Slashdot Mirror


Computers Linked to Glaucoma?

An anonymous reader writes "Maybe we should have listened to our parents and gone outside instead of playing video games. In newly published study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, heavy computer users were 74% more likely to develop visual field problems as compared baseline in a group of 10,202 randomly selected workers. Furthermore, heavy computer users were found to be 81% more likely to develop glaucoma."

373 comments

  1. Obviously by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing for you to see here.

    1. Re:Obviously by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, that's the long and short of it.

    2. Re:Obviously by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What brain-dead mod (is that redundant?) modded this guy Offtopic? It was a perfectly Ontopic use of sarcasm.

      This just shows the inability of most people to appreciate subtle humor.

      I wish I had points so I could mod you higher. Maybe someone else will be kind and do so.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Obviously by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

      Yeppers, maybe there's something to metamoderation after all. I figure no one will understand my comment because no one reads the friggin' articles.

    4. Re:Obviously by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

      So can I file a worker's comp claim for reading slashdot all day?!!!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:Obviously by CriX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All joking aside, I find this very disturbing. I'm still using a CRT at work, which I am at pretty much 8 hours a day. Being employed in a technical field I anticipate working with computers the rest of my life... I'm sure I'm not alone in this respect.

      So, what then? Use a TFT display? Wait for bionic eyes (that would rule :)?

      Don't say "Smoke up," damnit.

      --
      Moderation: +1 pwnage
    6. Re:Obviously by blowdart · · Score: 5, Funny

      And it proves that all those years looking at jpg porn does make you go blind.

    7. Re:Obviously by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Basically, it just means we need to dump some real R&D money into neural interface devices.

      I don't want to have to sit and look at the screen and type the code, I want to think the code and just have it appear...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    8. Re:Obviously by Pii · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Excellent!

      There's your justification for the Medical Marijuana prescription!

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    9. Re:Obviously by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 1

      I don't want to have to sit and look at the screen and type the code, I want to think the code and just have it appear...

      Hmm... that is what is called "designing the code" :).

      Disclaimer though: that is a technique I have no idea about. Even for a report, I stare at the screen blankly instead of taking a printout, sit quietly and make changes on paper. Well, anyway, to save the eyes (and the sanity), avoid staring blankly at the computer (note to self)...

      S

    10. Re:Obviously by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do you think that neural interface devices wouldn't cause headaches, aneurysms, tumors, and strokes?

    11. Re:Obviously by dnoyeb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I stare at computer screens all day, and then when I get home often all night till I go to sleep.

      Anyway, when I used my first LCD display on a laptop, I immediately quit using my 21" CRT all together. The LCD was just WAY easier on my eyes. No refresh flicker, no glaring colors.

      I will never buy another CRT ever. Maybe a TV, but never for a computer.

      P.S. my boss tried to order some LCDs for us but they tricked him and sole him some Flat Screen CRTs. Suckx.

    12. Re:Obviously by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      Weed and computers DO have a common link.
      It is well known that computer savvy people usually have a more relaxed attitude when it comes to drugs. Now we all know why ;)

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    13. Re:Obviously by eomnimedia · · Score: 1

      Who said that?

    14. Re:Obviously by zoefff · · Score: 1

      shouldn't that be 'Excellent, dude' ??

    15. Re:Obviously by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      And it proves that all those years looking at jpg porn does make you go blind.

      And RMI wrist problems to boot. The old folk's home for geeks is gonna be a real hoot:

      "Nurse, will you please install Mandrake Linux for me one more time? I promise this will be the last."

    16. Re:Obviously by zoefff · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but more disturbing is that glaucoma runs in the family (at least mine) AND that I am a heavy computer user (tft, although)

    17. Re:Obviously by nortcele · · Score: 1
      Why do you think that neural interface devices wouldn't cause headaches, aneurysms, tumors, and strokes?

      Or even perhaps turn you into Doc Oc? (The Doc Oc effects in Spiderman II were amazing).

    18. Re:Obviously by iocat · · Score: 1

      Does Marijuana actually help with Glaucoma? Or is that just an urban legend spread by potheads who want dope?

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    19. Re:Obviously by Pii · · Score: 1
      I'm not (yet) afflicted, and I'm not a pot smoker, so I can't answer this with first hand knowledge.

      That certainly is the rumor though.

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    20. Re:Obviously by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it helps but no, it doesn't help much. There were apparently a bunch of studies done back in the late 90s, since it is a known fact that marijuana, specifically THC, the psychoactive substance therein, does reduce intraocular pressure, which is the primary symptom of glaucoma.

      However, the relief is apparently short-lived and comes only with sufficiently high dosage to get fairly high, so you can't just have a few toots twice a day to treat your glaucoma effectively. Furthermore, there are more effective eye-drop based treatments that have no side effects.

      Also (according to some sources) marijuana reduces blood flow to the optic nerve, which is not good for glaucoma patients. Not sure how substantial this effect is. Anyway, Googling for "marijuana glaucoma" turns up tons of stuff, some of it from fairly reputable sources and studies.

      Certainly, I don't think tooting some marijuana will hurt your glaucoma, but it doesn't seem like it will cure it either.

    21. Re:Obviously by iocat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Cool, thanks, that confirms my suspicions that while pot may help, actual medicine is better. I have glaucoma on both sides of my family and I spent ~16 hours a day looking at a CRT or LCD screen.

      I encourage *everyone* on slastdot to go to the eye doctor at least every other year. Glaucoma causes blindness, and unless you get tested, the first symptom will be an irreversable loss of vision. If caught early -- before a loss of vision -- it can be arrested with eye-drops. It can be arrested aftera loss of vision too, but you'll still be somewhat blind!

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    22. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you should lose some weight? It does not say anything about computer users that are height/weight proportionate.

    23. Re:Obviously by pherris · · Score: 3, Funny
      The IOM's report on marijuana (scroll down to "glaucoma") supports Fnkmaster's summary.

      However, the relief is apparently short-lived and comes only with sufficiently high dosage to get fairly high ...

      Sir, I accept your challenge. Give me a few days and I'll report back. =)

      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    24. Re:Obviously by Curtman · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks, that confirms my suspicions that while pot may help, actual medicine is better.

      Why because you read it in a comment on Slashdot? Go ask someone with glaucoma. Dumb ass.

    25. Re:Obviously by jsitke · · Score: 1

      Hopefully by the time that happens, I won't even need to see a computer monitor, i.e. other sensory input methods. If you your eye site is going bad already, you should have listened to C. Everett Koop. ;)

    26. Re:Obviously by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      No, because I just pointed him to a bunch of resources. Don't accept my conclusions or summary, read the link I posted, the other link posted and do what I said to do (Google for "marijuana glaucoma" and look for the research reports from valid scientific sources and come to your own conclusions). My summary was just what I got out of doing that, but I already encouraged you and others to repeat my simple research and see if you don't find the same conclusions.

      Asking someone with glaucoma is interesting, but nowhere near as interesting as the results of a thorough scientific study where intraocular pressure, side-effects and disease progression are measured over a reasonable period of time in a larger population. Not that these studies are perfect, but they are certainly more authoritative than a single anecdotal experience.

    27. Re:Obviously by Laxitive · · Score: 1


      Indeed. We should all switch to PNG porn and save ourselves from visual artifacts... ..... .........

      I'm sorry. Really sorry. It had to be said.

      -Laxitive

    28. Re:Obviously by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      No, it was all those years of ASCII porn.

    29. Re:Obviously by Curtman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Asking someone with glaucoma is interesting, but nowhere near as interesting as the results of a thorough scientific study where intraocular pressure...

      Several members of my family are afflicted with glaucoma. I value their opinion much more than google results. Marijuana is the only treatment out there that can give pain relief almost instantaneously. You are very wrong if you think that someone with the disease cannot decide for themselves which treatments are more effective when it comes to pain relief. Authoritative or not, you cannot argue with results, just because they don't come from someone in a lab coat.

    30. Re:Obviously by RangerRick98 · · Score: 1

      "Nurse, will you please install Mandrake Linux for me one more time? I promise this will be the last."

      If you're going to install a Linux distro for the last time, you should probably choose Gentoo. At least you'll be able to savor the experience longer. ;)

      --
      "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
    31. Re:Obviously by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      Well, not really.

      Asking one or two people with glaucoma qualifies as anecdotal, whereas reading lab results, etc., is more authoritative.

      It kind of like asking someone how it feels to be drunk, what pain medicine works the best, or what the best decongestant is. The answer in all cases is:
      "It varies depending on who you ask."

      Studies can then provide more info:
      "But 74% of people generally find brand X decongestant to be the most effective."

      Whereas Bob-with-a-cold can only say
      "I think brand Y works the best. Try it!"

      In any case, calling someone a dumb ass because they didn't do what you would do is a bit derisive.

    32. Re:Obviously by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Of course Marijuana use also greatly increases estrogen levels.
      This would lead to an male army of passivist, overweight computer geeks - all who have man titties.
      And since the treatment is only midly effective they would be blind also.
      Personally, I have my suspicions that (computer use = blindess) may really be:
      computer use + internet => porn => ??? =>blindness
      You can work out what the ??? is...

    33. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      glad some of you think its funny. my last 3 eye tests have indicated the onset of glaucoma in my right eye. i am seeing white spots pretty damm often in peripheral field. oh yeah and i have spent the last 18+ years in front of PC's and mainframes and mini's with CRTS.

      so i have career choice to thank for losing my eyesight. i already had to get reading glasses as soon as i turned 40. i hope you smiling twenty somethings are still smiling when it happens to you.

    34. Re:Obviously by Curtman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is, Bob-with-a-cold is giving his opinion about decongestants, and glaucoma-sufferer-with-cripling-pain-which-makes-l ife-unbearable will tell you they've tried many different medications, and they don't work as well or as quickly as Marijuana does. I'm also very skeptical of studies released by drug companies that try to convince people that their $75/bottle eye drops work better than the $0 marijuana that they are legally permitted to grow in their basement.

    35. Re:Obviously by fossa · · Score: 1

      I once heard (on slashdot actually) about a display that was entirely passive. Instead of electrically modifying the pixels emit colored light (as with lcd monitors), the pixels were modified to reflect different colors (and emit no light at all). It was described as being much like ink on paper, except that the pixels could be modified like an lcd display. This sounds so cool to me, but I've heard nothing about it since.

    36. Re:Obviously by entrigant · · Score: 1

      Tricked him? It really amazes me how many people screw up the difference between a flat screen CRT and a flat panel LCD. Blame your boss, not the people he bought them from. Chances are they were using terms for CRT's that existed way before LCD's became popular. Terms that only resemble eachother in the use of the word FLAT.

    37. Re:Obviously by JThundley · · Score: 1

      I encourage *everyone* on slashdot to go toke up. Period.

    38. Re:Obviously by iocat · · Score: 1
      Wait -- I'm a dumbass for believing what I read on Slashdot, yet I'm supposed to believe *your* anecdotal evidence over a guy who cited statistics and provided helpful google search hints? Frankly, regardless of the success of your anecdotal evidence (and congrats to your relatives if it works for them), I'll stick with scientic studies for now, thanks.

      Generally, what makes me initially skeptical of medical marijuana is that I've never met anyone who uses medial marijuana who wasn't already a heavy or moderate pot smoker before they suddenly needed medical marijuana. I'm also skeptical of the fact that with most perscriptions, you get a recommended dose from the doctor, but with MM, once you get the perscription, you can buy as much as you think you need. In short, I think the whole notion of medical marijuana, at least as practiced in Oakland, California, is a scam.

      Finally, for the record, I am generally for legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana use, but still... they don't call it dope for nothing.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    39. Re:Obviously by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Just a hint, turn down your monitor.
      There should be no reason that you need to run it at 100% contrast and brightness unless you are checking for very light artifacts etc in digital photos and the such (or watching a dark movie, etc). If you're just reading text / writing code / doing admin on a nix box / whatever, you can run your monitor well below that.
      Change the color to 6500 Kelvin (or 5000 kelvin) as well.
      I'm running my trinitron at 5000K, 28% brightness, 56% contrast. (This setting almost hides those goddamn wires too). Everything looks fine and is easy to read - even if my PDA's 4" screen looks brighter than my 21" monitor.
      (I just checked with a camera's lightmeter, and the monitor is darker - although it is a bigger surface)

      Of course, if you're on a 8 year old monitor, the phosphors will be shot, so you'll need to turn it up to 100 to read anything, but that should be an exception. (I know, I know, it probably isn't where you work.)

      The standard stuff like turn up your refresh rate, etc applies. 60 hz isn't doing anybody any good. If you have glasses, UV filters / anti reflective coating helps quite a bit too.

      On a side note, I think you'll see the same effects on anybody who sits, generally unmoving, staring at paper at a fixed point under a harsh bright light 8 hours a day - virtually nobody does this anymore.
      Also, it has been reccomended for years to use natural lighting / more comfortable lighting for desk jobs.

      Oh, and a big fucking thank you to the submitter who linked to a .pdf and gave no warning.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    40. Re:Obviously by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I'm a dumbass for believing what I read on Slashdot, yet I'm supposed to believe *your* anecdotal evidence over a guy who cited statistics and provided helpful google search hints?

      No, you're a dumbass because thats all it took to convince you. In 12 minutes, you were somehow able to do enough research to conclude that marijuana is not as effective as "actual medicine". You say you have glaucoma on both sides of your family, yet you trust the opinion of a comment on Slashdot. Research is all fine and good, but there's no way you did enough of it to draw any kind of valid conclusion.

