Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Excess Time Indoors May Explain Rising Myopia Rates

Posted by timothy on from the buildings-hate-us dept.

Nature reports that an unexpected factor may be behind a growing epidemic of nearsightedness: time spent indoors. From the article: Because the eye grows throughout childhood, myopia generally develops in school-age children and adolescents. About one-fifth of university-aged people in East Asia now have this extreme form of myopia, and half of them are expected to develop irreversible vision loss. This threat has prompted a rise in research to try to understand the causes of the disorder — and scientists are beginning to find answers. They are challenging old ideas that myopia is the domain of the bookish child and are instead coalescing around a new notion: that spending too long indoors is placing children at risk. “We're really trying to give this message now that children need to spend more time outside,” says Kathryn Rose, head of orthoptics at the University of Technology, Sydney.

144 comments

  1. Congratualtion Sherlock by ls671 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work in a basement 200 feet under the ground and I know it feels good to get outside once in a while.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Congratualtion Sherlock by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Yeah yeah, ls671 likes to go outdoors, and therefore knew all along what causes myopia, right?

    2. Re:Congratualtion Sherlock by ls671 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course I know. When younger, I use to work outside and I had no myopia. Now I am older, I work underground and I have myopia. See? you can't deny scientific facts like that.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Congratualtion Sherlock by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I work in a basement 200 feet under the ground and I know it feels good to get outside once in a while.

      Yeah yeah, ls671 likes to go outdoors, and therefore knew all along what causes myopia, right?

      No. Obviously, ls671 works in a Minuteman silo and feels less twitchy and sees things more clearly after spending time outside every so often. This is a *good* thing... Naysayers are welcome to send him their GPS coordinates.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Congratualtion Sherlock by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't argue with that logic.

  2. Damn... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    People with agoraphobia are so screwed.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People with agoraphobia are already screwed. They don't want to get to get help for their illness.

    2. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agoraphobia is not a fear of the outdoors or open spaces. Agoraphobia is a fear of any place/situation not easily escaped from. If you watch anime and want a humorous take on it find "Anime de Wakaru Shinryounaika - EP06" where for the format and time it is covered pretty well. If you prefer something a bit more rigorous try http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000923.htm or better still http://www.dsm5.org/Research/Documents/Wittchen_Agoraphobia.pdf

      BTW for your other replier, agoraphobes do seek out treatment. In fact I begin an experimental treatment in a week for agoraphobia w/ panic disorder.

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

      I'm no doctor, but I fail to see how the application of panic will improve your situation. :)

    4. Re: Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need help try: http://myreadingfacilitator.blogspot.com/2011/05/khan-academy.html maybe they can improve your reading skills

    5. Re: Damn... by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      I'm no doctor, but I fail to see how the application of panic will improve your situation. :)

      Then you're not inducing panic in the right people :)

    6. Re:Damn... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The widely-understood meaning of agoraphobia is fear of open spaces, and wikipedia says it's mostly that plus fear of crowds. I think you've cast your net a little too widely, as your definition seems to include claustrophobia.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I go outside statistics say I have a 150% probability of getting cataracts, cancer and saggy skin :/

    1. Re:Unfortunately by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But NOT going outside increases your risks of bone deformity from vitamin D deficiency, and now also increased incidence of myopia.

      However, the REAL problem is that helicopter mummsy and daddsy are TERRIFIED that pedobear will rape little timmy and throw him away in an old icechest, because Fox News said so.

    2. Re:Unfortunately by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      However, the REAL problem is that helicopter mummsy and daddsy are TERRIFIED that pedobear will rape little timmy and throw him away in an old icechest, because Fox News said so.

      It's not just Fox News, and it's not just pedophiles. If you've been keeping up with the news in recent years, you know that the newest trend is for do-gooders to call the police when they see even a 9 or 10-year-old walking alone (e.g. back from the park) or sitting in a car reading while Mommy's doing some shopping.

      And guess what happens in too many cases? Parents get arrested for neglect. Children sometimes get removed for a while by protective services and parents may need to fight to get them back.

      I'd be much more scared of police or child protective services kidnapping my child than "pedobear," because that's certainly the case. (In case you think I'm exaggerating, look up the stats. Roughly a HALF MILLION kids are removed by CPS for short or long term every year in the US... And CPS's own stats admit that in a full 1/3 of those cases, after review there is NO evidence of abuse or neglect... Not counting the cases where the claims are questionable, just the removals where the removals are completely unwarranted.)

      Also, here's a blog that keeps track of some of the more egregious stories in the news.

    3. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      oh my godsies, parents have to take care of their kids. Wow, that's terrible. Next thing you know they'll have to find them too... tough shit, have a kid, you better be there to take care of them and raise them.

    4. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And CPS's own stats admit that in a full 1/3 of those cases, after review there is NO evidence of abuse or neglect... Not counting the cases where the claims are questionable, just the removals where the removals are completely unwarranted.

      Wait, they're admitting to doing it for no reason? Something isn't right with that. I've never seen a government agency acknowledge any wrongdoing, they go out of their way to avoid any such thing. At the least, they'd have to claim they couldn't take the risk, that the mere possibility of harm wasn't acceptable.

      But don't limit this to police/CPS for children. It hits adults as well. It's bad enough that people with actual mental illness are neglected because nobody can be bothered to care, both in and out of care, it's worse when people are mistreated by those who are supposed to help them because they're so busy covering their ass that instead of being helpful, they frighten and intimidate people with coercion while claiming they're doing good.

      It's enough to drive a person insane. You can't even ask for help, and if you dare to say they're not actually helping, they won't even realize that it is possible they are messing you up.

       

    5. Re:Unfortunately by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      oh my godsies, parents have to take care of their kids. Wow, that's terrible. Next thing you know they'll have to find them too... tough shit, have a kid, you better be there to take care of them and raise them.

      "Being there" and "taking care" of a kid also involves gradually giving them the freedom to make their own choices and do their own things as they grow. If you don't do this, you end up with kids who never learn to take care of themselves and are still living at home in their late 20s or 30s.

      Anyhow, this needs to be based on age and maturity level, obviously. But nowadays we can't trust a 10-year-old to play outside with a 6.5-year-old younger sibling or to walk home from a park together (and yes, the parents ultimately were found responsible for neglect), nor can we trust an 11-year-old alone in a car for a few minutes while Mommy goes into the store.

