In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a blank
wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a monitor I
have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err if you can't focus close enough you haven't got perfect vision.
The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye muscles
become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

Oh dear.
--
bert

In article , NY writes
I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace cataracts
in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity (and require
the person to wear glasses to read)
Yes
--
bert

On 13/02/2020 12:30, bert wrote:
In article , NY writes
I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace cataracts
in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity (and require
the person to wear glasses to read)
Yes
No.


--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 13/02/2020 12:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2020 12:30, bert wrote:
In article , NY writes
I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace cataracts
in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity (and
require the person to wear glasses to read)
Yes
No.


I'm not sure what they do but those that I know who've had them done
invariably seem to have greatly improved vision, certainly for distance.
Some need 'reading' glasses but not all.

I have glasses for distance - I wear vari-focals, the lower part are
plane lenses. I asked my optician about laser treatment. She said that,
while I don't have any signs of cataracts (virtually) everyone will
develop them at some point due to people living longer and, at my age, I
might as well wait until I get new lenses for cataracts! Five years on
I'm still cataract free.

On 13/02/2020 13:11, Brian Reay wrote:
On 13/02/2020 12:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2020 12:30, bert wrote:
In article , NY writes
I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataracts in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity
(and require the person to wear glasses to read)
Yes
No.


I'm not sure what they do but those that I know who've had them done
invariably seem to have greatly improved vision, certainly for distance.
Some need 'reading' glasses but not all.

The lenses you get will be fixed focus.

You can choose what that focal length will be.

I have glasses for distance - I wear vari-focals, the lower part are
plane lenses. I asked my optician about laser treatment. She said that,
while I don't have any signs of cataracts (virtually) everyone will
develop them at some point due to people living longer and, at my age, I
might as well wait until I get new lenses for cataracts! Five years on
I'm still cataract free.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2020 19:49, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 12:46:25 UTC, NY wrote:


I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataracts in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity
(and require the person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one
to infinity and the other to much closer (so as to cover both close
and distance in different eyes). Does the brain get used to
discarding whichever eye's image is blurred and only use whichever
eye is providing an in-focus image?

My mother had cataracts in both eyes operated on - but done at least
a few months apart. I am pretty sure they were set the same. She had
ridiculously good distance vision for someone of 90 - despite some
macular degeneration.

A friend had his set for working at a computer screen. Since that mostly
is what he does. He wears glasses for driving.

Total nonsense IMHO. Unless he never goes outdoors. And doesn't want to
see the world around him clearly. Or even see well around the house.

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a
blank wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a
monitor I have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err if you can't focus close enough you haven't got perfect vision.

Err, no older person ever has, bert. But may well have had when younger.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye
muscles become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

Oh dear.

You don't understand much about your own eyes, do you?

--
wife.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2020 19:49, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 12:46:25 UTC, NY wrote:


I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataracts in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity
(and require the person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one
to infinity and the other to much closer (so as to cover both close
and distance in different eyes). Does the brain get used to
discarding whichever eye's image is blurred and only use whichever
eye is providing an in-focus image?

My mother had cataracts in both eyes operated on - but done at least
a few months apart. I am pretty sure they were set the same. She had
ridiculously good distance vision for someone of 90 - despite some
macular degeneration.

A friend had his set for working at a computer screen. Since that mostly
is what he does. He wears glasses for driving.

Total nonsense IMHO. Unless he never goes outdoors. And doesn't want to
see the world around him clearly. Or even see well around the house.

No reason why he cant wear glasses when not at the computer.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 05:22:43 +1100, jon lopgel, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


No reason why he cant wear glasses when not at the computer.

No reason why you should NOT swallow your Nembutal now, you useless trolling
senile asshole!

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/2020 12:30, bert wrote:
In article , NY writes
I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataracts in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity
(and require the person to wear glasses to read)
Yes
No.


Yes
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a
blank wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a
monitor I have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err if you can't focus close enough you haven't got perfect vision.

Err, no older person ever has, bert. But may well have had when younger.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye
muscles become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

Oh dear.

You don't understand much about your own eyes, do you?

Well I've lived with them a long time so I Know them pretty well.
--
bert

On 13/02/2020 18:22, jon lopgel wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2020 19:49, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 12:46:25 UTC, NYÂ* wrote:


I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataracts in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity
(and require the person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one
to infinity and the other to much closer (so as to cover both close
and distance in different eyes). Does the brain get used to
discarding whichever eye's image is blurred and only use whichever
eye is providing an in-focus image?

My mother had cataracts in both eyes operated on - but done at least
a few months apart. I am pretty sure they were set the same. She had
ridiculously good distance vision for someone of 90 - despite some
macular degeneration.

A friend had his set for working at a computer screen. Since that mostly
is what he does. He wears glasses for driving.

Total nonsense IMHO. Unless he never goes outdoors. And doesn't want to
see the world around him clearly. Or even see well around the house.

No reason why he cant wear glasses when not at the computer.

I have bifocals - 'intermediates' for workimng at te computer and long
for distance driving etc.