      I'm also skeptical of the fact that with most perscriptions, you get a recommended dose from the doctor, but with MM, once you get the perscription, you can buy as much as you think you need

      Why wouldn't you be more skeptical of medicines that can kill you if you exceed the dosage, rather than one that has never killed anybody? Where did you get the idea that there was no recommended dosage anyway? People who are permitted to grow for themselves have a license which says exactly how much they are allowed to grow at a time (based on the daily dosage over a 3 month period), and what the daily dosage should be.

      I definitely agree with you that the way governments are handling medical marijuana is not the right way. The way it used to be, is that you basically received a license to produce your own. Then the government here decided it could do a better job. The marijuana they grew was complete garbage, and way overpriced. It doesn't cost anything to grow yourself, so its rediculous that you should have to pay the government inflated prices for an inferior product.

      The thing people get confused about with legalized marijuana is that they think it will be easier for children to get. That is completely wrong, ask any teenager and they'll tell you its much easier to get marijuana now than it is to buy a case of beer, or a pack of cigarettes without photo id. At least that is the case here in Manitoba where government has a monopoly on liquor sales.

  2. Well then.. by underpar · · Score: 0

    I'll save my eyes and go play Pikmin.

  3. trouble reading by slimak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is anyone else having trouble reading the article?

    1. Re:trouble reading by krygny · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just don't see it.

      --
      Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    2. Re:trouble reading by titzandkunt · · Score: 1

      Ab gebhoyr ng nyy. V guvax gur SN vf n ybnq bs ohaxhz! G&X.

      --
      Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
  4. In other news: by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People who stare at bright lights for 8+ hours per day without blinking frequently or changing their focus are more likely to have glaucoma. Do I get a +1, Insightful?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  5. Glaucoma by What'sInAName · · Score: 5, Funny


    Hmmm, I can think of a good cure for that. Actually, many video game players already self-treat this condition. ;-)

    1. Re:Glaucoma by garcia · · Score: 1

      Those self-healing therapies a bunch of... DUDE LOOK AT THAT! Woot. What? Oh yeah. Game on.

    2. Re:Glaucoma by KingPunk · · Score: 0

      exactly what i was thinking ;)

      ..the down side to this is? lol.
      play video games all day, and then get to smoke some reefer.
      i see a win win situation ;)

  6. Woo Hoo! by Mz6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And we all know what helps Glaucoma... right? Always reminds me of the classic Simpsons episode. All the pretty colors, huge donuts, and of course flying to work and then forgetting about everything. Ahh.. I can't wait!

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:Woo Hoo! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Informative
      What you are thinking only helps Glaucoma in the sense that the pressure on the eye is somewhat (temporarily) relieved. It does nothing to the underlying condition.

      For reference:

      CNN
      Glaucoma Research Foundation
      Canadian Opthomological Society
      National Eye Institute

      I realize that letting facts get in the way of things is not the norm here on /. but there's always a first time.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Woo Hoo! by eric_brissette · · Score: 3, Funny

      Man, you're such a buzz kill.

    3. Re:Woo Hoo! by TXH-88 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So can I deduct that on my taxes now, as a work expense?

    4. Re:Woo Hoo! by greg_barton · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What you are thinking only helps Glaucoma in the sense that the pressure on the eye is somewhat (temporarily) relieved.

      Yeah, and we all know that temporarily alleviating a problem is completely useless and never a good thing.

      Damn. Guess I've got to toss all my ibuprofin, asprin, blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, vitamins... You know, all that stuff you've got to take repeatedly to have any benefit.

      Oh, and all that food I have to eat every few hours to, you know, live.

    5. Re:Woo Hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing his point, everyone who mentions weed is mentioning it as if it will cure the problem. Sure it will alleviate some of the pressure,but it isn't a cure for glaucoma. Also, I'm not sure how valid CNN's report is but it states that any benificial effects of marijuana would only be achieved by having the patient smoke an unrealistic amount of marijuana. Not only that, but it's not like anyone is saying that it will give you your sight back.

      Nothing like being high on life and blind as a bat.

    6. Re:Woo Hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a cure, but it is a treatment as it does actually lower the pressure behind the eyes. The CNN article states that 10-12 joints per day would help.

    7. Re:Woo Hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you mean the downside, is that I would have to smoke pot all day, every day to get relief? Oh darn, what ever am I to do.

    8. Re:Woo Hoo! by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      Unrealistic amount??? While it might be a tad high (no pun intended), it's about the amount I go through some days. And really, I consider myself a moderate user. I know people that go through double what CNN considers unrealistic. CNN and the rest always exaggerate the usage, either because their data is from a source that exaggerates things (government) or they're just going for ratings.

      Although, yes, it probably would be best to treat the underlying cause then rely solely on a temporary relief method. But leave us have our pot anyways...

    9. Re:Woo Hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why didn't you post this link?? Glaucoma Research Foundation Check out the side effects of these "safe" medications...

    10. Re:Woo Hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN can't get the good stuff, so they have to use the brown mex and trash their lungs. poor poor cnn

    11. Re:Woo Hoo! by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      If you look at the page http://www.glaucoma.org/learn/ it says about normal tension glaucoma (NTG): "Those at higher risk for this form of glaucoma are people with a family history of normal tension glaucoma, people of Japanese ancestry, and people with a history of systemic heart disease, such as irregular heart rhythm. Normal tension glaucoma is usually detected after an examination of the optic nerve." The glaucoma foundation knew about it affecting Japanese people more often than others before this ridiculous "study" ever was published. So the new "study" simply supports what the glaucoma foudnation already knew.

  7. It's what they were looking at on the screen... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 4, Funny

    And what they were doing while they were looking at it.
    Mom was right, it really does make you go blind

    --
    500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    1. Re:It's what they were looking at on the screen... by dcphoenix · · Score: 1

      uh, shawn(at)fsu, we're over here to your right - that's the coat rack you're talking to.....

  8. augh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My eyes! The googles do nothing!

  9. I can see it now... by aoasus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Honest officer, i've got a prescription but I left it at home. See my business card here? I'm a programmer!

  10. Ironically, by Vengeance · · Score: 2, Funny

    Very ironically, heavy computer users also consume more marijuana, offsetting the glaucoma problem ;-)

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    1. Re:Ironically, by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
      Very ironically, heavy computer users also consume more marijuana, offsetting the glaucoma problem ;-)

      Does it do anything other than help relieve plain and symptons? Wouldn't it be more dangerous to not know you have glaucoma and smoke pot/marijuana?

      Just wondering. {Toke} {Toke} *cough* {pass to the left}...

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    2. Re:Ironically, by NaugaHunter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately not. I was looking forward to writing my own 'geeks for weed' jokes or maybe something about outsourcing to Canada, but it turns out that while THC can reduce pressure it also reduces blood flow through the optic nerve which is apparently not good for glaucoma.

      Reference 1
      Reference 2
      Reference 3

      Oh well.

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    3. Re:Ironically, by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1

      Well, that sure explains this crap code I'm forced to maintain!

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    4. Re:Ironically, by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's also pretty good for treating pain in knuckles and reducing inflamation in joints. If you're an I.T. worker then dope is a virtual wonder drug. It reduces blood pressure, stress and glycoma related problems, helps with arthritis, and is a pretty nice psychoactive to boot. The only big negatives are increased risk of lung and mouth cancers, a lowered motivational drive, lowered short term memory and the fact that it's illegal and in some repressive countries can land you in prison (oh, and your short term memory goes too). I've been an I.T. worker for 24 years now, and a regular pot smoker (most days, but only small amounts of heads and only after my personal "watershed" hour) for 21 years and I can heartily recommend them both.

      Interesting to note, recently I ran out of smoke and thought it might be a good time to take one of my breaks from it for a few months to let my system flush and clean out. Within a few weeks I had serious issues occurring with my sight, and I was developing a tic in one of my eyes that wouldn't go away. My knuckles became inflamed and I wondered if I could keep working with a PC. The joints of my entire body swelled, and sleeping became incredibly difficult at night. When doing sit-ups I had crunching sounds coming from my spine and a deep cracking in the lower back. ALL of these symptoms went away went I went back to smoking weed! Now, I know the long term effects aren't exactly conducive to our profession (computer programmer) but they are definitely the lesser of two evils here.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    5. Re:Ironically, by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Within a few weeks I had serious issues occurring with my sight, and I was developing a tic in one of my eyes that wouldn't go away. My knuckles became inflamed and I wondered if I could keep working with a PC. The joints of my entire body swelled, and sleeping became incredibly difficult at night. When doing sit-ups I had crunching sounds coming from my spine and a deep cracking in the lower back. ALL of these symptoms went away went I went back to smoking weed!

      They're still there. You just don't notice them.

    6. Re:Ironically, by El · · Score: 1

      ALL of these symptoms went away went I went back to smoking weed! And ALL of the symptoms of heroin withdrawal go away when you go back to shooting up! What you're describing sounds more like a physical dependence on a substance. Take anything long enough, and your body adjusts to function better with it than without it. And yes, I have known people who had serious psychological effects associated with Marijuana withdrawal, to the point where when he started getting pissed off and breaking things, we decided it was better to just hand him a joint and let him calm down.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    7. Re:Ironically, by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Marijuana users do not suffer any physical symptoms of withdrawl, but do frequently suffer psychological withdrawl symptoms. So no, it's not a physical dependancy thing. Also, I can remember when I was young I always had a nervous nature, hands always slightly shaking when doing soldering and other delicate tasks. Dope use has knocked the edge off that, but it came back again (because it's my phsyiology) once I stopped for a while.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    8. Re:Ironically, by dswan69 · · Score: 1
      but only small amounts of heads


      So you're into smoking the more harmful parts of the plant then? Not only do the heads produce less carniogenic material than the leaves, but the higher THC content means you have to smoke much less too. It is a double benefit.

    9. Re:Ironically, by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      There's no physical withdrawal from drugs like THC, psychedelics or cocaine and amphetamines.

      However what people tend to forget is that psychological withdrawal has nothing to do with the specific thing from which you are withdrawing. It is simply missing something that you are used to having around.

      I get it when my motorcycle is in the shop, or my computer is out of commission so I can't play games, or my girlfriend isn't around. And as with those who miss their regular dose of THC it is nothing major, but I feel the gap in my world in various ways.

      As for the alleged aggression that results from THC withdrawal there isn't any real evidence this isn't just the person's natural aggressiveness re-emerging. Some people even claim they developed day after use aggressive tendencies. Those who claim it caused them to be snappy and aggressive the morning after typically had this behaviour pattern before they started using THC and retain exactly the same behaviour after they give up, but they become unaware of the unpleasant behaviour.

      You'll also see this return to aggression with males who have had a girlfriend for a while since females can also act as a calming influence (they can also drive you completely insane, but that's another story).

    10. Re:Ironically, by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      Are they still there though? The relaxing aspects of the drug may be acting to reduce muscle tension. THC is nowhere near a powerful enough painkiller or generally mind-altering substance to cover up serious symptoms.

    11. Re:Ironically, by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Which is one of the main reasons I choose to smoke them over leaf. I live in London, which has already vastly increased my chance of lung cancer and various other diseases (70% IIRC for lung cancer) so I try to reduce the amount of self-harm I do to myself in various other ways.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  11. In that case by wackysootroom · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'd better tell my boss and go smoke my medicine now.

  12. oh well by pj-allmod · · Score: 0

    ...as I sit here with terrible vision, this is pretty obvious in my opinion.

  13. We all know what treats Glaucoma! by ZosX · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And boy, do I smoke plenty of the stuff!

    In another 50 years I doubt I'll have glaucoma at all at this rate!

    Legalize it man!

    It *does* have medical uses too......

    1. Re:We all know what treats Glaucoma! by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      Legalize it man!

      What I don't think most people realize is that if "it" gets legalized the government would need to have a way to regulate it. Ensure quality/potentcy, and charge lots of taxes on it. You can bet that both Canadian and American governments are working out the logistics of this problem.

      Much like we are not allowed to grow our own tobacco, we would not be allowed to grow our own wacky-tobacci either. And then you'd be complaining because the government has their hands in it controlling your drugs.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    2. Re:We all know what treats Glaucoma! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you can't grow tobacco? I know you can brew your own beer legally, you just can't distribute it. What would be the reasoning behind beer brewing being legal and growing tobacco not?

    3. Re:We all know what treats Glaucoma! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And then you'd be complaining because the government has their hands in it controlling your drugs.

      Some of us would, libertarians obviously. But most of us would be relieved to be able to live like tobacco addicts and alcoholics: unpersecuted.

    4. Re:We all know what treats Glaucoma! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are you kidding? I heard the next piece of anti-smoking legislation on the table in California was to put all smokers in little air tight hamster balls.

    5. Re:We all know what treats Glaucoma! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It's not called 'weed' for nothing - in fact it took years to eradicate it from the US because it grew absolutely everywhere...

      Once it gets reintroduced (which I expect will happen - too much tax to be made to pass on the chance) it'll likely get back into the environment, this making it difficult to stop people growing it.

    6. Re:We all know what treats Glaucoma! by stinkpad · · Score: 1

      Growing your own tobacco is not ileagal, if kept below a certain amount of acreage.

    7. Re:We all know what treats Glaucoma! by H8X55 · · Score: 1

      the government could just sell pre-rolled seedless sensimilla?

  14. Pr0n = You'll go blind! by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is true!

    --

    www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

    www.fairtax.org
    1. Re:Pr0n = You'll go blind! by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

      The /. reader who modded me offtopic, that doesn't understand the link between online pr0n, and the study saying that blindness can result from staring at a computer screen too long? That's rich. I say it's denial.

      --

      www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

      www.fairtax.org
  15. radiation by donaldgelman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I heart radiation

  16. Trial lawyers, start your engines! by glrotate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Class action baby. Let's sue the hell out of the monitor manufacturers. This will be bigger than aesbestos and silicone implants combined!

    1. Re:Trial lawyers, start your engines! by lcsjk · · Score: 1
      Let's see now: We sue; we drive the monitor makers out of business; No more monitors;

      But we still can't see our computer screens! Isn't that why we started the suit in the first place? Where did we go wrong?

      Wait! We seem to have gained a lot more desktop space!

    2. Re:Trial lawyers, start your engines! by double_ooh · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can sue the manufacturers of the monitors and the silicon implants.

    3. Re:Trial lawyers, start your engines! by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2, Funny

      ve musht vatch der blinkenlights.

    4. Re:Trial lawyers, start your engines! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see now: We sue; we drive the monitor makers out of business; No more monitors;

      But we still can't see our computer screens! Isn't that why we started the suit in the first place? Where did we go wrong?


      You should have sued Microsoft. They have money.

      -Anonymous Phil

    5. Re:Trial lawyers, start your engines! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Great, we'll end up with coupons for $100 off a new monitor, I'm sure that will help us all a great deal. Maybe we can get some of those RIAA reject CDs to pad the deal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Trial lawyers, start your engines! by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Label:
      Surgeon General's Warning: Monitor Usage Is Dangerous to Health and May Cause Glaucoma from Masturbation and Interlaced Screens.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    7. Re:Trial lawyers, start your engines! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Class action baby. Let's sue the hell out of the monitor manufacturers. This will be bigger than aesbestos and silicone implants combined!
      Waitasec... Whose implants are we talking about here?

  17. Great... by 10100 · · Score: 1

    ...now I'm going to have to quit my job to save my eyes.

  18. some info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here's the affliction: Glaucoma
    here's the treatment: Treatment
    :)

  19. This could help the Libertarians by Thunderstruck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Large sections of the population use computers heavily.

    Ergo large sections of the population may develop glaucoma..

    Ergo Large sections of the population will have an interest in legalizing marijuana as a cheap means to treat the problem

    Ergo the Libertarians now have a drawing card to people who would otherwise find the whole thing a bit kookie.

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:This could help the Libertarians by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      Post hoc ergo propter hoc... I remain unconvinced that my computer usage is going to give me glaucoma.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    2. Re:This could help the Libertarians by justforaday · · Score: 1

      what was that about a big cookie? mmmmmm...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    3. Re:This could help the Libertarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ergo...Ergo...Ergo...

      Hey, I didn't know The Architect posted on Slashdot!

    4. Re:This could help the Libertarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] people who would otherwise find the whole thing a bit kookie.

      I have to ask... why, just because some people consider something "a bit kookie", should someone who disagrees have to spend time in prison?

      It's not like it being legal would require YOU to join in.

  20. Glaucoma by arnoroefs2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    For a non-slashdotted link to information on Glaucoma: clicketie-click

  21. Monitor by truz24 · · Score: 1

    Couldn't read the article. Any mention of what types of monitors may increase the risks ?

    1. Re:Monitor by rocjoe71 · · Score: 1

      ...Only the ones rectangular in shape.

      --
      Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  22. Now I can play games and keep my vision! by hoborocks · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I owe it all to a little friend I call "Yes-I-Cannibus"....WE HAVE A KITCHEN????

    --
    AccountKiller
  23. Hm... by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm not sure if it's sitting at the computer so much as what they do while sitting at the computer.

    See, they always told you you'd go blind.

  24. Nerds = Potheads by mrn121 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And glaucoma sufferers are 77% more likely to smoke pot. Therefore, nerds = potheads.

  25. Medication by supabeast! · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Be proactive -- join NORML so that you'll have access to medical marijuana once you get glaucoma!

  26. Wiki! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant
  27. glaucoma by lophophore · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now I know that glaucoma is no laughing matter, but does this mean if I keep working this hard I can get a prescription for Medical Marijuana?

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  28. What you can do to prevent glaucoma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever sitting in front of a monitor, I self-administer large therapeutic doses of high-quality marijuana.

    Can somebody tell my why I'm moving the mouse pointer over the submit button? I seem to have forgotten.

  29. Simson's corrarly by another+misanthrope · · Score: 1, Funny

    Weekend At Burnsies script

    HOMER Ow, ow! I hate getting stitches in my eyes! Stupid crows.

    DR. HIBBERT Don't feel bad for the crows, Homer. They weren't trying to blind you, they were just trying to drink your sweet, sweet eye juices.

    HOMER (calmly) Hmm, fascinating. Say, Doctor, can you do something about my (hysterical) SEARING PAIN!?

    DR. HIBBERT Well, there is medication, although it is a little... controversial.

    HOMER Does it go in the butt?

    DR. HIBBERT I'm talking about medicinal marijuana. Prescription pot. Texas THC.

    HOMER Look man, I don't do drugs.

    DR. HIBBERT Homer, for your eyes, the best tonic is chronic. You're not afraid, are you?

  30. Now they fucking tell us by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 4, Funny

    The bastards. Could they have told us this AFTER I finished winning Doom3, HALO, and HL2? Crap. And I don't have vision insurance right now.

    Fuck it -- my wife says I'm good at groping around for things in the dark. I'll survive.

    IronChefMorimoto

    1. Re:Now they fucking tell us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my wife says I'm good at groping around for things in the dark. I'll survive.

      Funny.. your wife said the same about me, too!

    2. Re:Now they fucking tell us by lcsjk · · Score: 1

      Your Obsenity should have been at the end of the line.

    3. Re:Now they fucking tell us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wife's good at that too! Trust me!

    4. Re:Now they fucking tell us by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Informative

      BTW, most medical plans cover eye diseases (such as glaucoma). Vision plans are typically just for getting glasses or contacts and checking how bad your vision is in the first place.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:Now they fucking tell us by nimid · · Score: 1

      Evidently delusions are are a symptom too.

      --
      A hundred and twenty characters ought to be enough for anyone...
    6. Re:Now they fucking tell us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is computers are also know to cause male erectile dysfunction and pattern baldness especially if you use windows..

  31. The other obvious hazard being overlooked is... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    that with the explosive growth of the internet, porn is rampant leading to an explosion of hair growth in hand palms.

    1. Re:The other obvious hazard being overlooked is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that with the explosive growth of the internet, porn is rampant leading to an explosion of hair growth in hand palms.

      That's right, because Hustler didn't exist before the internet.. or at least, that's what the right-wing nut-jobs want you to think.

  32. I thought I was going blind for other reasons... by Sesticulus · · Score: 0

    I wonder if anyone has studied the correlation between someone who plays a lot of video games and other recreational activities we've been told will make us go blind. What's really at fault?

  33. Hmmm by clinko · · Score: 1

    So by 2000 all kids were using pcs/video games, so by 2060 you could rule with an iron fist over the blind elderly if you just keep away from pcs.

    1. Re:Hmmm by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      Unless we develop the "Jordi LaFarge" goggles by 2050.

      Real x-ray specs :)

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  34. Not really... by fanfriggintastic · · Score: 1
    --
    This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is a tribute.
  35. CAN'T BE by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Can't be because glaucoma was very very present before anything similar to today's computer was ever produced. Read the article for entertainment purposes. Cb..

    1. Re:CAN'T BE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic skills seem to be lacking.

  36. If it will make you blind... by beaststwo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    At least it's an activity that won't grow hair on your palms!

  37. Shoddy research by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

    I don't believe it, I use a computer 12+ hours a day, and have for the past 15 years. My eyes are fine, I have better than 20/20 vision.

    --
    Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    1. Re:Shoddy research by Politburo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gosh I hope you're joking. Either that or you don't understand the word "likelihood". Your one counterexample does not mean that the research is no longer valid.

    2. Re:Shoddy research by enjo13 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that Glaucoma can be a very fast disease.. you may have it and simply not know it until severe symptoms start showing up. I wouldn't give up on the eye exams just yet.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    3. Re:Shoddy research by was698002 · · Score: 1

      Not too impressed with the research. Reminds me of the flap a few years ago when a study purported to show that leaving the night light on caused the baby to develop myopia. Turned out near sighted mothers see poorly in the dark, tend to leave the night light on, are more likely to have near sighted children. Correlation of factors does not prove causation. Here we know that myopia alone can produce field defects - either as an artefact of field testing or through peripheral retinal thinning due to increased axial length. Some defects are typically produced by glaucoma and some aren't - no differentiation is made. Where is the score of the equally near sighted people who don't use computers? In the discussion of self selection it is said that the general public doesn't know that myopia is a risk factor for glaucoma, but I would go further back the chain and say that myopia may be a self selection process for computer users. After all, the gene preservation for myopia is highest in those societies furthest removed from hunter-gathering and computation is the current most distal point

  38. What the study didnt show is... by 03Cobra · · Score: 1

    is how many hours of the day is spent looking up pr0n. Ohnos! mom was right! We're all gonna go blind!!!111

  39. Hardly surprising by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The article seems to be slashdoted, so I can't see it but...

    I'm thinking folks who work on computers for long periods of time just may fall into a couple stereoypes. Glasses wearing and/or overweight/out-of shape. (I know sitting at a computer all hours doesn't do much for my physical fitness)

    People of shape are going to risk a higher rate of diabetes, which is a risk factor for glaucoma. Being nearsighted is also a risk factor.

    http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001620.htm

    1. Re:Hardly surprising by cj_goth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is also a statistical linkage between myopia and intelligence (and quite a few different theories as to what mught cause the linkage) - it's not just a stereotype.

      Some might say (people around these parts?) that higher intelligence might mean greater likelihood of computer use, hence linking the myopia risk factor to the computer use.

      --


      -- now where did I put that .sig
    2. Re:Hardly surprising by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Always having your eyes focused close tends to lead to nearsightedness, too, so this makes sense as a connection. Wearing glasses which correct nearsightedness obviously means that your eyes will be focused close even when you're looking at things far away.

      A 15 minute walk twice a day without your glasses (or with glasses that undercorrect but let you avoid getting yourself killed) will help your health a lot if you have a sedentary, close-work job.

      ("People of shape"? As opposed to shapeless people?)

    3. Re:Hardly surprising by jonniesmokes · · Score: 1

      But conversely, people who are younger should be more likely to use computers and also less likely to develop diseases like glaucoma.

      Good studies are supposed to correct for the factors you're worried about. Idealy, you would have a study based on identical people. One who uses computers, and one who doesn't.

      But even then, studies can't show causality.

  40. Let me be the first... by jmcmunn · · Score: 1

    Let me be the first to say something other than I can't read the article because I can't see. (ha ha)

    I wonder if the insurance companies are going to eventually look at us programmers and categorize us as "uninsurable" for eye care because we stare at the monitor all day? I mean, they can turn down or boost rates on smokers because smoking is very bad for your health. So why not boost rates or turn down us computer bound programmers because we will almost certainly suffer from carpal tunnel, or glaucoma or both? I know these are not nearly as expensive or deadly for the most part, but the costs will add up.

    As the number of cases increase for people like us, will be be "uninsurable" at least as far as eyecare? Or even for our wrists (no funny Pr0n jokes) or hands, or necks because we sit and type and stare at a monitor for hours on end?

    I can just imagine the questions...

    1. Do you have a history of heart disease?
    2. Do you smoke?
    3. Do you have a history of cancer?
    4. Are you a computer programmer?

    1. Re:Let me be the first... by kitty+tape · · Score: 1

      Can they boost rates or deny insurance to people who have other occupational risks? Lots of occupations increase chances of various risk. For example, lots of jobs make people more prone to back problems. I don't know if they can/do raise insurance in those cases, but I think that the situation is similar.

      --
      ----- "Type theory is like pretzels on crack." -- random friend
  41. CRT vs LCD? by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The story is /.'ed, so I haven't read it... did they compare staring at LCDs vs CRTs? I know LCDs are easier on the eyes...

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:CRT vs LCD? by pherris · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Or for that matter what about dot pitch or scan rate? Does being on a 20" high quality LCD screen cause less damage than a 14" Packard Bell CRT?

      With such a wide variety of "computer displays" available it seems it would be worth reinvestigating the results and looking for a relationship.

      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  42. Keep smoking your glaucoma meds then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean I can get Medical Marijuana?

  43. CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can only speak for my own experience, and I don't know whether this study differentiates between CRT and LCD users, but when I first became a programmer using a CRT for 3 or 4 years straight, my eyesight deteriorated rapidly from 20 / 20 to needing glasses to read comfortably without getting headaches. Since switching to a dual LCD setup my prescription hasn't changed in about 2 years.

    Your mileage may vary. But I'll never use a CRT again.

    --
    Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    1. Re:CRT vs LCD by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I second this. I used to have 20/20L 20/15R. Whoops. (It's now 20/(n+5) for each eye.) But now that I use an LCD, I can go for much longer with less strain.

    2. Re:CRT vs LCD by bconway · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a nice anecdote. Apparently neither you nor the author understand the difference between correlation and causation.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    3. Re:CRT vs LCD by Politburo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What was your age at the time of eyesight change and family history of eye problems? In my family, eyesight deteriorates in the teens, but the change levels off in adulthood. My dad hasn't had his prescription changed in many, many years. I still have mine changed every 2-3 years. Correlation != causation, etc.

    4. Re:CRT vs LCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apparently you fall back on correlation/causation whenever you don't know what you're talking about. Newsflash: you can never prove anything, ever. You can't even prove the sun will rise tomorrow. But strong corelations usually mean something - the sun has always risen in the morning; it'll probably rise again tomorrow.

    5. Re:CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      This was the only period of my life where I experienced degradation in my eyesight.

      Additionally, the eye strain and feeling of my eyes being hot stopped as soon as I switched to using LCD's.

      For me the contrast between the two experiences is unmistakeable and signifigant.

      When you look at the design of a CRT, with a stream of electrons and radiation being shot directly at a peice of glass with your eyeballs directly on the other side, is it so hard to believe it could cause damage to the eyes?