      Etc., etc. Sadly, these stories are not uncommon. There are things like this that come up on a regular basis across the U.S., and if you search a bit you can also read some of the harrowing stories of parents who are force to spend months or years struggling to get their kids back or living under draconian state "supervision" by CPS when they do.

      Yes, as parents, you need to supervise your kids when they are little, and then you gradually allow them more freedom. It's called "growing up." But nowadays, people call the cops if they see a kid younger than 16 without a parent around, and CPS comes knocking.

      You don't think that's extreme?

    6. Re:Unfortunately by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait, they're admitting to doing it for no reason? Something isn't right with that. I've never seen a government agency acknowledge any wrongdoing, they go out of their way to avoid any such thing.

      That's not what I said. There are cases where CPS admits -- after investigation -- that they found "no evidence" of abuse or neglect.

      At the least, they'd have to claim they couldn't take the risk, that the mere possibility of harm wasn't acceptable.

      Yes, and that's what they do. But that doesn't change the fact that they are basically admitting that 1/3 of child removals are done without any substantiated evidence.

      Don't get me wrong -- if a child seems in imminent danger, perhaps CPS needs to step in. But the policy with CPS nowadays seems to be "take kid first, ask questions later," which if you're a parent who hasn't done anything wrong seems... well, wrong. Doesn't it?

      But don't limit this to police/CPS for children. It hits adults as well. It's bad enough that people with actual mental illness are neglected because nobody can be bothered to care, both in and out of care, it's worse when people are mistreated by those who are supposed to help them

      Okay, yeah. I know there are other things wrong in the world. But the topic of TFA is kids not going outside enough. One reason they may not be outside as much is because parents can't always be around their kids, and nowadays society seems to be saying if you can't personally supervise your kid until he/she is 16, you can't have them out of your sight (like outdoors). The abuse of people with mental illnesses and other "wards of the state" is another significant problem, but I'm not sure it's particularly related to TFA.

    7. Re:Unfortunately by WalrusSlayer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Either you aren't a parent or you greatly resemble a helicopter.

      I'm 'guilty' of leaving the kids (9 and 11) to read in the car if I know I'll only be in a store for less than ten minutes. But even lately I've limited that to things like a quick pop-in at the drug store, since it seem more likely people would overreact to seeing a child in a car at the grocery store, where the average time the child would be left along is much higher. That I even have to worry about that is just crazy.

      The problem with bring authorities into a situation is that they are a very blunt instrument. They are not going to care that I actually am being mindful about evaluating (the usually miniscule to begin with) risks involved. For example:

      • If it's too hot, they stay with me.
      • If I think there's a chance I might get hung up past 5-10 minutes, they stay with me
      • If it's both of them, I'll often apply stricter standards, since the biggest risk is them getting into fight. And the biggest risk with a fight is them causing undue attention to the fact that there are alone in the car.

      Ironically, this sort of unnecessary heightened vigilance leads parents to make potentially riskier decisions, if that decision is less likely to come under public scrutiny. For example, if I'm the only parent covering after school, sometimes one or the other has to be picked up, or I have to run out for some other reason. If it's less than 30 minutes, and the child's time would be better spent finishing homework than being stuck in the car, then I'll consider leaving them home. Fortunately they have good judgement, as the hazards in the home far outweigh that of being in a car.

      And even then, I'll almost never do that if it means leaving them both alone, as the sibling rivalry factor raises the other risks by several orders of magnitude.

      So some stranger's knee-jerk reaction to something that has actually had some thought applied to it poses a greater risk to the welfare of the child than whatever it is they think they are saving them from.

    8. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either a troll, or not a parent.

      In either case, shut the fuck up because you don't even have a clue as to what you're talking about.

    9. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The abuse of people with mental illnesses and other "wards of the state" is another significant problem, but I'm not sure it's particularly related to TFA.

      Oh, it's something of a tangent to go into the issues with adults who suffer from the abuses of government in a similar way, but it is related to the way that it seems we have to fear the entity that is supposed to help us, and demonstrating how extensive the problem with government really is. I'm afraid to even call the police to report a crime these days, since I don't trust their response to be appropriate, let alone effective. (And that's not even talking about the misuse of the police in the form of SWATing, which just goes to show how the system can be abused.)

      There's just so much wrong on so many levels that we should acknowledge the scope of the problem is impressively vast.

      But yeah, I just don't believe they'd admit to anything even after a review. I certainly don't expect anybody to get punished or even reprimanded for it. They'll bury you under a lawyer of bureaucratic BS instead.

      Thinking of it, now I'm even more depressed. I can't even get angry any more. Sigh.

      Can we stop the train? I want to get off.

    10. Re: Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WTF? I played outside on the street in the dark when I was a kid. Hide and seek is so much more fun when you can hide "in the open" but you're still hidden because it's dark. Obviously that's on a quiet residential street.

      Obviously my mom still looked out for us through the kitchen window but that wouldn't be visible from the outside. Strange new world. Guess I won't be able to let my daughter do that then.

    11. Re:Unfortunately by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, as parents, you need to supervise your kids when they are little, and then you gradually allow them more freedom. It's called "growing up." But nowadays, people call the cops if they see a kid younger than 16 without a parent around, and CPS comes knocking.

      You don't think that's extreme?

      And it's getting more extreme.

      http://www.westernjournalism.c...

      The concept of Extended childhood has become pathological.

      So you might need to add another 10 years onto the age where they can be taken away from you. To me, it is subtle abuse. Children as people will remain children as long as they are treated like children. And this is robbing them of years of adulthood. And I have to say, at least in my case, I enjoy adulthood a lot more than childhood.

      I had completed my first education, had a good job and my first retirement plan by age 25. I fail to see how my remaining a child until that time would have helped either myself, my parents, or society in any way. Hell a lot of people are starting to get gray hair at 25.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:Unfortunately by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Wait, they're admitting to doing it for no reason? Something isn't right with that. I've never seen a government agency acknowledge any wrongdoing, they go out of their way to avoid any such thing.

      I don't know if you know it, but calling CPS and reporting possible abuse was an early version of Swatting. And CPS knows it, but they have to check it out. They aren't doing it for no reason, the people who enjoy fucking with other people's lives are doing it for whatever reason they have.

