Why does she still wear glasses? Did they screw it up or was her
issue age related? I know several who were relieved of glasses after
a lifetime. OTOH, older folks will have to have glasses, though the
correction can move them from expensive glasses to readers (cheaters).
Presbyopia screws up the focusing mechanism so correction is either
needed up close or at distance.
On 5/19/2013 9:58 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
She says she sees better and can drive w/o glasses but she's always
Apparently the surgery worked, it's just not a cure all.
My eyes are not that bad but I can't pass a driving test anymore. Also,
I get headaches from squinting if I don't wear glasses. I use reading
glasses for close up. I can't use bifocals well enough for work.
This is a different issue (presbyopia). I went, very quickly, from
20/10 or 20/15 vision to needing glasses very quickly, about six-seven
years ago. I wore cheaters for a year and then directly to bifocals,
for near vision[*]. I need bifocals to see monitors clearly (tops)
and something shorter for reading (bottoms). I recently got a pair
for distance. They're *expensive* progressives and I hate them. No
matter what I'm doing, there is only one little spot that's in focus
and anything off-axis is worse than no glasses. It makes driving a
PITA, though I can't read the dash without them. Progressives work
well for my "computer" glasses, though.
As I mentioned above, we're probably not a good candidate for laser
surgery because glasses will be needed anyway. In my case, they
probably could eliminate one set of glasses but that's not enough to
bother. Assuming your wife is in the same boat, it probably wasn't a
good choice either.
Why can't you use bifocals for work?
[*] I passed the driving test last year without glasses and got an
8-year license, though they were only supposed to give me a five-year.
On 5/19/2013 11:06 AM, email@example.com wrote:
I'm not entirely sure. She says she needs them for up close yet she
still uses them for driving. My guess is her vision is marginally better
with glasses so she continues to wear them.
Seems that way to me but she seems to like the improvement. Maybe
because she doesn't need glasses for everything now.
I'm not real sure about that either. I'm a document examiner and I have
to go back and forth from the document to the computer then to something
on my desk. Back and fourth.... so it's easier to wear reading glasses
and look over them. The bifocals work very well for driving and I do
need them. Actually, my glasses are progressives. I haven't tried
bifocals in a long time but I don't think they were any better than the
progressives are for me now. It would be interesting to try both now and
The problem seems to be my eyes aren't "bad," so sometimes it's more
convenient to see w/o glasses. If I was legally blind w/o glasses then
there wouldn't be an issue.
I memorized the New Mexico DMV eye chart but they changed it. I live in
TX now. I can't pass the TX DMV chart w/o glasses.
If she needs them for both, they obviously screwed up. One or the
other is normal because at some age the eye can no longer focus over a
wide range. Every case of laser surgery I'm familiar with has
perfectly corrected for one or the other (usually at the choice of the
patient). Cataract surgery is similar.
She shouldn't need both, at all.
It sounds like your bifocals aren't set up for your work properly. I
had my OD set mine for about 20" (top) and 10" (bottom - should be a
little longer on the bottom), specifically for computer and desk work.
I keep a pair of these at work, now, so I can switch. I rarely change
back to the distance glasses during the day. It's fuzzy walking
around but I can see enough to find the bathroom. ;-)
I'm much the same way but have found that "computer" bifocals
(progressives, even better) are a vast improvement over single focus.
They have to be specifically requested, though, and don't cover
distance work so two pairs are needed.
I once walked into the NYS DMV for a license renewal. Evidently
people were doing just that so they had an examiner at the front door
who accosted everyone who entered and if they were doing something
that needed an eye test, he did it right then. No chance to memorize
it and then take the test. I was rather surprised and read the fifth
line down instead of the fourth (missed the *BIG* 'E' on top). He
said that if I could read that, easily, it really didn't matter if I
could count. ;-)
The story I heard is that, after about 50-55 years of age *everybody*
with normal vision needs reading glasses.
What supposedly happens is that the lens becomes increasingly turgid
with age and the focusing muscles are less able to change it's shape to
re-focus on close objects.
