long term costs of
refractive surgery. Or an engineer?

--LB, OD

That's the same with glasses.

For this reason, you are all criminals.

Dear Larry,
Indeed, one of my motivations to advocate
"prevention" for my sister' children was
that they avoid nearsighedness, and
therefore avoid the $3,300 for Lasik.
Yes, true prevention avoids these
costs.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com:

> Dear Larry,
> Indeed, one of my motivations to advocate
> "prevention" for my sister' children was
> that they avoid nearsighedness, and
> therefore avoid the $3,300 for Lasik.
> Yes, true prevention avoids these
> costs.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
> Engineer
>
>

.... and a cure for ALS avoids years of unimaginable suffering and a
horrible death. Too bad neither currently exists.

Scott

Robert Martellaro wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:02:25 GMT, LarryDoc <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I wonder if anyone has factored the following:
> >
> >LASIK causes loss of contrast sensitivity
> >+ cataract causes loss of contrast sensitvity
> >Therefore LASIK'd people have higher overall problems with "old sight"
> >So, older LASIK'd people replace light bulbs with high wattage/output
> >bulbs
> >= increased electric utility bills and increased energy production
> >= the need to build more power plants
> >= increased CO2 emissions
> >= increased global warming
> >= decreased sunlight
> >= decreased contrast sensitivity and therefore further increase in
> >wattage of light bulbs and..........
> >
> >So, therefore, LASIK surgery procedures should incorporate a "use tax"
> >to offset the future increased costs to the average electric consumer.
> >
> >Perhaps we need an accountant to figure out the true long term costs of
> >refractive surgery. Or an engineer?

If we ever needed Otis, this is the time. Does he have actuarial
skills? Or maybe we could just ask the government. Since they can
usually pull much larger numbers out of their collective ass, this
should be a cinch.

> How about a euthanasia clause in their informed consent?
>
> When seniors start having complications with their boob jobs, eye jobs, and
> their nip 'n tucks they better not be counting on insurance or medicare to bail
> them out because I'am not paying for it, no way no how.

Hah! You'll be talking out of the other side of your mouth when you
realize how much you need breast-reduction surgery and how much it
costs!

--
Cheers,
Bev
=================================================
It's not the speed that kills, it's the stopping.

Dear Mike,

The pilots and my nephew and neice reviewed the
objective fact that show that the native eye
goes down when

1. You place a minus lens on it.

2. You place it in a more-convinded
visual enviroment.

THEY paid attention to the objective facts
you totally ignore.

It is their judgment that resolved the
issue for them.

Obviously I don't trust you habit of
inventing "rationalizations" for ignoring
scientific facts and experimental truth.

But that was THEIR (not your) decision.

They looked at the -1.3 diopters "down" refractive
movement -- and came to the "better" conclusion.

RM would deny the existance of this
type of scientifc truth.

So when their friends (wearing minus coke bottles) ask
my neice what she was doing -- putting the plus
on for reading -- she explained.

Her friend said, "Gee I wish I had your opportunity
to avoid becomming myopic".

QED.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

Otis Brown wrote:

> The pilots and my nephew and neice reviewed the
> objective fact that show that the native eye
> goes down when
>
> 1. You place a minus lens on it.
>
> 2. You place it in a more-convinded
> visual enviroment.
>
> THEY paid attention to the objective facts
> you totally ignore.
>
> It is their judgment that resolved the
> issue for them.

This constitutes clear and incontrovertible proof for me.

I /was/ a bit skeptical with all the "Leung" and "Grosvenor" references, but
we now have the irrefutable third-hand testimony of both Otis's nephew /and/
his niece.

I'm a believer now. Call the Review of Optometry. Tell them to hold the
lead story in the upcoming issue.

My original reasons for posting this topic were to encourage dialog (or
not) on the long term and perhaps global consequences of our actions,
with a humorous take on it.

Instead you've allowed that Otis person to interject his useless moronic
babble, yet again. To take over this thread. Yet again. The same BS. Yet
again.

So sad.

--LB, OD

OD.

What does it mean?

In article <larrydoc-(E-Mail Removed)>, LarryDoc
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Instead you've allowed that Otis person to interject his useless moronic
> babble, yet again. To take over this thread. Yet again. The same BS. Yet
> again.


Let's face it. You could start a thread in here about going to Disneyland
and Otis would turn it into a True Prevention post. Nobody "allowed" Otis
anything. That's just how newsgroups work.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
(E-Mail Removed)