      Think of the tactic that some women had when going through a divorce, where they didn't want to shar ecustody, so they made a false report that the husband abused the children - that sort of thing.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re: Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CPS thing has been going on for a long time apparently. My mom once told me of an event when she was young: CPS even back in the 60s tried to separate her from her mom on the basis that she was too skinny, and therefore malnourished. She was skinnier than average because she ran and swam and never stopped moving. CPS agents watched the family for a over a month, saw that she ate like a horse, and just burned those calories off.

      CPS has the power and the potential to do good, but they often screw up and abuse power as well.

    14. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you know it, but calling CPS and reporting possible abuse was an early version of Swatting. And CPS knows it, but they have to check it out They aren't doing it for no reason, the people who enjoy fucking with other people's lives are doing it for whatever reason they have.

      That's certainly their position, and a justifiable one it is.

      Which is why it's such a dangerous poison, it's presented as a cure for a disease, and the side effects?

      Well, you can't expect them to take the risks, we have to put up with it, holding them accountable is just too much.

      Think of the tactic that some women had when going through a divorce, where they didn't want to shar ecustody, so they made a false report that the husband abused the children - that sort of thing.

      You're wrong on two counts here. You used the past tense and you singled out one gender.

      It's done still, and it's by both parties.

    15. Re:Unfortunately by narf0708 · · Score: 1

      Can I mod this +1 terrifying?

      --
      "Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
    16. Re:Unfortunately by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      http://news.discovery.com/huma...

      "Between 1990 and 1995 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children handled only 515 stranger abductions"

      100 stranger abductions a year vs. 166,000 non abused kids taken by CPS.

      literally more than 1000 times as likely your kids will be kidnapped by the government than a 'stranger'.

    17. Re:Unfortunately by sjames · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't worry. They still refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing. They also refuse to acknowledge any harm they do to children when they 'interrupt' parental custody and leave the children perpetually afraid that bad people (that is, CPS) will steal them away again. They also fail to acknowledge that too often, conditions for kids in the system would meet criteria for taking them away if they weren't already in the system.

    18. Re:Unfortunately by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's not at all justifiable. Yes, they have to check out all reports, but they do not have to be hamfisted about it. They certainly aren't justified in doing the children and their parents more harm than the parents were alleged to have done. They could ask a few questions, tick a few boxes and then apologize for the intrusion.

    19. Re:Unfortunately by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to ignore everything that link says, because the writer can't go two sentences without invoking a 'leftist' conspiracy.

      Basic rule: Never link to a column commenting on another column. Follow the chain, link to whatever the commenting is commenting on. Repeat until you reach the end, or find a column that doesn't specify a source. The site you linked is actually commenting on a Daily Mail column, which is in turn commenting on a BBC story, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...

    20. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they get in trouble because they don't take it seriously.

      They can justify it all the way. That's the problem, it IS justifiable.

    21. Re:Unfortunately by sjames · · Score: 1

      Their job is to serve children and families, not cover their asses.

    22. Re:Unfortunately by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      so why is soo easy for cps to take kids away when there is no problem, but we see tons of cases where they were powerless to help and children got hurt?

    23. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their job SHOULD be.

      But it turns out...

    24. Re:Unfortunately by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, it's still their job. They're just not doing it.

      It takes a special kind of lowlife to routinely traumatize children just to cover your own ass.

    25. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar story. finished grad school and started work at 25. Also went mostly bald a few years earlier

    26. Re:Unfortunately by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I know that I personally avoid interacting with, looking at, or even being near children due to the pedo hysteria. I'm not even your stereotypical pedobear (people think I'm under 20 by appearance all the time). I'll go to the other side of the street when I see a kid coming. I'll keep towards the other side of the park if there's kids there. Parent or no parent.
      I wonder what this kind of treatment is doing to the kids. Do kids growing up these days feel more excluded from society?

    27. Re:Unfortunately by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      We have another similar story regarding Professional women who planned on having a career, then at 45, having children.

      A 45 year old woman is fairly close to menopause.

      In truth, Its a cruel lie we tell ourselves. So many of us seem to think that all we have to do is be put on a gazillion maintenance meds, and we'll live forever. Even then, a 45 year old person is going to be 66 or later when theier children turn 21. Because it is more difficult to become pregnant at that age. So assuming their offspring likewise wait to age 45 to have children, assuming they are still alive in their 90's, theres a good chance they'll never know their grandparents.

      Or maybe visit Grams in the nursing home, if they are lucky.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    28. Re:Unfortunately by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to ignore everything that link says, because the writer can't go two sentences without invoking a 'leftist' conspiracy.

      lBasic rule number 6. I don't do your research for you. Do you have a newsletter for proper internet research?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    29. Re:Unfortunately by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There were three stories you could have linked to:
      - A reputable source, the BBC story.
      - A slightly-less-reputable but still decent enough source, a Daily Mail column commenting on the BBC story.
      - A rambling political nut commenting on the Daily Mail story while trying to turn it into a rant about how leftists are trying to destroy adulthood in order to force everyone to live off the government.

      Why did you decide option number three was appropriate?

    30. Re:Unfortunately by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Why did you decide option number three was appropriate?

      Because here on slashdot, people act like if there is no cite, so I put one in.

      While in fact, I know that people are trying to extend the length of childhood even further than it is now. I've listened to people agitating not for 25, but to 30 as being the age that a person is considered an adult.

      That's starting to leave precious little time to do things like find a mate, raise a family, prepare for retirement, and enjoy life as an adult.

      So seriously, a big whatever on your incredible umbrage at my link. You didn't like it, did some of your own, and viola Yet you still feel compelled to bitch about the way this research thing works.

      In the words of Abraham Lincoln - "Chillax my good man, chillax!"

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it trickles down. I have an eight year old, the school/community park is under four blocks away. Literally straight down the street - if the road didn't bend I'd be able to see the school from my porch. I'd love to send her to the park on her own - I used to go when I was that age.

      The problem is, there's nobody at the park anymore. So it's negative feedback - parents keep their kids home "for safety", which means there's less kids there, which makes it less safe (and fun!) for the remaining kids. So more parents keep the kids home (and the kids are fine with that because who wants to be the loser alone on the swings?), which further reduces the kids at the playground.

      It's enough of a struggle just arranging "play dates", because everyone's got their kids scheduled to the nuts and walking across the street to knock on a door becomes a freakin' escort mission. (And then you get the "hey parents, why do you keep your kids inside" speech. Answer - because society has systematically removed opportunities for kids to just go outside and play, while punishing parents who dare to let their kids do so.

