Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/09/contact-lenses-pfas-forever-chemicals
119 comments
By the way, Leah (@bookieboo on twitter) is an affiliate marketer of many non-toxic products.
"extremely high levels of organic fluorine, a marker of ‘forever chemicals’"
I hate this kind of garbage research.
Florine can be used in lots of things, without actually checking there is absolutely no way they can claim it's PFAS.
I hate this kind of garbage research.
Florine can be used in lots of things, without actually checking there is absolutely no way they can claim it's PFAS.
So is there a health concern with having PFAS in contact with your eyes, or is this an environmental issue because they don't degrade? It sounds like there's something here meant to get upset about, but I don't know what it's supposed to be.
Many PFAS compounds are toxic at parts per trillion levels. As a chemist I can tell you that it's a big deal, but there is also no way you can avoid exposure.
The fact that 3M is exiting their 1.3 billion fluorinated molecule business of their own accord, should give you a flavour of the shitstorm of litigation that will result when the full implications of PFAS contamination are understood more broadly.
https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing...
The fact that 3M is exiting their 1.3 billion fluorinated molecule business of their own accord, should give you a flavour of the shitstorm of litigation that will result when the full implications of PFAS contamination are understood more broadly.
https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing...
It's also logical to exit the business even if it isn't harmful due to litigation risk and perception.
All of that business will be taken up by other manufacturers in APEC and in aggregate the world will be unhealthier due to less regulation.
All of that business will be taken up by other manufacturers in APEC and in aggregate the world will be unhealthier due to less regulation.
The legal limit for PFAS in drinking water is 0.07 PPB. But that hides the fact that not all PFAS chemicals are created equal. The EPA limit for PFOS and PFOA and GENx varieties are 1000x lower. I pretty much guarantee you and your family have been massively over exposed to a large number of PFAS and PFAS intermediate degradation products well above the EPA limit.
The research is ongoing and unclear. The primary reason people are concerned is that the half-life of PFAS in the human body is between 2 and 9 years – so if you're exposed, you're really exposed.
There's been a range of studies that have shown possible links with a number of different diseases which is concerning only because the effects of PFAS had been largely unstudied until the last 15 years. But that this point, there are few clear problems from PFAS.
https://www.pfas.gov.au/about-pfas/affects
There's been a range of studies that have shown possible links with a number of different diseases which is concerning only because the effects of PFAS had been largely unstudied until the last 15 years. But that this point, there are few clear problems from PFAS.
https://www.pfas.gov.au/about-pfas/affects
Best to avoid 94% of biodegradable straws as well.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Biodeg...
I hope some research is done on PFAs before it’s too late.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Biodeg...
I hope some research is done on PFAs before it’s too late.
These straws are just awful. They seem instantly de carbonate drinks resulting in only foam coming up the straw. Though they aren't all the same, the McDonald's ones seem to work ok.
Banning the plastic ones was fine, but I'd rather no straw over a coated paper one.
Banning the plastic ones was fine, but I'd rather no straw over a coated paper one.
Easy - even my kids when they were under 2 could drink without straws. Of course if you have ice cubes in everything then straws are needed - which is why we avoid ice cubes also.
> Best to avoid 94% of biodegradable straws as well.
Way ahead of you on that one.
Way ahead of you on that one.
Although one might hope that with a fairly clear cut divide between contact wearers and non-wearers, it would be possible to tease some sorts of effect out fairly quickly now that this insight has been reported. Obviously non-wearers could be exposed to other sources but it seems like direct eye contact would be giving you a pretty high dose.
I don’t think anyone is trying to make anyone upset, it’s just research on how prevalent PFAS are. At a minimum, the hundreds of contact lenses I’ve thrown away in my life will almost never break down fully in a landfill, but I’m sure they’re far from the worst things we’ve put in there…
PFAS is to my generation as leaded gasoline is to the prior generation(s), and asbestos to the ones before them, and so forth from when the first chimneys were put up to spew toxic sludge into our air and rivers at the start of the industrial revolution. There is something so sad, so unworkable, and so deeply troubling about how this kind of thing keeps happening.
we used to live malnourished, with stunted growth, women dying in childbirth to bring 8 kids into the world half of whom would die in childhood, with large numbers of men dying before they couldn't afford reading glasses they would need. (my gf was 1 of 5 surviving from 10 born, with horsedrawn transportation and starvation)
all that industrialization brought us to much healthier longer lives filled with amenities undreamed of 100 years ago, including corrective vision.
now as a society we uncover problems, we fix them. We're doing pretty well.
all that industrialization brought us to much healthier longer lives filled with amenities undreamed of 100 years ago, including corrective vision.
now as a society we uncover problems, we fix them. We're doing pretty well.