The 'intermdiates' are good enough to read by and allow decent focus out
to about 2 meters.

More than good enough for most 'round the house' stuff.

As usual Daves comments are more a function of his ignorance and bigotry
than a reflection on the real world.

But that goes with being a Lefty****„¢



--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 13/02/2020 22:50, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/2020 12:30, bert wrote:
In article , NY writes
I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataractsÂ* in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity
(and requireÂ* the person to wear glasses to read)
Yes
No.


Yes

No.

As someone else has confirmed, you can have whatever focal length you want.

You can even get varifocal or accomodating lenses these days.


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 13/02/2020 22:52, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Â* bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Â*Â* Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a
blank wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a
monitor I have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err if you can't focus close enough you haven't got perfect vision.

Err, no older person ever has, bert. But may well have had when younger.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye
muscles become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

Oh dear.

You don't understand much about your own eyes, do you?

Well I've lived with them a long time so I Know them pretty well.

Apparently not.


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/2020 22:52, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
* bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
** Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a
blank wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a
monitor I have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err if you can't focus close enough you haven't got perfect vision.

Err, no older person ever has, bert. But may well have had when younger.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye
muscles become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

Oh dear.

You don't understand much about your own eyes, do you?

Well I've lived with them a long time so I Know them pretty well.

Apparently not.

:-)

From a point of technical ignorance, I'm with Bert.
Sat at the desk, I am wearing corrective reading glasses. Glancing
through the window, I can see trees on the horizon 1/2 mile away and all
the bits in between. However, nothing is in sharp focus. The
registration on a van parked 20m away is blurred but just about legible.
If I take my glasses off, the computer screen is blurred but everything
else snaps into sharp focus.

It remains my belief that adopting the bi-focals that Specsavers sold me
20 years ago would have caused endless dust/drizzle/condensation
nuisance during work related activities and might also have led to a
deterioration in distance vision.



--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
You don't understand much about your own eyes, do you?

Well I've lived with them a long time so I Know them pretty well.

Apparently not.

:-)

From a point of technical ignorance, I'm with Bert.
Sat at the desk, I am wearing corrective reading glasses. Glancing
through the window, I can see trees on the horizon 1/2 mile away and all
the bits in between. However, nothing is in sharp focus.

Of course not. You've increased the power of your eye lens by using
reading specs, so they are no longer focused on the distance (infinity, in
practice)

The
registration on a van parked 20m away is blurred but just about legible.
If I take my glasses off, the computer screen is blurred but everything
else snaps into sharp focus.

Exactly what you'd expect with good vision as a youngster, as you age.

It remains my belief that adopting the bi-focals that Specsavers sold me
20 years ago would have caused endless dust/drizzle/condensation
nuisance during work related activities and might also have led to a
deterioration in distance vision.

Presumably those varifocals would have had no correction for distance at
all? So up to the individual if they would be more convenient than using a
reading etc aid as and when needed. And of course a shop will try and sell
you what gives them the maximum profit.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/2020 22:50, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/2020 12:30, bert wrote:
In article , NY writes
I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataracts* in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed
infinity (and require* the person to wear glasses to read)
Yes
No.


Yes

No.

As someone else has confirmed, you can have whatever focal length you want.

You can even get varifocal or accomodating lenses these days.


Within the context of the question that was put and the comments leading
up to it the answer is yes. If you choose to answer one part of question
out of the context of the original discussion then the outcome may be
different. The real matter was do they set both eyes the same focal
length and the answer is yes.
--
bert

On 14/02/2020 13:02, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/2020 22:50, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/2020 12:30, bert wrote:
In article , NY
writes
I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataractsÂ* in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed
infinityÂ* (and requireÂ* the person to wear glasses to read)
Yes
No.


Yes

No.

As someone else has confirmed, you can have whatever focal length you
want.

You can even get varifocal or accomodating lenses these days.


Within the context of the question that was put and the comments leading
up to it the answer is yes. If you choose to answer one part of question
out of the context of the original discussion then the outcome may be
different. The real matter was do they set both eyes the same focal
length and the answer is yes.

Weasel. That was not the question that was asked

"Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity?"

The answer is of course no.

No one is stupid enoght to believe the question was 'do they set the
eyes the same?' Of course they do. Why would they not?



--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Weasel. That was not the question that was asked

"Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity?"

The answer is of course no.

Not necessarily "of course". I would expect the lens to be set to a distance
that gives good vision at some useful distance without needing to wear
glasses. And the two choices are probably infinity so you only need to wear
glasses for reading and other close work (maybe needing a selection of
different glasses for different distances) or else reading, so you only need
to wear glasses for longer distance such as driving and walking around
outside.

No one is stupid enoght to believe the question was 'do they set the eyes
the same?' Of course they do. Why would they not?