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    6. Re:CRT vs LCD by ethanms · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA...

      Agreed... LCD's are much easier on my eyes... bigger the screen the better off I am too... a 17 or 19" LCD in 1280x1024 w/ big font is perfect... you can see plenty on the screen and the fonts are large and clear. The higher res w/ the bigger fonts makes it equal (in available virtual real estate) to a 1024x768 display.

      Digital vs. Analog for my TV and monitors has also been an improvement... fuzzy screens make your eyes keep trying to re-focus... I don't know that that would cause glaucoma though, maybe just eye strain and poor vision in general

      Another factor I think is the brightness... I keep the LCD brightness adjusted so that when I look it at it isn't significantly brighter then the rest of the environment... particularly in a dark area. I also generally use a black/dark background w/ pale fonts for writing/programming... Your eyes aren't designed to stare at a light bulb...

    7. Re:CRT vs LCD by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. I know there probably have not been a study yet, but my eyes are much less tired at the end of the day since switching entirely (at home and at work) to LCD. I am curious to see if there is any relation to LCD use being better for your eyes.

      --

      Gorkman

    8. Re:CRT vs LCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the warning. I'm getting rid of the electric lights in my house, and I no longer go out in the sun without my tinfoil hat.

    9. Re:CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      This was the only period of my life where I experienced degradation in my eyesight. Yes, some other members of my family wear glasses, but there is no discernable pattern.

      I don't deny I would have likely needed glasses as some point either way, but I am certain that my heavy CRT usage speed up and increased the problem.

      Additionally, the eye strain and feeling of my eyes being hot stopped as soon as I switched to using LCD's. The problem also worsened exponentially as I needed to lean closer and closer to read, thus getting closer and closer to the source of damage. The feeling of heat and fatige in my eyes was extreme by the time I went in to get glasses. I used glasses with the CRT for a while, then switched to LCD's.

      For me the contrast between the two experiences is unmistakeable and signifigant.

      When you look at the design of a CRT, with a stream of electrons and radiation being shot directly at a peice of glass with your eyeballs directly on the other side, is it so hard to believe it could cause damage to the eyes?

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    10. Re:CRT vs LCD by jridley · · Score: 1

      True for me as well. I used to get my prescription changed yearly, and it wasn't uncommon for it to shift many degrees in axis and/or a diopter in strength.
      I'm 40 now, still using CRTs, and for the last 10 years or so, my prescription changes only slightly, tweaking it just a bit, maybe 1/4 diopter, maybe a few degrees of axis, every 2 or 3 years is fine. I could probably get around fine in my old glasses from 15 years ago.

      This is common apparently; when my eyes were changing a lot, my optician said that eventually my eyes would settle down, everyones do.

      I'm running CRTs because I like 1600x1200 or higher, and I can't afford a 19"+ LCD that does that res. OK, I could afford it, but I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.

    11. Re:CRT vs LCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My precription has not chaned for the past 4 years... I have been sitting in front of a CRT at the highest resolution settings during all this time. It is just I am getting older and it is normal that they would be stablized for the next little while.

    12. Re:CRT vs LCD by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "but when I first became a programmer using a CRT for 3 or 4 years straight, my eyesight deteriorated rapidly from 20 / 20 to needing glasses"

      Let me guess, this would be middle to late twenties and your prescription was for longsightedness?

      Function of age.

      I've been stuck in front of a CRT for at least twenty years and I'm 20/25. Also high risk from Glaucoma, which gets checked fairly regularly.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    13. Re:CRT vs LCD by Reziac · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think it's the electron stream. I think it's the excessive brightness and just plain glare. My eyes are light-sensitive to begin with, and I noticed it immediately, but most people don't.

      My eyes complained when I went from an amber-mono screen (where the unused part of the screen is truly BLACK, that is, unlit) to VGA. If you look at a VGA screen in the dark, and set your desktop to plain black, you'll see that even the "black" is *bright*. Well, no wonder VGA tires the eyes more than mono!

      When I have to use someone else's computer, it always makes my eyes hurt. Using my own doesn't. The difference? Most people leave theirs at the factory settings for brightness, that is, "FRY". Conversely, my big ViewSonic is turned down as far as it can be and still see the screen (contrast 75%, brightness 0%). Everyone complains that my monitor is too dark, but it's a lot easier on the eyes this way. And I have the desktops I see all the time set to dark, eye-soothing colours.

      The REAL difference between LCD and CRT? LCD isn't nearly as bright. Compare how much waste light each produces, by having each screen as the only light source in a dark room.

      As to eye changes, after 12 years or so of heavy computer use, I've only noticed the normal ones that come with age -- at 49, I no longer have close focus at all, and have lost most distance focus. (That is, I can see everything at any distance, but I can't resolve text.) But I do a fair amount of physical work every day, I don't have glaucoma-predisposing factors like diabetes (nor obesity), and I didn't have unusually bad eyes to begin with.

      Considering how many vision-impaired and unsocial people have become heavy computer users, especially since they can now "safely" socialize via the Net (and how many of these types then become obese through an increasingly sedentary lifestyle) and the correlation between obesity ==> diabetes ==> glaucoma, I suspect this is a case of correlation being mistaken for causation.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:CRT vs LCD by tsg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was the only period of my life where I experienced degradation in my eyesight.

      Additionally, the eye strain and feeling of my eyes being hot stopped as soon as I switched to using LCD's.


      My eyesight started deteriorating rapidly before they even had computer monitors and my prescription hasn't changed in the last five years. By your reasoning, the CRT helped my eyesight.

      --
      People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
    15. Re:CRT vs LCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wearing glasses would have solved your problems.

      CRT's put out a decent amount of UV light.

      Glasses block most of that.

      Guess what, those of us that wore glasses over the past 20 years and were heavy computer users do not have this problem.

    16. Re:CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And there are plenty of people who smoke their entire life and never get cancer or drive every day without a seatbelt and never die in a car accident.

      That doesn't mean there isn't increased risk by smoking.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    17. Re:CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, your right palm is hairy?

      There are plenty of things to damage eyesight, from genetic predisposition to plenty of environmental factors.

      I happen to consider extended CRT use to be one environmental factor that increased the speed and severity of the degredation of eyesight.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    18. Re:CRT vs LCD by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > When you look at the design of a CRT [wikipedia.org], with a stream of electrons and radiation being shot directly at a peice of glass with your eyeballs directly on the other side, is it so hard to believe it could cause damage to the eyes?

      When you look at the alternative -- going into a room with a blue ceiling and a gigantic fusion reactor that pumps a flux of 1.4 kW/m^2 of radiation directly into your eyeballs -- pulling the shades, dimming the lights, and firing up HL2 on the CRT is a welcome relief!

    19. Re:CRT vs LCD by 'The+'.$L3mm1ng · · Score: 1

      Well, for me, there also came the time when I needed glasses, and later I needed stronger glasses. That was some years ago, since then nothing has changed. Yet, I still use CRTs and haven't stared at them as often as now when I first needed glasses.

      Chances are that what you experienced was just a coincidence. Of course it could also be that the quality of CRTs has greatly improved since then. :)

    20. Re:CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      Once source of radiation can be turned off or replaced, the other can't.

      But we definitely agree on HL2! And it looks great on my LCD.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    21. Re:CRT vs LCD by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "That doesn't mean there isn't increased risk by smoking."

      True enough, but I missed your point, I was giving you a real world example. You didn't answer the presupposition about aging, though. Was I close?

      In addition to this, you seem to be proclaiming the wondrous technology that is LCD over CRT monitors, when you're still essentially focusing on the same patch of space roughly forty centimeters away. One thing you should have tried when you were suffering the headaches would be adjusting the ratio of mains to refresh rate, adjusting down the contrast and brightness of the monitors and doing something with the ambient light levels around the monitors. Not having a wall behind the monitors forces you to refocus at a greater distance, which increases the amount of work done by the muscles around the cornea.

      LCD monitors in their own right don't do a lot for your vision over CRT unless you're using pixel-aliasing or a really whack refresh rate which amplifies the 50/60Hz flicker in most household appliances.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    22. Re:CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of people that smoke all their lives and never get cancer. That doesn't mean smoking doesn't increase the risk or severity of cancer.

      Just because your eyes haven't been affected by CRT's, doesn't mean that CRT's aren't a contributing factor in the degredation of eyesight.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    23. Re:CRT vs LCD by tsg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me guess, your right palm is hairy?

      Nope. I'm left handed.

      There are plenty of things to damage eyesight, from genetic predisposition to plenty of environmental factors.

      That is exactly the point. That you experienced degraded eyesight at the approximate time you started using a CRT monitor does not mean the monitor caused your eyesight to degrade. There are any number of environmental factors which may have contributed which you have not isolated. Your claim that the monitor hurt your eyesight is in no way more valid than my claim that it helped mine.

      I happen to consider extended CRT use to be one environmental factor that increased the speed and severity of the degredation of eyesight.

      That you consider it to be true does not affect whether or not it is.

      --
      People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
    24. Re:CRT vs LCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >you can never prove anything

      that's what i told my math teacher

      haha ;-)

    25. Re:CRT vs LCD by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      The REAL difference between LCD and CRT? LCD isn't nearly as bright. Compare how much waste light each produces, by having each screen as the only light source in a dark room.

      Actually, most of the modern LCD screens (for desktops) I've seen are brighter than a CRT. However, the picture always seems to be "crisper" on the LCDs. I really want to get myself an LCD monitor for my home machine, but I'd want something the size of a 21" CRT (so that'd be at least a 19" LCD) that does at least 1600x1200... and for that you're looking at mucho cash.

      Even nicer would be a 21" flat panel of that kind of resolution but 16:9 ratio - I want the screen area of a 21" screen, but I prefer it to be wide instead of tall (I hate looking up at the top of the screen and so generally only put stuff I don't need to look at much at the top and I work on the bottom part). Sadly for a 16:9 screen of a sensible resolution you're really looking at astronomical costs ATM... hopefully the price will go down soon. (Silly really coz the cost should really be related to the screen area and resolution rather than aspect ratio).

    26. Re:CRT vs LCD by dreadlock9 · · Score: 1

      I've been heavily into computers since I was 10 (I'm 26 now). My vision is 20/15 (better than normal). I've been using CRTs the whole time up until 2 years ago I started using a dual setup with CRT & LCD. I guess I'm just lucky my eyes haven't been ruined.

    27. Re:CRT vs LCD by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've seen some recent LCDs that are really BRIGHT, even compared to CRTs, but it's not a fair comparison unless you've reset them so a black desktop is really black, as compared to an unlit part of the screen. -- Most monitors of any species now ship with everything turned up to FRY. It used to be standard to ship 'em with contrast at 100% and brightness at 0%. It's amazing how many people still don't get that such things are adjustable!!

      I can still see ghosts on modern LCDs... I wonder if plasma displays are better for that? Plasma TVs are certainly clearer. But priced way outta MY ballpark, too (the only one that looked good enough for my purposes was around [*cough*gasp*choke*] $3000 even at Costco price!)
      Ideally I'd like to have a flat display around twice the size of a standard 21" monitor, that would still do very fine resolution. Even on this 19" monitor, my desktop is NEVER big enough! :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    28. Re:CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      I would consider you lucky.

      But just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen and isn't the cause or contributing factor.

      Consider how many people smoke their entire lives and never get cancer, or drink and drive their entire lives and never get a DUI or kill someone.

      My personal experience has been far better with LCD's than with CRT's, and that alone is enough to get me to switch. But I am convinced my CRT played a role in the degredation of my eyesight.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    29. Re:CRT vs LCD by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      but it's not a fair comparison unless you've reset them so a black desktop is really black, as compared to an unlit part of the screen.

      I always set my monitors this way - the TFTs I've used in the past couple of years are still way brighter than CRT computer monitors (although of course it's adjustable, but being able to crank the brightness up all the way is great if you wanna watch movies).

      I've also seen a couple of 42" TFT HDTV screens designed for outdoor use - you can see the image even in direct sunlight, and you generally don't want to sit in a darkened room and look at them coz they will hurt your eyes :)

      I wonder if plasma displays are better for that? Plasma TVs are certainly clearer.

      Plasma is nice for TV, but (AFAIK) you can't get a reasonable dot pitch out of them so not a lot of use for computer displays. They also have quite a short life (ISTR something like 2 power-on-years?) which is going to be fine for a home TV, but for a computer display thats on maybe 12 hours a day it's not good.

      Another problem with plasma screens is that they dissipate quite a lot of heat - probably about what you get out if a CRT. But unlike a CRT, where the heat comes out of the top, a plasma screen radiates it straight out of the front so you really don't want to be sitting at close range infront of a plasma screen (so ok for a TV but not a lot of use for a computer screen).

      Ideally I'd like to have a flat display around twice the size of a standard 21" monitor, that would still do very fine resolution. Even on this 19" monitor, my desktop is NEVER big enough! :(

      I know what you mean - a couple of 21" 16:9 flatscreens running in a sane resolution would be great. I can't understand the people who buy a 19" screen that will do 1280x1024 and they think it's great - hell, I run a 15" Sony CRT in 1280x1024. :)

      (My workstations have dual CRT displays - at work I have a 21" and 14", at home I have a 15" and 14". I'll upgrade my home setup to a 21" TFT when they come down in price coz I really can't acaommodate a CRT of that size)

      All I can say is roll on creap OLED displays - it'd be great if I could have a curved display running 180 degrees around me... :)

    30. Re:CRT vs LCD by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      s/creap/sheap/

    31. Re:CRT vs LCD by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      ARGH! s/creap/cheap/ even :-/

    32. Re:CRT vs LCD by zx75 · · Score: 1

      Mine's the same way, except I used CRT's heavily through school, and it was only when I was in my late teens/early 20s that my eyesight suddenly deteriorated from 20/20 to needing glasses to work.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    33. Re:CRT vs LCD by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I've got a horrible blurry old 15" CRT on the workbench that only knows one brightness: FRY. It's good for watching DVDs, which therefore is a large part of its mission in life!

