Dear Keith,

Subject: Using precise words to describe the dynamic behavior
of the eye. Judy does not understand the concept.
Tragically, most of the "public" does not understand
it either.

Keith> I found humor in Dr. Judy's brief discussion of an "exact"
correction definition with a minus and that the 20/40 has no
meaning.

Otie> You and I know the PROVEN effect that a minus has on the
eye's refractive states -- then keeping your vision FAA
legal is very important. Obviously Judy does not give a
damm. This is the "majority opinion", but it is not a
"univeral" opinion, and that is the real importance of Steve
Leung's site -- and recommendations. When "experts"
profoundly contradict each other on basic points -- then it
is very important that you understand the implications for
you of that contradiction.

Keith> In real life, certainly you know my bias, 20/40 might be
the only real definition of adequate visual clarity (or
20/20 for pilots).

Otie> I know that most people take their distant vision "casually"
-- and will devote NO TIME to protecting it. But a person
who will "accept" then need to keep their vision better-than
20/40, will keep their distant vision clear through college
-- when their friends at 20/50 will most certainly lose
theirs. Buy your "working" this issue during collge, you
have found at your age that you can "clear" to better-than
20/20. Congratualtions on both your intelligence and
motivation!

Keith> When Anita states that she's been corrected with contacts
for many years, to a measurement of 20/15, that tells me at
least one eye doc thinks more is better.

Otie> Tragically, about 98 perecent think that the minus is
WONDERFUL and has no "secondary problem" associated with it.
They will "correct", not for 20/20 -- but 20/10 if they can
get away with it. Only your own checking of your children's
eyes can protect them from that type of hubris. In fact, I
would occassionally put up and eye chart "as a game" so that
you know what their eye-chart is now. Any child at 20/20 at
age 5 -- can keep it for life -- if he is willing to "work"
the tedious preventive process.

Keith> Dr. Judy also states you make up your own definitions of
things but between religion and science, someone somewhere
had to put things in writing and like train track width,
standards tend to be based on ambiguous or outdated numbers.

Otie> The "language" that grew up AROUND quick-fixing the public
is heavly biased. Call it pure-medical language if you
like. I know the words, and the drip with un-proven
assumptions. Use basic simple language to describe the
eye's dynamic behavior and you have the potential to get
it "right"
on a scientific level. On a scientific level the proof is
final -- but the implementation is still difficult because
it is "tedious". That is where your "understanding" and
fortitude comes in.

Keith> As with all other human physiology, there is a fairly wide
range of what would be considered normal and an ability to
personally influence that status.

Otie> Yes, that is were your knowledge that the FAA requires 20/40
(not 20/20) for private pilots comes in. If you can fly a
plane with 20/40 then a child should not be required to wear
a -2.0 diopter when he has 20/40. However, neglect is NOT
how you resolve this issue. A child in that situation must
make a decision to use the plus "or else". It is a hard
lesson to learn -- and to "accept".

Keith> Saturday I was very glad to have this knowledge as I am now
doing Judo, Carl too in the kid's class, caught my toes in
the mat and wound up stepping on my 90 degree-bent second
toe.

Otie> Kids!

Keith> It's an injury that would be classified as a good injury to
have if you have to have an injury because it heals nicely
with the correct procedure but doesn't really inhibit daily
activities. It just looked pretty bad at the time.

Otie> I always felt that flying an experimental Volks-Plane was
safer than motorcycles -- because no one would run into me.
But to live is to take "risks". Same with sailing. Same
with vision-clearing, however the "risks" of NOT doing it are
very serious indeed -- as I have found out.

Keith> I've been thinking about ghosting quite a bit even though I
don't think I've experienced it.

Otie> Whenever we do someting "different" we always have these
"fears" or concerns. Perfectly understandable. I am glad I
researched this issue. With vision of better-than 20/20,
your eyes are almost "perfect" by any standard. It was
found that when a bright line was presented on the retina,
about 43 percent could see a slight image of this line, ergo
"ghosting". When you pay great attention to objects -- you
will see things most people NEVER see.

Keith> However, I've noticed that when my vision is sharper, the
paradox of increasing expectations seems to rear its ugly
head - the sharper my vision, the sharper I expect it to be
and the more I tend to notice fuzzy edges of things,
expecting ever-improving vision.

Otie> This is also a "natural" process. Just understand it that
way. Since you are now about 40 years old, you will begin
to lose SOME of you near vision at age 45 -- just a function
of age. You also might see some "floaters", again an "age
thing". You have avoided nearsighedness and the probablity
of a detached-retina, that is assocated with nearsigheness.
You must count the "good" with the "bad".

Otie> You have the potential to protect Haley's and Carl's vision
if THEY will develop some interest it this process. But
that must be up to you and Anita.

Otie

Keith

***********

Judy> There you go again Otis, making up your own definitions.
Over and under correction have clear, accepted definitions
and they do not involve deliberately blurring vision to a
poor 20/40.

Judy> The definition of correct refraction is the most plus or
least minus to achieve best corrected acuity with
cycloplegic refraction.

Judy> Under correction is less that that amount, over correction
is more. The definition does not involve blurring to 20/40.