    32. Re:Unfortunately by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that life expectancy is going up too, and old age is getting more manageable - that should partially compensate. Extended childhood may take some years of adult life away, but medical technology will give them back at the other end.

      Here in the UK, the age of independence is shooting up. For practical reasons: We've got a housing shortage. Can't afford a mortgage, can't afford rent, no option but to stay with the parents a few more years. I moved out, but I had to move back in again for financial reasons: I'm in a skilled job, but I still wasn't earning enough to cover rent and utilities.

    33. Re:Unfortunately by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that life expectancy is going up too, and old age is getting more manageable - that should partially compensate. Extended childhood may take some years of adult life away, but medical technology will give them back at the other end.

      Not all that great a bargain if you ask me. I'd happily trade ten years of my life to avoid my parents parents in law and step parent's in laws fates. Yeah, they lived to a ripe old age. Cathetersized, dementia, bedridden. Old age isn't for cowards, and there is a reason that extended care nursing homes are a growth industry.

      p.s. I'm a bit older than you, perhaps that is the difference in our perspective. Im nowhere near dotard, but I gotta tell you, I wouldn't delay adulthood and independence a day longer than absolutely needed. Life is too short to be a child for too long. Being a young adult is a whole lot better than being an adult sized child. Your own perspective might change as you grow a little older.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    34. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CPS isn't afraid of the law-abiding parents going postal on their ass

    35. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you've never met a bureaucrat

    36. Re:Unfortunately by sjames · · Score: 1

      Oh, I certainly have. They get their reputation mostly because so many shirk their actual job and busy themselves with ass covering and building a fiefdom.

      That does not change what their job is at all, it just changes how well they (don't) do it.

    37. Re:Unfortunately by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If I go outside, statistics say I've got a 93% chance of dying eventually (as about 93% of humans who have ever existed are dead now).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in many cases the 'pedobear' is a family friend or relative everyone already trusts -I would be more scared of little Jill as she grows up being a victim of physical and/or sex assault by her boyfriend Johnny

  4. STDs in the young malaysia population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How peculiar this myopia is.

    1. Re:STDs in the young malaysia population by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      The wive's tale must be TRUE!!

      Mom always said that I would go blind!

      (LOL)

    2. Re:STDs in the young malaysia population by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The wive's tale must be TRUE!!

      Mom always said that I would go blind!

      (LOL)

      You gotta stop at the point where you need glasses, man.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Surprisingly badly written article by bargainsale · · Score: 5, Informative

    "About one-fifth of university-aged people in East Asia now have this extreme form of myopia, and half of them are expected to develop irreversible vision loss. "

    It doesn't actually say what "this extreme form" is, exactly. Presumably cut out in editing and nobody noticed that this was left stranded. There was probably a reference to so-called "high myopia", which does indeed cause people typically in their teens to go from the ordinary fully-corrected-with-glasses myopia to being much more so, with potential "myopic degeneration" of the retina. It's a mystery why this only happens to some myopes.

    The figures are scaremongering. Although this has indeed been a notable public health problem for a good while - the government of Singapore has been concerned about it for over a decade - it is nonsense that 10% of student-age people will go blind from it.

    I'm an ophthalmologist. I specialise in diseases of the retina.

    --
    Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    1. Re:Surprisingly badly written article by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's anything missing, although it doesn't name a specific "syndrome" or such:

      In severe cases, the deformation stretches and thins the inner parts of the eye, which increases the risk of retinal detachment, cataracts, glaucoma and even blindness. Because the eye grows throughout childhood, myopia generally develops in school-age children and adolescents. About one-fifth of university-aged people in East Asia now have this extreme form of myopia.

      I think the middle sentence makes it harder to connect the two outer sentences.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Surprisingly badly written article by jpapon · · Score: 4, Interesting
      From TFA:

      In Seoul, a whopping 96.5% of 19-year-old men are short-sighted.

      Say what you want about fear-mongering, that's a pretty crazy statistic. Sounds like I should invest in some Korean laser correction company.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    3. Re:Surprisingly badly written article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you know any man to be long sighted? They've only got one thing on their mind...

    4. Re:Surprisingly badly written article by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Please, to a man it looks a lot longer than it actually is, therefore he's not short-sighted but long-sighted.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    5. Re:Surprisingly badly written article by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      By what definition of short sighted? Less than perfect vision?
      Technically you are short sighted when you do not have perfect vision, nor are far sighted. Its not hard to trick.

    6. Re:Surprisingly badly written article by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm a pro dog trainer, specifically retrievers, which need to have good distance vision. I've noticed that if puppies around weaning age don't have a long line of sight available, they never really learn to see distance later on, either. (Incidentally, there once was a bloodline that was infamous for myopia, so there is an inherited component too. Those dogs are not improved by environment.)

      I recall a study some years back that found if babies sleep in a lighted room, they are likely to become myopic.

      I'm thinkin' there might be a stall point in eye development that can glitch if the eye lacks a certain cycle of stimulation and rest, and the result of this stall is that the eye never develops past the myopia that's normal in infants. (It's certainly normal in puppies from 2 to 4 weeks old; after that they need stimulation.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Surprisingly badly written article by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Considering only the myopia-hyperopia scale, myopia means only being able to focus at points closer than infinity. One weakness in the article is failing to give a number for the borderline of severe myopia, e.g. 10 diopters or whatever.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Surprisingly badly written article by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've got an increased risk of retinal detachment, although my ophthalmologists never mentioned increased risk of cataracts or glaucoma. I function normally with rather thick glasses, and would find it very difficult to function without them. No big deal, really, but it annoys me now and then.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Is the problem really just from staying inside ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ... or could it have to do with the crap diet people adopt during their time inside? Put down the MSG-laden potato chips and sugary Mountain Dew and pick up some fresh vegetables and quality juices for chrissake.

  7. Use it or lose it by PSVMOrnot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, as with many of the bodies abilities; it's just a case of use that distance vision, or lose it when your eyes adapt to shorter ranges.

    Just like muscle strength, flexibility, cognitive function, etc.

    1. Re:Use it or lose it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is exactly the PROBLEM though, they ARE using it, way too much.
      Focusing requires more effort that looking at far away things.

      Reading, being inside, watching TV, videogames, anything near you done long periods, all seriously damaging to your vision.

      Focusing too much on nearby things is causing you to tone the muscles in said eyes, which leaves their rest state at a larger size, which ends up being a size capable of shifting your max focal point closer and closer the more toned it gets.
      This can happen two separate ways as well, the outside muscles and your iris. So it becomes an nightmare of a problem.

