| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Jan 12 09:56AM -0800 On 01/11/2018 04:24 PM, Harry Newton wrote: >> unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away! > I have asked at the eye doctor's offices why humans need glasses and no > other animal does to protect their eyes from the sun. No answer? I'd guess that (a) we don't know much about cataracts in wild animals and/or (2) they don't live long enough to develop them. > If UV-protective glasses were *really* needed, *everyone* would wear them, > and they'd be mandated just like seat belts are and bicycle helmets, > especially at OSHA regulated work sites. Welding glasses have specifications, as do eclipse glasses. > I'd like to see a study of cataracts statistics to see if eyglass wearers > are represented differently than non eyeglass wearers though... I hunted until I got tired of hunting with no success. This is interesting, though. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pricey-vs-cheap-shades-put-to-the-uv-test/ https://www.aao.org/eye-health/glasses-contacts/sunglasses-3 says "A number of scientific studies indicate that spending long hours in the sun without eye protection can damage your eyes by contributing to cataracts and growths on the eye, including cancer. Based on these studies, ophthalmologists recommend that you wear 99 percent and higher UV (ultraviolet radiation)-absorbent sunglasses and a brimmed hat whenever you're in the sun for long periods of time." Long hours. Can. No footnotes, of course. -- Cheers, Bev "Don't you wish there were a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence? There's one marked "brightness", but it doesn't work." -- Gallagher |
| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 12 06:58PM On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:56:41 -0800, The Real Bev wrote: > No answer? I'd guess that (a) we don't know much about cataracts in > wild animals and/or (2) they don't live long enough to develop them. My main point is that if uv protection was *really needed* (as opposed to a convenience to have), then *all* people would be wearing glasses with uv protection, and not just those who need their sight corrected. > Welding glasses have specifications, as do eclipse glasses. Yes. Of course. They're extreme cases though, as you know. I'm talking about the mantra that you must have UV protection in prescription glasses, which if it *really* were needed, then *everyone* would be wearing glasses with UV protection, whether or not they needed eye corrections. At some point, some gob'ment agency would mandate it, e.g., OSHA for workers who work outdoors. > UV (ultraviolet radiation)-absorbent sunglasses and a brimmed hat > whenever you're in the sun for long periods of time." > Long hours. Can. No footnotes, of course. I'm not denying that long hours outdoors can give you UV that will make your skin look like those old photos of the American Indians of the wild west. All I'm saying is that the "sky is falling" scare tactics of the eye doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc. |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Jan 12 01:47PM -0800 On 01/12/2018 10:58 AM, Harry Newton wrote: > doctors doesn't hold water to logic, because if it was really all that > dangerous, some gob'ment agency would mandate it for everyone, like they do > carseats, seatbelts, motorcyle helmets, etc. You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do. Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery late in life. Sometimes early in life. Nobody is going to run double-blind studies. Before some regulation like those you mentioned happens, somebody has to convince enough congresspersons that getting behind it is in THEIR interest. Everybody I've known for a long time has worn glasses most of their life. About half have had their cataracts fixed, some just to improve their vision at Medicare expense rather than due to any detriment actually caused by the cataracts. -- Cheers, Bev "Yahoo has released its own search engine. For more info, type 'yahoo search engine' into Google." -D.Miller |
| rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>: Jan 12 05:17PM -0500 The Real Bev wrote on 1/12/2018 4:47 PM: > You trust the government(s) a lot more than I do. > Nearly everybody needs, or at least would benefit from, cataract surgery > late in life. Sometimes early in life. Ophthalmologists would disagree with you. There is risk associated with cataract surgery and even if your cataracts are impacting your quality of life, they won't do the surgery until you reach a certain point of degradation. This is measured in an objective way which does not factor in things like not being able to see to drive at night. They don't do this surgery frivolously. > Nobody is going to run double-blind > studies. Mostly because they know people believe what they say even though they are talking without knowledge. The medical profession is famous for dispensing advice based on very little science. > Before some regulation like those you mentioned happens, somebody > has to convince enough congresspersons that getting behind it is in THEIR > interest. No, the government is not in the business of mandating medical treatments. > About half have had their cataracts fixed, some just to improve their vision > at Medicare expense rather than due to any detriment actually caused by the > cataracts. There's some BSing going on somewhere. Isn't poor vision a detriment? -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>: Jan 12 10:35PM -0800 On 01/12/2018 02:17 PM, rickman wrote: > degradation. This is measured in an objective way which does not factor in > things like not being able to see to drive at night. They don't do this > surgery frivolously. Of course not, but mine didn't cause any problem even though they were within whatever the limits are. I had to pay extra for IOLs with astigmatism, which pissed me off. NOT a luxury in my case. Probably not in anybody's case if glasses couldn't correct it. > Mostly because they know people believe what they say even though they are > talking without knowledge. The medical profession is famous for dispensing > advice based on very little science. Indeed. And worse -- there's no mechanism for getting rid of incompetent doctors. >> has to convince enough congresspersons that getting behind it is in THEIR >> interest. > No, the government is not in the business of mandating medical treatments. It's in the business of doing whatever keeps the incumbents in office. >> at Medicare expense rather than due to any detriment actually caused by the >> cataracts. > There's some BSing going on somewhere. Isn't poor vision a detriment? My lifetime poor vision (+3 with 2D of astigmatism) had nothing to do with the cataracts. When the first one was removed I noticed perhaps 1 stop or less of yellowish darkening in the virgin eye, which was surprising. Interesting, not bothersome. Still, it qualified. What are we arguing about? I seem to have forgotten. -- Cheers, Bev "We don't know how smart people can be, but we know that dumb goes all the way to zero." -- Joe Chew |
| rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>: Jan 13 03:08AM -0500 The Real Bev wrote on 1/13/2018 1:35 AM: > within whatever the limits are. I had to pay extra for IOLs with > astigmatism, which pissed me off. NOT a luxury in my case. Probably not in > anybody's case if glasses couldn't correct it. I don't know what an IOL is. Should I know that? I know what an IOU is. >> advice based on very little science. > Indeed. And worse -- there's no mechanism for getting rid of incompetent > doctors. It's not about individual doctors. The medical profession is great at not having a good basis for doing things a given way. Hell, many places I've worked we had checklists for various aspects of our work. I was taught to have and use checklists for diving. Even professionals like airline pilots use checklists. Doctors... not so much. Studies have shown significant reductions in mortality and complications when doctors use checklists, but they feel they are above that. > less of yellowish darkening in the virgin eye, which was surprising. > Interesting, not bothersome. Still, it qualified. > What are we arguing about? I seem to have forgotten. The above statement that had their cataracts fixed for no special reason. I'm not at all clear on what that means. Isn't the only reason to have cataract surgery to improve your vision? -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 13 05:19AM -0800 Bev: You are engaging with a troll. There is no logic involved, no making sense, and no point to the conversation from its end. UV is dangerous. As one gets older, it becomes more dangerous. If we are fair-skinned and/or blue-eyed, yet more dangerous. We may choose to protect ourselves or we may not. Those of us who have worn corrective lenses from an early age and do not suffer from excessive vanity (contact lenses) have an opportunity to protect ourselves "in passing" by having our lenses coated. Alcohol is dangerous, yet it is largely unregulated and we may choose to abuse it or not. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Government did learn from the failed experiment that was Prohibition. Sadly, it is not learning the same about recreational pharmaceuticals - with a minor exception for cannabis. Jimmy Neutron embraces the fallacy of reasoning from the specific to the general (AKA: False Premises), and cannot discern the difference between Should and Must - and probably has the same difficulty with Can and May. He and his equally damaged acolyte, Ricky should get a room somewhere, virtual or real, and engage in mutual nit-picking to their indefinite pleasure. Animals and cataracts: a) Most wild animals do not live long enough to get cataracts. b) Most animal eyes are adaptable to very wide ranges of light. Daylight hunters, most of all. c) Most predators spend very little time being active. Cats (all varieties) will sleep up to 22 hours per day if food is plentiful, and seldom less than 18 hours. But: Dogs, especially exotics, certainly do get cataracts, starting around age 7. Very nearly every dog (or wolf) will have visible cataracts at age 10, and our first Golden lived by Night, Day, Scent at 14. His cataracts effectively blinded him beyond day/night. Out-door cats will show cataracts around age 15 or so. Indoor cats are not exposed to UV sufficiently for it to be a factor. Leave Neutron to fester in its own filth. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jan 13 08:08AM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:55:12 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote: > Elementary, my dear Watson. There is a HECK of a lot more to brake > pads than just the coefficient of friction - as Ihave been stating > time and time again. I found out the DOT Edge Code for the OE Toyota shoes which is NBK LN508 FF which is made by "Nisshinbo Automotive Manufacturing, Inc.". It turns out that you were completely correct where I was hoping this number would be a "holy grail" where I could use it to better compare two brake shoes in my hands. To get a better handle on how to interpret the numbers, I called the main number at AMECA.ORG in Maryland at 202-898-0145 and spoke to the engineer in charge of that "AMECA Edge Code Markings" cross reference. It was a long discussion, the net of which is that this code isn't really for the consumer. The engineer said it's kind of like the so-called "serial number" on a tire, or on a package of baked beans, where if something goes wrong, the government has a way of tracking down whose fault it is. In addition, he said that the SAE J866 Chase Test is really a quality metric, and not a performance metric, even though friction is an outcome of the Chase Test. The engineer did give me all sorts of personal insight into how to buy brake pads but overall, he said you can't extrapolate very much real-world decision-making data from the DOT Edge Code. Of course, if you miraculously find two pads with the same DOT Edge Code, then there's a 100% chance that it's the same friction material. Or, if you find any pads with any of the 19 DOT edge codes that cross reference to the same AMECA registration number 160426 then they too are exactly the same friction material. NAC D9011 FF NAC LN508 FF NAC N2009 FF NBK D9011 FF NBK LN508 FF <==== this is the OE Toyota brake shoes DOT edge code NBK N2009 FF NSA D9011 FF NSA LN508 FF NSA N2009 FF NSC D9011 FF NSC LN508 FF NSC N2009 FF SABC D9011 FF SABC LN508 FF SABC N2009 FF SAC D9011 FF SAC LN508 FF SAC N2009 FF SABC LN508 FF That's because the AMECA registration number 160426 is for a specific 1-inch square piece of friction material that can be used on any brake pad or shoe. But that's really as far as a consumer can go with the edge code, he said. He knew about all three of the Michigan police studies of EE and FF brake pads, where those in-depth police cruiser tests also said it's hard to extrapolate real-world performance from just the EE or FF friction code they tested. The AMECA engineer said that there are from 10 to 30 compounds in a brake friction material, where he opined that Toyota spends enormous energy with what he called the Tier 1 companies (e.g., Nisshinbo for Toyota) optimizing the compound for each vehicle; but the engineer said that the aftermarket suppliers (e.g, Centric, Wagner, Akebono, Axxis, etc.) centralize on about a half dozen formulas for all their offerings. In summary, the AMECA Edge Code is only "slightly" useful to a consumer, as it tells the consumer the most information only if numbers match, but if they don't match, the only three things it tells the consumer are the manufacturer, the friction coefficient, and the registration number for the specific friction material. BTW, I was tempted to call the Nisshinbo senior principle engineer himself (Tsuyoshi Kondo, +1-586-997-1000, tkondo@nisshinboauto.com) who submitted the 1-inch squares for our particular friction material on October 31st 2017 for repeat testing, but I didn't have the nerve to call him for more information, especially after the AMECO engineer told me this information is mostly for law enforcement and government use, and not really intended for consumer use. The one thing the AMECA engineer told me over and over again though, is that what we'd want for comparative purposes, has been studied and studied by the "smartest guys on the planet", and nobody can agree because of conflicting interest. So he sympathized with our needs. |
| Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>: Jan 13 10:45PM +1100 On 13/01/2018 7:08 PM, Mad Roger wrote: > by the "smartest guys on the planet", and nobody can agree because of > conflicting interest. > So he sympathized with our needs. All the while thinking, "*Who is this nutcase?*". -- Xeno |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 2 topics"
Post a Comment