I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the
battery exploded.

He was dressed in coveralls and a long sleeve shirt, so the acid burns were
minor, but a piece of the battery case hit him the eye. The tractor was
disabled so he had to walk about 15 minutes with a bleeding eye to get to
his house.

He called 911 along the way and the ambulance met him at the house. They
were unable to save his eye and he now has a prosthetic. My barber said
that they used digital imaging to take a picture of his good eye and then
created a "lens" for the prosthetic so that it matches his other eye
perfectly. Everything moves normally so people can't tell that it's not his
real eye.

On 5/14/2013 5:26 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the
battery exploded.

He was dressed in coveralls and a long sleeve shirt, so the acid burns were
minor, but a piece of the battery case hit him the eye. The tractor was
disabled so he had to walk about 15 minutes with a bleeding eye to get to
his house.

He called 911 along the way and the ambulance met him at the house. They
were unable to save his eye and he now has a prosthetic. My barber said
that they used digital imaging to take a picture of his good eye and then
created a "lens" for the prosthetic so that it matches his other eye
perfectly. Everything moves normally so people can't tell that it's not his
real eye.


Tractors! The government should ban them!

On 2013-05-14, DerbyDad03 wrote:

were unable to save his eye and he now has a prosthetic. My barber said

perfectly. Everything moves normally so people can't tell that it's not his
real eye.

How can ppl miss an eye on a crutch?

On 05/14/2013 03:26 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the
battery exploded.
[snip]

This doesn't surprise me; lead acid batteries can also explode when
charging them, sometimes even just blowing the "caps" off will cause the
sulfuric acid to shoot out of them.

Think of a lead acid battery as a very tightly wound spring, with all
that entails, and you can begin to appreciate the need for safety around
them.

The man in this story is lucky he only lost one eye.

Jon

On 5/14/13 5:26 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the
battery exploded.

Some snipped.
Hmmm. This sounds like a fishin' story. The batteries on all
the tractors I've seen were in cases. There is usually a cover over the
battery box. This goes back to tractors manufactured in the 1940s with
six volt systems.
The only possibly exposed electrical connection is at the starter
solenoid. Those are typically at the rear of the engine just
like on a car.
Chains don't throw well either for that matter.
Is your barber's name Aesop?

Dean Hoffman " wrote:
On 5/14/13 5:26 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the
battery exploded.

Some snipped.
Hmmm. This sounds like a fishin' story. The batteries on all the
tractors I've seen were in cases. There is usually a cover over the
battery box. This goes back to tractors manufactured in the 1940s with six volt systems.
The only possibly exposed electrical connection is at the starter
solenoid. Those are typically at the rear of the engine just
like on a car.
Chains don't throw well either for that matter.
Is your barber's name Aesop?

Nope, and he's not just my barber. He does contracting jobs on the side and
we've worked together a few times. We'll be pouring a new stoop at my house
next month. I have no reason to think he'd lie to me, but obviously you are
free to do so.

On May 15, 7:27*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Dean Hoffman " wrote:
On 5/14/13 5:26 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the
battery exploded.

* * Some snipped.
* * Hmmm. * This sounds like a fishin' story. * The batteries on all the
tractors I've seen were in cases. *There is usually a cover over the
battery box. *This goes back to tractors manufactured in the 1940s with six volt systems.
* *The only possibly exposed electrical connection is at the starter
solenoid. Those are typically at the rear of the engine just
*like on a car.
Chains don't throw well either for that matter.
* Is your barber's name Aesop?

Nope, and he's not just my barber. He does contracting jobs on the side and
we've worked together a few times. We'll be pouring a new stoop at my house
next month. I have no reason to think he'd lie to me, but obviously you are
free to do so.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First he says that "usually" tractors have a battery cover.
Then he says the only "possible" way to short it out is via the
starter terminal? There are all kinds of tractors. If you
take a look at one at the highway authority garage that they
use to cut grass, it's very likely relatively new, intact, with the
battery covered. But if you're talking about some old farm
tractor, I've certainly seem plenty of them in all kinds of
shape, parts, covers, safeties etc missing.

It sounds like a freak accident, but certainly possible. And
it's not an internet story. The barber should know if his
uncle no longer has one eye.

On May 15, 9:06*am, "
wrote:
On May 15, 7:27*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:





Dean Hoffman " wrote:
On 5/14/13 5:26 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the
battery exploded.

* * Some snipped.
* * Hmmm. * This sounds like a fishin' story. * The batteries on all the
tractors I've seen were in cases. *There is usually a cover over the
battery box. *This goes back to tractors manufactured in the 1940s with six volt systems.
* *The only possibly exposed electrical connection is at the starter
solenoid. Those are typically at the rear of the engine just
*like on a car.
Chains don't throw well either for that matter.
* Is your barber's name Aesop?

