More Questions today... Sunglasses...

I am interested in your opinions on picking a good pair of sunglasses.

First let me ask you this;

Thomas Quackenbush says in his Bates book that eyes are organs that need
light to work and using dark lenses reduce the ability of eyes to work
correctly so he never uses them and his light tolerance increased. I
agree we work longer hours indoors without natural light and all that,
but what about the UV? I don't remember him commenting on the UV issue.

I recently grabbed one of those amber tinted sunglasses which was made
by Ironman and it is 100% UV protected. I also have a Blublocker driving
pair ... I bought them after witnessing that these type of visors are in
use with the USAF...

http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/phot...-2171A-010.jpg

I seem to have better vision with amber ones during very sunny days
without the much squinting...

I appreciate your comments...

--
PV2 Yasar, M
U.S. ARMY
AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea
Wednesday, 08 Jun 2005 / 00:38:54 Korea Standard Time (+0900)

What year was it written? We've only recently learned about the harm of
UV and the blue light problems. Indeed we need light for our eyes to
work, but "dark" glasses are good for when there is too much light, so
long as they block UV.

I'm not sure how much of the apparent increase in contrast sensitivity
with blue blockers is real and how much is imagined, but in general it
seems to be a good thing. Probably the worst thing to do would be to
get a dark pair that didn't block UV.

I'm not in favor of the very dark, dark sunglasses except for rare uses
(like mountain climbing), because they can be dangerous when in shadows.

w.stacy, o.d.

John Yasar wrote:
> I am interested in your opinions on picking a good pair of sunglasses.
>
> First let me ask you this;
>
> Thomas Quackenbush says in his Bates book that eyes are organs that need
> light to work and using dark lenses reduce the ability of eyes to work
> correctly so he never uses them and his light tolerance increased. I
> agree we work longer hours indoors without natural light and all that,
> but what about the UV? I don't remember him commenting on the UV issue.
>
> I recently grabbed one of those amber tinted sunglasses which was made
> by Ironman and it is 100% UV protected. I also have a Blublocker driving
> pair ... I bought them after witnessing that these type of visors are in
> use with the USAF...
>
> http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/phot...-2171A-010.jpg
>
> I seem to have better vision with amber ones during very sunny days
> without the much squinting...
>
> I appreciate your comments...
>

William Stacy wrote:

> What year was it written?

Bill,

First in 1997 and again revised in 1999 I believe...


--
PV2 Yasar, M
U.S. ARMY
AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea

Oh well then he ought to know about UV causing damage to corena,
crystalline lens, and retina, not to mention skin. Sounds like maybe he
is ignoring the vast information available and chosing to try to
resurrect an old theory long since discarded by mainstream science.
Like Bates. Like iridology. Like flat earth... you get the picture.

A lot of those old theories have a certain lure to them because they
seem so simple and the espousers seem so certain and so trustworthy.
Same reason old wives' tales persist. I mean you're not gonna trust
your grandmother?

Anyhow, I think it's a good idea to wear protection out in the direct
sun, both for skin and eyes. But I don't lose any sleep over it. After
all, we do wear out anyway, no matter how careful we are...

w.stacy, o.d.

John Yasar wrote:
> William Stacy wrote:
>
>> What year was it written?
>
>
> Bill,
>
> First in 1997 and again revised in 1999 I believe...
>
>