I think you might have things a bit backwards, but correct me if I've misinterpreted. A) You can't ruin your eyes because of too much reading or sitting close to the TV or reading in dim light. This is a myth and everything I've read (such as this from a quick search) says it merely causes eye strain, but won't permanently damage your eyes. B) Of course when lenses were first available people that didn't normally read didn't buy glasses, what would they need crystal clear vision for that would justify such an investment? Someone who had read their entire lives, however, would get a lot more out of being able to see clearly. Reading a lot caused people to want/need glasses, it didn't cause them to have bad eyesight. Similarly, working on a farm doesn't somehow prevent people from getting bad eyesight, it just makes one less likely to see a need for glasses.
I think they're wrong about number 5. Reading small print in dim light will cause your eyes to worsen. I can cite anecdotal evidence, like my grandmother's vision worsening from the age of 8 to 12, when this was unavoidable during WW2, and not worsening at all since then, but I also asked my eye doctor this same question. His view was that while televisions and computer monitors under good lighting conditions don't worsen vision, reading books in poor lighting absolutely does. That's part of the reason, sure, but not all of it. Just count the number of younger people nowadays, myself included, who don't just have moderately bad eyesight (say, -2), but are damn near blind without glasses. (-7) Even daily chores would require corrective eye ware, but yet, few people needed glasses. My eyes were also perfect when I was young, but they worsened starting from the age of 10-11, when I started reading a lot more. Think about how many "nerds" or people who do post-graduate work at a university wear glasses versus the broader population.
I won't address the what causes bad eyesight because, hey, I'm not an optometrist. However as for the second part, correlation does not equal causation. For example, you're saying that your vision started to worsen around age 10-11, which happened to coincide with when you started reading more. But as the article I linked to before says: "When children become nearsighted (myopic), usually between the ages of 8 and 12, there is a natural progression in their myopia and a need for a stronger correction over the next few years."* And in the paragraph before that they address the idea that you need glasses now, which is more likely because your perception has changed and now you know what you're missing. Anyway, I'll shut up because I don't even need corrective lenses so I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. But, I do read a lot (in dim lighting no less!) and sit in front of my computer damn near all the time and still don't need glasses yet, so who knows? *For all I know the reason kids usually get myopic between 8-12 is precisely because they start reading around then. Wikipedia has like three different theories for causes of myopia, so again, who knows?
By the contraction of ciliary muscles inside the orbit, they reshape the lens via the suspensory ligament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(anatomy) (Sidenote: Wikipedia is generally pretty good for anything anatomy... not much changes in the field). Most people don't know about the exercises you can do. Even less people are willing to do the daily exercise required to correct their vision. Like you said, it would put people out of business. The exercises won't work for everyone, because there are many reasons people can have poor vision. But training your ciliary muscles to properly focus will help.
I think this calls for an experiment. My vision is terrible. Without my glasses/contacts, words become blurry if they are more than a foot away from my face. My left eye is nearsighted, and my right eye is nearsighted with a slight astigmatism. I have nothing to lose by giving some exercises a try, and I have the obsessivenes- I mean, discipline, necessary to stick to it. I'll pm nettdata for some specifics on his exercises, try them myself, and report back here on a monthly or so basis to let everyone know how it goes.
It's not that reading makes your vision worse, it's that your eyes adapt to looking at things at shorter distances. Think about how much we use our eyes in near-distance range (reading, computers, television, etc). For most people, natural selection of a specific myopia gene has nothing to do with it. Actually, I would say that if there is any hereditary aspect to myopia, it would be a resistance to it.
My first statement was based on a handful of sources that I've read over the last few years; nothing specific. The second statement was my conclusion that followed: that if everyone's lifestyle is similar yet not everyone ends up near-sighted, then perhaps there is a gene responsible for resisting myopia. But, that gene would not be naturally selected; it would simply be part of the gene pool that shows up regularly. Just thinking online now, but I wonder if those with excellent all-around vision, or those who have expressed an hypothetical 'myopia-resistant' gene, have ever had trouble reading... Anyway, this CITATION covers the previous first statement and touches on the second. The subsequent rambling can be considered fodder for discussion. Fuckin A
Very informative, if not over my head a touch, information here. It's interesting because I actually work at an optometrist's office selling glasses and such. My boss is religious, and his wife is probably the crazier of the two, so it has been a debate in my head if I even want to get into evolutionary biology with him or not (probably not). I will, however, ask the question about the 8-12 year olds becoming more myopic and the correlation between an increasing reading load, as well as the degradation of eyesight in poor lighting situations etc.