People who start out nearsighted luck out: mostly they can still see
stuff that is close.
In the mainframe computer days - before everybody had a PC on their desk
- I developed a corporate telephone book.
My own bias was 8.5 x 11 pages with the smallest type face (8 points) in
order to get as many names as possible per page.
But when I distributed a few hundred samples in different page and font
sizes I got a big surprise: the overwhelming majority of users wanted
the pages small (so the book would fit under a desk phone) with a rather
large (16 points - much larger than I'd ever dream of using myself) type
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:28:04 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
Many eye injuries occur at unsuspected time. Something blown in the
eye by a gust of wind, a pebble tossed by a passing car, an exploding
flashlight battery, etc. Sure, we know to use safety glasses when
doing certain chores, but do you put them on when you fry bacon? Grill
burgers? Probably not, but some time put them on and see how much
stiff is collected on them. That stuff goes into your eye with no
Over the years, my glasses took a couple of dings that possibly would
have been serious eye injury if I had good vision and wore nothing. .
No, most of that stuff goes near your eye if you're not wearing
glasses. ...or are you saying that everyone who doesn't wear glasses
is blind? The fact is that getting things in the eye is a common
occurrence, even when wearing glasses. The eye usually washes this
stuff out before you even realize it's in there. You may feel the
larger stuff as it takes a few seconds to clear. For larger stuff,
the eye reflexes are quite fast.
Mine have taken a few big dings, too, and if I were wearing them at
the time I would have definitely been seriously injured (they fell off
a 20' ladder onto concrete ;-).
Are you saying that you have those hit you in the glasses daily? The
point being that because glasses accumulate dings and grime doesn't
imply that you would be blind without them. Experience tells us
On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:13:26 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Of course not, but some safety is a side effect of having to wear
glasses. People do go blind every day from accidents and I'm not
talking about industrial situations were safety glasses should have
They do not state if these injuries are with or without any protection
or protection was ignored, but 2000 are treated every day.
My guess is most people would not put safety glasses on when opening a
bottle of champagne, but people have sustained eye injuries.
If you happen to wear eyeglasses, some injuries will be prevented.
You might think that the family home is a fairly unthreatening
setting. And responses to a recent public survey commissioned by the
American Academy of Ophthalmology show that people generally agree.
Less than half of survey respondents mentioned the home especially
the yard or garage as the most common site of serious eye injury.
Only 35 percent of those surveyed always wear protective eyewear when
doing home repair or projects.
However, medical statistics tell a different story: nearly half of all
eye injuries each year occur in and around the home, and home-based
injuries are increasing each year.
Eye Injury Risks in the House
Using hazardous products and chemicals such as oven cleaner and
bleach for cleaning and other chores (accidents involving common
household products cause 125,000 eye injuries each year).
Cooking foods can that can splatter hot grease or oil.
Opening champagne bottles during a celebration.
Drilling or hammering screws or nails into walls or hard surfaces
like brick or cement; the screws or nails can become projectiles, or
fragments can come off the surface.
Using hot objects such as curling irons around the face; inadvertent
contact with the users eyes can cause serious injury.
Loose rugs and railings or other hazards that could cause falls or
Injury Risks in the Yard
Mowing the lawn.
Using a power trimmer or edger.
Clipping hedges and bushes.
Eye Injury Risks in the Garage or Workshop:
Using tools (power or hand).
Working with solvents or other chemicals.
Any task that can produce fragments, dust particles or other eye
Securing equipment or loads with bungee cords.
For all of these activities, its important to remember that
bystanders also face significant risk and should take precautions
against eye injuries too. This is particularly important for children
who watch their parents perform routine chores in and around the home.
Bystanders should wear eye protection too or leave the area where the
chore is being done
Normal glasses do little to prevent this sort of thing.
It doesn't say much about this issue at all, then, does it?
So everyone should be forced to wear eyeglasses, whether they need it
or not, right? It's for the children, after all.
No, it sounds like you're trying to justify your handicap as being
<more silliness snipped>
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.