      It is why I learned to read out of focus way back in school and I still do it today.
      My vision was going to complete shit mid-way through school so I took action and did surprisingly very little research to realize the above problem.
      My vision is perfectly fine now, 16 years later. (was fine like 5 years after doing it)

      Likewise, light levels that are too low for long periods can screw your vision up.
      But equally on the opposite side, bright light levels for too long will also screw your brain up. (especially if there are blues there)
      Lighting should follow the movement of the sun. Including sunset.
      More and more research is showing that bright lightning at night time is one of THE biggest reasons for so much depression in the modern world because the blue light is triggering uh, balls, I forgot the neurotransmitter, but one of them that is responsible for wakefulness, which ends up having a domino effect.
      Oddly enough, blue-only light is a solution.

    2. Re:Use it or lose it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Melatonin is the hormone you're talking about. It helps sync the body clock (circadian rhythm) of every cell of your body. Yes, every cell operates on its own clock. Melatonin production is sort-of synced to sunlight which causes our bodies to be synced to the 24 hour Earth day. In general any light wakes you up, but bluish light maintains melatonin suppression throughout the day (and now during the evening due to LEDs and the stupid super bright blue status lights on everything). Melatonin is the thing that makes you feel sleepy. Think of it as the opposite of serotonin, like testosterone and estrogen. Melatonin is converted into serotonin around the time right before you're supposed to wake up and serotonin is converted into melatonin around the time you're supposed to get sleepy. When you wake up tired or groggy, you have too much melatonin still in your blood stream.

      Serotonin levels are strongly related to depression. Think high serotonin = happy and low serotonin = sad, but it's way more complicated than that and I don't know enough to explain it better.

    3. Re:Use it or lose it by dasunt · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, as with many of the bodies abilities; it's just a case of use that distance vision, or lose it when your eyes adapt to shorter ranges.

      Except according to the article, that isn't the mechanism. It's the intensity of light that causes the body to prevent myopia due to changes in dopamine levels.

      Not only that, but in animal studies, if chicks were given a drug that inhibited dopamine's effects on the eyes, they'd develop myopia in the same conditions that the control chicks would not.

      So it's not "use it or lose it". It's "you need bright light".

    4. Re:Use it or lose it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I should be glad I flew kites as a youngster and stared far up into the sky for hours at a time.

    5. Re:Use it or lose it by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, blue-only light is a solution

      Strange, isn't it? I thought it was new-age BS when I read that blue light tends to cure myopia in Linda Clark's The Ancient Art of Color Therapy (1981). 20 months ago I painted my house deep sky blue, and noticed after that staring at a blue wall for several hours, my vision was noticeably better. I'm over 60; this was a surprising result. I wonder what part of the eye is changing.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  8. Light levels, not computer games by gringer · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those who didn't pick up on the bit in the summary, this is not due to close work, it's most likely due to exposure to bright light:

    But time engaged in indoor sports had no such protective association; and time outdoors did, whether children had played sports, attended picnics or simply read on the beach. And children who spent more time outside were not necessarily spending less time with books, screens and close work.... Close work might still have some effect, but what seemed to matter most was the eye's exposure to bright light.

    If this is the case, then what we should do to reduce the myopia problem is to use brighter lights inside.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
    1. Re:Light levels, not computer games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is the case, then what we should do to reduce the myopia problem is to use brighter lights inside.

      Although compelling, until more studies are done and the mechanism is discovered, I will be skeptical. There could be something else that has gone unnoticed that is causing the myopia. By all means though, let's get the kids outside for whatever reason!

      Look at the medical history of stomach ulcers. Jumping too fast to conclusions can be costly to human health and budget.

    2. Re:Light levels, not computer games by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Internal lighting is so much dimmer than light outside that this is probably not practical.

      The eye is very accomodating and will adapt to great extremes of light.

      This is credible as a mechanism. Optical acuity is improved by having a smaller pupil (this is why squinting to improve your vision is a thing - you're sacrificing light collection to reduce the number of stray unfocussed lightpaths entering your pupil). Therefore if you don't get enough light, your iris muscles will atrophy making your pupil wider.

      If your lenses function perfectly this is of no consequence, but if you have imperfect lenses wider pupils will make your vision worse.

    3. Re:Light levels, not computer games by PPH · · Score: 1

      This seems to be counterintuitive. Bright lights cause pupils to contract, increasing the depth of field and reducing the work that the ciliary (focusing) muscles have to do. The more work these muscles have to do, the stronger they get and the more they flex the lens, keeping it pliable.

      In times past, the best test for visual acuity was the ability to resolve double stars.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Light levels, not computer games by unimacs · · Score: 1

      Average indoor light levels at an office or school are about 500 lux. Outdoors on a cloudy day is about 10,000. You think we consume a lot of energy now, just try illuminating all the classrooms to 10,000 lux.

      Just get the kids outside. There are so many other benefits.

    5. Re:Light levels, not computer games by gringer · · Score: 1

      Replace a room lit with incandescent lights with LEDs consuming a similar amount of power, and that's getting close to this level of light (5,000 lux vs 10,000 lux using today's technology). So it's not too much extra energy required to get to 10,000 lux.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    6. Re:Light levels, not computer games by unimacs · · Score: 1

      An office or school room is typically lit with fluorescent lighting which consumes more energy than LEDs but much less than incandescents. The problem with lighting whole rooms with LEDs is that the light tends to be more focused and directional. They are getting better but remember we are talking about going from 500 lux to 10,000. That would be a challenge to do with LEDs.

      You'd need a lot more fixtures. It would not only require more power but the cost of retrofitting a school would be very high. Though LEDs last a long time, the number of bulbs needed means that maintaining those lighting systems over time would be expensive too.

      Sometimes the right solution is the simple one that requires LESS technology rather than more. Get the kids outside.

    7. Re:Light levels, not computer games by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Even though a tiny iris opening means not having to do as much work to achieve acceptable focus, that's not how the body works. Regardless of light level, eyes try to reach perfect focus, which does not change with different light levels.

      It could easily be argued that overworking the eyes' muscles by trying to focus in dim light would lead to exhaustion or even spasm - see the hypothesis of William Bates. I don't accept that argument, but it has been seriously proposed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  9. A mirror on the wall seems to help by ciaran2014 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A few years ago I worked at a desk facing a wall and I got the feeling that it wasn't good for my eyes that they never focussed on anything more than a metre away, so I put a mirror on the wall and I think this has helped my eyes.