Terrestrial and marine diversity is crashing. We're keeping people alive and the way we allocate resources means that's a bad thing. The individual human is more replaceable that ever before. The sheer scale of things unfolding, and the momentum of them is necessarily unstoppable. Most of what we've done is eking out extra carrying capacity, which has then been exploited while the net quality of life has actually not appreciably gained, while the things that can't be meaningfully quantified have taken a visible decrement. Did we forget climate change? Finite resources? Expectations for these advancements to continue as things get increasingly complicated and the likelihood of reaching the threshold where it all breaks down...
I'm certainly thankful we'll have 10 billion people to share that ride with. Misery loves her company.
It's all a monkey paw and we've been standing in place for a century.
I'm certainly thankful we'll have 10 billion people to share that ride with. Misery loves her company.
It's all a monkey paw and we've been standing in place for a century.
> we used to live malnourished, with stunted growth, women dying in childbirth to bring 8 kids into the world half of whom would die in childhood...
> We're doing pretty well.
You know it's interesting to think about who is doing well and who is not thanks to global industrialization. In the last 50 years "we" in the OECD countries simply moved our polluting industry to poor countries, where people have had their ancestral farm land taken by governments and replaced with polluting factories. This has left many of them with few opportunities other than to work in dangerous factories while living and raising their children in toxic wastelands.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
> We're doing pretty well.
You know it's interesting to think about who is doing well and who is not thanks to global industrialization. In the last 50 years "we" in the OECD countries simply moved our polluting industry to poor countries, where people have had their ancestral farm land taken by governments and replaced with polluting factories. This has left many of them with few opportunities other than to work in dangerous factories while living and raising their children in toxic wastelands.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
> "we" in the OECD countries simply moved our polluting industry to poor countries
Carbon intensity of GDP, worldwide, fell almost 40% between 1980 and 2021 [1]. (-1.3% CAGR.)
We do offshore toxic industries. But we're also getting better at being less toxic. Environmentalism isn't all a shell game.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/co2-emissions...
Carbon intensity of GDP, worldwide, fell almost 40% between 1980 and 2021 [1]. (-1.3% CAGR.)
We do offshore toxic industries. But we're also getting better at being less toxic. Environmentalism isn't all a shell game.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/co2-emissions...
We don't fix them, what on earth are you talking about?
Nobody has any idea what to do about Wittenoom, it's screwed for a relative forever as far as human timescales are concerned. PFAS contamination is the same. So many of our mistakes are. We can't fix Chernobyl, the tens of thousands of barrels of DDT at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of California or scores of other atrocities we have committed. This isn't a case of breaking out the dustpan and broom and packing away our toys!
Nobody has any idea what to do about Wittenoom, it's screwed for a relative forever as far as human timescales are concerned. PFAS contamination is the same. So many of our mistakes are. We can't fix Chernobyl, the tens of thousands of barrels of DDT at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of California or scores of other atrocities we have committed. This isn't a case of breaking out the dustpan and broom and packing away our toys!
Hey man, relax, AGI and one-way tickets to Mars will save us!
>now as a society we uncover problems, we fix them. We're doing pretty well.
Doing pretty well?
Doubt if the parents of all those severely deformed thalidomide-affected babies, or the babies themselves, would agree:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal
Doing pretty well?
Doubt if the parents of all those severely deformed thalidomide-affected babies, or the babies themselves, would agree:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal
That was extremely sad event for a relatively short period of time and small percentage of American families, but it certainly isn't worse than the average child or maternal mortality rate of the 19th century.
Not only American.
Almost all not American. Thalidomide was never approved for general use in the United States -- in fact, the FDA rejected it six times. As a result only 17 thalidomide babies were born here. Today, it is used for several conditions, but never in pregnant women, or women who might become pregnant.
Yes. One of the Wikipedia articles I linked above, talks about and has a photo of an official receiving an award from the then US president, from preventing thalidomide from being approved for use in the US (early on).
And yet there were deaths.
So, not only American.
Plus, the article itself says many non-American deaths happened.
And yet there were deaths.
So, not only American.
Plus, the article itself says many non-American deaths happened.