Because if they set one eye to infinity and the other to reading distance
then *if the brain can cope with it* you have good vision at both ends of
the distance range without needing glasses for either. My question was "is
that feasible or can the brain not cope with ignoring whichever image is out
of focus?". I'm guessing that it isn't, otherwise people who haven't had a
cataract replaced would wear glasses that had lenses of different strength
so a single pair of glasses, worn all the time, will cater for all
situations without the need for multiple pairs, bi/tri-focals or
vari-focals. (*)


What is the normal distance that cataract lenses are set to - ie the one
that most people choose if they have a choice? Infinity?

I'm surprised at the range of distances that my mum's cataract lenses can
cope with: she only needs glasses for reading, and can see acceptably well
from about 10 feet to infinity. Are modern cataract lenses capable of
adjusting slightly using the same muscles that previously adjusted the eye's
own lens, or are they still a fixed focal length?


(*) As an aside, why do some people cope better with vari-focals than
others? When I first needed reading glasses, having previously only needed
very weak distance glasses, I was offered vari-focals. The optician offered
me a deal which gave the same price for either one pair of vari-focals or
two separate single-vision glasses. After the sight test and the
measurements of the exact locations of my pupils (because vari-focals depend
critically on looking through the exact centre of the lens) I was given the
vari-focals. And the effect was *horrendous*, even after wearing them for
several days to give my eyes/brain chance to get used to them. There was an
objectionable amount of parallelogram distortion: if two vertical lines
moved across my field of view, they went from \\ to || to //. Likewise, if I
moved my head slightly while looking at the same object, which requires the
eyes to swivel to keep the object fixed, I got the parallelogram distortion.
The optician did another sight test and re-checked the eye separation
measurements, and all was in agreement with the previous tests. So they
offered me the fall-back solution of separate distance and reading glasses
at no extra cost.

On 14/02/2020 14:18, NY wrote:
Because if they set one eye to infinity and the other to reading
distance then *if the brain can cope with it* you have good vision at
both ends of the distance range without needing glasses for either. My
question was "is that feasible or can the brain not cope with ignoring
whichever image is out of focus?". I'm guessing that it isn't, otherwise
people who haven't had a cataract replaced would wear glasses that had
lenses of different strength so a single pair of glasses, worn all the
time, will cater for all situations without the need for multiple pairs,
bi/tri-focals or vari-focals. (*)

Utter total ********


--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

In article ,
NY wrote:
Not necessarily "of course". I would expect the lens to be set to a
distance that gives good vision at some useful distance without needing
to wear glasses. And the two choices are probably infinity so you only
need to wear glasses for reading and other close work (maybe needing a
selection of different glasses for different distances) or else
reading, so you only need to wear glasses for longer distance such as
driving and walking around outside.

When age started making it more difficult to read (and use a computer) I
ordered up some contact lenses that were sort of half way. And although
they did make reading OK, I really couldn't put up with the poorer
distance vision. Seemed most unnatural to me, since I've had corrected
vision from a pretty early age. So soon just accepted I'd have to use a
reading aid. Might be difference for a presenter on TV etc, though. ;-)

Since my contact lenses correct for distance, ready made reading etc specs
are OK. And so cheap I can have enough to leave them were needed. ;-)

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/02/2020 14:18, NY wrote:
Because if they set one eye to infinity and the other to reading
distance then *if the brain can cope with it* you have good vision at
both ends of the distance range without needing glasses for either. My
question was "is that feasible or can the brain not cope with
ignoring whichever image is out of focus?". I'm guessing that it
isn't, otherwise people who haven't had a cataract replaced would
wear glasses that had lenses of different strength so a single pair
of glasses, worn all the time, will cater for all situations without
the need for multiple pairs, bi/tri-focals or vari-focals. (*)

Utter total ********

Some do apparently get on with one normal eye one short sighted. But I
really can't see that being as good as having as near perfect distance
vision as possible.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/02/2020 22:52, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack
of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my
sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a
blank wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over
a
monitor I have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading
specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err if you can't focus close enough you haven't got perfect vision.

Err, no older person ever has, bert. But may well have had when
younger.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye
muscles become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

Oh dear.

You don't understand much about your own eyes, do you?

Well I've lived with them a long time so I Know them pretty well.

Apparently not.

:-)

From a point of technical ignorance, I'm with Bert.
Sat at the desk, I am wearing corrective reading glasses. Glancing through
the window, I can see trees on the horizon 1/2 mile away and all the bits
in between. However, nothing is in sharp focus. The registration on a van
parked 20m away is blurred but just about legible. If I take my glasses
off, the computer screen is blurred but everything else snaps into sharp
focus.

It remains my belief that adopting the bi-focals that Specsavers sold me
20 years ago would have caused endless dust/drizzle/
condensation nuisance during work related activities

I get very little of that and I wear glasses all the
time except when reading printed material or
doing very fine work, I'm short sighted.

The only time I get condensation is when
opening the dishwasher just as its ended
the final dry cycle. I just have to remember
to not have my head immediately over it
when I open the door and even when
I forget, it clears a moment later when
I move my head away.

and might also have led to a deterioration in distance vision.

Not sure if anyone has tested that. Bit hard to do.

On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 09:12:22 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH all of the senile asshole's usual senile ****

....and nothing's left! LOL

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: