8th June 15:08
Scientific fact concerning the second opinion(i.e.,prevention) (lens eye myopia)
Very hard. This proposal was made, and the man (I think it
was an OD, was kicked out of the office.
They can then use, or not use them as they see fit.
I would be better if the effort were systematic and organizedhi.
You could probably get good results (i.e., a difference in
focal status between the test group and the control group)
in about seven months -- with engineers and pilots controling
the study. The results would be judged by the informed
engineers and scientists controlling the study.
No, what I said was that the natural eye's focal status
follows the applied lens -- as a control system as
expected. .... so
I said that, provided the pilot will check his own
eye chart at -1/2 diopter (20/40) he has the
POTENTIAL to clear his distant vision to 20/20 -- under
his own control. Obviously, at the point the judgment
is by the pilot -- and result judged by the pilot,
neither myself or an optometrist is going to "control"
I do state that it is indeed a "difficult" effort, and
only the most highly motived pilots should attempt it.
.... and never mind if it
Obviously the pilots who reaches 20/20 is "just zero" (old
word "emmetropic". If he stops there (which is most probable
his is not going to be "hyperopic" as Mike Tyner likes
Farsightedness is "normal" and who cares if pilots can
As before, the U. S. Naval Academy required 20/20 and
a positive focal status running between zero to +1.5 diopters.
What they said was that the person with 20/20 (focal state
zero -- emmetropic) had little chance of getting out with 20/20.
Francis Young and Kenneth Oakleys study showed that
the kids wearing a "high" bifocal stopped movement
into myopia. The control group continued
into myopia at the rate of -1/2 diopter per year.
I think over 200 children were involved.
But of couse you select only those studies YOU like.
If the identical twins do the same reading at the same
distances then their focal states will be very similar