      Heat from plasma wouldn't be so much of an issue (help heat this place in the winter, it could!) but a mere 2 power-on years lifespan? Eeeep... I don't think I'll be rushing out to buy one even as a TV (I expect a TV to last 20 years no matter how much it's on). -- 12" monochrome monitors had only about a 2yr PO lifespan (as I learned by running my 286 24/7 for 7-8 yrs), but replacements were a dime a dozen, and increasingly cheap/free/please-take-the-damned-thing!, so not a big deal. Far different if starting with a $3000 unit!!

      I'm not sure if I'd want flat or curved in a really big display... maybe one that could "creap" back and forth, so I'd never have to turn my head? :)

      (Yeah, I saw the fixpost, but this was funnier :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    34. Re:CRT vs LCD by Achillez · · Score: 1

      What kind of LCD do you have? I thought most LCDs produce ghosts in fast action games like HL2

    35. Re:CRT vs LCD by pnot · · Score: 1
      That's a nice anecdote. Apparently neither you nor the author understand the difference between correlation and causation.

      Hush -- this is slashdot, where not only does correlation imply causation, but we can infer the correlation from a sample size of one!

      My girlfriend's father was diagnosed with diabetes when I started using an LCD monitor. Coincidence? Yeah, that's what the LCD manufacturers want you to think...

    36. Re:CRT vs LCD by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      I have a Cornea MP704, 17". I'm very pleased with it. I've had it about 1.5 or 2 years and don't have a single dead pixel.

      I never notice any ghosting or problems in games. I play Unreal Tournament, UT2K4, HL, HL2, Enemy Territory, etc. I've never felt that it adversely affected gameplay at all.

      I'd love this 19" LCD:
      http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.as p?desc ription=24-002-082&depa=0

      But $714 is a lot to spend on a monitor.

      Anyway, I'm happy as a clam.

      The only downside to LCD's is that they do best in their native resolution, and some resolutions and refresh rates are outside their range, but it's never really been a problem.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    37. Re:CRT vs LCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newsflash: The poster never claimed that CRTs degraded his/her eyesight. Such claim only existed in your presumptive mind.

      Instead of jumping all over the poster, maybe you could have informed them that eyesight, while seemingly stable over long periods of time with a general tendency to decline over the long haul, tends to flucuate wildly in many people throughout their lifetime. There is no accurate way to tie degrading eyesight to any one factor (with the exception of sticking a hot poker in your eye or something similar), especially when environmental factors will vary radically from person to person.

      See? And I didn't have to jump the poster's shit to say that! But then, this is /., and no one knows what the fuck they are talking about anyway (outside of iPods and Lunix builds). :)

    38. Re:CRT vs LCD by tsg · · Score: 1
      Newsflash: The poster never claimed that CRTs degraded his/her eyesight.

      Yes he did. Learn to read:

      I can only speak for my own experience, and I don't know whether this study differentiates between CRT and LCD users, but when I first became a programmer using a CRT for 3 or 4 years straight, my eyesight deteriorated rapidly from 20 / 20 to needing glasses to read comfortably without getting headaches. Since switching to a dual LCD setup my prescription hasn't changed in about 2 years.

      Your mileage may vary. But I'll never use a CRT again. 1[emphasis mine]


      And in response to his evidence being anecdotal and confusing correlation with causation, he said:

      This was the only period of my life where I experienced degradation in my eyesight.

      Additionally, the eye strain and feeling of my eyes being hot stopped as soon as I switched to using LCD's.

      For me the contrast between the two experiences is unmistakeable and signifigant.

      When you look at the design of a CRT, with a stream of electrons and radiation being shot directly at a peice of glass with your eyeballs directly on the other side, is it so hard to believe it could cause damage to the eyes? 2[emphasis mine]


      What part of this is not claiming CRT's damaged his eyes? Besides that, the study he didn't bother to read didn't say anything about monitors at all and only mentioned "computer use".

      See? And I didn't have to jump the poster's shit to say that!

      Nope, you just stuck your nose in the middle of a thread and jumped my shit without bothering to read it first. Good for you!

      But then, this is /., and no one knows what the fuck they are talking about anyway

      Especially you, apparently.

      --
      People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
  44. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Riiight. When a Gmail account is freshly created, the URL states for a while which address has been created. None of the above URLs do - they're all stale. So no, you didn't just create an account.

  45. diabetes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computer users are probably not in as good shape as the general populace (face it, its true). Ergo computer users have a higher incidence of diabetes. Diabetes causes glaucoma.

    1. Re:diabetes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days everyone has a computer... it's not like back in the 80's when only nerds used computers (outside of work).

  46. bad conclusions? by photon317 · · Score: 3, Insightful


    IHNRTFA (I have not read the f-in article), but it seems to me this is yet another case of the misuse of statistics. Just because X% of PopulationY happens to also be in PopulationZ doesn't imply a causal relationship in any specific direction. It's just as likely that the real reason for the link is the opposite of what they suppose: that persons who have the genetic defects and/or environmental factors in their lives which lead to a higher rate of glaucoma are more likely to be computer users....

    --
    11*43+456^2
    1. Re:bad conclusions? by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      I think it also interesting to note that all the people surveyed were japanese. (I read the article somewhere else, not from the link above so I'm not sure if that detail is in there.) There are all sorts of diseases that are race related. (interracial ancestry aside) Only blacks get sickle-cell anemia. Only jews get Tay-Sachs (sp?) Only whites get psoriasis. And IIRC, there's a very rare form of stomach cancer that the japanese are far more likely to get. To really be accurate, they should do a much larger study covering many ethnic groups, geographical regions, and types of work.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    2. Re:bad conclusions? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's just as likely that the real reason for the link is the opposite of what they suppose: that persons who have the genetic defects and/or environmental factors in their lives which lead to a higher rate of glaucoma are more likely to be computer users....

      ...do you say this because you have access to research that refutes their theories? Or do you say this because you don't like their conclusion, and are thus inclined to dismiss their work with the Cudgel of Correlation Is Not Causation?

      It is not "just as likely" that computer workers are, as a group, genetically different from other workers. That there may be "environmental factors" doesn't really make any difference to their conclusion: for some reason, computer workers exhibit a much higher rate of visual problems. Yours is a plausible scenario, but do give the researchers some credit. Grant them the fact that they're eminently more qualified to examine this particular issue than you are, and that it's worth taking their findings seriously, even in light of the fact that their findings aren't carved in stone. Hell, the researchers themselves would likely be among the first to emphasize that their findings are not fact. This is one of the founding tenets of scientific research, for crying out loud.

      Simply because John Q. Citizen can fire off a plausible alternative after five seconds' thought does not mean that his theory is "just as likely" to be the case as the result of a published research project.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    3. Re:bad conclusions? by tsg · · Score: 1
      ...do you say this because you have access to research that refutes their theories? Or do you say this because you don't like their conclusion, and are thus inclined to dismiss their work with the Cudgel of Correlation Is Not Causation?

      I have read the article and the study makes no claim of causation, only a relatively weak claim of correlation.

      From the article:
      These limitations indicate the need for further studies to confirm our findings.

      It, in fact, does not even claim that more heavy computer users have glaucoma, only that they show indications of being at higher risk.

      But, from the article summary:
      Maybe we should have listened to our parents and gone outside instead of playing video games.

      In other words, if we didn't play video games our eyesight wouldn't be as bad. Clearly not what the study says at all.

      It is not the study which is confusing correlation with causation, it is the people reporting it. Maybe they should have payed attention to this.
      --
      People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
    4. Re:bad conclusions? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      ...do you say this because you have access to research that refutes their theories? Or do you say this because you don't like their conclusion, and are thus inclined to dismiss their work with the Cudgel of Correlation Is Not Causation?

      It doesn't matter. They used uncorrected samples. There was no control group. There was no experiment. They just stated that more people that use computer monitors have worse vision. With investigation like that, we would find that women that use Preparation H are more likely to have children. Or, taking medicine to reduce cholesterol is linked to having heart attacks. Both are true, but taking Preparation H doesn't cause or increase the chances of birth, and taking a cholesterol reducing drug reduces, not increases the chance of a heart attack.

      It isn't my job to suggest and identify confounds. They are the ones that made the study, they should do it. It should be assumed to be false until they can prove it.

    5. Re:bad conclusions? by Zoop · · Score: 1

      That being said, the way the research is reported is inflammatory: just because you're 87% (or whatever) more likely to get something doesn't mean that 87% of people will get it. I'm not sure what glaucoma rates are, but assuming it's 1 in 1000 adults, this still means that less than 2 in 1000 heavy computer users will get it.

      Sure, the Slashdot crowd will realize that if they stop to think, but I'm thinking the average public won't.

      The First World would be much better off if such studies were reported as "2 in 1000 computer users get glaucoma versus 1 in 1000".

      Hmmm...quick Googling reveals the actual number for Caucasians is 0.145 per 1000. So I overstated the risk severely in my hypothetical.

  47. CRTs probably cause nearsidedness by suso · · Score: 1

    I have always thought that using CRT monitors heavily has caused nearsidedness in a lot of people. Now, I know the arguement that people who normally don't need to wear glasses, feel the need to wear some kind of reading glasses to read the monitor. But on top of that, in my lifetime I have seen so many cases of people becoming nearsided within months of owning their first computer. An eye doctor once told me that when looking at a CRT, your eyes end up focusing about an inch or two behind the actual image.

    1. Re:CRTs probably cause nearsidedness by JeffTL · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, that's because a CRT is basically an HDTV -- it shows you a high res image that doesn't actually exist, but is rather an optial illusion produced by scintillations of beta radiation on phosphors. The screen is thick and has lead in it so the beta particles don't get out and cause any problems associated with small quantities of radiation.

      That's probably why LCDs produce less eye strain -- the image is actually there (having been created by the electricity activating the liquid crystals) and it's where you perceive it as being. It's got a fluorescent light behind it in most modern cases, and that's why you can use it in the dark -- non-backlit LCDs depend on available darkness.

    2. Re:CRTs probably cause nearsidedness by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Before LCDs were popular, paperwhite monitors were pretty good. The phosphors were higher-persistance and there was no shadow mask. You could really tell the difference. The image didn't look like a floating textureless field of color, it had a real texture which your eye would be able to focus on sharply and easily... even if the painted image itself had a slight fuzziness.

  48. Did they properly control the experiment by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Did they control for the fact that people who use computers heavily are more likely to be sedentary. Could this lifestyle lead to increased diabetes and related vision problems (don't know about glaucoma)

    2. Did they control for the possibility that people with vison problems or other problems originally might be less outgoing and likely to interact with others? What demographic uses computers heavily compared to the mainstream?

    I know my distance vision has deteriorated from heavy computer usage, but I'd like to see whether glaucoma is caused by staring at a screen... or some other aspect of computer usage, like chronic inflammation from Carpal Tunnel or somthing like that.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    1. Re:Did they properly control the experiment by Peyna · · Score: 4, Informative

      Glaucoma is definitely related to diabetes, and diabetes is definitely related to a sedentary lifestyle.

      Although, glaucoma also is caused by a number of other things (many of which we do not know); the article is down right now, so I can't tell what type of glaucoma these people were found to have.

      Assuming that the increased rate could be explained by the sedentary lifestyle associated with heavy computer usage, it's just more news of the same: we're getting fat, lazy and stupid, and we'll look for any thing to blame it on other than the fact that we eat too much, don't exercise, and think education is a joke.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Did they properly control the experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they count for the fact that heavy computer users are 81% less likely to smoke pot?

    3. Re:Did they properly control the experiment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think you have that shit backwards. Heavy computers users, in my experience, are more likely to smoke pot. Granted I'm in California, but where do you think the majority of computer users are anyway?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Did they properly control the experiment by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      What about high resolution displays with teeny tiny fonts? I see a lot of people buying the newest LCDs and have a default setting at 1280 or higher. They usually dont know or care to increase font size. Reading tiny fonts like that all day can't be good for your eyes.

    5. Re:Did they properly control the experiment by Threni · · Score: 1

      3. Were they aware that people who use PCs are going to be more aware with problems with eyesight. I'd imagine that musicians become more aware of hearing related problems.

  49. Google by uberjoe · · Score: 0, Redundant
    "The googles do nothing!"

    Maybe you do spend too much time in front of the computer. I usually complain about my goggles not protecting my eyes when I'm drowning in acid, not my search engine.

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    1. Re:Google by Tiroth · · Score: 1

      Whiff

    2. Re:Google by uberjoe · · Score: 1

      God damned trigger happy moderators! I had better get meta-moderated.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    3. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even after having it pointed out to him, he still misses the joke...

    4. Re:Google by uberjoe · · Score: 1

      Maybe so but 'Redundant' is not fair. 'Stupid,' 'Thickheaded,' or 'Condecending' woud have been more accurate.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  50. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I did. I know it becuase I just filled out the form and signed in to my account.

    What exactly do you think the URLs show you?

  51. Grandma was righ by agwood · · Score: 1

    "I told you you'd go blind..."

  52. Proactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I can tell my friends/family that I've just been
    proactive all these years ;)

  53. LED vs CRT by Splinton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The authors haven't broken down the type of computer use at all. It'd be interesting to see where the aetiology lies - extended use without blinking (eg gamers), bad lighting conditions (oh, gamers again), LED vs CRT use etc.

