Eyeglasses

dadiOH wrote:

I hear you. Until my early 40s (now almost 76) I could focus on stuff one
inch or less from my eye. Very handy. Best I can do now is 18" and that
distance is lousy without glasses because of astigmatiam.

I've long had astigmatism, but I think a pretty mild case. I can see
better, or as well, naked eye, from about 7'-17" Closer than 6 inches,
and I can't focus sharply with or without specs. Further than 18 inches,
my multifocals (progressives may be a better term) are better than
naked. I feel for now I am pretty lucky, though I've had correction
since about age 11.

Now, with this thread, I noticed just last night that no car light or
street light was without a fringe about it. It gave the feeling of being
out of focus, but other items such as road signs seemed to be in focus.
Dang! Could this be how "night blindness" starts? The glasses aren't
tinted nor variable shading, and my windshield was quite clean. It was
misting heavily, and perhaps that caused diffraction around light
sources? I'll test tonight if not raining.

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:

Now, with this thread, I noticed just last night that no car light or
street light was without a fringe about it. It gave the feeling of
being out of focus, but other items such as road signs seemed to be
in focus. Dang! Could this be how "night blindness" starts?

Beginning cataracts, more likely. If so, not to worry...they normally
progress very slowly and when/if you need to have them removed it is no
longer a big deal. Complications possible (from surgery) though, I had some
macular swelling.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On 2009-04-09 11:22:33 -0700, John McWilliams said:

dadiOH wrote:

I hear you. Until my early 40s (now almost 76) I could focus on stuff
one inch or less from my eye. Very handy. Best I can do now is 18"
and that distance is lousy without glasses because of astigmatiam.

I've long had astigmatism, but I think a pretty mild case. I can see
better, or as well, naked eye, from about 7'-17" Closer than 6 inches,
and I can't focus sharply with or without specs. Further than 18
inches, my multifocals (progressives may be a better term) are better
than naked. I feel for now I am pretty lucky, though I've had
correction since about age 11.

Now, with this thread, I noticed just last night that no car light or
street light was without a fringe about it. It gave the feeling of
being out of focus, but other items such as road signs seemed to be in
focus. Dang! Could this be how "night blindness" starts? The glasses
aren't tinted nor variable shading, and my windshield was quite clean.
It was misting heavily, and perhaps that caused diffraction around
light sources? I'll test tonight if not raining.


I have severe astigmatism and find it difficult to function without
glasses. In my teens my young eyes could accomodate well and I managed
without having to wear glasses until my early 20's when it was
impossible to deny the problem.

I would be concerned regarding the light issue while driving at night.
"Haloes" around lights at night is one of the symptoms of glaucoma in
the early stages. Corneal aberations and cataracts can also cause odd
effects with lights at night, so it might be worthwhile having things
checked out.



--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:46:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I would be concerned regarding the light issue while driving at night.
"Haloes" around lights at night is one of the symptoms of glaucoma in
the early stages. Corneal aberations and cataracts can also cause odd
effects with lights at night, so it might be worthwhile having things
checked out.

Halos can be an indication of several eye conditions. One of the most
serious is macular degeneration. Glaucoma is a minor problem compared
to macular degeneration. Minor, in that it is easier to control
and/or correct.

I made the point in an earlier post that I see an opthalmologist for
my eye exams even though my actual vision test and resulting eyeglass
prescription is done by an optomotrist in his office. This is a good
example of why.

The chain store optometrist may or may not make it sufficiently clear
that some problem discussed requires a consultation with a medical
doctor. Bring up halos, and he might say that you really should see
an opthalmologist. Is that suggestion given or taken seriously enough
that the patient makes an appointment? Or, is it disregarded as
"might be worthwhile".

However, if a medical examination is part of the process, a condition
is more likely to be caught in an early stage.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

TonyCooper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:46:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I would be concerned regarding the light issue while driving at night.
"Haloes" around lights at night is one of the symptoms of glaucoma in
the early stages. Corneal aberations and cataracts can also cause odd
effects with lights at night, so it might be worthwhile having things
checked out.

Halos can be an indication of several eye conditions. One of the most
serious is macular degeneration. Glaucoma is a minor problem compared
to macular degeneration. Minor, in that it is easier to control
and/or correct.

I made the point in an earlier post that I see an opthalmologist for
my eye exams even though my actual vision test and resulting eyeglass
prescription is done by an optomotrist in his office. This is a good
example of why.

The chain store optometrist may or may not make it sufficiently clear
that some problem discussed requires a consultation with a medical
doctor. Bring up halos, and he might say that you really should see
an opthalmologist. Is that suggestion given or taken seriously enough
that the patient makes an appointment? Or, is it disregarded as
"might be worthwhile".

However, if a medical examination is part of the process, a condition
is more likely to be caught in an early stage.

Thanks, gents. I suppose this is something my newly about-to-be-acquired
Medicaid will not be covering....

--
John McWilliams

On 2009-04-09 17:34:17 -0700, John McWilliams said:

TonyCooper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:46:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I would be concerned regarding the light issue while driving at night.
"Haloes" around lights at night is one of the symptoms of glaucoma in
the early stages. Corneal aberations and cataracts can also cause odd
effects with lights at night, so it might be worthwhile having things
checked out.

Halos can be an indication of several eye conditions. One of the most
serious is macular degeneration. Glaucoma is a minor problem compared
to macular degeneration. Minor, in that it is easier to control
and/or correct.

I made the point in an earlier post that I see an opthalmologist for
my eye exams even though my actual vision test and resulting eyeglass
prescription is done by an optomotrist in his office. This is a good
example of why.

The chain store optometrist may or may not make it sufficiently clear
that some problem discussed requires a consultation with a medical
doctor. Bring up halos, and he might say that you really should see
an opthalmologist. Is that suggestion given or taken seriously enough
that the patient makes an appointment? Or, is it disregarded as
"might be worthwhile".

However, if a medical examination is part of the process, a condition
is more likely to be caught in an early stage.

Thanks, gents. I suppose this is something my newly
about-to-be-acquired Medicaid will not be covering....

As one old fart to another, don't forget to get the supplemental coverage.

On a serious level, Tony is right. At our age, 60+ none of the signs
should be ignored. Get to a pro to get checked out.

My neighbor (68), just last week thought he was just a bit tired as the
vision in his left eye was a bit fuzzy. He thought all he needed was
some rest. The next day he had lost most of the functional vision in
that eye to "wet" macular degeneration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macular_Degeneration . He sought help and
was treated with some shots into the eye, he was not very specific as
to the exact treatment except to say he would probably have to have
similar shots monthly for the rest of his life.
Unfortunately the prognosis for that eye is not good for recovering, or
salvaging what has been lost, only to arrest further degradation.
He has gained an awareness to value his right eye, which at this time
is not affected. He is not into photography, but flies RC helicopters &
planes, and is concerned over a lost of depth perception. He flew one
of his helicopters last weekend without incident, but remains worried.

That has been a lesson in awareness and the consequences of complacency for me.

Good luck.
--
Regards,
Savageduck