Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Health Watchdog: 3D Viewing May Damage Eyesight In Children

Posted by timothy on from the this-time-with-feeling-but-not-depth dept.

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.

62 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. ANSES by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    The Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety

    Isn't this agency a little too spread out in various domains? Shouldn't there be three agencies for those?

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:ANSES by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Funny

      In France, those are all things that have wine pairings.

    2. Re:ANSES by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, wine is the domain of L'agence des vins, fromages et pain baguette.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  2. I'm not a scientist... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

    1. Re:I'm not a scientist... by PacoSuarez · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      That's why France doesn't allow children under the age of six to open both eyes at the same time.

    2. Re:I'm not a scientist... by AaronLS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Normally, your convergence and focus operate together.

      With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario.

    3. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:I'm not a scientist... by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      Yes, but there is a difference between displaying a 3D image on a screen and having depth perception in the real world. In the real world your eyes changes focus to switch between near and far objects. With a fixed screen you end up being some fixed focus distance away from the screen and your eyes won't need to change focus looking at different parts of the screen which are displaying 3D objects that are meant to be a different distances away from the viewer. Even though your brain is registering something as being nearer or farther away depending where you look on the screen. A 3d screen is not the same as looking through a window at a real 3D world.

      So for example you have two objects on the 3D screen and one is perceptually further away than the other in 3D space, but if it is already in focus, then you don't have to change your eye focus to focus on the further away object. That is a bit of a difference between the way perception of distance to an object is supposed to work together with the way your eye changes focus.

    5. Re:I'm not a scientist... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Normally, your convergence and focus operate together.

      With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario.

      And it gives me a headache. (Which I took as a cue that it probably doesn't do me any good)

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    6. Re:I'm not a scientist... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      You are correct, so stereoscopic 3D could potentially cause problems for a developing brain, but so can TV and video-devices in general. It's probably a good idea to wait until someone is at least 6 before feeding them any kind of media. Let them get started playing in the real world.

    7. Re:I'm not a scientist... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      But it's not a problem today because nobody watches their 3d tvs in 3d. It was an over-hyped selling point.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:I'm not a scientist... by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      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.

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      sure, but modern 3d tech, as good as it is, is still a bit of a kludge. the screen is still a fixed distance away from your eyes. the image doesn't move when you move your eyes. the interpupilary distance used to render the two images may not match your own. Having viewed a 3d world our whole lives we are impressed by the reproduction in an occulus rift. However we are also blissfully unaware how much work went into our brain building up a database of how to interpret what is coming in from our eyes.

      for example: When i scan about my desk, my eyes converge on various things. My brain is getting the two images, but unlike the images from a vr headset, the projection matrices are along different normals, the subject may be closer to one eye than another and that eye is at a different focal distance, all of that means something to your brain. It's not just cruft. The lack of a lot of this contributes to the disorientation most people feel when they first strap on an occulus. Your eye is being fed an image that is generated from a crude eye that is not quite doing what your eye is doing.

      that said, it's unlikely that a kid who grows up with too much vr is going to die. they just might feel a bit dizzy walking around the real world. is that horrible? or is it like how my teachers didn't like me relying on a computer to do math. maybe i'm not as good at head math, but knowing how to do it with the tool sure has been beneficial to me.

    9. Re:I'm not a scientist... by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      Normal vision works by looking at the same image(or item) from two different angles.

      --
      XDInd
    10. Re:I'm not a scientist... by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      It's a potentially great selling point, just poorly implemented.

      --
      XDInd
    11. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, about 25% of all humans have neurologically impared depth perception, ranging from mild to complete disability.

      I have mild problems with it, and stereographic imaging(3D glasses, VR HMD's) gives me eyestrain within 5-10 minutes and a blistering headache at 20-30min....

    12. Re: I'm not a scientist... by Threni · · Score: 1

      But is there any evidence whatsoever that this is harmful?

    13. Re:I'm not a scientist... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      No, that's the UK, as leaving one eye protected at all times is deemed safer.

    14. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    15. Re:I'm not a scientist... by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    16. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      that said, it's unlikely that a kid who grows up with too much vr is going to die. they just might feel a bit dizzy walking around the real world. is that horrible?

      Um... yeah. Actually, being dizzy as you walk around in the real world sounds pretty awful. That's where most of us spend the bulk of their time, after all.

      As with all things, including 3D VR, moderation is probably best, especially with young children. Not that we need to panic about each new technology that comes along, but rather, it seems reasonable to take a "prove to me it's safe over the long term" rather than "jump in immediately and wait to see if it's harmful later" with younger kids, who turn out to be particularly susceptible to all sorts of things that adults are a bit more resistant to.

      I'm pretty sure I screwed up my eyes by doing silly things like designing videogame sprites on 20 square-per-inch engineering graph paper when I was a youngster, and of course, being a voracious reader. No one else in my family wears glasses. It makes perfect sense to me that children's eyes would well be more susceptible to aberrations if 3D viewing is done excessively.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    17. Re:I'm not a scientist... by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      yeah, i think it's easy for us to miss the importance of all the data our brains gather in childhood. Neuroplasticity be damned, i don't think it's the kind of database your brain is able to set up later either. I think best case scenario, a person who spent too much VR time in their formative years would experience the outside world much as we experience VR; not quite right. I think worst case scenario could go off the charts. At the very least, i don't think i would trust such a person behind the wheel of a car.

    18. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Nope. There is no way to get round the convergence-accomodation problem, except when the image is both logically and physically so far away that 3D is irrelevant.

      3D is a bad idea. It makes your head hurt because you are experiencing the impossible. If it does not make your head hurt, then it is doing you harm.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    19. Re: I'm not a scientist... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Not that I've heard of. To make this even more complicated, I think the odds that it will cause adaptive changes are high, but whether those changes are 'harm' is up for interpretation.

      I remember reading somewhere that when the original star trek series aired, significant numbers of people couldn't do the vulcan greeting. However, the percentage is nearly 100% today due to changes in how we use our hands training our brains differently. Secondly, modern humans tend to be more able to independently move our hands due to using keyboards with mice.

      A young child exposed to 3D viewing early may instead develop a vision mode that's 'used' to it, causing no noticeable harm otherwise, but not suffering from the headaches and eye strain current adults often have.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    20. Re:I'm not a scientist... by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      Thing is, they are missing the research and citations...
      For all we know, it could actually put kids who use both early at an advantage. They might not get dizzy in any situations. They might have better abilities to judge distances both real and virtual. They may have better hand eye coordination from "touching" things that aren't actually there. It might take a while to develop those skills just as a bilingual child takes longer developing language skills, but ultimately can get both languages to a near mastery level.
      I'm not saying this is the case, but that there is no proof one way or the other.

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    21. Re:I'm not a scientist... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that the French were Republicans!

    22. Re:I'm not a scientist... by erlkonig · · Score: 1

      Well... optically would probably could make it focussing at a far distance while looking at a converging at a nearer distance (flipped from above), but the point is that no accomodation (focus change) is required for for 3D screens, and that could impact kids' brains learning how to integrate focus into the set of cues used for depth perception.

      Othewise said, Anses is an idiot in this area and has no idea what the real issue is, though there might be one: "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" is flawed in almost every respect except for "three-dimensional" and "eyes". He shouldn't be involved in policy in this area.

    23. Re:I'm not a scientist... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I've found that 3D TV doesn't give me as much of a headache the closer I am to the position where the 3D looks natural, ie along the line perpendicular to the center of the TV and at an appropriate distance. Having the hardware directly attached to my face like with Google Glasses would mean I could be in the ideal position where the two images are correct for where I am.

      Besides this, it might be possible to focus the light of different objects differently, so that they come into focus when my eye's lens is set for the appropriate distance. This seems like it should be possible but incredibly obnoxious to implement.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    24. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      This same problem with artificial 3-D vision was announced a LONG time ago. Like 7-8 years ago.

    25. Re:I'm not a scientist... by marciot · · Score: 1

      Normally, your convergence and focus operate together.

      With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario.

      Interestingly, artificial 3D is the only 3D I've experienced. I've been stereo-blind for as long as I remember, but recently I read Sue Barry's book and found out my eyes converged properly within four inches of my face. So I was able to experience depth by using anaglyph glasses and an iPhone held really close to my nose. I began converting 3D movies to anaglyph and watching them on my iPhone, gradually moving it away from my face. Now I can see 3D at about a foot away, on a laptop screen.

      When I am finally able to diverge my eyes properly at a distance, I hope real world 3D doesn't give me headaches like normal people do when they watch "artificial" 3D movies!

    26. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario."

      Have you ever gone out in nature, before? Quite often you will find yourself fixed on a single focal point, and you might look at it for a long time. It could be far away, it could be up close.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:I'm not a scientist... by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      French are indeed republicans, but the word does not have the same meaning as in the US: the whole political spectrum claim to be republican, even the communists.

    28. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Prune · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely false. Lightfield displays (for example, microlens array based ones) recreate proper focal depth variation throughout the image, as do volumetric displays. Examples of both have been around for years, and in the case of the latter, at least a decade.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    29. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Yep. The main concern at the time was the possibility for development of strabismus if 3D (that does not recreate variable focal distance) was overused, especially in children.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    30. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      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.

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      In normal vision, we look at the same place from two slightly different directions. Furthermore, it is well-established that the neural 'wiring' for assimilating these two views into a single stereo image develops during childhood, in response to the stimuli. (I am not so sure about this, but I think this is also true for the wiring that controls the eye muscles and therefore the convergence of vision.) I am not a biologist, but I think there are grounds for concern here.

  3. 3d products already come with these warnings by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    You can put a password lock on 3d mode on the 3DS, the oculus rift comes with a big 'ol "not for kids" warning, and I wouldn't be surprised if 3d movies include warnings(but who buys those?)

    People were already aware of this risk, but thanks France.

    1. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by omnichad · · Score: 2

      And Nintendo already recommended an age of 6 before using 3D mode.

    2. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      This would indicate to me that France is not off base here. If the game manufacturers are willing to harm their sales with a recommendation like that, there's likely a real issue.

    3. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      Or it's likely that a lawsuit regarding the issue could be a real issue

      --
      XDInd
    4. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      n=1, but I wasn't aware of this.. I thought that (rift withstanding) only kids were interested in gimmicky 3d effects.

    5. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be emotionally older than 6 years to use them. Just physiologically.

    6. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      the oculus rift comes with a big 'ol "not for kids" warning

      Interesting. What's different about the Oculus that makes it less safe than a Viewmaster? (FWIW, it seems that Fisher-Price still markets Viewmaster to young children)

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    7. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Nothing that I can think of, technically. However, Viewmaster was something that I remember using for maybe 2-3 hours over my entire life. I'd believe hearing about a kid using a 3DS for 2-3 hours per day for long periods (and longer, if their parents allow it). If Oculus were more widespread, I'd expect something similar to happen there.

      The next question would be how much exposure it takes to damage a child's visual development.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  4. I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by enjar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By making them go outside and play instead of sitting in front of the TV/computer/tablet.

    1. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Russ1642 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The real world is in 2D so it won't damage their vision.

    2. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by AaronLS · · Score: 4, Funny

      The resolution is incredible.

    3. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by aaron4801 · · Score: 2

      Remember, the real world used to be in black and white, too:
      Calvin & Hobbes

    4. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      One of my favourites. It's up there with the sun setting in Arizona.

    5. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

      Watch out - alcohol can really hit your framerate hard.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    6. Re: I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by marciot · · Score: 1

      Won't work. People are too shallow now a days. We might as well be living in Abbott's Flatland.

  5. Re:Details? by psergiu · · Score: 1

    See here for the gruesome truth :)

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...

    Try reading the text on the box on panel 2.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  6. Research by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

    It follows research into the possible impact of 3D imaging on still-developing eyes. Few countries currently have guidelines about 3D usage.

    And what research is this referring to? The article gives no information about the alleged research, though it does mention Nintendo's warning on the 3DS which just happens to say the 3D feature should only be used by children 7 years or older.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  7. I blame the VirtualBoy for my needing glasses by preaction · · Score: 1

    My eyes are very slightly near-sighted, and have remained exactly this near-sighted since I was 14. I blame 11-year-old me's extensive use of the VirtualBoy (and my barely following through with its programmed 5-minute breaks between 30-minute sessions). It's nice to see confirmation that this kind of thing is bad (though the screens being very close probably contributed as much as the screens being 3d).

  8. e:I'm not a scientist... by houssine+bilal · · Score: 1

    Normally, your convergence and focus operate together. With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario. www.alamnisaa.com

  9. OMG! I LOOKED AT VIEWMASTERS AS A KID by the_skywise · · Score: 2

    I'm blind now!

    Oh wait... No I'm not...

    I had a pile of viewmaster reels and a viewer that I'd spend hours looking at when I was between 4-6 and I made my own 3D pictures and posters using red/blue markers as a pre-teen.

    I'll agree that back to back marathon viewings of 3D content probably isn't good but I think that's just basic common sense and just as bad as watching back to back marathon viewings of 2D content... which I also did as a child on Saturday Mornings... :/

  10. Re:So should we make them wear an eye patch? by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    > If the study had some claim about BAD 3d, that would be a different thing.

    I saw Spacehunter Adventures in the Forbidden Zone in 3D as a kid and suffered horrible brain damage.

    I don't think it was the 3D tech though...

  11. Old Fashioned 3D by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    I went through a big "red/blue glasses" 3D phase when I was a kid. I'm now 37 and to this day I have a slightly different color balance between my two eyes: if I look with only my right eye everything is slightly reddish and is I look with only my left eye everything is slightly bluish (this is, IIRC, the opposite of the lens). It's only noticeable if I specifically pay attention to it, but it appears to be permanent.

  12. Re:3d by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

    The reality is that TV, 3D or not, is unsuitable for people of any age. Have you watched Cartoon Network? That stuff MUST cause brain damage for sure!

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  13. I thought the 3D fad... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... was all but dead anyway. Replaced by the (OMG! it costs how much?) 4K fad.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  14. Re:Nintendo was right...? by towermac · · Score: 1

    Well, Nintendo is a good company. They always have been.

    But there is something to it, and it doesn't have to be a new 3D screen. I'm not sure I've even seen one yet. On a regular old 2D screen, intensively watching a 3D world that you're walking around in eventually does this damage. I'm talking about Warcraft, which I had to quit playing. It got to where I couldn't converge my eyes, which gives double vision. That's a real bitch when driving.

    Anyway, I had gotten good enough for rated battlegrounds (#1 team on server for a few minutes..) so I am really intensively staring at the screen, getting into it as much as possible. Tricking my brain to accept this 1920x1080 square as reality. You begin to accept that the tree or flag or whatever, is really 30 or 80 yards away.

    I quit, it got better, I went back; it came back much quicker with a vengence... I can't play; it's like a disability now. I'm older - I'm sure younger eyes recover quicker, etc. And I'm not 100% over it, it's got a long tail, and the remnants of it may well be permanent.

  15. Re:So should we make them wear an eye patch? by Prune · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? The key issue even made it into the Slashdot summary: "the health effects of this vergence-accommodation conflict could be much more severe". This is the defining characteristic of bad 3D. Let's hope microlens array-based lightfield displays make it to the mass market sooner than later so we can leave this issue behind.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  16. Is 2D any different? by tomek.bury · · Score: 1

    Comming to think of it, a plain old 2D display has the same issues.

    The distance from viewer to display is fixed, yet the watched content changes from close-ups to wide panorama, so both convergence and focal point are in conflict with what the viewer sees. On top of that the camera FOV creates permanently blurry areas that can't be fixed by the viewer changing focus. Blue tint on the picture of supposedly far mointains lies about the real distance and the focal point of the viewer is, again, in conflict colour shift preceived by retina. Moving viewers head doesn't show the scene from a slightly different perspective, as it should. A film watched from an angle looks really awkward. Camera movement isn't backed up by the inner ear receptors and that may lead to motion sicknes. Depth usually isn't essential for the story telling, but colour isn't either, and picture (radio anyone?) and sound for that matter (books existed long before movies).

    The panic on the Lumiere Brothers train film shows clearly that cinema is in opposition to the natural human capabilities and a mere century certainly didn't change much in that respect - evolution doesn't work that fast.

    Think how weird a person wearing early stereophonic headphones looked to people not too long ago. Almost as weird as a person wearing stereoscopic googles looks to many of us today. Think of all the issues with stereophonc audio, compared to the real world experience - stereo audio is not even close to real, just like stereoscopic video. To make it slightly closet, the 3D covers of BluRay discs use shots from 8 angles to mimic 3D picture, just like 7+1 audio systems do to mimic 3D sound.

    The stereoscopic 3D is no that different from other techmologies. It's not perfect, but what is?

    1. Re:Is 2D any different? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The distance from viewer to display is fixed, yet the watched content changes from close-ups to wide panorama, so both convergence and focal point are in conflict with what the viewer sees.

      I hope, for humanity's sake, that you're either being wilfully obtuse or you're very unfunny but don't know it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."