Nope, and he's not just my barber. He does contracting jobs on the side and
we've worked together a few times. We'll be pouring a new stoop at my house
next month. I have no reason to think he'd lie to me, but obviously you are
free to do so.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First he says that "usually" tractors have a battery cover.
Then he says the only "possible" way to short it out is via the
starter terminal? * There are all kinds of tractors. *If you
take a look at one at the highway authority garage that they
use to cut grass, it's very likely relatively new, intact, with the
battery covered. *But if you're talking about some old farm
tractor, I've certainly seem plenty of them in all kinds of
shape, parts, covers, safeties etc missing.

It sounds like a freak accident, but certainly possible. And
it's not an internet story. *The barber should know if his
uncle no longer has one eye.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks for the support.

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:16:19 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Hmmm. This sounds like a fishin' story. The batteries on all
the tractors I've seen were in cases. There is usually a cover over the
battery box. This goes back to tractors manufactured in the 1940s with
six volt systems.

Yup, and tractor owners have *NEVER* gotten lazy and didn't bother to put the cover back on after dealing with a corroded battery cable, or a jump start, or, or, or....

Those steel battery boxes have *NEVER* rusted away over the last 70 years, due to close contact with battery acid...

I've seen plenty of old tractors with batteries fully exposed to the world, held in a convenient location by rubber tarp straps.

On 5/14/2013 6:26 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the
battery exploded.

He was dressed in coveralls and a long sleeve shirt, so the acid burns were
minor, but a piece of the battery case hit him the eye. The tractor was
disabled so he had to walk about 15 minutes with a bleeding eye to get to
his house.

He called 911 along the way and the ambulance met him at the house. They
were unable to save his eye and he now has a prosthetic. My barber said
that they used digital imaging to take a picture of his good eye and then
created a "lens" for the prosthetic so that it matches his other eye
perfectly. Everything moves normally so people can't tell that it's not his
real eye.


Farming accidents are very common. It is one of our most dangerous
professions. I know a farmer whose young son fell off tractor riding
with dad and dad ran over and killed him. Grief nearly killed the dad.

Several years ago, I was at the PA state fair and a rep from Pioneer
Seed was there. My former employer, DuPont had just bought them out and
I mentioned it to the rep. He told other retired coworker and I that
DuPont was killing them with their safety program. DuPont having
started in the gun powder business was extremely safety conscious.

I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

When I worked at a Sears auto center we had someone come in who knew everything. One day, he was checking the water in a customer's battery (with the customer watching) and to see better, he pulled out his cigarette lighter to get a better look.

Once the battery blew up, he got in his car and left. The customer had to be led into the wash station to clean his eyes and everything else.

We never saw him again after that.

On 5/15/2013 2:47 PM, wrote:
When I worked at a Sears auto center we had someone come in who knew everything. One day, he was checking the water in a customer's battery (with the customer watching) and to see better, he pulled out his cigarette lighter to get a better look.

Once the battery blew up, he got in his car and left. The customer had to be led into the wash station to clean his eyes and everything else.

We never saw him again after that.


One blew up on me when I was about 19 or so. I was hooking up jumpers on
the "dead" battery when it blew apart on me from the spark. Apparently
there was still plenty of life in it. Fortunately I was wearing glasses
and was close to a sink. Scared the crap out of me.

Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:50:11 -0500, gonjah wrote:

One blew up on me when I was about 19 or so. I was hooking up jumpers on
the "dead" battery when it blew apart on me from the spark. Apparently
there was still plenty of life in it. Fortunately I was wearing glasses
and was close to a sink. Scared the crap out of me.

I had one close call as a young boy. We were stuck in the swamps,
with a dead battery. Standing in water working on the cable to clean
and tighten it. The wrench slipped, hit the fender, and sparked like
crazy, as if was about to weld itself to the metal. No explosion but I
got a shocking experience - a good um

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:26:05 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident

his uncle recently had.



He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his

tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the

tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and

starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain, the

battery exploded.



He was dressed in coveralls and a long sleeve shirt, so the acid burns were

minor, but a piece of the battery case hit him the eye. The tractor was

disabled so he had to walk about 15 minutes with a bleeding eye to get to

his house.



He called 911 along the way and the ambulance met him at the house. They

were unable to save his eye and he now has a prosthetic. My barber said

that they used digital imaging to take a picture of his good eye and then

created a "lens" for the prosthetic so that it matches his other eye

perfectly. Everything moves normally so people can't tell that it's not his

real eye.

Barbers are full of ****.

On 5/16/2013 8:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)


Not only that but; my wife had laser surgery and she still wears
glasses....

What's the point?

On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:04:35 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/16/2013 8:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)


Not only that but; my wife had laser surgery and she still wears
glasses....

What's the point?

I've been wearing glasses for 60 years. That is one reason I've not
considered the laser job. Besides, I've had some protection all those
years and it has been handy.

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)
--

What has that to do with safty glasses ? They do make them as just plain
lenses. I wore them for years at work. Also for some jobs around the house.
Goggles for the weedeater.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:04:35 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/16/2013 8:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)


Not only that but; my wife had laser surgery and she still wears
glasses....

What's the point?

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 Sun, 19 May 2013 10:28:04 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
.. .
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)
--

What has that to do with safty glasses ? They do make them as just plain
lenses. I wore them for years at work. Also for some jobs around the house.
Goggles for the weedeater.



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
protection.

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. .

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:59:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:28:04 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
. ..
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)
--

What has that to do with safty glasses ? They do make them as just plain
lenses. I wore them for years at work. Also for some jobs around the house.
Goggles for the weedeater.



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
protection.

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.

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. .

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 ;-).

On 5/19/2013 9:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:04:35 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/16/2013 8:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)


Not only that but; my wife had laser surgery and she still wears
glasses....

What's the point?

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.


She says she sees better and can drive w/o glasses but she's always
wearing them.

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.

We must have the same barber. Although, my barber told me this one 15 years
ago.




"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
I was getting my haircut last night and my barber told me of an accident
his uncle recently had.

He was out in the woods pulling some logs with a chain attached to his
tractor. Apparently when he tossed the chain in the direction of the
tractor, it landed across the battery or some electrical connections and
starting sparking. As he moved towards the tractor to remove the chain,
the
battery exploded.

He was dressed in coveralls and a long sleeve shirt, so the acid burns
were
minor, but a piece of the battery case hit him the eye. The tractor was
disabled so he had to walk about 15 minutes with a bleeding eye to get to
his house.

He called 911 along the way and the ambulance met him at the house. They
were unable to save his eye and he now has a prosthetic. My barber said
that they used digital imaging to take a picture of his good eye and then
created a "lens" for the prosthetic so that it matches his other eye
perfectly. Everything moves normally so people can't tell that it's not
his
real eye.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:34:31 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/19/2013 9:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:04:35 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/16/2013 8:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)


Not only that but; my wife had laser surgery and she still wears
glasses....

What's the point?

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.


She says she sees better and can drive w/o glasses but she's always
wearing them.

Apparently the surgery worked, it's just not a cure all.

You haven't answered the question, "why"?

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, wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:34:31 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/19/2013 9:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:04:35 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/16/2013 8:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)


Not only that but; my wife had laser surgery and she still wears
glasses....

What's the point?

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.


She says she sees better and can drive w/o glasses but she's always
wearing them.

Apparently the surgery worked, it's just not a cure all.

You haven't answered the question, "why"?

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.


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.


Seems that way to me but she seems to like the improvement. Maybe
because she doesn't need glasses for everything now.

Why can't you use bifocals for work?


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
see.

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 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.
;-)


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.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:31:43 -0400, wrote:




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.


Yeah, pollen, dust, that sort of thing is easily compensated for by
our body. I'm talking the rarity like a fish hook or stone chip that
does not wash out.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:40:06 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/19/2013 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:34:31 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/19/2013 9:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:04:35 -0500, gonjah wrote:

On 5/16/2013 8:10 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I had to always wear safety glasses in the lab. I wear old pairs now
when cutting the grass or using machinery. If tractor driver wore them,
his sight may have been saved.

Yet another reason not to get vision-corrective surgery.... -)


Not only that but; my wife had laser surgery and she still wears
glasses....

What's the point?

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.


She says she sees better and can drive w/o glasses but she's always
wearing them.

Apparently the surgery worked, it's just not a cure all.

You haven't answered the question, "why"?

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.

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.

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.


Seems that way to me but she seems to like the improvement. Maybe
because she doesn't need glasses for everything now.

She shouldn't need both, at all.

Why can't you use bifocals for work?


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
see.

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. ;-)

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'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 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.
;-)


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.

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. ;-)

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:22:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:31:43 -0400, wrote:




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.


Yeah, pollen, dust, that sort of thing is easily compensated for by
our body. I'm talking the rarity like a fish hook or stone chip that
does not wash out.

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
otherwise.

Per Ed Pawlowski:
I've been wearing glasses for 60 years. That is one reason I've not
considered the laser job. Besides, I've had some protection all those
years and it has been handy.

I'm nearsighted: can't see the big "E" on the eye chart.

But with no glasses I can read a computer screen (if I move a little
closer), I can read a book, I can read a map...

With corrective surgery, I would need glasses to do all those things.

Plus, I'd have to have prescription lenses in my safety glasses when
working with tools.

Since I wear sunglasses outside most of the time (prescription
sunglasses...) and, the rest of the time am glad for the added
protection of plain glasses...

