Slashdot Mirror
French Health Watchdog: 3D Viewing May Damage Eyesight In Children
dryriver (1010635) writes with this clipping from the BBC: A French health watchdog has recommended that children under the age of six should not be allowed access to 3D content. The Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) added that access for those up to the age of 13 should be 'moderate'. It follows research into the possible impact of 3D imaging on still-developing eyes. Few countries currently have guidelines about 3D usage. According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image. 'In children, and particularly before the age of six, the health effects of this vergence-accommodation conflict could be much more severe given the active development of the visual system at this time,' it said in a statement.
Yes. They should have added this: Normal 3d vision from natural surroundings has the eyes converge at the same distance that they focus. Artificial 3D technology has the eyes do something they never did before. That is focusing at a near distance while converging at a farther distance.
Eyesight is probably the most important sense you have to interact with the world. It's precious and even a slight chance off affecting it is enough to not take the risk. It's not like we're depriving kids of something important anyway.
I don't see what's wrong with the recommandation and the fact that an agency for food, environmental and occupational health and safety studies the effect of 3D viewing on people and kids. Sounds to me they are doing their job.
The question I responded to was how is viewing a 3D image different, not an explanation of how it is harmful or any claim that it was or was not harmful. However there is flawed logic in your response.
" and found research conducted on adults (none on children) " ...and there you go. The lack of evidence doesn't prove/disprove anything. Although it's probably more a lack of diligent reporting on the journalist's part combined with the research may be in journals that aren't freely available(and abstracts with technical wording that don't turn up in a google). It sounds like to me you've pointed out why there SHOULD be such a study.
Additionally, studies where you hypothesize that subjects will come to significant irreparable harm are usually considered unethical. You have to instead observe those who already engage in those behaviors, and because they don't all engage in them in a consistent manner, then it's difficult to prove something. This is exactly why no one has proven cigarettes cause cancer. When a scientist talks about proving something, it's much more rigorous than what the average person thinks of. In the absence of a controlled experiment, you instead make statistical observations. Even if they found extreme statistics, such as 94% of people who smoke get cancer within a week of smoking, it still wouldn't prove anything cause you could have a correlation with some other variable out of your control. It is statistically significant however, and for these kind of things, it is the closest thing to proof you will get. That aside from rubbing cigarette tar on an animal and seeing cancer form. But that's usually not enough for people who like to argue.