    I tilted the mirror up a little so I could stare into it whenever I wanted without making eye contact with others.

    --
    Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    1. Re:A mirror on the wall seems to help by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Funny

      A few years ago I worked at a barn facing a meadow and I got the feeling that it wasn't good for my eyes that they never focussed on anything fewer than a metre away, so I put a wall and I think this has helped my eyes.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  10. sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Sorry Charlie it don't work that way. Focus is at the mirror, 1 metres aways. What you want is kalidascope. This gets you the eyes you need. LSD helps. Bewares the blue-eyes meanies.

    1. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. You can focus on the mirror, or you can focus on the distant object reflected in the mirror.

    2. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You're still focusing on the mirror in both cases.

    3. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...like a painting ...like a T/v screen ...like a movie screen ... like a mirror! Quid Mojo Pro Ipso Fatso Forgotso!

    4. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by nukenerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're still focusing on the mirror in both cases.

      No. If you are looking at objects seen in the mirror you are focussing at the total distance of : you-mirror plus mirror-object
      The mirror wraps the distance but does not reduce how far the light must travel or the object appears.

      At last : all those hours I spent in school physics drawing light ray diagrams has come in useful.

    5. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I'm a photographer, and this is a common false assumption. The actual focus is on whatever is in the mirror. It's exactly like seeing the same subject through clear glass.

    6. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      What the fuck? How the hell is something as dumb as what "nukenerd" just wrote on Slashdot?! I know the standards here have dropped over the past few years, but what "nukenerd" wrote is abysmally dumb.

      As far as the eye is concerned, the light came from the mirror. That's the last physical object to have touched the light before it entered the eye. Thus that is what the eye will focus on: the mirror.

      Let me give you an example that you'll be able to relate to. "nukenerd", when you're on Folsom Street and sunlight reflects off of a glistening penis, your eyes aren't focusing on the sun, millions of miles away. Your eyes are focusing on the penis that's a few inches from your face.

    7. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really are a photographer. Oh well, my bad.

    8. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's you who is the dumbass. Perhaps you should actually think about it, or research it, before calling people out.

      This is school level physics.

      The mirror doesn't emit light, it reflects it. Which means the light has the same path as before, just bounced into a different angle, convergence and everything.

      Try this simple experiment - hold a mirror close by so as to reflect a tree in the distance. Hold a page of text (or a glistening penis, I suppose) next to the mirror. Focus on the text. Now focus on the tree.

      Can't do both at the same time, can you?

    9. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But think of a world if it were true. You'd be able to hold up a mirror next to your face to see anything in excellent detail. What an interesting place. No more glasses, but everyone would carry portable mirrors.

    10. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by kencurry · · Score: 1

      Except that left-right are swapped in the reflection.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    11. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      This is actually another false assumption. You see the right/left reversal because you are facing the other way when viewing the reflection. That's why up/down are not swapped also.

    12. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      This isn't even physics. This is geometry. Light follows a straight path. Mirrors reflect it almost perfectly. Now get your laser range finder, and point it at a mirror. What happens? The range finder reports the total distance between you and the mirror + the mirror and the diffuse object it hits.

      For a more accessible experiment, hold a mirror up in your face but at an angle so you can see the world behind you as well as your eyes. Your eyes are heavily crossed when focused on the dust on the mirror itself, but not so much when focused on the reflected world behind you. The position of your eyes determines what you focus on. In fact, you could determine distance by recording the angle of your eyes and using basic trig. The variables would be the distance between your eyes, and the angles of your eye positions. Laser range finders use a different method for determining distance, but the result is the same.

      In my line of work, I use something called a laser scanner/LiDAR. This device is basically a laser range finder on steroids. It spins in every direction and creates a "point cloud" of the environment around it. The points in the cloud are calculated with basic trig - laser angle & distance can give you xyz coordinates and establish one point. A completed point cloud has millions of these points. If you put mirror in front of it, it'll record those points as though the mirror were a doorway into a reversed room. I have to delete these points afterwards.

      Nukenerd is right, and you are wrong.

    13. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If what you are saying is true, I would be able to stand 6 inches from the mirror here in my room, take my glasses off, and see everything in the reflection in-focus. Guess what, the reflection is just as blurry.

    14. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      My optician has a rather cramped testing room. So they put the eye chart thingie (Actually a set of different charts, some illuminated) on the wall above the patients' chair. Flipped. The opposite wall has a mirror, so the effective patient-to-chart distance is almost twice the length of the room.

    15. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this simple experiment - hold a mirror close by so as to reflect a tree in the distance. Hold a page of text (or a glistening penis, I suppose) next to the mirror. Focus on the text. Now focus on the tree.

      Can't do both at the same time, can you?

      Not when there is a glistening penis distracting me.

    16. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Oh, you must be one of those 'idiots' I keep hearing about on the Internet. It's OK to be ignorant. It's not OK to wear your ignorance as a badge and hit others on the head with it.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    17. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know all that. Reread my post again. I'm talking about a fantasy world not a real one. I'm not the AC penis troll. I think it would make an interesting sci-fi book. I've done minor LiDAR work in an intro to robotics class.

    18. Re:sOrRy ChArLiE WrOnG tUnA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were nearsighted, it wouldn't work. A (flat) mirror can't make anything appear closer. But if you were far sighted, and wanted to examine an object right in front of your face, you could whip out your handy mirror and hold it off at a distance to the side, and examine the object's reflection in the mirror. Or you could just step backwards...

  11. Causation does not imply correlaton! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Repeat after me:

    Causation does not imply correlation!

    Causation does not imply correlation!

    Causation does not imply correlation!

    Causation does not imply correlation!

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    CAUSATION DOES NOT IMPLY CORRELATION!

    CAUSATION DOES NOT IMPLY CORRELATION!

    CAUSATION DOES NOT IMPLY CORRELATION!

    CAUSATION DOES NOT IMPLY CORRELATION!

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

    Causation does not imply correlation!

    Causation does not imply correlation!

    Causation does not imply correlation!

    Causation does not imply correlation!

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    Correlation does not imply causation!

    CAUSATION DOES NOT IMPLY CORRELATION!

    CAUSATION DOES NOT IMPLY CORRELATION!

    CAUSATION DOES NOT IMPLY CORRELATION!