You do not need to convince me that industrialization is good. I agree. What troubles me is the irresponsible approach.
What's "responsible" about putting the breaks on technological progress, when that technological progress has statistically-positive net QALY effects?
Let me give a concrete example: what would be "responsible" about doing a 10-year FDA trial to approve a novel anti-cancer therapy, for a cancer that currently has no existing treatment?
Even if this novel cancer treatment killed 50% of the people treated, if the rest went into remission, that'd be 50% more people who would be not dead at the end of the treatment, than if there was no treatment. We'd still be better off approving it immediately; and every day we'd delay to be "responsible" would be lives lost that could have been saved!
Obviously, no real technology kills 50% of people while preventing the other 50% from dying of some horrible disease. But real technologies might do things very analogous to this. For example, the Haber-Bosch process. Contributes to global warming; but also enables 10x as many people to have food to eat.
If you don't see how PFAS are an example of this kind of "benefits in lives saved outweigh whatever risk" technology: what chemical do you think is used in the lining of IV tubes to prevent the growth of bacterial biofilms? (This is the likely highest lifetime source of PFAS exposure for the average person. But it's also a necessary one!)
And, in fact, why do you think the contact lenses are using PFAS? Same idea. The benefit (not potentially getting a bacterial eye infection) severely outweighs any potential risk. PFAS in your eye could mean that your eye is slightly — in a way that's hard enough to measure that we haven't yet noticed it in clinical practice — more likely to get [some disease we aren't aware of] over the long term. But putting a contact lens without PFAS in your eye, means that your eye is quite a bit more likely to get infected, and need to be removed, or possibly even transmit an infection right into your brain!
Let me give a concrete example: what would be "responsible" about doing a 10-year FDA trial to approve a novel anti-cancer therapy, for a cancer that currently has no existing treatment?
Even if this novel cancer treatment killed 50% of the people treated, if the rest went into remission, that'd be 50% more people who would be not dead at the end of the treatment, than if there was no treatment. We'd still be better off approving it immediately; and every day we'd delay to be "responsible" would be lives lost that could have been saved!
Obviously, no real technology kills 50% of people while preventing the other 50% from dying of some horrible disease. But real technologies might do things very analogous to this. For example, the Haber-Bosch process. Contributes to global warming; but also enables 10x as many people to have food to eat.
If you don't see how PFAS are an example of this kind of "benefits in lives saved outweigh whatever risk" technology: what chemical do you think is used in the lining of IV tubes to prevent the growth of bacterial biofilms? (This is the likely highest lifetime source of PFAS exposure for the average person. But it's also a necessary one!)
And, in fact, why do you think the contact lenses are using PFAS? Same idea. The benefit (not potentially getting a bacterial eye infection) severely outweighs any potential risk. PFAS in your eye could mean that your eye is slightly — in a way that's hard enough to measure that we haven't yet noticed it in clinical practice — more likely to get [some disease we aren't aware of] over the long term. But putting a contact lens without PFAS in your eye, means that your eye is quite a bit more likely to get infected, and need to be removed, or possibly even transmit an infection right into your brain!
or you could wear glasses
"The constant pressure from the nosepads and arms of glasses on your face, has potentially deleterious long-term consequences to the lymphatic channels of the face, resulting in increased incidence of sinus pressure headaches, fibromyalgia, middle-ear infections leading to tinnitus, and potentially even blockages of glymphatic drainage leading to increased likelihood of brain aneurism in old age."
...is the sort of thing the FDA would say, if you had just invented glasses today; before then demanding a 20-year longitudinal cohort study to disprove those possible risks. (They might also list all those same risk factors for wearing a hat.)
My point being — we can come up with all sorts of plausible potential risks of literally any technology, new or old. There are plenty of subtle long-term consequences of our interactions with everyday objects that nobody has ever stopped to consider; anything can potentially be doing esoteric bad things to us.
But if we invented prescription glasses today, and everyone until now had been just walking around nearsighted — bumping into things, unable to legally drive, etc — for lack of them; then should we hold off on allowing them to be sold, until we do such a study? Or should we accept that being able to see outweighs a bunch of entirely-hypothetical risks?
Or, on a related note, how about this: would it have been "responsible" to prevent people from getting laser eye surgery, out of concern that it might make their night vision worse?
...is the sort of thing the FDA would say, if you had just invented glasses today; before then demanding a 20-year longitudinal cohort study to disprove those possible risks. (They might also list all those same risk factors for wearing a hat.)
My point being — we can come up with all sorts of plausible potential risks of literally any technology, new or old. There are plenty of subtle long-term consequences of our interactions with everyday objects that nobody has ever stopped to consider; anything can potentially be doing esoteric bad things to us.
But if we invented prescription glasses today, and everyone until now had been just walking around nearsighted — bumping into things, unable to legally drive, etc — for lack of them; then should we hold off on allowing them to be sold, until we do such a study? Or should we accept that being able to see outweighs a bunch of entirely-hypothetical risks?
Or, on a related note, how about this: would it have been "responsible" to prevent people from getting laser eye surgery, out of concern that it might make their night vision worse?
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You can get glasses now and not put PFAS in your eye and have improved vision. Some people don't like wearing glasses and would prefer contacts. Maybe they can make an informed decision between long term discomfort and the very low increased possibility of a future eye disease? People aren't good at long term thinking though.
re laser eye surgery, there was a story pretty recently about the number of post surgery issues being downplayed and under-represented. If you had a full and true picture of the risks then you might avoid laser eye surgery, but people running laser eye surgery clinics don't want you to have all the information.
re laser eye surgery, there was a story pretty recently about the number of post surgery issues being downplayed and under-represented. If you had a full and true picture of the risks then you might avoid laser eye surgery, but people running laser eye surgery clinics don't want you to have all the information.
Those people saved by cancer treatments or IV drips should die, for the environment of course(!) This is what they really believe so you can be damn sure they will make you poorer by denying you the luxury of contact lenses. And they'd have a more acceptable excuse of "wear glasses".
No one believes this.
This guy in an adjacent comment seems to think we should stop wearing contacts for the environment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35957473
If you're cold and start burning your furnitures in the middle of your living room you'll feel nice and cozy for a little while, it's not sustainable though
[deleted](1)
justinator(4)
Asbestos shouldn't be compared to leaded gasoline imo. It's quite safe and inert if you don't physically disturb it.
Also adopting asbestos were somewhat reasonable at that time (from thousands years ago to hundred year ago). Leaded gasoline was terrible from the beginning. They don't adopt ethanol for profit.
You’re confusing quite a few things here. Ethanol wasn’t put in gasoline until decades after the lead came out.
Ethanol was absolutely added for profit… but much like HFCS, it was about propping up big agribusiness.
Ethanol was absolutely added for profit… but much like HFCS, it was about propping up big agribusiness.
Ethanol replaced MBTE. MBTE is awful (any persistent groundwater contaminant is awful) and it's a good thing it's gone.
Higher percentages of ethanol are arguably not worthwhile, but getting rid of MBTE is almost certainly the right choice.
Higher percentages of ethanol are arguably not worthwhile, but getting rid of MBTE is almost certainly the right choice.
This is what I meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Kettering#Flxible,_...
They adopted ethanol because of the farm lobby
Well so is leaded gas, the problem is people kept burning it!
How do you mine, manufacture, install, or remove it without physically disturbing it?
I think we're gonna have several asbestos/lead moments in our lifetimes. PFAS, micro plastics, endocrine disruption, I'd also wager marijuana is likely to have its own big tobacco moment eventually, I've heard fruits and vegetables have slowly been losing nutrient density over generations but I have not looked into that yet. There's more nebulous things like the impact of AI or the way we now communicate (or don't communicate in many cases)...
We have a lot of problems or potential problems that are going to be relatively subtle and or persistent over years and decades and I don't feel we are really taking them as seriously as we should. One thing that really worries me is how many of these various things may interact, we see this in pharmaceuticals where it's very hard if not impossible to rigorously test all the potential interactions. We have introduced a tremendous amount of changes to our lives in increasingly short time frames.
Asbestos isn't even properly banned in US despite of universal knowledge of it being harmful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#United_States
Nutrient density in food has decreased due to the switch to synthetic fertilizers used by intensive farming practices. Man-made fertilizers contain only the big three (phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen) nutrients, leading to the slow depletion of micronutrients in the soil. Without an abundance of those other elements, plants cannot incorporate them and the resulting crops will lack them. As a result, modern industrial food contains a fraction of the micronutrients as compared to the same food from a century past, and there has not been a widespread effort to fix the problem.
I think you can go back quite a bit further. Heck most of humanities progress was spent trying to figure out how to stay in a single place without turning it incapable of supporting human life within a few months.
