![]() |
Eye Doc Question
I have a question for the eye docs here - optometrists, opthamologists.
I am veeery nearsighted. Without glasses, my eyes naturally focus at about 8 inches. Is it harmful to my eyes to view an iPhone screen without glasses at about 8 inches away? |
No! You are simply taking advantage of your natural focal point. However, if you are using both eyes and focusing in at 8", the extra-ocular muscles involved in converging both eyes together to allow for binocular vision at that close range will suffer some strain after prolonged viewing. This is not harmful though.
John, I would suspect your RX to be in the -6.00 to -8.00 range? Cheers! Alex |
OD -10.50 +2.00 093
OS -11.00 +2.75 092 Actually my natural focusing range might be more like 6 inches, I just checked. I use one eye at a time when "close reading" the iPhone. The reason I do this close reading is that, on websites that are not mobile optimized, the text is quite small and at normal reading range using glasses. My eyes have been terrible my whole life. It is interesting that, before glasses were invented, I would have been disabled. I've been told I'm too bad for laser surgery. I'm not interested in it anyway, my presbyopia would require me to wear reading glasses regardless. |
Last time I checked the research was "unclear" - you could get eye strain which means overwork of the muscles that focus by changing the shape of the lens. As you age the lens gets harder and more difficult to alter in shape.
|
Yeah but I'm talking about reading at a distance such that the focusing muscles are relaxed. The natural focusing distance. And using one eye only, so that the muscles that control eye direction are also relaxed.
|
Quote:
|
I think my natural focal point was more like 2 inches (uncorrected). Wore contacts for 30 years (never glasses, would have been the proverbial coke-bottle bottoms). One optometrist estimated me as 20-2000.
Had cataract surgery about 10 years ago, ended up with a distance eye and a -2 reading eye. btw, it was a real treat to wake up in the morning and be able to see instead of stumbling to the bathroom to put the contacts in. Jim |
in that case I don't see how any damage could occur - you have a lens, an imaging area with 2 types of sensory cells, and muscles to change the shape of the lens
as always, I advise checking with a professional - your co-pay is likely 20 bucks or so |
Quote:
Aprox 75% of the refractive power of the eye comes from the Cornea and the remaining 25% comes from the Crystalline Lens. And in jyl's case, as he is Presbyopic, the cilliary muscles of accommodation have minimal effect. |
50.9 y/o. Hanging on to that 0.1 as long as I can .
Amazing invention, glasses. Revolutionized life for many , many people. Eye docs have the highest benefit/cost ratio in the medical profession, as far as patients are concerned. What happened to people with bad eyes, before corrective lenses were invented? In the Middle Ages and before? Or was the incidence of bad eyesight lower then ? |
They may not have lived long enough for eye problems to present.
|
Quote:
Just another option out there.....in the end, do your due diligence however as you've only got one pair to live with jyl! |
Quote:
Someone with very poor eyesight probably had less of a chance to pass on their genes. So all kidding aside, the incidence was probably much lower. |
I've heard of that. I heard that is what fighter pilots get. But I'm acceptably happy with my natural body and have no interest in any elective surgery. Well . . .
Quote:
|
Quote:
Back in the 60's the global optical industry decided to switch to a "minus cylinder" lens design, whereby the cylindrical RX (your astigmatism correction) would be "ground" on the back of the lens, as opposed to a "plus cylinder" design which is ground on the front. This design greatly reduces lens thickness and weight. Plus cylinder lenses and the vision testing equipment that is calibrated to measure plus cylinder correction, if I recall, was pretty much obsolete by the late 60's...not that I've been practicing that long! So your RX jyl, when transposed (converted) to a minus cylinder format would actually be: OD: -8.50 / -2.00 X 003 OS: -8.25 / -2.75 X 002 So, in actual fact, you're not as "blind" as you think you are!:D Alex |
That's nice to know! Thanks.
|
John, I am up there with you in the -8s
|
I can recommend an ophthalmologist I think is awesome in Oakland, if that helps.
|
Quote:
Do ya feel special now?!? |
Good for close talking, too.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website