The only time that glasses are a hassle outside is on the water - as in
windsurfing or paddling my surf ski. In those cases I use disposable
contact lenses.

I can't, for the life of me, see why anybody in my situation would ever
get corrective surgery.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per :
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.

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.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Ralph Mowery:
What has that to do with safty glasses ? They do make them as just plain
lenses. I wore them for years at work. Also for some jobs around the house.
Goggles for the weedeater.

Almost all prescription glasses now are some kind of plastic - so they
function as safety glasses. Probably not as well as dedicated safety
glasses depending on the lens size... but they do offer protection
against stuff flying into the eye.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:21:38 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:



People who start out nearsighted luck out: mostly they can still see
stuff that is close.

Most of us can see things close that you would need a magnifying glass
for. About the only redeeming value or nearsightedness.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:13:26 -0400, wrote:




Yeah, pollen, dust, that sort of thing is easily compensated for by
our body. I'm talking the rarity like a fish hook or stone chip that
does not wash out.

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
otherwise.

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
been worn.

They do not state if these injuries are with or without any protection
or protection was ignored, but 2000 are treated every day.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsworkPlaceEye/

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.


http://www.geteyesmart.org/eyesmart/...uries-home.cfm
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 user’s eyes can cause serious injury.
•Loose rugs and railings or other hazards that could cause falls or
slips.

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
irritants.
•Securing equipment or loads with bungee cords.

For all of these activities, it’s 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

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:19:19 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ed Pawlowski:
I've been wearing glasses for 60 years. That is one reason I've not
considered the laser job. Besides, I've had some protection all those
years and it has been handy.

I'm nearsighted: can't see the big "E" on the eye chart.

But with no glasses I can read a computer screen (if I move a little
closer), I can read a book, I can read a map...

With corrective surgery, I would need glasses to do all those things.

No, with corrective surgery you *might* need glasses to do different
things. If you're still young, you probably wouldn't.

Plus, I'd have to have prescription lenses in my safety glasses when
working with tools.

You don't have safety glasses now?

Since I wear sunglasses outside most of the time (prescription
sunglasses...) and, the rest of the time am glad for the added
protection of plain glasses...

The only time that glasses are a hassle outside is on the water - as in
windsurfing or paddling my surf ski. In those cases I use disposable
contact lenses.

I can't, for the life of me, see why anybody in my situation would ever
get corrective surgery.

Again, if you're young you wouldn't need glasses at all (assuming
successful surgery, of course).

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:21:38 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per :
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.

The story I heard is that, after about 50-55 years of age *everybody*
with normal vision needs reading glasses.

Right.

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.

Turgid? AIUI, the focusing mechanism itself "locks up".

People who start out nearsighted luck out: mostly they can still see
stuff that is close.

Not so much. They can't see distant things their whole life. That
doesn't sound much like "luck" to me.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:06:40 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:13:26 -0400, wrote:




Yeah, pollen, dust, that sort of thing is easily compensated for by
our body. I'm talking the rarity like a fish hook or stone chip that
does not wash out.

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
otherwise.

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
been worn.

Normal glasses do little to prevent this sort of thing.

They do not state if these injuries are with or without any protection
or protection was ignored, but 2000 are treated every day.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsworkPlaceEye/

It doesn't say much about this issue at all, then, does it?

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.

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
superior. Silly.

more silliness snipped

On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:47:56 -0400, wrote:




Normal glasses do little to prevent this sort of thing.

Aside from side shields, they are every bit as effective as safety
glasses in a front impact.



They do not state if these injuries are with or without any protection
or protection was ignored, but 2000 are treated every day.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsworkPlaceEye/

It doesn't say much about this issue at all, then, does it?

But it notes that there are a couple of thousand eye injuries needing
treatment every year.



So everyone should be forced to wear eyeglasses, whether they need it
or not, right? It's for the children, after all.

No, but there are times the average homeowner probably should put on a
pair. Most of us think of safety on the job, less of us think about
it at home.


No, it sounds like you're trying to justify your handicap as being
superior. Silly.


Never thought of it as a handicap. I can do everything a perfectly
sighted person can do with corrective lenses. One thing I can do
better is see very small thing up close.

Per :
With corrective surgery, I would need glasses to do all those things.

No, with corrective surgery you *might* need glasses to do different
things. If you're still young, you probably wouldn't.

AFIK, the need for reading glasses is inevitable in all except the
near-sighted. Young, yes... but, with a little luck, most people will
make it to middle age and that's where the need for reading glasses sets
in.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Ed Pawlowski:
Most of us can see things close that you would need a magnifying glass
for. About the only redeeming value or nearsightedness.

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
face.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per :

Normal glasses do little to prevent this sort of thing.

Can somebody elaborate on that? I can see the absence of side shields
making them less effective, but that can't be the whole story.
--
Pete Cresswell