They were really pretty close. Leaded gas was banned for new model cars in 1985 but didn't stop being used until 1996 - the year of XML! - and asbestos was and is everywhere, the gift that keeps on giving. Popcorn ceiling in a house built in 1980 CA? Probably full of asbestos because grandfathered in. And so on.
Just kind of amazing.
Just kind of amazing.
But when will be ban XML?
Asbestos--spiky things in the lungs.
XML: lots of sticky typing of tags.
We don't yet know what we have wrought with XML, what insidious harms shall come from squished fingers upon rubber-domed keys.
XML: lots of sticky typing of tags.
We don't yet know what we have wrought with XML, what insidious harms shall come from squished fingers upon rubber-domed keys.
Over and over, the tags!
Opening and closing, the tags!
Verbose yet incomplete,
Wayward schemas in attr equals,
Transforms atop loops and ifs,
Ending yet starting yet ending <starting
Maven, web.xml, SOAP--
Newlines and through lines, blobs in
SQL row lines <!-- comments too
Trees never perish,
Always and ever the roots flourishLead poisoning came before asbestos fwiw
DDT was probably worse than all.
What it proven to be dangerous for people? It caused ecological problems, but direct harm for people was suggested, not proven as far as I know.
It lasts in water for 150 years. It kills everything, causes eggshell thining (birds, fish, etc).
It is fat soluble and accumulates through the food chain.
It is fat soluble and accumulates through the food chain.
How large are PFAS particles? Because the Bowman's layer found just under the epithelium should stop most particles from reaching the stroma. The Bowman's layer is particularly frustrating for medicinal delivery - it stops most particles from reaching stroma/endothelium. This makes corneal burn recovery quite difficult.
So if PFAS has some mechanism to pass through the Bowman's layer, it could be useful for medicine delivery and healing corneal wounds.
So if PFAS has some mechanism to pass through the Bowman's layer, it could be useful for medicine delivery and healing corneal wounds.
About 30% of pharmaceuticals being developed are PFAS, so the value for medicine is already quite understood.
The crucial part of this research that is omitted is that the type of PFAS that contact lenses contain are “fluoropolymers”, a subcategory of PFAS that is considered to be less dangerous, and is not the subject of most PFAS regulation. Still potentially harmful, of course, I don’t claim to be an expert on this stuff, but it’s an important point that was left out of the article.
This nuance will never reach public consciousness. Decisions will be made that are a net negative for global health, as the west will scare manufacturing of such materials to unregulated markets.
The full article is at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/09/contact-...
Thanks! We've changed to that from https://superfund.ncsu.edu/news/3831/.
Cipro, Prozac, and Flonase are PFAS.
The media has successfully stirred up fear on an entire class of compounds that have half-lives ranging over many orders of magnitude.
The media has successfully stirred up fear on an entire class of compounds that have half-lives ranging over many orders of magnitude.
Well then. LASIK it is.
The other commenters pointed out that glasses are an option, but I feel like the real thing that is missed in lasik discussions is risk -- there is no risk of ruining your eyes by wearing glasses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#Risks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#Risks
There's also a risk every time you go outside. Without actual odds of the risk occurring to you, it's a meaningless point.
I looked into this 12 years ago when I was debating whether I should get LASIK, and the risk seemed minuscule. I'm sure odds of a bad outcome have gone down even more in that time.
I looked into this 12 years ago when I was debating whether I should get LASIK, and the risk seemed minuscule. I'm sure odds of a bad outcome have gone down even more in that time.
If you already waited 12 years, might as well wait more. What they don’t tell you is your eyes will continue to deteriorate after lasik. You might as well wait for the contact lens with stem cells sewn into it
There might have been a misunderstanding. I meant I got mine done 12 years ago and that's when I was researching the risks. I'm fine with getting them done again after another 15-20 years from now - well worth the money.
The best vision you can get is your real eyes plus contact lenses.
Vision surgery will correct the central portion of your eyes, and it won't last your lifetime.
After vision surgery, your prescription can continue to change, however it is difficult to correct the vision with contact lenses at that point because your eye has a "plateau" shape, which contacts aren't really designed for.
Also, if there is astigmatism, it's hard to correct it at low diopters of correction.
Vision surgery will correct the central portion of your eyes, and it won't last your lifetime.
After vision surgery, your prescription can continue to change, however it is difficult to correct the vision with contact lenses at that point because your eye has a "plateau" shape, which contacts aren't really designed for.