    CAUSATION DOES NOT IMPLY CORRELATION!

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

    Jesus FRIGGING Christ, how many times do we have to go over this basic concept?! HOW MANY?! Time and time again I'm forced to point out that causation does not imply correlation and that correlation does not imply causation. The fat that I need to point it out is bad enough. But when I have to point it out twice, three times, or even more times, then it is just pathetic! All of us here are educated. All of us here are smart. We shouldn't have to be told the obvious!

    1. Re:Causation does not imply correlaton! by nukenerd · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have not just spent too much time indoors, it has been in an echo chamber.

    2. Re:Causation does not imply correlaton! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that Slashdot's loudest whoosh? My ears are still ringing.

    3. Re:Causation does not imply correlaton! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you RTFA.

    4. Re:Causation does not imply correlaton! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So, just to clarify, does correlation imply causation or not?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  12. What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It used to be the "bookish" children who would spend all day indoors, now it's all children who spend their lives glued to a screen -- be it playstation, computer, ereader, phone... so almost all children. Part of the problem is society becoming increasingly hostile to children in public space. Parents, teachers and mass media say that children must not be allowed to go outdoors because stranger danger, and that society must be protected from children and teens who are "out on the streets". It's a collective form of insanity.

    1. Re:What's the difference? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      AFAICS the TV can't be a problem unless you are sitting down right in front of it, anything beyond a couple of meters is near infinity focus.

    2. Re:What's the difference? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The problem is not being too close to the TV, although that doesn't make things better. It's the INTENSITY of the light, acting through the intermediary of photo-activated hormones. There is also some information indicating that the spectrum has an effect, although this needs to be quantified with further studies. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that UV / IR plays some role.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  13. "Bookish" vs Indoors by nukenerd · · Score: 1
    FTFA :

    They are challenging old ideas that myopia is the domain of the bookish child and are instead coalescing around a new notion: that spending too long indoors is placing children at risk.

    Doesn't that amount to the same thing? Not spending much time on distance focussing?

    1. Re:"Bookish" vs Indoors by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      FTFA :

      They are challenging old ideas that myopia is the domain of the bookish child and are instead coalescing around a new notion: that spending too long indoors is placing children at risk.

      Doesn't that amount to the same thing? Not spending much time on distance focussing?

      Yeah, I laughed when I saw that. Someone's pretty clueless.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    2. Re:"Bookish" vs Indoors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But society has changed and it is not just the kids reading books staying indoors. Now, even the kids who previously would have been outdoors playing (sports or otherwise) are indoors watching TV or playing videogames.

      There is no one cause for this, it is a lot of little things - enjoying video games, kid oriented TV channels meaning there is something to watch all day, parents afraid to let their kids out alone, schools selling off playgrounds, lack of empty lots, the 20 minute walk to school turned into a 3 minute drive, etc. - but the net result is that kids are spending significantly less time outdoors.

    3. Re:"Bookish" vs Indoors by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      Not enough time spent distance focusing is possibly a cause of myopia, but the article presents an alternative hypothesis: that it is the reduced level of light indoors that is the problem.

    4. Re:"Bookish" vs Indoors by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you had kept reading, you would have seen that the new theory (backed by experimental evidence) is that it's the light level that makes the difference.

    5. Re:"Bookish" vs Indoors by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, *someone* is. Read the rest of TFA to find out who!

  14. That old correlation/causation confusion again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my family, when we were kids we played in the street all the hours we could, right through teenage years. Our mother would take us to the park once or twice a week. As a family, we'd walk for miles, more than twenty on one particular occasion. I always loved being outdoors and still prefer it.

    I had my first pair of glasses for myopia fitted when I was 12.

    1. Re:That old correlation/causation confusion again by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There are multiple factors here, including genetic predisposition. When I was 10-11, my eyes got noticeably worse in the winter but recovered almost completely in the sunny summer. In the age 11-12 school year they got much worse in the winter and I had to get glasses in April. A reasonable explanation is that a genetic predisposition or some other flaw was fighting against the beneficial effects of sunlight, and sunlight lost.

      There are a lot of subtle things going on here and interacting. Neither your case nor mine constitutes proof of any particular general hypothesis on myopia, we're merely data points. The researchers have made valuable observations on (I presume) a reasonable number of samples, and tied their numbers to a plausible but not thoroughly worked out mechanism. They've done something good and very important.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  15. ...or it may not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been a heavy computer user since I was 8 years old. I'm now 39 and have always had perfect vision. Wrong again, "scientists."

    1. Re:...or it may not by unimacs · · Score: 1

      It's not about how much time you spend on the computer. It's about how much time you spent outdoors as a kid and adolescent. Not getting enough time outdoors doesn't guarantee you'll become myopic but apparently it increases the chances quite a bit.

  16. Here's a test for this hyoothesis by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can we develop an e-book reader that presents a virtual image that must be focused on as though it were at a distance? Let a cohort of Asian kids go through childhood reading from this device and see what happens to their vision.

    1. Re:Here's a test for this hyoothesis by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      You can just let the kids wear reading glasses.

    2. Re:Here's a test for this hyoothesis by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      As I post further down, you can just wear +1D reading glasses.

    3. Re:Here's a test for this hyoothesis by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      PS. there are parents who actually do this it seems.

      http://www.myopia.org/savechil...

    4. Re:Here's a test for this hyoothesis by unimacs · · Score: 1

      It's the lower indoor light levels that are causing eyes to develop incorrectly. It's not about focusing on distant objects.

  17. Stop it by itchybrain · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stop masturbating, people.

    1. Re:Stop it by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or at least go outside and masturbate.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Preventative Glasses by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I started noticing this when I was revising for A-Levels. (17-18)

    My distance vision would start to fuzz after hours on the books, and be restored by a long walk.

    It's pretty much done the same thing ever since.

    One thing I do is make sure to focus on distant objects while looking out of the window a few times an hour.

    The other thing that helps is wearing +1D reading glasses (just cheap ones from the supermarket). These are designed for oldies who can't focus on close objects anymore - so they move the focal point of close up material much further away. A foot or two away, my monitor is basicaly at infinity, which stops/reverses the atrophy of my distance vision.

    Focussing is mediate by muscles! Like any others, use them, or lose them.

    1. Re:Preventative Glasses by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      1 meter away, actually. +1D is 1 diopter; a diopter is an inverse meter.

