I am not peddling misinformation. The reason WHY the lens changes transparency and color is an *accumulation of clumps of protein or yellow-brown pigment in the lens*
Its not necessarily a change in refractive index
Well if Wiki is wrong you go and correct it, but it shows 'John Brown' is in fact according to wiki, wrong. There S a change in the composition of the lens
Are you an alter ego of 'John Brown'
because you certainly have history of posting crap, based on prejudice.
I am thinking so, but Fredxxx has jumped to his defense as if he himself had been attacked...
DILLSWGAF? No, not really.
That wasnt what you claimed.
You really are a total wanker
No it does not.
There S a change in the composition
I said that there isn't a change in REFRACTIVE INDEX due to the cataract.
It is commonly associated with myopia, though I suspect there is a range of change from very little to sufficient to change a lens prescription.
Yes, I take your point.
Nope.
There are countless times when you swear black is white and visa versa.
Not so long ago you made a claim, "And no it shouldn't have used 'an enormous amount of spectrum space. Line scan is ~ 16kHz, a 500 'pixel' line would be 8MHz". Not long before that you claimed, UK PAL TV "used a shade over 6MHz".
That is generally what you call people when you've lost the argument?
Next you'll be saying there has been no increase in CO2 in the past century.
I thought that was fairly obvious. Been in my kill file for ages.
Tim
You flagrantly dishonestly are claiming that I ever said that there is no change in composition when in fact I actually said that cataracts don?t change the refractive index, what Streater claimed he had seen due to the cataracts.
There you go again, attempting insults when you have ended up face down in the mud, yet again.
<snip>
Only partly true.
Dry macular degeneration is as you say.
Wet (the more serious one) can be treated.
Retinopathy can also be treated.
Cheers
Dave R
Hmm.. they are all straight enough but there might be a slight blurring. Right eye, right side. I did once catch an angle grinder spark which had to be lifted off with tweezers but, 45 years on, I have forgotten which eye!
>
yes, and no. I have that and/or central serious retinopathy. Laser treatment made it if anything worse.
I could have an injection every month, but that doesn't cure it either.
But treatment may make it worse
]
My mother decided that the treatment was so horrible she?s take her chances without it!
Tim
I omitted to also add, that, since having the cataracts done, my prescription abruptly ceased changing.
Took you long enough to figure that out.
And I'm also saying that:
1) I askd the optometrist what could be causing my prescription change, he said it could be cataracts, and when he had another look decided that he could see some evidence of them.2) I didn't have the cataracts done just on his say-so. After a year he had another look and decided they were worse, and by then I was getting *other* symptoms - flare and coloured haloes around point light sources (e.g. street lamps) at night. I was then seen by the cataract surgeon who measured my eyeballs (so they could decide what lenses to put in) and to confirm that, yes, I had cataracts, and that it would be reasonable to treat them. This was done at a private hospital used by the NHS.
3) And as I posted too, the regular prescription change *ceased* after the ops, thus confirming that eyeball shape changes were unlikely to have been the culprit.Tim Streater snipped-for-privacy@greenbee.net wrote
Unsurprising given that your original lenses have been replaced.
But the optometrist has no way of knowing if the cataracts CAUSED the changes in your original lenses or whether what you actually saw was a change in the flexibility of the lenses which happens with age in everyone and whether the cataracts just happened simultaneously.
Tim Streater snipped-for-privacy@greenbee.net wrote
Yes, but that doesn?t eliminate the much more likely possibility that the change in the flexibility of your eye lenses which everyone gets with age happened coincidentally with the development of cataracts which quite a high percentage of the population gets with age. Correlation isn't causation.
That says nothing useful about whether the change in the refractive index you saw was CAUSED by the cataracts.
Yes, but that?s a separate issue to whether the cataracts caused the refractive index change or was just a coincidence.
It's 35 years since my eye lenses lost most of their flexibility, thus causing me to (a) need glasses, which I'd never needed previously, and (b) that these glasses would be varifocals. You can't lose something and then lose it again
35 years later.Tim Streater snipped-for-privacy@greenbee.net wrote
You don?t know that it was the reduced flexibility that did that.
You don?t know that you did lose it the first time and you don?t know that the cataracts were the CAUSE of the recent change in the prescription either.
Yes I do. When you can no longer read a computer screen or read a book, while all other longer-range activities are unaffected, it's a bit of a giveaway. To quote you from a message or two ago "change in the flexibility of the lenses which happens with age in everyone".
Feel free to run away and play now.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required