Also, if there is astigmatism, it's hard to correct it at low diopters of correction.
I had low diopter astigmatism and got lazik 6 years ago at 39. I consider it the best decision I've ever made that was just for me. I still have perfect vision, and if it degrades again I will happily get it done again. Just my experience, but I have yet to meet anyone who has regretted it.
Can you really have the procedure done a second time?
There is no limit for LASIK procedures.
It just re-shapes your lens via subtraction. you can have it done as many times as your lens has enough material to be molded into the required geometry via removing material.
So how many times is that on average?
Naively searching seems to mostly get well SEO'd results from LASIK related companies making claims like "In general, there is no limit on how many LASIK procedures you can get in your lifetime"[0]. Though that is followed by "The thickness of the cornea is one of the main determinations regarding the safety of multiple LASIK surgeries" in the same article which seems to contradict the previous statement as there is clearly a limit before it becomes unsafe to perform another procedure.
Meanwhile on a very short search, I cannot seem to find any study or report about literally anyone having more than two laser eye surgeries.
I did find an FDA guideline from 2022 that lists a surprising number of risks for laser eye surgeries[1].
[0] https://vson.com.au/how-many-times-can-you-have-lasik-eye-su...
[1] Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) Lasers - Patient Labeling Recommendations (https://www.fda.gov/media/160239/download)
Naively searching seems to mostly get well SEO'd results from LASIK related companies making claims like "In general, there is no limit on how many LASIK procedures you can get in your lifetime"[0]. Though that is followed by "The thickness of the cornea is one of the main determinations regarding the safety of multiple LASIK surgeries" in the same article which seems to contradict the previous statement as there is clearly a limit before it becomes unsafe to perform another procedure.
Meanwhile on a very short search, I cannot seem to find any study or report about literally anyone having more than two laser eye surgeries.
I did find an FDA guideline from 2022 that lists a surprising number of risks for laser eye surgeries[1].
[0] https://vson.com.au/how-many-times-can-you-have-lasik-eye-su...
[1] Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) Lasers - Patient Labeling Recommendations (https://www.fda.gov/media/160239/download)
> So how many times is that on average?
Certainly it is a number 0-many
I know an uncle who has had it twice
I am ineligible for the procedure as my farsightedness is too severe when coupled with a thin portion of my cornea
I would guess the first surgery is generally the most severe and the followups require less material removal, but I think your research is probably more detailed than mine at this point.
Certainly it is a number 0-many
I know an uncle who has had it twice
I am ineligible for the procedure as my farsightedness is too severe when coupled with a thin portion of my cornea
I would guess the first surgery is generally the most severe and the followups require less material removal, but I think your research is probably more detailed than mine at this point.
risk of infection and poor results with each attempt. a friend had his "fixed" and ended up worse off.
[deleted]
You know glasses exist, right?
Contacts changed my life. I wear glasses still, but contacts let me comfortably participate in activities that bring me a lot of joy.
Depends. My nearsightness is so bad that even the insanely expensive ultra thin lenses are too heavy to wear for more than a few hours at a time and give me a raging headache from the weight. It's no exaggeration to say that contact lenses have had the single greatest positive effect on my life out of anything.
I was just cleaning my shop and was constantly between fogged glasses behind eye protection and tons of dust accumulating on the lenses. I’ve worn glasses for 30 years and that aspect of wearing them is vastly inferior to corrective procedures or contacts.
I would stick with contacts but, like this topic suggests, there are legitimate health concerns, and I can’t justify how disposable they are with no consideration of environmental impacts. I wish that wasn’t the case.
I would stick with contacts but, like this topic suggests, there are legitimate health concerns, and I can’t justify how disposable they are with no consideration of environmental impacts. I wish that wasn’t the case.
I'm pretty sure that I could package up all of my used contact lenses over the past decade into a single jam jar.
If we consider the cases as well, I might need to go up to say, a gallon bottle of milk.
I'm deliberately overestimating here by the way.
What is the waste problem here?
If we consider the cases as well, I might need to go up to say, a gallon bottle of milk.
I'm deliberately overestimating here by the way.
What is the waste problem here?
They might be referring to single-use lenses.
The level of waste from monthly contact lenses is surely less than a grocery trip where you forget your reusable bags. I wouldn't even consider that aspect personally, they're tiny.
