From aeulenbe@indiana.edu Fri Mar 3 07:44:07 1995 From: JohnRICH95@aol.com Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 23:03:17 -0500 Subject: No Light Sensitivity. Status: RO X-Status: One vision therapy exercise that has totally eliminated my sensitivity to sunlight (blinding glare off of metal, glass, etc. not withstanding) is "sunning." It's basically closing your eyes and pointing your face toward the sun. If you are very light sensitive you may want to start by closing your eyes and just facing into the sky but not directly at the sun. NOTE: At no time are you to open your eyes while looking at the sun!! This stimulates the rods and cones in your eye. Anytime I come out of a very dark place, like a movie theatre, I do this exercise for about 20 seconds, and have no problem. I do not wear sunglasses anymore on a regular basis. I keep them handy for glare situations and only then when I'm wearing contact lenses which is not very often anymore.... ========================================================================= From slfink@NETCOM.COM Tue Mar 21 18:18:27 EST 1995 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 15:01:00 -0800 (PST) From: Steven Finkelman Subject: Re: To sun or not to sun? Status: RO X-Status: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but sunning is to be done with the eyes closed The way I was taught is that you swing while looking at the sun. therefore, the sun isn't fixed in any one place on the retna, or the eyelids, and besides, it just plain feels good, and relaxes me. In my estimation, relaxation if better than worriing about a thing. Like some people worry about their diets and what they can and cannot eat. this kind of strictness causes stress. Stress causes bodily injury. In some cases it would less injurious if they just ate the food, instead of worrying about it. Most of us live in artificial environments whiuch gives us limitation of exposure to full spectrum radiation, then some go on holidays and are 'gluttons for the sun'. Perhaps it would be better if we took in a little each day. What did we do before the electric lite bulb and artificial environments? It seems a sad day to be afraid/woried about the light which gave us life. (the sun). Steven Finkelman | FoxPro developer and designer DATA/Massage | of strategic tools slfink@netcom.com | On Tue, 21 Mar 1995, Karsten E. Braaten wrote: > > > > Exposure of the eyes to sunlight is often advocated by vision therapists, > > who say that lack of sunlight leads to an inability to tolerate glare. > > You must get enough sunlight to keep your pupil in shape. But how much is > > enough, and how much is too much? Bates said that looking directly at the > > sun was of great benefit to the eyes. Common wisdom says the opposite -- > > looking at the sun is bad for the eyes, especially with the state of the > > ozone layer. We are constantly bombarded with propoganda to wear > > sunglasses. > > > Well, one may argue about whether 'sunning' will improve vision, > but it is clear that Ultra-Violet Radiation is harmful not only to > eyes in particular, but life in general. Notice that I didn't say > 'sunlight', but 'UV Radiation,' which is more specific. Sunlight > _contains_ UV Radiation, some of which reaches the ground -- more now > that the ozone layer is depleted. Thus the common recommendation to > wear sunglasses and sunscreen. > I think that there is much confusion about whether sun exposure is > 'good' or 'bad' for you because people don't realize that different > parts of the Electromagnetic Spectrum have different effects on us. > The UV part of the spectrum has harmful effects -- on eyes and skin -- > but the visible part of the spectrum seems to have positive effects on > general health (as it helps the body produce vitamin D and who knows > what else) and may have positive effects on eyes, thought I'm > personally unaware of the evidence for that. Anybody here know what > it is? > > > Where is the truth? > > > "There are atoms and empty space; all else is opinion." > --Some Greek Philosopher > > > http://alep.unibase.com/sunconf.html > > > Thanks for the ref. Just skimming it, it looks pretty basic, but > nevertheless well put together. > > BTW, this is a response to something I think Vic said: The ozone > _hole_ is actually over the polar regions, if I remember correctly. > Nevertheless, your conclusion that people near the equator (and at > high altitudes) are at higher risk is correct because 1) there is > global ozone depletion, and 2) the sun's rays are more direct in > equatorial regions. Peace... > -- > * karsten@landau.rice.edu * We Pray to the Money God > * Space Physics Room 211 * To Give Us Consolation > * Rice University * We Pray to the Money God > * Houston, TX 77096 * To Give Us Resurrection > * (713)527-8750x2701 * --Big Pig > ========================================================================= From r.malingre@qut.edu.au Tue Mar 21 18:42:14 EST 1995 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:24:57 +1000 From: r.malingre@qut.edu.au (Rene Malingre) Subject: the sun and the eyes Status: RO X-Status: Solar retinopathy is characterized by a small circusmcribed hole or cyst that develops 2 weeks after exposure to the sun. The lesion is thought to be caused by phototoxicity rather than by thermal effects. Vision as poor as 6/60 typically results due the central location of the lesion. There is evidence for some contributory effects of infra-red radiation rather than simply an excessive exposure of visible light. There is little if any effect of UV light in this condition, as the cornea and crystalline lens are effective filters. Basically, too much light burns a hole in the retina, leaving the idiot who looked at the sun centrally blind. This is most common during solar eclipses, when people try to catch a glimpse. In other words, even 10% of the sun is far too much! Acute, excessive UV exposure will lead to corneal damage (solar keratitis), which is basically sunburn of the external eye, and chronic UV exposure is associated with brunescent cataracts and possibly with age-related macular degeneration, the leading cause of non-treateable blindness in the elderly. There is an old joke about sunning the eyes as a treatment for myopia. If you stare at the sun, you will end up seeing as well without glasses as with glasses. But only because you have made yourself centrally blind. Rene Malingre ========================================================================= From karsten@landau.rice.edu Tue Mar 21 17:23:13 EST 1995 From: "Karsten E. Braaten" Subject: Re: To sun or not to sun? Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 11:29:07 -0600 (CST) Status: RO X-Status: > > Exposure of the eyes to sunlight is often advocated by vision therapists, > who say that lack of sunlight leads to an inability to tolerate glare. > You must get enough sunlight to keep your pupil in shape. But how much is > enough, and how much is too much? Bates said that looking directly at the > sun was of great benefit to the eyes. Common wisdom says the opposite -- > looking at the sun is bad for the eyes, especially with the state of the > ozone layer. We are constantly bombarded with propoganda to wear > sunglasses. > Well, one may argue about whether 'sunning' will improve vision, but it is clear that Ultra-Violet Radiation is harmful not only to eyes in particular, but life in general. Notice that I didn't say 'sunlight', but 'UV Radiation,' which is more specific. Sunlight _contains_ UV Radiation, some of which reaches the ground -- more now that the ozone layer is depleted. Thus the common recommendation to wear sunglasses and sunscreen. I think that there is much confusion about whether sun exposure is 'good' or 'bad' for you because people don't realize that different parts of the Electromagnetic Spectrum have different effects on us. The UV part of the spectrum has harmful effects -- on eyes and skin -- but the visible part of the spectrum seems to have positive effects on general health (as it helps the body produce vitamin D and who knows what else) and may have positive effects on eyes, thought I'm personally unaware of the evidence for that. Anybody here know what it is? > Where is the truth? > "There are atoms and empty space; all else is opinion." --Some Greek Philosopher > http://alep.unibase.com/sunconf.html > Thanks for the ref. Just skimming it, it looks pretty basic, but nevertheless well put together. BTW, this is a response to something I think Vic said: The ozone _hole_ is actually over the polar regions, if I remember correctly. Nevertheless, your conclusion that people near the equator (and at high altitudes) are at higher risk is correct because 1) there is global ozone depletion, and 2) the sun's rays are more direct in equatorial regions. Peace... -- * karsten@landau.rice.edu * We Pray to the Money God * Space Physics Room 211 * To Give Us Consolation * Rice University * We Pray to the Money God * Houston, TX 77096 * To Give Us Resurrection * (713)527-8750x2701 * --Big Pig ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Tue Mar 21 21:56:50 EST 1995 From: Vic Cinc Subject: Re: To sun or not to sun? Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 12:43:17 +1000 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: hi >> Exposure of the eyes to sunlight is often advocated by vision therapists, >> who say that lack of sunlight leads to an inability to tolerate glare. >> You must get enough sunlight to keep your pupil in shape. But how much is >> enough, and how much is too much? Bates said that looking directly at the >> sun was of great benefit to the eyes. Common wisdom says the opposite -- >> looking at the sun is bad for the eyes, especially with the state of the >> ozone layer. We are constantly bombarded with propoganda to wear >> sunglasses. >> > Well, one may argue about whether 'sunning' will improve vision, >but it is clear that Ultra-Violet Radiation is harmful not only to >eyes in particular, but life in general. not quite true. there is WHO report which shows that UV is only dangerous for people with a diet high in animal fats. Vitamin D is produced in humans from one of the UVs. Plants will not grow as well if deprived of UV. females dont produce as much sex hormone if deprived of UV. etc etc. I have read about the experiments that proved UV is dangerous. monkeys had there eyes straped open and 2500W UV lamps were used to flood the eyes for days on end. and surprise surprise they found damage. >Notice that I didn't say >'sunlight', but 'UV Radiation,' which is more specific. Sunlight >_contains_ UV Radiation, some of which reaches the ground -- more now >that the ozone layer is depleted. Thus the common recommendation to >wear sunglasses and sunscreen. The lens of the eye filters out UV. so sunglasses are a bit redundant. if you do sunning you do it with your eyes closed. so very little UV even gets to the lens. unlike bees we dont see UV. the FAQ advocates not wearing sunglasses if you have any sort of light sensitivity. once you have eliminated this sensitivity then you can start wearing them again, but only in a a fashion which will not reintroduce the sensitivity. most people wear sunnies as a fashion item, not out of concern for UV. > I think that there is much confusion about whether sun exposure is >'good' or 'bad' for you because people don't realize that different >parts of the Electromagnetic Spectrum have different effects on us. >The UV part of the spectrum has harmful effects -- on eyes and skin -- >but the visible part of the spectrum seems to have positive effects on >general health (as it helps the body produce vitamin D and who knows >what else) and may have positive effects on eyes, thought I'm >personally unaware of the evidence for that. Anybody here know what >it is? not quite true. some UV is beneficial. 