Lilith wrote:Why does it say "astrology" in the description for a science thread???

I'm just saying all those categories (to me) fall under science.

---

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Well, they give you a nerdy look. Can't say about sexy.

You obviously haven't seen the styles I've seen.

FuzzyLobster wrote:Pst, I think you mean astronomy. Astrology is stuff like zodiac signs.

Bah.

We'll throw it in anyways. =p

Nero wrote:

FuzzyLobster wrote:Pst, I think you mean astronomy. Astrology is stuff like zodiac signs.

Bah.

We'll throw it in anyways. =p

I hadn't even noticed the astrology thing. I've removed astrology for you, since you seem to have accidentally left it in when adding astronomy...

Sentynel wrote:

Nero wrote:

FuzzyLobster wrote:Pst, I think you mean astronomy. Astrology is stuff like zodiac signs.

Bah.

We'll throw it in anyways. =p

I hadn't even noticed the astrology thing. I've removed astrology for you, since you seem to have accidentally left it in when adding astronomy...

I meant to leave it. But it doesn't matter really.

Nero wrote:I meant to leave it. But it doesn't matter really.

I'm sorry, I must be misreading, but I'm pretty sure you just said you intended to leave a load of extremely unscientific total bullcabbage in the description for the science thread?

Sentynel wrote:

Nero wrote:I meant to leave it. But it doesn't matter really.

I'm sorry, I must be misreading, but I'm pretty sure you just said you intended to leave a load of extremely unscientific total bullcabbage in the description for the science thread?

As irony. =p

Seventeen and my eyes are still going, despite the fact that my entire family requires glasses. :D

Though I notice my left eye, at times, seems to be a bit more blurry, so I've been mildly worried whether that's about to change...

Check it out soon. If you are myopic, getting glasses or lens fast would prevent the number from increasing.
Though yeah, when you are going for an eye check-up don't at all try to memorize the words they might put up on the screen.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Check it out soon. If you are myopic, getting glasses or lens fast would prevent the number from increasing.

Almost certainly not. The vast majority of cases of non-age related short/long sightedness are due to a non-spherical eyeball and/or a misshapen cornea. There's little or no evidence that short sightedness is caused by issues with the lens that might be mitigated by corrective eyewear.
(Age-related long-sightedness is caused by reductions in the flexibility of the lens as you age, however, not that corrective eyewear will do any good for that either.)

Glasses made my eyes worse, actually @_@

Sentynel wrote:

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Check it out soon. If you are myopic, getting glasses or lens fast would prevent the number from increasing.

Almost certainly not. The vast majority of cases of non-age related short/long sightedness are due to a non-spherical eyeball and/or a misshapen cornea. There's little or no evidence that short sightedness is caused by issues with the lens that might be mitigated by corrective eyewear.
(Age-related long-sightedness is caused by reductions in the flexibility of the lens as you age, however, not that corrective eyewear will do any good for that either.)

I was talking stress to the eyeball. Would not wearing glasses increase stress to the eye?
Edit: And yeah, I know wearing glasses doesn't prevent the number from increasing; my number increased 3 times since I started wearing glasses. I'm just thought it would not increase at the same rate due to less strain on the eye.

rubberchickenben wrote:Glasses made my eyes worse, actually @_@

Ownd.

I got glasses when I was 12, and my number's only increased once since then, so I guess it all really depends on the person. *touches wood and puts blind faith in random superstitions*

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:I was talking stress to the eyeball. Would not wearing glasses increase stress to the eye?
Edit: And yeah, I know wearing glasses doesn't prevent the number from increasing; my number increased 3 times since I started wearing glasses. I'm just thought it would not increase at the same rate due to less strain on the eye.

There's no evidence that eye strain does anything other than make your eyes tired.

I won't say there is no evidence that stress to eye cannot cause myopia : http://www.aoa.org/myopia.xml#1.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:I won't say there is no evidence that stress to eye cannot cause myopia : http://www.aoa.org/myopia.xml#1.

Note the heavy use of "may" and no citing of actual evidence...

It is the American Optometric Association. They wouldn't type something like that unless they didn't have any evidence.
And I thought that "may" said more about the chance one has of getting myopia than actually casting doubt on whether one could get it .
And many scientific articles on disease, inheritance etc. do use a lot of "may" in them as most people aren't just 100% sure about most things. But usually, if they do comment on something there is some sort of indication/evidence about such a thing. And some studies have shown that glasses (bifocals) could very well slow down myopia: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162025.htm
Anyway, mainly edited it for this: Breakthrough in controlling quantum spin.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:It is the American Optometric Association. They wouldn't type something like that unless they didn't have any evidence.
And I thought that "may" said more about the chance one has of getting myopia than actually casting doubt on whether one could get it .
And many scientific articles on disease, inheritance etc. do use a lot of "may" in them as most people aren't just 100% sure about most things. But usually, if they do comment on something there is some sort of indication/evidence about such a thing. And some studies have shown that glasses (bifocals) could very well slow down myopia: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162025.htm
Anyway, mainly edited it for this: Breakthrough in controlling quantum spin.

You trust too much. Just because something appears to be a respectable organisation is no guarantee that it's not spouting bollocks.

That was a pretty small trial, and specifically in people with high progression rates, but it's potentially interesting. The article noted inconclusive previous trials, though, so that may just be a statistical artefact.

Sentynel wrote:You trust too much.

/sigh.
I suppose I do. But then again, I won't dismiss anything out of hand if there happens to be some sort of indication that it could be true and if it hasn't been proved wrong.