    1. Re:LED vs CRT by RichDiesal · · Score: 4, Funny
      LED vs CRT use etc.

      I think we can all agree that you have other far more important problems if you stare at an LED all day.

  54. Finally... by AVee · · Score: 1

    ...I can convince my boss I really need two 21" screens on my desk.

    1. Re:Finally... by suso · · Score: 1

      And with LCD monitor prices dropping through the roof, you can almost afford two 21" LCDs.

    2. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dropping through the roof"? I sense a Dilbert newsletter submission ...

  55. Oh for a time machen.. by sjwt · · Score: 1

    If only someone had of told my great grandmother that back in the 20's, it might of been early enough to saver her from it..

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  56. CRT vs. LCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without having RTFA, is there a difference between users of CRTs vs. LCDs?

  57. not having read the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since it's already gone.

    CRT or across all monitor types? LCDs may save more than desk space.

    Besides, threats of blindness never stopped other favorite slashdot pastimes, why should this be different.

    (Porn doesn't cause blindness, people USING porn causes blindness.)

  58. TV? by uberjoe · · Score: 1

    I can't read the article without my glasses, is there anything in it about watching tv? Is TV any more or less damaging that watching a CRT monitor?

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  59. Another Correlational study by se2schul · · Score: 1

    Before we go blaming the cause on computers, perhaps a causational study is in order.

  60. "Heavy" computer users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't they lose some weight?

  61. Obvious link here by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think this has more to do with heavy computer use promoting a sedentary lifestyle which is one cause of higher blood pressure than any direct affect computer monitors have on our eyes.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  62. An ounce of prevention... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    Does this mean I get to claim I'm just taking it for preventative measures?

    After all, "an ounce of prevention is worth a kilo of cure" ... or something like that.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:An ounce of prevention... by yabbo · · Score: 1

      I think you offended us all by mentioning an imperial measure next to a metric one.

  63. My home remedy for glaucoma : by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Ingredients:
    • 1 oz Vodka
    • 1 oz Rum
    • 1 oz Gin
    • 1 oz Kahlua Coffee Liqueur
    • 4 oz Lemon Juice
    • 1 tsp Sugar
    • Ice

    Method:
    Pour all ingredients over ice in a shaker. Shake well. Serve in Cocktail Glass. Strain into glass.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:My home remedy for glaucoma : by Hell+O'World · · Score: 3, Funny

      And that's supposed to help you see better?

    2. Re:My home remedy for glaucoma : by martingunnarsson · · Score: 4, Funny

      It helps you see more. Two of everything!

      --
      Martin
    3. Re:My home remedy for glaucoma : by Orgazmus · · Score: 2, Funny
      I know a better one:
      • 1/8 oz of weed
      • 1 gallon of cola
      • 2-4 pizza's
      • some rolling papers
      Share it with some bad eyed friends :)
      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    4. Re:My home remedy for glaucoma : by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you consider better. In the words of Madd West: "Tap that 40 and turn that ugly friend from a 2 to 10!"

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  64. Damn Statistics by unixfun · · Score: 1

    Remember folks, the statistical object represented by 1.86 out of 1,000,000 is 86% more likely to get [insert gloom-and-doom disease of the day (GADDOTD)] than the object represented as 1 out of 1,000,000. These are the kind of fear-based statistics used by infommercials to get people to eat [very expensive] dirt.

    --

    Slashmail.org "The Open Source Email Com

  65. Free Eye Tests by cj_goth · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every company I've worked for in the UK has offered free eye tests to heavy computer users (and has done for some time now). A study like this can only encourage this practice becoming wider-spread. One of the things I've been tested for in the past has been glaucoma too.

    --


    -- now where did I put that .sig
    1. Re:Free Eye Tests by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It's actually a legal requirement now to have an eye test... they're not being generous!

      In fact at my last place if we didn't have an eye test (we had to book it/pay for it ourselves then claim it back), then we were docked a months' pay.
      Everyone complied, of course...

  66. Correlation vs. causation by Temporal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    French-speakers are far more likely to live in the France than the average person. Therefore, if you don't want to live in France you should make sure not to learn French.

    *sigh*

    1. Re:Correlation vs. causation by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      French speakers are far more likely to live in France than the average person.

      Of course, to draw any sort of conclusion from this would violate the holy and immutable Law of Correlation Is Not Causation; therefore, it's best to just blithely dismiss any and all hypotheses one might draw from this knowledge.

      *sigh*

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  67. Ummm... are these just "shock" statistics? by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

    ...heavy computer users were 74% more likely to develop visual field problems as compared baseline in a group of 10,202 randomly selected workers. Furthermore, heavy computer users were found to be 81% more likely to develop glaucoma.

    Can't get to the article, because... well... you know.

    But, I've seen stats used in this fashion before to shock. I'm ASSUMING (yeah, I know), that those "percentages" apply to the "risk factor for developing X disease."

    So, if "81% more likely to develop" than, say, the "1% chance of developing," then you'd effectively up your chances to "1.81%," NOT "81%" (a HUGE difference, you should agree!).

    Oh, I agree that it is important to consider, but without comparing it to a baseline probability, it just sounds scary. Just like if you smoke and drink, you're 4X (umm... 400%) more likely to develop heart disease (numbers courtesy of "out of the air") doesn't mean you'll develop it 4 times in your life instead of once. 8)

    As they say, 90% of all statistics are just made up. ;)

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
  68. Ive recently developed it. by Izeickl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ive been a heavy computer user for about 17 years now, the early signs of Glaucoma appeared in June of this year....cant tell you how scary it is thinking you might end up blind...thankfully I caught it soon so currently getting monthly check ups and using some steroid eye drops to calm it. Not saying its because of computers, just saying I fit the profile that the article is stating. BTW> a non slashdotted link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4008185.stm

    1. Re:Ive recently developed it. by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I can find this on google, but what are the early signs? Or how did they manifest for you?

    2. Re:Ive recently developed it. by Izeickl · · Score: 1

      "Floaters" appeared in my field of vision at first, it was like a hair or two litterally floating around my eye (number of sites on the net have pictures of what its like seeing with them) but as the numbers increased, it was litteraly like a spider web of hairs/broken optic nerves in my field of vision. They mostly occur in older people as the gel in your eye drys out/collapses, but also caused by swelling etc.

      The Floaters increased in numbers and my vision deteriated, I had some pressure tests and I was on the high end of the scale (entering long term damage territory), but the eye drops thankfully calmed it. The drops can also cause Catarax (bummer), so they try to limit the amount taken...bit of a balancing act.

      Currently its just regular check ups and pressure tests with 3 drops a day (was 6). My vision is still blurred however with the floaters and Ive been told that its not curable, just something to control from here on out. When you move your eye the floaters swing from side to side, really anoying at first but you learn to block them out..

  69. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Silly troll.

    Here's an example of a freshly used Gmail invite.

    Note the difference between the troll links and this one. ZOMG! U R TEH LIAR!!!111!

  70. and god said by visi · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this is exactly how it happened. God looked at his creation on the seventh day and he saw that de devil left pot everywhere -and since he(god) cant unmake anything, he created republicans. So the devil made a disease that is cureable by said pot.And god said ahaa.. i will create medical slips to limmit its use, so the devil created programmers, and highly adictive computer games.Easy now that it all makes sense. Seriously though, what about Consoles? And what about people that watch to much tv?

    --
    "If only smart people like your shit, it ain't that smart."
  71. Nerds and glasses by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

    Sure, it may not be exactly glaucoma, but poor vision is usually associated with nerds since the beginning of time.

    Why was it that nerds in the 50s wore glasses and the jocks didn't? Could it be that they read more? Then books would be to blame.

    I hardly know anyone who is an academic that DOESN'T wear glasses and I am truly jealous of those who managed to luck out and have both brains and good eyes.

    PS: I have neither. :(

    --
    Live forever, or die trying.
    1. Re:Nerds and glasses by BlackHorse · · Score: 1

      The people with good eyes are able to play sports and fly fighter planes. That only leaves the rest of us to read books! ;)

  72. Except that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only a tiny minority of the people who would support legalizing marijuana would have anything to do with the Libertarian strategy of privatizing everything at ten times the pace of the Republicans.
    If it wasn't for that, this would be a real gain for the Libertarians. (Yes, this is sarcasm.)

  73. Now I understand the weird question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Sunday, I went to the eyeglass place to get a new prescription and some glasses. The doctor who examined my eyes did a full exam.

    Her VERY FIRST question was, "Do you work on computers?"

    I thought it was for the screen glare.

    Now I know it's because THEY know that we're all going to go blind from staring at screens all day!

    (I'm not worried, however, as I intend to stimulate my pineal gland until it bursts forth from my forehead on a little stalk and gives me psychic powers.)

  74. Poor buggers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...heavy computer users were 74% more likely to develop visual field problems...


    Geeeez, not only are they fat but they will go blind too?
  75. Simple, inexpensive cure to this by TyrranzzX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every hour or so for you sitting at your machine, sit back and close your eyelids, and completly relax and unfocus your eyes. Every night before you go to sleep, completly unfocus your eyes until you fall asleep. This will alleviate the pressure inside of the eye long enough for some of the fluid to drain and pressure to decrease, and will help combat the feeling that the moniter really isn't there nor are the words and the occasional difficulty reading them, or as I call it, virtual nausea, which tends to develope after a few thousand hours of using a computer without stopping for much. This is what I do, and it really helps to keep me focused. If you like meditation, it can really help you get focued and keep you from having problems seeing things. Anyone who games really should learn it. The other reccomendation, is to have a nice view to look at outside the window so you aren't always looking at the moniter, preferably by a strip club or beach or somethin ;).

    1. Re:Simple, inexpensive cure to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father is an eye doctor, and his recommendation to me is to follow the 20/20/20 rule. Every 20 minutes, look at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds. That gives my eye muscles a chance to refocus on something further than 18" away. I have to set a timer to remind myself, but at the end of the day, I can really tell a difference when I remember to look away and when I don't.

  76. It's the porn, stupid by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your mother warned you about this. Playing with your joystick will make you go blind.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  77. Better start smoking the Ganj by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1

    I hear it's good for Glaucoma, or something. Could you pass the Doritos?

    1. Re:Better start smoking the Ganj by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Right... time to start...

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    2. Re:Better start smoking the Ganj by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1

      Hey, I had to say that in case my mom was browsing the site. :)

  78. Guess this doesn't apply to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a notebook, which is not a very heavy computer. I guess that means I'm in the clear.

  79. YES there is a problem with CRT's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LCD's are much much better, with CRT's your eye is trying to focus on the glare on the glass and leads to eyestrain.

    After using CRT's all my life and only getting a few hours a day work done, I switched to a quality Apple Cinema Display and the pain is gone, I can stay on it for days.

    You'll never get rid of us Mac users now.

    http://g5support.com/group/viewtopic.php?t=1628

  80. Causality. by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

    I don't see the established causality. Just because a certain set of people have an ailment at a higher rate, does not mean that that activity causes said ailment. It's a fallacious argument.

    --
    I hate sigs.
  81. Computer eye strain story. by ahfoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was living in Taiwan in the nineties and doing tons of computer work on a little 15" monitor for weeks on end. My eyes were seriously going out. It was quite obvious. I was having trouble focusing.
    So, there were all these Chinese medicine shops around where I lived and I decided to go in and ask for some herbs or accupuncture.
    I got a Chinese friend to go with me and I communicated to the Doc that my eyes were going blurry from using the computer constantly.
    The guy told me --stop using the computer.
    I was impressed with his skill.

  82. I have a rare form of glaucoma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call it anal Glaucoma cause I just don't see my ass doing much of anything today.

  83. ergonomics by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Now, see, I've had an actual class in ergonomics, and so I can say, without fear of argument, that my standard work position meets all ergonomic criteria.

    That is, with my feet on my desk, and the keyboard in my lap.

    First, my wrists are supported, and comfortable.
    Second, the monitor is at eye level.
    Third, I'm at least half a meter from the screen. Now we *know* that strobes, and even fluorescent lights can set off epileptics. When you're close, half or three-quarters of all the light falling on your eyes is strobing at 60 or 80 cycles per second, so further back is safer.

    And if you don't like *that*, then I don't care if you call it a monitor, a CRT, or whatever, it's still A TV set, and didn't your mother never tell you not to sit so close to the TV?!

    mark

    1. Re:ergonomics by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      When you're close, half or three-quarters of all the light falling on your eyes is strobing at 60 or 80 cycles per second, so further back is safer.

      Err, and the rest of the light isn't? Pretty much all indoor lights flicker at 60Hz to some degree (50Hz in Europe). Flourescents are the worst, but even the light output from an incandescent light fluctuates. The only valid argument here might be that the interaction of the 60Hz lamp vs. the ~85Hz screen is better than either one alone...

  84. Coal dust by PeteDotNu · · Score: 0

    Yes, but we're less likely to get lung cancer from inhaling all that coal dust down the mines, or to be crushed by a wooly mammoth, or bubonic plague.

    Swings and roundabouts.

    --
    My other processor is big-endian.
  85. I don't know about glaucoma by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    But does pdf aversion syndrome count?

    The hazzards of computing:

    - No women
    - Super terrific carpal tunnel syndrome
    - Bad eyes
    - Hairy palms

    The worst thing for you are those stupid stupid stupid feet on keyboard, somehow keyboard-feet-gnomes some into my office and put them up every so often, increasing the angle in stress as I type. There is an awesome paper on keyboard stress testing, which has some wierd spikey graphs showing that a 20% deviation in your wrists from the normal, for 8 hours, can completely cut off the nerve signals...

    And typing numbs your finger tips...

    Bad backs caused by office furniture, high cholesterol because of diet and inactivity... acute atrophy because of aforementioned a inactivity...

    Stress and stomach ulcers from all the hard work^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H flame wars on /.