I can't believe I'm asking this. Okay, so I didn't smoke the dope for five years, then I smoked three days in a row, and IMMEDIATELY fell into a job prospect. Is it likely 25 days is enough time for it to clear out to acceptable levels? Assume regular urine test parameters. (Correlation: Smoke dope and people offer you jobs)
That was the general feeling I got, but lord knows it's hard to get any reliable information on the matter.
I can't straight-out answer your question, but I can give you some basic info. Yes, a single joint's worth of marijuana can still be detected in your body after a full month, because the active compounds of marijuana are so fat-soluble, they partition into your brain and fat and don't like to come out. The half-life is extremely long, between 25 and 36 hours, meaning half of the amount in your body is eliminated each day (i.e. 1 gram -> 0.5 grams -> 0.25 grams -> 0.125 grams, etc). I can't tell you, however, if that level of detection is within the power of a typical piss test, or the probability of you failing the test. Just be glad that you have 25 days in which to get clean.
Can someone explain to me why nut allergies seem to be on the rise? I don't recall anyone with nut allergies when I was a kid, yet my wife has at least one kid in her kindergarten class every year who will die if he/she comes in contact with nuts and is not treated. (hehe... nuts.)
Is anyone on here knowledgeable in exercise science? I run track/cross country in college and I know there are numerous misconceptions in regards to lactate, lactic acid and what causes muscle soreness and I was hoping someone here could help clarify some of it for me. Thanks.
From my understanding soreness is not caused by lactate or any of it's forms. Now what DOES cause it is under contention; here's two different views. 1) ATP conversion; when ATP is hydrolized it gives off a hydrogen ion which is thought to lower the PH in your muscles (causing them to acidify). 2) Another theory is that hypertrophy is the cause. Hypertrophy causes individual muscle cells to swell and the thinking is that they are pushing against each other and squeezing nerves. * Note: I am not an exercise science major, my dad teaches the stuff (masters in exercise science and physical therapy) so I've picked some stuff up from him.
A paper from UC Berkeley in 2006 tackled this pretty well -- it describes lactic acid as a fuel your body can learn to utilize as opposed to a signal to tell you to stop. Here are a couple of summaries and the paper itself: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/uoc--lan041906.php http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html?_r=2 http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/290/6/E1237
So, I apologize for the complete fucking shamelessness of this, but whatever. My company serves scientists and engineers and while the company is doing well, our corporate blog is not. It doesn't matter in the long run, but i still have people up my ass about the lack of pageviews. I'm aware that on the old board this would have gotten me a 2 week long sit down, but I feel like the Canadians running the show here are a little nicer than the old guard. It's science content, kind of, so it's sort of related. And every Thursday we have a rocket scientist posting for us as a featured blogger, he's actually pretty good Ignore how crappy all my posts are, I have so much to do that actually helps the company that this shit goes by the wayside until someone tries to yell at me about it. http://www.knovelblogs.com
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Did anyone read this? Or a similar article about this?
I get the feeling this info should get it's own thread in the "General " category. Any time science and politics are intermingled data will be skewed to reflect the "appropriate" stance. Not to mention the data being used for many of these climate change models is utter crap, are you really going to tell me that I need to trust data provided by some weatherman from Siberia back in 1905?As you can see in the below website data being collected here in the US today isn't even that good. surfacestations.org If you reference the below website you will see that scientists are still bickering over whether global warming is as severe as we are made to believe. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/09/20/u-s-media-ignoring-about-face-leading-global-warming-proponent Take note, I am a cold-hearted little bastard: I don't care about starving children in Africa, I don't care that the Maldives might disappear in the next ten years, and I definitely don't give two shits about polar bears losing their habitat.
The article author is overreaching for his agenda about as bad as the scientist's he's bashing did. The e-mails show that even scientists can feel the ends justify the means. From what I've seen it's selectively published e-mails over a period of over a decade, so what's out there is the absolute most incriminating stuff that was there. Not found in those e-mails is any kind of worldwide scientific conspiracy to fake global warming. They are far from the only group of climate scientists working on global warming and the e-mails didn't show any collusion with the rest of the labs, so anyone that claims it proves the whole scientific backing for global warming is wrong is just pushing an agenda. But it is really troubling though that some people in a controversial and developing science are going about the science ass-backwards. Making sure the data fits what they believe rather than vise-versa.
If you are talking about muscle soreness in the day or 2 after exercise, that is primarily caused by microtears in the muscle that occur during exercise. This is the basis behind most weightlifting/mass gaining strategies- you load the muscle, some of the fibres in it break and you repair them bigger and stronger. Lactic acid buildup during exercise gives you the immediate burn you feel during the workout, muscle damage makes you sore the following day(s)