I suppose the way I look at it is that any practical option I have to reduce waste is likely worthwhile, and contacts falls square in that category.
I find that a ridiculous viewpoint.
Contacts are, as addressed, tiny. The amount of waste you generate from these things is almost nothing. I compared to a plastic bag earlier, but just imagine how much shit is wasted on a single private jet flight. Don't torture yourself when the people in position to enact change don't.
Contacts also have an insane value prop. Vision assistance is more of a need than a want in a modern society where one has to work for money.
Contacts are, as addressed, tiny. The amount of waste you generate from these things is almost nothing. I compared to a plastic bag earlier, but just imagine how much shit is wasted on a single private jet flight. Don't torture yourself when the people in position to enact change don't.
Contacts also have an insane value prop. Vision assistance is more of a need than a want in a modern society where one has to work for money.
Not the OP, but I can't wear glasses. Contacts are a lifesaver.
I hate wearing glasses.
Having something constantly on my face, on my nose, behind my ears, in front of my eyes, so my peripheral vision is constantly a blur, chromatic aberration around the edges, you’ve got to be careful not to smudge or scratch or bump or bend them… plus that heart-stopping moment when something hits you in the face, knocks them off, and suddenly you are BLIND and there’s nothing you can do about it…
I hate wearing glasses.
Having something constantly on my face, on my nose, behind my ears, in front of my eyes, so my peripheral vision is constantly a blur, chromatic aberration around the edges, you’ve got to be careful not to smudge or scratch or bump or bend them… plus that heart-stopping moment when something hits you in the face, knocks them off, and suddenly you are BLIND and there’s nothing you can do about it…
I hate wearing glasses.
what happened to glasses?
They fog up and fall off. Sometimes very far off. Farther than I'm willing to climb.
If your glasses fall off then it sounds like a fit or material issue. Rimless titanium wire (hingeless) with polycarb lenses and they'll stay put in the most extreme of conditions with a sensible arm design.
Or you just aren't doing sports / physical activities.
"the most extreme of conditions", so I'm not sure why you wouldn't think this includes sports or physical activities.
Can you link to some examples of such frames?
Google "rimless titanium wire hingeless frame polycarb". You'll find plenty. As they're hingeless, you get far superior fit. They weigh much less than standard glasses, as such, they don't slip.
I google those and the ones I see do not look like they would stay on your face if you were upside down, for example (and less extreme positions, of course, but that's easiest to describe).
I wear glasses and contacts, and do sports, and contacts just work a lot better for sports. Glasses are totally fine for sitting at a computer or walking around or driving.
I wear glasses and contacts, and do sports, and contacts just work a lot better for sports. Glasses are totally fine for sitting at a computer or walking around or driving.
Get a nerd strap for them?
Some of us have high prescriptions which make glasses expensive and horribly unpleasant to wear regardless of frame size or lens choice. I am at -11.5 and with enough astigmatism that modern LASIK isn't an option, id have to get the old "slice a flap off" style. Hard pass.
Any actionable advice here? Are there any safer contact lens brands?
I appreciate that I can always trust HN to tear bullshit articles to shred. Thanks y’all
Guess I'll stick with spectacles. Safe, inert, strong, transparent, recyclable, cheap, and abundant... glass is truly a Bronze Age wonder material!
If I want to sell lemonade, tea or coffee by the road, I need to apply for 5 different documents of some kind or another in my city.
If I want to manufacture (or moreso, import) things with all kinds of unknown, untested chemicals, I am free to do as I wish with no supervision.
If I want to manufacture (or moreso, import) things with all kinds of unknown, untested chemicals, I am free to do as I wish with no supervision.
Getting a medical device certified is much more difficult than selling beverages from a food cart.
People used to drink radium water for health benefits and think smoking wasn't a problem. Good science is reevaluating based on gained knowledge then behaving accordingly. Expect gained knowledge to lead to more strict regulation and certification standards.
People used to drink radium water for health benefits and think smoking wasn't a problem. Good science is reevaluating based on gained knowledge then behaving accordingly. Expect gained knowledge to lead to more strict regulation and certification standards.
Well, arguably, we understand lemonade well so we can regulate the sale of it. The same can't be said for PFAS. People move slow, and regulatory legislation, particularly under conservative rule, desperately so.
[deleted]
Leah found "Indications of PFAS", organic Fluorine, which may or may not be PFAS. Whilst she may not be wrong, as a wearer of contact lenses myself I would like to know the truth.