Lasik

[Charles Erskine]

Glasses with the right lenses act as safety glasses. Lasik doesn't provide any protection. I always wear my glasses in the shop, when I was younger I wore a non-correcting pair whole working.

[Silvan]

For a really scary account, google around. Somewhere out there is a write-up of a clinic in the former Soviet Union that used to do radial keratotomy (predacessor to LASIK, using a scalpel) on a setup that had patients lie on beds situated around a giant turret. They did step one, then rotated you to the next doctor, did step two, etc.

I can't find the original article I read some time back, but I've turned up a few corroborating factoids. It was the Moscow Eye Microsurgery Centre, operated by Dr. Svyatoslav Fyodorov. At the peak of this clinic's heyday they were performing an operation every 19 seconds.

Every 19 seconds...

Wow, I'm glad to be an American.

Anyway, LASIK isn't radial keratotomy, and it's supposed to be much safer. For my eyes, it's not safe enough. I'd have to have absolutely wretched vision to even contemplate it. The same goes for the gamut of alternatives. My eyes are just fine the way they are, and I'm not letting anybody cut or burn or chemically alter them while I have any control over my own body.

[Brian Henderson]

Everyone will whether they have LASIK or not, so that's irrelevant.

[Doug Miller]

Maybe you should read it again. That's exactly the point I was making -- exactly what I *said*, in fact: "By and by, almost everyone needs glasses to read."

Three posts back, "Joe" said he knows two dozen people that had LASIK and now they all read reading glasses. The guy I responded to said his wife had LASIK five years ago and doesn't need them. And I'm telling him that's probably because she isn't old enough to need them yet. "But she will."

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

[Silvan]

Near sighted and far sighted at the same time is confusing. I need my glasses to see far away, but I'm getting to the point where my arms aren't going to be long enough for much longer to read fine print.

I guess I need bifocals soon.

[Gregg Germain]

:> had LASIK five years ago and doesn't need them. And I'm telling him that's :> probably because she isn't old enough to need them yet. "But she will."

: Near sighted and far sighted at the same time is confusing. I need my : glasses to see far away, but I'm getting to the point where my arms aren't : going to be long enough for much longer to read fine print.

: I guess I need bifocals soon.

It can be even more confusing than that ;^)

About 15 years ago my long distance vision went a little bad. A very mild prescription fixed that. It hasn't seemed to get worse.

Then about 5-6 years ago my short vision started to deteriorate - like you are observing wiht yoruself.

But bifocals are only so good for me:

They can fix the near vision; they can fix the far vision, but both prescriptions TOTALLY SCREW UP the intermediate vision - like reading the speedometer in a car. ;^)

--- Gregg

My woodworking projects:

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

FAQ with photos:

"Improvise, adapt, overcome." [e-mail] Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: [phone]

[GeeDubb]

Progressive bifocals fix that though they take some getting use to.

Gary

[Swingman]

Being 60, I insist that my eye doctor tweak my prescriptions specifically for "intermediate" vision (approximately 36" away), both in contacts and glasses. We take a good deal of time doing it and it has been well worth the effort.

Granted, the distant vision suffers a tad from doing so, but I don't really need "perfect" 20/20 vision to drive, or do anything else, and it is much more convenient to be able to see the computer screen, the odometer, the fretboard of my bass, etc. without bifocals, or having to change glasses or contacts.

I had to twist her arm to do it the first time a few years back, but she now agrees it was a good idea, at least for me.

[Gregg Germain]

:> :> had LASIK five years ago and doesn't need them. And I'm telling him : that's :> :> probably because she isn't old enough to need them yet. "But she will." :>

:> : Near sighted and far sighted at the same time is confusing. I need my :> : glasses to see far away, but I'm getting to the point where my arms : aren't :> : going to be long enough for much longer to read fine print. :>

:> : I guess I need bifocals soon. :>

:> It can be even more confusing than that ;^) :>

:> About 15 years ago my long distance vision went a little bad. A very :> mild prescription fixed that. It hasn't seemed to get worse. :>

:> Then about 5-6 years ago my short vision started to deteriorate - :> like you are observing wiht yoruself. :>

:> But bifocals are only so good for me: :>

: Progressive bifocals fix that though they take some getting use to.

You mean, essentially Tri-focals?

--- Gregg "Improvise, adapt, overcome." [e-mail] Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: [phone]

[Sam Soltan]

Did you ever notice that the doctors who do lasik wear glasses? I wonder why?

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Have you tried progressive lenses? They are much improved over the originals and I'd not be without them. I get good vision at every distance.

It was explained to me that it is a series of small facets on the lends instead of one big change like a bi-focal. Years ago it was only in a narrow strip below the eye, but new lenses are much wider in the field of view.

Of course being 60 is really old. I'm only 58 Ed

[GeeDubb]

"Gregg Germain" snip> :>

See Ed's post for clarification of progressive lenses. Not Tri-focals but segmented multiple focals that are not visible (not in mine anyway). With mine, up close is (now) the very lowest part of the lens and the far away is the very top....guess it's time to get new ones

[Fletis Humplebacker]

"Sam Soltan"

Well, silly. If they screw up their eyes how are they gonna operate?

[Swingman]

specifically

I've heard about them, but haven't kept up with the technology. I'll sure keep those in mind next time ... I just picked up my new prescription glasses and contacts yesterday.

Tell me about it ... the aches and pains geometrically progress with each passing year, so you got something to look forward to. The occasional Aleve is your best friend.

[Doug Miller]

No. Trifocals have three distinct segments. In a progressive lens (also known colloquially but incorrectly as a "no-line bifocal"), the correction is continuously variable from the reading correction in the bottom portion of the lens up to the distance correction in the upper half. You can get whatever correction you need in between those two extremes just by tilting your head up or down slightly. I've been wearing progressives for about four years now, and I love 'em.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

[Noons]

Actually, mine didn't...

[Gregg Germain]

: "Gregg Germain" snip> :>

:> : Progressive bifocals fix that though they take some getting use to. :>

:> You mean, essentially Tri-focals? :>

: See Ed's post for clarification of progressive lenses. Not Tri-focals but : segmented multiple focals that are not visible (not in mine anyway). : With mine, up close is (now) the very lowest part of the lens and the far : away is the very top....guess it's time to get new ones

[nospambob]

[Brian Henderson]

Sure she will, and I, who have better than 20/20 vision, will eventually need them as well. My father did and he had perfect vision. Everyone will. The fact that these people need reading glasses has nothing to do with LASIK, it has to do with the fact that they are older.

[Silvan]

That's why they make trifocals I guess. :)