4 billions years of evolution has not created a human being which withers and dies in open full spectrun sunlight. my feeling is for the purpose of correcting visual problems the small amount of exposure seems to do nothing but good. > BTW, this is a response to something I think Vic said: The ozone >_hole_ is actually over the polar regions, if I remember correctly. the hole actualy goes right over my head during summer I believe. >Nevertheless, your conclusion that people near the equator (and at >high altitudes) are at higher risk is correct because 1) there is >global ozone depletion, and 2) the sun's rays are more direct in >equatorial regions. Peace... true. Vic ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Fri Mar 24 08:17:10 EST 1995 From: "Karsten E. Braaten" Subject: Re: To sun or not to sun? Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 03:59:14 -0600 (CST) Status: RO X-Status: > > > > Well, one may argue about whether 'sunning' will improve vision, > >but it is clear that Ultra-Violet Radiation is harmful not only to > >eyes in particular, but life in general. > > not quite true. there is WHO report which shows that UV is only dangerous > for people with a diet high in animal fats. Vitamin D is produced Uh, what's the definition of 'dangerous' here? I suspect that the WHO study used as less strict definition than the one I implied. Nothing wrong with that, as long as we know it. See cements below about UV's effects on proteins. > Vitamin D is produced > in humans from one of the UVs. Plants will not grow as Ah, but which one? UV-A, in light doses, might help you make Vitamin D, but a strong dose of UV-C might (probably would) kill you. These differences are important. ;) > well if deprived of UV. females dont produce as much sex hormone > if deprived of UV. etc etc. > Hadn't heard this last one. By all means, put the women in the sun! (sorry...) > I have read about the experiments that proved UV is dangerous. > monkeys had there eyes straped open and 2500W UV lamps were used > to flood the eyes for days on end. and surprise surprise they found damage. Surprise indeed; I hadn't heard of these 'experiments.' Didn't the ASPCA have something to say about them? I was basing my comments on the more basic observation that UV (especially UV-B, ~300 nm, I think) breaks down animal proteins. > > The lens of the eye filters out UV. so sunglasses are a bit Really? With no damage even to the lens itself? This surprises me... > > not quite true. some UV is beneficial. 4 billions years of > evolution has not created a human being which withers and dies > in open full spectrun sunlight. > Uh, 4 billion years of evolution first created on Oxygen atmosphere, then an Ozone layer on top of it, which almost completely filters out the 300 nm radiation, before life like us crawled out of the ocean. UV radiation -- and especially that in the ~300 nm band -- breaks apart the proteins that are one of the 'building blocks' of organic, cellular life like us. It wasn't until the Ozone layer blocked most of this radiation from reaching the surface of the Earth that life really got going -- though it was a form of life that _excreted_ oxygen (by metabolizing CO2 and probably other things) that created our oxygen atmosphere in the first place. I believe that this life was mostly green (i.e., it contained chlorophyll), in the ocean and possibly on land. > > > BTW, this is a response to something I think Vic said: The ozone > >_hole_ is actually over the polar regions, if I remember correctly. > > the hole actualy goes right over my head during summer I believe. > I think you're correct. You live in Australia, right? The ozone hole is over the south pole, and in summer for you (winter for us in the Northern Hemisphere) it does get large enough to be over Australia. Thus you are getting completely unshielded exposure to the 300 nm radiation that is most harmful to life. Australia has higher skin cancer rates than the rest of the world, doesn't it? That's why. Denver also has higher skin cancer rates than the rest of the US (so I'm told, can't give you any refs.); the reason given is that it is at a higher altitude, and thus receives less filtered sunlight. I think an underlying assumption here is that something is _either_ a boon or a bane, but not both. I think that's probably wrong. Sunlight certainly has many beneficial effects, but it _also_ has some harmful ones. Knowing this, the question isn't 'to sun or not to sun,' but rather, 'how much sun exposure will give the appropriate balance between the beneficial and the harmful effects of sunlight, and what can we do to preserve the beneficial effects but minimize the harmful effects?' This is clearly a question that each person must answer for him/herself. What I really wanted to get at is the claim that one can simultainously decrease light sensitivity and increase nightvision. Is this the claim? If so, regardless of the technique, how is it possible? It seems to me that the two things would be mutually exclusive; if you see well at night, you're sensitive to sunlight. I've always tried to wear shades, partially to protect from UV-B, but also to _maintain_ light sensitivity, so that I'd also maintain good nightvision, as I find the latter more important. So how is that that my eyes might be capable of both good nightvision and low light sensitivity? Peace... -- * karsten@landau.rice.edu * Like a child in his fantasy * Space Physics Room 211 * Punching holes in the walls of reality * Rice University * All my life I've wanted to fly * Houston, TX 77096 * But I don't have the wings and I wonder why * (713)527-8750x2701 * --Big Pig =========================================================================