    Its so much fun!

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  86. Glaucoma.org/learn by sameerdesai · · Score: 1

    Apparently it has been slashdotted already.

    Here's the google cache

    Glaucoma

  87. Oh the humanity.... by supercytro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, another activity which makes you blind:-)

  88. LCD vs. CRT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this also apply to LCDs, or just CRTs?

  89. Owww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's my danger pay?

  90. Borderline by CharlieG · · Score: 1

    As someone who has borderline high eye pressure - I find this interesting. There is a syndrome called pigmentary dispersion syndrome - which is usually occurs in men, with brown eyes, who read a lot (close focus) - and can be aggrivated by changing light conditions - I wonder if it's related (I have pigmentary dispersion syndrome - it CAN lead to glaucoma)

    --
    -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    1. Re:Borderline by Reziac · · Score: 1

      As I point out above, modern CRTs are *BRIGHT*, at least at typical settings. As someone else points out, our eyes aren't designed to stare at a light bulb. LCDs have far less waste light output.

      Solution? if you have a CRT, set your desktop to black, then adjust it so that you can't tell the black "nonfunctional" area from the black "lit up" area, and do your adjustments IN A DARK ROOM. At that point, the monitor is not significantly brighter than the surrounding light sources, and will be far more restful to your eyes when viewed in normal room light. With my big ViewSonic, the "restful" settings are around 75% contrast, 0% brightness.

      Also, if there are overhead lights, or a white ceiling, WEAR A VISOR. You'd be amazed how much glare originates from overhead lighting and reflective room surfaces... and how much more restful it is to your eyes if they don't have to cope with that.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Borderline by suchs · · Score: 1

      Thats a good hypothesis. The increased accommodation from extended near-work *could* release more pigment into the angle and increase iop. Thats one idea, the other is this... and scroll to accommodation http://www.emedicine.com/oph/topic136.htm As an eye doc myself, with a mild case of pds the topic interests me too. www.linuxnetwork.com has some unrelated, but cool fundus photography

  91. Phew!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually that's kind of a relief.

    Considering my surfing habits, I thought I was going blind for... er... other reasons.

  92. C64 and interlaced Amiga screen by October_30th · · Score: 1
    What do you mean?

    Watching C64/C128 and interlaced Amiga 500 screens on TV ruined my eyes? You must be lying! That's impossible!

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
  93. Blinditude! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computer users are more likely to go blind thanks to easy access to porn. It's just the parents of the nation trying to scare their children out of self gratification.

    DeMeH!!!

  94. Skewed Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doctors diagnose glaucoma and perscribe medication for it in many cases where the patient does not actually have glaucoma, but another very common condition known as "Wannaganga".

  95. Cornea Thickness Adjustment by unsinged+int · · Score: 1

    I'm a heavy computer user but whenever I have a glaucoma test, I get 5 points subtracted off the result because I have super-thick corneas, and that puts me back in the safe range. Doctors have only begun measuring thickness relatively recently, but studies show that the thicker your cornea is the less likely you are to develop glaucoma, and that people with very thick corneas can safely have larger scores on the glaucoma test.

    1. Re:Cornea Thickness Adjustment by n8ur · · Score: 1

      I heard it a bit differently from my doctor -- the adjustment for thickness is because the glaucoma pressure check essentially pushes the cornea to see how much it deflects. A thicker cornea is stiffer and won't deflect as much, giving the impression of higher pressure.

      I have a condition called keratoconus that leads to corneal thinning, and had cornea transplants in both eyes about 8 years ago. I now have glaucoma (which may or may not have been triggered by the transplants) and the doctors have an interesting time trying to interpret the pressure test results through the transplanted corneas, which are adequately thick but don't act quite the same as the original ones. I'm on two different eye drops twice a day to keep the pressure under control. So far, things seem reasonably stable but I get my pressure checked every two months, and have a visual field test annually.

  96. Correlation Does Not Equal Causation by Spamicles · · Score: 1

    One must keep in mind that a "heavy computer user" could easily mean "out of shape, not-very-active computer user with a poor diet". Obesity has been identified as a possible risk factor associated with glaucoma. Poor diet factored together with years of eye strain and obesity could facilitate the results of this study.

    I'm not bashing the study. I admit it raises interesting questions. I'd like to see the results of a similar study with the individual's health and diet taken into consideration. --IHNRTFA disclaimer--

  97. Some further info on this topic by MrPrefect · · Score: 1

    Here is some supporting material I read a while ago... As well as the good news, at least in canada you can get some medicinal marijuana to treat this Also on a side note I submitted this earlier this morning. To much PC can make you Blind?! Tuesday November 16, @09:14AM Rejected

  98. Seriously, by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I'd be worried about stuff like Parkinson's from long-term use of any sort of "neural interface".

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Seriously, by BlueJay465 · · Score: 1
      I can see the risk of probing your brain, trading one for another. I would rather just have an immersive environment. If you have a computer display that covered 180 degrees of vision and had enough 3D FOV potential to cause focus cues, your head will move around a lot more than just staring at 20 of flat image in a box straight in front of you. I am not a doctor, but if you keep the intraocular fluids in great motion, like away from the computer, the risk of glaucoma could be reduced significantly. Virtual Reality, here we come!

      /SacrificingModsToMakeAPoint

  99. Vision Sharpener by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just lucky, but I started computing at age 9 with 20/16 vision, and 25 years later I see better than ever (though perhaps my depth perception at long range is atrophied). I've always made certain my monitor was razor-sharp, at highest rez: CRTs mainly Trinitrons, and switched to LCD in the early 1990s. Maybe these kids are just sitting too close to a fuzzy TV, like Mom always warned against?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  100. Effect and Cause? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Is it that computer use causes eye problems, or is it that nerdly dweebs (myself included) are more likely to be using computers heavily and we seem genetically predisposed to have more eye problems anyway?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  101. pr0n fallout by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Combine "don't sit so close to the TV" with "if you don't stop that, you'll go blind", and the real health problem here is too little effect of Mom's good advice.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  102. Medical Weed by whitelabrat · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that computer professionals can get weed for preventative medical treatment? SWEEEET!

  103. mj? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NORML tells me that pot can prevent glaucoma. So if I smoke pot I can sit as close to the monitor as I like for as long as I like.

  104. Well... by JDevers · · Score: 1

    Since marijuana is a pretty decent treatment for glaucoma and nerds are less likely to partake in illicit substances that could be part of the problem.

    I guess it is time for us nerds to smoke up!!! We're doing it for our health after all!

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      less likely? Well, maybe nerds... But I'd say geeks are *more* likely...

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, but this is nerdland "News for Nerds" so get your geek ass out of here! Take the dorks with you while you're at it.

  105. That's why we're all potheads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eases my glaucoma!

  106. Okay, everyone, time to sue! by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

    The CRT manufacturers have been telling us for years that CRT's don't give off enough X-rays to harm you. Now we've got proof they do. Let's give 'em what for!

    --

    The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
  107. no problem by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    as long as you can get your medical marijuana

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  108. probably not related to the monitor at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love these pointed studies. Any chance that no physical exercise and a shitty diet might cause glacoma, much like diabetes? Sitting in front of a monitor 12 hours a day eating nothing but but pizza and chips could cause that. It's kind of like the old study of a high percentage of fat juvenille deliquents... did high fat diets create criminals or is that fat kids can't out run cops?

    1. Re:probably not related to the monitor at all by werfele · · Score: 1
      Any chance that no physical exercise and a shitty diet might cause glacoma, much like diabetes?
      The study attempted to take these factors into account. From the article:
      Although the aetiology of OAG remains unclear, numerous potential risk factors have been identified in addition to ocular hypertension, including certain diseases and lifestyle related conditions: vasospasm,3 migraine,4 tobacco smoking,5 high blood viscosity,6 sleep apnea syndrome,7 hypertension,5 psychological disturbance,8 and myopia.9 We postulated that heavy computer use may influence some of the risk factors for OAG, such as the lifestyle and the physical and psychological status, leading to an increased risk of glaucoma.
      Oddly enough, they say that "Body mass index (BMI) showed a borderline inverse association with FDT-VFA," while "heavy computer users with refractive errors showed a significant association with FDT-VFA, but those without refractive errors did not have an increased risk of FDT-VFA." My interpretation of this is that since I'm extremely myopic, I need to put on a few pounds to compensate.
  109. Good practices.. by believekevin · · Score: 1

    Look away from the monitor every few moments and allow your eyes to focus on something far away. This will help relax your eyes and reduce strain. Obviously, better equipment and a reduction in time are the best preventative measures. And, hey, doesn't anyone handwrite pseudo-code these days?

  110. Marijuana by Sp4c3+C4d3t · · Score: 1

    I spend all day in front of the computer. I also spend all day smoking marijuana, so I guess I don't have to worry :)

    --
    Happy New Year, it's 1984!
  111. The good thing is... by SweetZombieJesus · · Score: 1

    We'll be more likely to get medical marijuana... at least in Canada...

    whoa man, pass those cheese doodles...

    --
    Cheezit! We're boned! - famous 31st Century bending unit
  112. So...... by sharkey · · Score: 1

    What does viewing this article do to that 81%? How much does it pump it up?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  113. Duh... by oneiron · · Score: 1

    This one is a no-brainer... Focusing your eyes intensely for long periods of time is no good. They need to be balanced between focused and unfocused states so that the muscles in your eyes can experience the full 'range of motion,' so to speak... Otherwise they'll end up atrophying and causing you all sorts of problems like near/farsightedness, glaucoma, etc...

    1. Re:Duh... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And bigger monitors are probably better since they make you move your eyes around more. -- There is a medical theory that the reason why we lose near-focusing ability with age is because the muscles that work the lens get "stiff" and tired, and can't do their job anymore. Probably like any other muscle, the more it's stuck in one position (here meaning staring at a screen), the less well it works overall.

      See my other posts about brightness vs eyestrain.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  114. Marjiuana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been self-treating myself for YEARS. There is no way I could get it!

  115. Old story by gradius3 · · Score: 1

    It has for quite a while been pretty well known that focusing your eyes on one particular area at the same distance tends (rule of thumb - not law) to diminish a person's visual capability. It is the same way with many people who read books constantly. Genetics play the largest role, especially with glaucoma, but other external factors play a role on eye pressure such as eye fatique/lack of sleep, amount of caffiene/nicotine, medicines...

    By chance, I found out from my eye Dr when I was 24, that I'm very likely to get glaucoma because while on Prednizone (anti-flamitory steroid) for a short while, my eye pressure increased to almost glaucoma levels. Not sure if this was caused by sitting in front of a computer for 6+ hours a day, but I do have family history of the illness. I guess time will tell...

  116. Could you use a bigger font please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't read the article ..

  117. Japanese men only? by harmonics · · Score: 1

    Seems they studied four japanese company "heavy computer workers", they admited to the possibility of bias as the majority of those selected were men.

    Hmm, does it make sense to apply these results to everyone?

  118. BTW by earthstar · · Score: 1
    While what you say is recommended by Doctors,I would like to say that its not every hour - Its recommended to relax the eyes every 20 minutes.

    that said,how do you Unfocus your eyes when you goto bed?

  119. Glaucoma by GreyOrange · · Score: 1

    Solutions:

    1. LCD Moniters

    2. Marijuana

    --

    Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
  120. I also hear ... by gre_1 · · Score: 1

    ... construction workers stands a higher chance of a brick falling on their head than other workers.

  121. Glaucoma? by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

    Thank god for pot!

  122. Who's at Risk from Glaucoma? by earthstar · · Score: 1
    I read "Who's at Risk from Glaucoma?" here.http://www.glaucoma.org/learn/risk.html
    Iam posting it here.

    Who's at Special Risk?
    Everyone is at risk for glaucoma, however, certain groups are at higher risk than others. It is recommended that people at high risk for glaucoma receive a complete eye exam that includes eye dilation every one to two years.

    Those at high risk for glaucoma include:

    * African-Americans Glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness among African-Americans and is six to eight times more common in African-Americans than Caucasians.

    * People Over 60 People over the age of 60 are six times more likely to get glaucoma than those younger.

    * Hereditary If you have family members (especially immediate family members) with glaucoma, this puts you at a much higher risk than the rest of the population. Family history increases risk of glaucoma four to nine times as compared to those who do not have glaucoma in their family.

    * Asian-Americans Asians are not in a particularly high-risk group for glaucoma except that Asians appear to be at some risk for angle closure glaucoma. Angle closure glaucoma accounts for less than 10% of all diagnosed cases of glaucoma.

    * Steroid use There is some evidence that links steroid use to glaucoma. For the most part, there seem to be no serious effects. However, a study reported in the Journal of American Medical Association, March 5, 1997, demonstrated a 40% increase in the incidence of ocular hypertension and open angle glaucoma in adults who require approximately 14 to 35 puffs of steroid inhaler to control asthma. This is a very high dose and is only required in the cases of severe asthma.

    * Eye Injury Glaucoma can occur as the result of an eye injury immediately after the injury or years later. This is also known as traumatic glaucoma and is most often the result of a blunt trauma such as a blow to the head or an injury directly to the eye. The most common cause is from sports related injuries such as baseball or boxing. When a blunt trauma occurs, it can cause damage to the drainage system resulting in traumatic glaucoma. Glaucoma can also be caused by a penetrating injury.

  123. 88% of those afflicted... by Vandil+X · · Score: 1

    ...demonstrated a high rate of one-handed typing speed and Web browsing.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  124. Is there a Cure for Glaucoma by earthstar · · Score: 1
    Whether you believe the article or simply joke about it, its up to you.
    But this is what this sitehttp://www.glaucoma.org/learn/cure.htmlhas to say about cure for Glaucoma.

    Is There a Cure?
    Currently, there is no cure for glaucoma [emphasis mine]. Glaucoma is a chronic disease that must be treated for life. However, much is happening in research that makes us hopeful a cure may be realized in our lifetime. There is exciting work being conducted by scientists all over the world in the areas of genetics, neuroprotection and neuroregeneration. These areas of study deal with the origins and pathology of glaucoma as opposed to managing symptoms.
    A cure is on the way.

  125. Excuses. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    We all know this is just an excuse for more computer nerds to smoke pot.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  126. hogwash by t35t0r · · Score: 1

    Glaucoma is more related to diabetes than watching a screen. There is absolutely no connection. You have to learn how to read "scientific articles", learn about statistics (and how to infer these statistics about a given population from an article), and learn that scientists/researchers can make anything look plausible.

    Maybe japanese genes are different, it could be any number of factors. This is just as ridiculous as the claim that prolonged cell phone usage causes cancer.

    Frankly, i think what they've really "discovered" is that heavy computer users might not get much physical activity and may be more prone to other health problems (e.g. diabetes) and may have an increased risk of developing glaucoma due to these problems.

    Anyways, I'm not worried by the time I develop glaucoma we will have the technology to regrow eyes.

  127. LCD? by sjoel · · Score: 0

    What about lcd monitors? Do they send out the retina killing beams as well?

  128. Another useless study by gerardrj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The study seems flawed in manny respects.
    The glaring one is that is did not study a single population over time. They are assuming, or implying, causation here and I don't see any reasonable evidence of that with their two, unrelated groups method. It might be that people who are visially impaired tend to gravitate toward jobs where their eyesight is not critical to success. It might not be that computer work causes eye problems, but people with eye problems tend to do computer work.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    1. Re:Another useless study by jeddak · · Score: 1

      Glaring....haha good one!

  129. /. reporters who read by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

    Referenced report is misrepresented.

    THE REPORT concludes:"...heavy computer users with refractive errors seem to have increased risk of FDT-VFA. Glaucoma might be involved in an underlying disease and myopia is a risk factor for FDT-VFA.

    Furthermore, the report is on a cross sectional survey of Japanese, predominantly males, and references that Japanese glaucoma distribution is "vastly different from Western population".

    The crus of the report is that if you are Japanese, myopic, and use the computer a lot than it would be a good idea to have regular VFA assesment.

    While not statistically meaningful, my glaucoma has improved since I
    1)quite swimming in a brominated pool
    2)have become a 'heavy' computer user.
    Wonder how many of those nearsighted Japanese with glaucoma also swim in brominated pools?

  130. I dont buy it. by suchs · · Score: 1

    While I don't dismiss the findings, I will not be advising my patients anytime soon to stop their computer use. I think there needs to be a better control to the study to convince me more positively of the results, say "heavy cloud-gazing" as another "risk". (in our rush,rush society that won't happen) Normal tension glaucoma is still not well understood .

  131. What about 2 monitors? by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

    I have 2 monitors set up on my workstation. Maybe this would double the effects. Although I did just go through an eye exam and only have a slight astigmatism. Other than that, my eyes are healthy and I've been using computers my whole life practically.

    --
    Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  132. 420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok... so what's a good herbal remedy for glaucoma?

  133. Right by Zareste · · Score: 1

    Also, people with beards are 80% more likely to get a detached retina.

    Shouldn't we have learned by now that nonsensical studies aimed at a specific result don't work? You're still giving press to every nut case with a lab for some reason.

    --
    I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  134. this explains things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have partial visual field loss at the age of 28. So far 2 docs and a specialist at a fancy eye hospital have not been able to diagnose it. They've all ruled out Glaucoma due to age... wonder if this changes things.

  135. hehe... by carlmenezes · · Score: 2, Funny

    groping around in the dark in games will only halve your half life, spell doom for and finally leave you floating through the level with a halo :) ...except ofcourse in The Sims 2...it would get u a hot date there :)

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  136. Causation or correlation by Telastyn · · Score: 1

    Oddly the only person I've known with glaucoma is my father, who of course has been a cobol programmer all his career. I doubt though monitors had a great effect, as he developed the condition before computer terminals were common.

  137. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Computers links YOU to glaucoma.

  138. No problem for non-managers by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    The article says the problem is exacerbated by SHORT-sightedness, not NEAR-sightedness, thus only managers need be worried.

  139. Your eyes WILL stay that way! by shagymoe · · Score: 0

    I spend most of my waking life in front of a computer being that I'm a sysadmin and own a web dev company on the side. Anywho, one day while sitting at work my eyes seemed to cross and STAY THAT WAY! I'm not sure if they were croseed or if they were just out of focus, but I can tell you that I could not focus no matter how hard I tried and I really started freaking out. I sat back and tried to relax and I would open them again with no change. I was starting to panic and I finally just shut the door to my office, turned out the lights and tried to relax and doze. When I sort of "woke up" everything was back to normal and I, of course, went right back to staring at the screen for another 4 hours. I never did have it checked out and just chalked it up to strain. Hasn't happened since.

  140. Mexican food and computers by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    I eat Mexican food while working on the computer.

    Now I have guacoma.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  141. Computer Guy == Stoner ? by ELiTeUI · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that in the near future, computer use will be linked to marijuana use?

    Sounds like something the US nanny-government needs to declare a War On Computers(TM).

    ELiTeUI

    1. Re:Computer Guy == Stoner ? by ELiTeUI · · Score: 1

      Remove that 'something' in the second sentence. Thank God for proofreading :)

  142. You wanted accupuncture for your *eyes*?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooooh-kay.

  143. huh? by Pugflop · · Score: 1

    oi canmmn sderre gfinme!

  144. Is it the monitor? Or staring at something close? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be interested in seeing a comparison study done on avid readers.

    Also, about a breakdown of those who use CRTs as compared to LCS screens.

  145. I don't know what caused it by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    for me but in the early 80's when the IBM PC first hit the market, I was a tech and was doing a LOT of soldering. Of course I had been soldering for 15 years prior to that but in the 80's I did a lot of intense, close up PCB work. I usually had a PCB within 4 inches of my eyes or less.

    Now I'm 44 and I can't read a piece of paper that's closer than 12" from my eyes but I can clearly see the string on a balloon 100 yards away and count the telephone wires on poles a 1/4 mile away.

    I have to use wally world reading glasses to do my hardware work now. I also keep a clip-on loupe at hand for the smaller stuff.
    I'm also in the market for an electron microscope, I see them being dumped on ebay CHEAP but I want to trade or barter for one.

    I don't really need the EM but I just want one. Why now??

  146. Computers and glaucoma by J053 · · Score: 1

    So, pass that doobie to me!

  147. hopefully.... by torrents · · Score: 1

    by the time my eyes have been shot i'll be able to get a chip implanted in my barin so i don't need my broken eyes anymore... or maybe i'll just stop wasting time on slashdot... chip it is...

    --
    Get your torrents...
  148. "Conclusions" are like assholes... by MrDingusMcGee · · Score: 1

    Their "conclusion" is that if you are a heavy computer user AND you have already present refractive errors (near- or far-sighted) then you're more likely to have some vision difficulties. However, among the people with visual field abnormalities 33% were light computer users, 48% were moderate, and 19% were heavy users (not exactly the data you'd want for a correlation), which oddly enough is the same as the people without visual-field abnormalities. I won't bore you with the rest of the analysis, but let's just say it doesn't show shit (among people without refractive errors, heavy computer users were twice as likely to not have visual field abnormalities which is pretty weird to me - seems like computer use is actually GOOD for you if you don't already have myopia) which is probably why it was published in the "prestigious" Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health...

    --
    My Sig is Sauer.
  149. Now I can Smoke Pot? by Zebbers · · Score: 1

    Right? Right?

  150. A ounce of prevention, is worth.... by sserendipity · · Score: 1


    Well, I guess it depends how friendly your dealer is feeling today doesn't it?

  151. LCD by woddfellow2 · · Score: 1

    Does this include LCD users?

    --
    1-Crawl 2-Cnfg 3-ATF 4-Exit ?
  152. Braile? by Magickcat · · Score: 1

    Bah humbug - I'm looking forward to a 21" braile monitor.

    --

    Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

  153. Depressing by Khalid · · Score: 1

    Well I see a lot of people posting a lot of jokes here here, but it doesn't really make laugh. As someone who works in front of a computer at least 10 hours a day and who has a genetic predisposition for that desease.

    At least three persons in my familiy are blind because of glaucome and my father is gradually losing sight too and he used to have an excellent vision. There is no real cure for glaucoma and many drugs are ineffective for a lot of people and cause a lot of secondary effects. So if you have it prepare yourself to become blind at one time or another.

    My worst nightmare has always been when it will be my turn.

    Really depressing.

  154. Hazard Pay by silux · · Score: 1

    Hey I wonder if this means I can get hazard pay for my job now. I mean if people get hazard pay for dealing with deadly chemicals shouldn't I get hazard pay for increasing my risk of eye problems?

    Food for thought

  155. Caffein by abertoll · · Score: 1

    Here is what the glaucoma site says:

    "Some studies have shown that significant caffeine intake over a short time can slightly elevate intraocular eye pressure (IOP) for one to three hours. However, other studies indicate that caffeine has no meaningful impact on IOP. To be safe, people with glaucoma are advised to limit their caffeine intake to moderate levels."

    So... is there any correlation between computer users and caffein?

    --
    "he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
  156. 74% more likely = not a link by knewter · · Score: 1

    For clarification for anyone that might read this and consider this conclusive, read this first, and understand that this just implies a POSSIBLE correlation, and in no way guarantees a correlation...this is also kind of implied in the story body, but I just wanted to make sure you all knew....

    --
    -knewter
  157. Predisposed by TheMeddler · · Score: 1

    ...or do people who play video games and use computers have bad vision to begin with?

    --
    90% Professional Slacker
  158. I give it a week by INetEngineer · · Score: 1

    Give this topic a week and the threat will simply be a blur.

    --
    --I smoked my sig.
  159. AT LAST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...an EXCUSE to TYPE it all in CAPS! (Tragically, the Slashdot lameness filter wouldn't let me.)

  160. Brightness 100, Contrast 0 by woddfellow2 · · Score: 1

    I have responded to this by changing my monitor's brightness to 100 and changing its contrast to 0. Now it appears dark, yet everything remains visible.

    --
    1-Crawl 2-Cnfg 3-ATF 4-Exit ?
  161. Glaucoma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glaucoma seems more prevalent in African Americans, though this tie in to computer usage seems new. Best way to detect it seems to be to have your eyes examined through dilated pupils.

  162. One Word by dshaw858 · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, heavy computer users were found to be 81% more likely to develop glaucoma.

    One word: shit. I use my computer for 8-12 hours every day, with a 60hz CRT monitor. If that isn't "heavy usage", I'm not sure what is. I already have glasses... man, I hope I don't get glaucoma.

    And as for the point of this post... are any of you slashdotters going to cut down on computer usage due to this announcement, or is this news just poking the bull with a steel rod?

    - dshaw

  163. workers comp == Weed money by sPaKr · · Score: 1

    Im going to start filling out workers comp for weed money. Sweet I wonder if that will also cover the required hohos and ringdings!

  164. Need more study from this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read this and have my friend that is a ophthalmologist this a limited study as the study has stated. I am a pilot and have no problem with visual field abnormalities and I use my computer 8 to 10 hours a day. However glaucoma manifest itself in more than just visual field abnormalities. Also they did look at people with myopia had a greater chance of having glaucoma due to lengthening of the eye that could be the cause of myopia in some people. Myopia can be caused by lengthening of the eye or change of the lens and they said that these where inconclusive for this study.
    For me I have a laptop and I try to keep at arms length and get up and get outside occasionally.

  165. The Simple Reason by adamdeprince · · Score: 1

    IANAD, but I suspect It has nothing to do with your computer screen. Computer geeks, almost definion, spend their days totally motionless sans their fingers and the occational flick of the wrist to sip coffee. Computer geeks are fat. And obsessity is linked to diabetes, and that is linked to glaucoma.

  166. glaucoma.... by bikerguy99 · · Score: 1

    how about blindness (if you know what I mean...)!!!!

  167. Saweet by LilGuy · · Score: 1

    By the time I'm 25 I should be able to legally smoke the ganje.

    Or perhaps sooner if I make it to Amsterdam...

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  168. Far out... by ca1v1n · · Score: 1

    The state that gave us Silicon Valley is leading the fight for medical marijuana. Coincidence?

    I think not.

  169. RTFA - Not _all_ heavy users showed increased risk by joda · · Score: 0

    For example as it says in the Main results part of the abstract on the first page of the article:
    [...}In stratified analysis, heavy computer users with refractive errors showed a significant positive association with FDT-VFA [...], while those without refractive errors did not.[...] (Emphasis added for clarity)

    I.e. other factors than mainly computer usage appears to have significance ...

    --
    Buy all your crazy japanese videogames from
  170. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they trying to convince me that as I write this comment I could suddenly and instantly go sjkçfhçklhufçilabk.b. bnm a dlvjlvxcxd

    hrlp me 1111111

  171. What? What? by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    What did the article say? My screen is so blurry I can't make it out!

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  172. Will reading books cause the same thing? by ZipR · · Score: 1

    Have there ever been any studies like this of bookreading? Is it what your doing (ie reading for long periods) or what you're doing it on (on screen vs. on a page)?

  173. I bow to the O magical mystical wizard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... their $75/bottle eye drops work better than the $0 marijuana that they are legally permitted to grow in their basement.

    Good luck growing weed in your basement for zero dollars.

  174. Except by Snaller · · Score: 1

    None of that has anything to do with the study. They observer equal sized groups and statistically the ones who were more in front of computer screens developed this.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating