
Short-sightedness is reaching epidemic proportions - Audiophilip
http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120
======
eveningcoffee
_Children need to spend around three hours per day under light levels of at
least 10,000 lux to be protected against myopia. This is about the level
experienced by someone under a shady tree, wearing sunglasses, on a bright
summer day. (An overcast day can provide less than 10,000 lux and a well-lit
office or classroom is usually no more than 500 lux.)_

Here were I live, we do not get almost any direct sunlight from October till
March - sun is just too low and it is cloudy most of the time.

Another problem is the light levels in the offices that are not optimized for
the good sight but for the least allowed energy consumption.

~~~
XorNot
People tend to chronically underlight indoor rooms anyway, but ignore it
because of the light hue.

When you switch to CFLs, an interesting experiment is to replace it with a
light with the half the wattage of your current one (not an "equivalent to
something" wattage). In most cases this means you give yourself about 100-200W
of incandescant equivalent output, and in every case I've had someone do it
they've been amazed at how much brighter the room is (and been happy about
that).

~~~
stefanix
Can we just skip the CFLs and go straight to LED.

------
fz7412
I decreased my short sightedness by 50%, from -4 to -2 by following some
principles and doing natural exercises. I wrote an article about it, have a
read: [https://medium.com/@faiz/why-spectacles-is-a-bad-
idea-66078a...](https://medium.com/@faiz/why-spectacles-is-a-bad-
idea-66078a52626c#.yspu839zu)

"The fact is that the eyes contain muscles, are surrounded by muscles, and are
embedded in adipose tissue, hence it seems inevitable that positive changes
will take place in their shape and structure as a result of the forces exerted
upon them by eye exercises, just as physical exercises can improve the shape
and structure of the body ."

~~~
blisterpeanuts
This reads like an opinion piece based on the author's anecdotal experience,
not a scientific peer-reviewed study. It's perfectly fine to write an opinion,
but it's not the same as a peer-reviewed study of hundreds or thousands of
test subjects.

~~~
fz7412
Thanks for your input. I agree the piece is an anectodal experience, but what
led me to pursue it was a scientific paper I read. Yes, I agree that tests
subjects might be in hundreds but not thousands, but it has worked for
everyone I suggested to follow. Your eyes need to be in development stage for
this to work, i.e. you have to be young, less than ~20 years.

------
hanniabu
Seems like it's a classic case of "use it or lose it".

Not just with vision, but if you sit around all day you lose muscle, change
fields of work and you may forget what you learned in school. Once you're
inside, I can definitely see your eyes being affected by the difference in
like as well as the fact that there probably aren't any objects more than 15
feet away for from you if you're at home since you're bounded by walls so
there's no reason for you to be able to see further. This only gets made worse
when staring into a screen that's anywhere from 6 inches to 2 get from our
eyes.

Our bodies do a great job at optimizing. If for years in ends you're spending
a majority of your time looking at objects that close, your body will adapt to
it. Unfortunately, the byproduct of this seems so be the inability to see
further distances.

------
amai
Atropin to the rescue!

Nearsightedness Progression in Children Slowed Down by Medicated Eye Drops:
[http://www.aao.org/newsroom/news-
releases/detail/nearsighted...](http://www.aao.org/newsroom/news-
releases/detail/nearsightedness-progression-in-children-slowed-dow)

~~~
iolothebard
Or more sun/outdoor activities.

------
dandare
From a layman's point of view I am struggling to understand how come we have
not pinpointed the cause yet - there are so many various groups of children
all over the world to draw correlations from. Obviously I am wrong, what I am
failing to see?

~~~
stdbrouw
We _have_ identified various causes and we know that wearing glasses actually
makes shortsightedness worse, but what can you do? It's like saying "I'm
struggling to understand why people die in car accidents, when we all know
what causes crashes."

~~~
strait
Having moderately mild myopia, I stopped wearing glasses/lenses except for
driving, and my vision steadily improved over the weeks and months. To make a
long story short, I've concluded that glasses are a nasty crutch for most
people. With wearing lenses for every waking activity, people never realize
that their visual acuity is actually substantially variable, depending on
their latest mode of visual activity. Too much reading and computer work, and
the distance vision becomes worse (for myopia). Start examining details in the
mid/far distance, usually outside, and the acuity immediately begins
improving, though very gradually.

After a few years mostly without my glasses, all visual situations have
greatly improved, even at night. However, I do a ton of reading, so the
prospect of 20/20 or even 20/40 will probably always be elusive, even under
the best conditions.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
I will forever regret wearing glasses beginning in 2nd grade. Each year the
optometrist gave me an increasingly strong correction until it finally leveled
off around age 30.

This despite going outdoors nearly every day after school, and for many parts
of the school day as well--it was a campus of many small buildings rather than
the typical monolithic compound.

Quite possibly I could have had much better vision, had I resisted. But who
knew?

It may be possible to correct it somewhat through exercises, but to get the
eyes back to perfect vision is probably beyond reach.

~~~
mikeash
I don't understand why everyone seems convinced that glasses cause vision
problems. Is there any evidence for this?

To me, your comment sounds like blaming the barber for how your hair keeps
growing, or saying maybe you wouldn't be so hungry if you ate less.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Just a hunch.

~~~
jsnell
It's an obvious hunch, so it should perhaps not be surprising that there have
been lots of scientific studies on this. The results are the opposite of your
intuition: undercorrecting childhood myopia causes the myopia to progress more
quickly than when it is properly corrected.

So good news, you've been freed of one eternal regret.

------
ddlatham
Previously discussed with 101 comments in March:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9227541](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9227541)

------
legulere
I wonder if the way our cities are also affects how much time children spend
outside: dirty air, dangerous traffic, the fact that a greater part lives in
cities not near nature on the countryside

------
losty
tldr - more time outside in sunlight likely reduces myopia. kids these days
don't want to go outside so you must force them.

~~~
raverbashing
"don't want to go outside"

Don't forget the scaremongering about skin cancer, dangers of the streets (or
just the weather being crappy)

But to be honest outdoors is _boring_ and just saying "ah go outside" means
pretty much nothing.

~~~
DanBC
> Don't forget the scaremongering about skin cancer,

Hang on - most people only need 15 to 30 minutes of direct sunlight per day
for their vitamin D (and many people don't get enough), but that's not saying
the risk of cancer is scare mongering.

Skin cancer is the most common cancer; melanoma is about 2% of skin cancer
cases but very many more skin cancer deaths. White americans have about a 2.4%
risk over their lifetime of getting melanoma. About 9900 Americans die each
year from melanoma, and about 70,000 people new melanomas will be diagnosed
each year.

And melanoma is one of the most common cancers in young adults.

The major risk factor for melanoma is exposure to UV light.

------
throwawayaway
I'd love to do my computing outdoors.

My optician offered an explanation that the elastic material in my eye's lens
has probably hardened from prolonged engagement in 'near work'. Hence myopia.

However, I don't see (ahem) how going outside and doing the exact same thing
would improve matters. It would probably be better to have a change of focus
target distance.

Therefore I wonder will they have to reconsider their conclusion if more data
becomes available - e.g. pixel-qi type screens gain commercial success.

Also, matte screens have gone completely out of fashion which is a shame.

[http://liliputing.com/2015/01/pixel-qi-dead-low-power-
displa...](http://liliputing.com/2015/01/pixel-qi-dead-low-power-displays-
not.html)

Do outdoor readers suffer the same myopia, as inert indoorsy readers? I would
imagine so.

------
brokenrib
i'm myopic when i drive i use -4 when i use netbook i use -2 (yes, text still
look sharp) while reading using phone, i use 4 (google plus lens therapy)

some observations: i can use -2 during daylight riding motorcycle, at night,
it's blurry and i have to use -4 to have clear vision ... so, sunlight can
help myopia by 2 diopters as screen brightness increases, the farther i can
move my android facing me while retaining same level of clarity you don't have
to use the same diopter whole day (like wearing contacts). you can use
different diopter based on your need.

~~~
QuercusMax
Makes sense; if you have a smaller aperture, you get better depth of field.
When is brighter out, your pupils contract, reducing the aperture. Basic
photography/optics principles.

~~~
kaybe
If you have no glasses with you, make a tiny hole with your hand and look
through that. It only works with sufficient light, but should give a fairly
focussed impression, eg for when you want to check the clock in the pool.