      There are those who state that muscles are used only to close-focus, changing the shape of the lens and the whole eyeball, and that distance focusing is a state of relaxation. Others claim that muscles are also used for far-focus. If the first group is correct, no amount of eye-exercise will help the myopic.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  19. So send the kds outdoors by plopez · · Score: 1

    So they can breath polluted air. Soon to become even more polluted due to deregulation in the US and lack of regulation elsewhere.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:So send the kds outdoors by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Does your mom's basement have a filtered air intake?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  20. I've spent more and more time in-doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the last years, and my eye-sight has definitely changed for the worse since.

  21. stop the tech the test ideas and have recess come by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    stop the tech the test ideas and have recess come back in schools.

  22. I don't see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's that for myopic?

  23. Parents should STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're too close to the problem. Parents are irrational and should STFU. Lets the rest of us make the decisions from now on, given that we have gotten a full nights sleep and aren't emotionally tangled up in the well being of the worst roommate imaginable.

    1. Re:Parents should STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, definitely a troll. Thanks for identifying yourself so well.

    2. Re:Parents should STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You find it so easy to dismiss people that you don't like.

      Maybe you should STFU instead of responding to "trolls"

      pxp

  24. Children should wear reading glasses by lfp98 · · Score: 1

    Or at least not wear their "normal" prescription when reading. I know for sure what happened to me. I spent plenty of time outside but I read a lot of books too. I acquired nearsightedness by about 5th grade, so of course they gave me corrective lenses to restore 20/20 vision, i.e., perfect focus at something 20 feet away. That meant that for reading, my eyes had to focus even closer than they would otherwise, in order to compensate for the glasses trying to focus farther away, so I got even more nearsighted, got stronger corrective lenses, and it just snowballed. By the time I finished college, I had corrective lenses of roughly -5.0 left and -4.0 right. Now, with no glasses, my natural, relaxed focal distance is about 4 inches in front of my face, anything farther I need glasses. I realize now what I should have done is at least take off my corrective glasses for reading and any close work.

  25. Short sightedness causes Nearsightedness ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really.. has it come down to this SNL writers.. enough with the short jokes.

  26. Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not a new idea. It was realised many years ago that those who spend most time outside suffer less. The theory being that they focus a lot more on far away objects.

    It looks like the whoever came up with this, has not carried proper research to check whether this has been looked at before.

    1. Re:Not new by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      See what happens when you don't read TFA? You make a fool of yourself.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  27. Cure for Myopia? by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    Ask the kids to focus on owning their own home some day.
    It'll cure 'em in minutes.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  28. I call BS by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    I grew up in the 50s and 60s, and I spent most of my time (when not in school) outdoors. We rarely went indoors during summer break, in fact they had to make us come back in during thunderstorms. I was nearsighted by the time I was in 4th grade and had glasses shortly after that.

    As an adult I've worked outside for the past 39 years. Still nearsighted and still wear glasses.

    What caused my bad vision? Certainly not too much time spent indoors, right?

  29. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Growing up as a kid - we had RECESS!!!!! We got outside in the morning before school, during RECESS!!!!!, during lunch!!!!!, during afternoon recess, and after school when we rode our bikes and big wheels all over the damn place until the street lights came on...

    I needed glasses by the time I was in 7th grade because I read a lot of Hardy Boy's Mysteries by flashlight under the covers until I fell asleep... I did a lot of electronics work up close, and of course I was on all kinds of green and orange screens until the era of the PC/Mac...

    Now in my late 40's I have some crazy glasses - prism in one lens because of some nerve damage caused by a couple of car accidents when I was younger (one when I was 16, one when I was in my 30's).... I'm outside a LOT in the summer when I enjoy building all kinds of stuff - sheds, etc. and mountain biking - which is pretty much what I've done my whole life.

    I couldn't be outside any more unless I was a farmer, and even then I'd have to go to school as a kid right?

  30. Of course. by Bryan+Bytehead · · Score: 1

    I've been spending all this time indoors, and now my eyesight is around -9.00 diopters. (yes, true, and yes, that's pretty high powered myopia right there).

    Of course, as a child of the '60s, I spent plenty of time outside. And it was always baffling that my eyes where so bad, because none of my parents had this bad of eyesight. Both could actually carry on without prescription lenses, unlike my daily life. Turn out, both carried the recessive gene for it, and those are the ones that I inherited.

    I needed glasses when I was three and my dad was throwing baseballs back and forth with me. Not that I knew anything about that. I could read (which was why they thought I didn't need glasses), but I was always getting yelled at for sitting too close to the TV (Duh!).

    This reminds me of the spam that I keep seeing talking about fixing my eyes in seven days or so. Really? The only way to fix my vision is LASIK. No exercises or eye drops is going to fix anything wrong with my vision. Maybe someday I'll go that route, but I haven't yet.

    --
    Bryan
  31. Bullshit! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    I call "bullshit", as would my opthamologist.

    Most childhood-developing myopia is a result of growth factors (The eyesocket changes size and shape as you get older and the eyeball can end up with distorted curves. Only 1-2mm variation is enough to cause issues). The predominant cause is genetic, not environmental.

    Anything beyond 3 meters is close enough to "infinity" as makes no odds, so "indoors" would have to be extremely claustrophobic to even factor into this.

    Bookish children tend to be myopic for the simple reason that developing myopia makes dealing with outdoor sports _hard_. Before mine was picked up I hated outdoor sports such as baseball or tennis because I simply couldn't see the ball unless it was close by. Such a problem results in kids being the "last selected" for any classroom teams and so the issue becomes self-reinforcing.

    1. Re:Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like you didn't even read the article at _all_.

      >Most childhood-developing myopia is a result of growth factors

      This is _exactly_what they said. It's just that growth of the eyes is controlled by dopamine, which is itself controlled by the light level hitting the eyes. Indoors = dim light = no stop growing signal

      >The predominant cause is genetic, not environmental.

      So explain how the prevalence doubled over the span of a generation. It's flatly impossible for genetics to cause that kind of rapid change unless some huge proportion of the population is not reproducing. Which we know was not historically the case.

      >Anything beyond 3 meters is close enough to "infinity" as makes no odds, so "indoors" would have to be extremely claustrophobic to even factor into this.

      Again, the mechanism here is light levels hitting the eye, _not_ focal distance. Focal distance wasn't correlated at all with the effect...kids who spent tons of time outside and reading books were still unlikely to be myopic. So the distance to the nearest wall is irrelevant.