# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  I just saw Luzerne's TheraBlue lens.

## AngeHamm

Judy Canty just stopped by my office to show us Mitsui's new TheraBlue lens.

Jaw drop. 

Mic drop. 

Game-changer.

I'm still shaking my head that a lens this clear can demonstrably block HEV blue light that completely. If I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes I wouldn't believe it. It has no more visible tint than an unactivated Transitions-VI lens. You *need* to check this out.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...l=1#post511191

----------


## Judy Canty

I will post a direct link when I get home tomorrow. In the mean time, please visit our website at www.luzerneoptical.com.

----------


## Judy Canty

As promised:  For more information on TheraBlue Lenses please      click:   TheraBlue        Lenses

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Do you have a spectral transmission plot for these lenses?  (one that shows the transmission or absorbance by wavelength?)  Thanks.

----------


## Judy Canty

You asked for this information in the original thread about TheraBlue, and my answer remains the same. You will have to do your own research on this, perhaps with Mitsui.
I am aware that you are trying to bring your own product to market and I'm not going to assist with your research. Nothing personal, strictly business.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Ok then but I'm probably not the only one interested in the facts.  If I had a spectrophotometer I'd run it and publish it.  Maybe someone will.

My guess is there's another reason it hasn't been published.  Someone might compare transmissions with that of standard mid and high index lenses.

----------


## Chris Ryser

I have one of the finest, but I would need a lens to measure. Who wants to volunteer ?

----------


## Uilleann

I'd be interested to see the white papers on which frequencies of visible light *specifically* are damaging to the eye, and it what *specific* amounts of exposure.

To date, all I've seen have been wildly varied studies that "some" vague frequency or frequencies *might* be harmful over time, at as-yet-to-be-determined "harmful" levels.

It's obviously great for the marketing bandwagon, and sells all sorts of new lenses of the week for a growing number of lens makers and their respective labs of course.  But some agreement through the medical community about the details of what precisely, and how much could be considered "bad" would be much more helpful to doctors and dispensers alike.

----------


## Judy Canty

:Giggle:  You guys kill me.  TTFN.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> I have one of the finest, but I would need a lens to measure. Who wants to volunteer ?


I'd do it if they gave me a sample.  I'm not gonna pay $30 plus take the time to fill out a credit ap for a lab that's on the other side of the country. If you land a sample, I'll send you the a lens of the same material without any add-ons for comparison.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I'd be interested to see the white papers on which frequencies of visible light *specifically* are damaging to the eye, and it what *specific* amounts of exposure.
> 
> To date, all I've seen have been wildly varied studies that "some" vague frequency or frequencies *might* be harmful over time, at as-yet-to-be-determined "harmful" levels.
> 
> It's obviously great for the marketing bandwagon, and sells all sorts of new lenses of the week for a growing number of lens makers and their respective labs of course.  But some agreement through the medical community about the details of what precisely, and how much could be considered "bad" would be much more helpful to doctors and dispensers alike.


I **LOVE* this!!! Dead square on the money.

It used to be that anything under 400 nm was baaaaaaaaaaad for your eyes. Now, it's creeping up to 420, 430 nm. 

I always wondered why, if 400 is Ok, why is 399 or 398 bad?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo!!! It is "high energy" light!!! Riiiight. Pull the other one. Humans and proto-humans have been around a long time, I think the oldest I read was about 3 million years. Life expectancy has increased since then, it's also moved from the desert to the plains and the edges of the Arctic. And all of a sudden, "blue light" is bad for you.

IMO, based on the work I do with filters to protect people from very hot glass (2300 F and higher), IR is far more of a hazard to the eye than the so-called "blue light hazard". To me, the "blue light hazard" is nothing more than another round of snake oil to push up the cost of a pair of spectacles to the patient.

Feel free to flame my comments, but remember I wear specialized eyewear that protects my eyes from heat energy.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

here's a link for a bit of the science:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0071398

I do agree with you about IR dangers, but those are pretty much for people working around hot stuff (glass blowers, steel workers, etc.)

The blue thing is hot (excuse the expression) right now because blue is so intense and pervasive in the video world, including cell phones, tablets, game boys, etc.  

I'm glad someone is looking out for the IR stuff, but I worry more about the blue end, which is much higher energy radiation than the IR end.

Plus, kids are getting big time blue radiation, but very little IR.  Maybe those who sit around the campfire, staring at the flames, maybe those...

----------


## MikeAurelius

The human eye was created to see blue along with all the other colors. It is built into the software (wetware?) in the brain to see blue. Cutting it off because someone thinks it shouldn't be seen seems a bit...I don't know...arrogant? I'm betting that we don't see further than roughly 400 nm is because a) we don't need it as humans and b) it is starting to get "hazardous" to the eye.

There's a quote somewhere floating around in my brain about "gaud made us'ns the way we made us'ns and we should'na be messin' with his design"...or something like that.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Agreed, except that Essilor has shown pretty convincingly that there are certain deep blue/indigo/violet wavelengths that are lethal to rat retina cells, and rats are just like us, mammalians with a tendency to stay up late.  Other researchers also make a pretty good case  that lighter blue wavelengths (azure, sky blue, baby blue, cyan etc) may be beneficial esp. with circadian sleep cycles.  The unnatural deep blue coming off those video displays is my idea of "messin" with the creation in a way that can be harmful and is probably preventable.  I'm thinking He gave us brains for this kind of stuff, and expects us to use them.

----------


## MikeAurelius

First, remember that Big E only does things that put money into the pockets of its investors.

Next, remember that energy decreases by the square of the distance.

Put those together, and follow the money.

----------


## Uilleann

How can one wavelength of visible light be in any way "un-natural"?  That just sounds beyond silly!  Particularly given that human S cones are most sensitive to frequencies centered around 460nm, which happens to be very close or even the very frequencies so many of these filters are attenuating.  Why?  Where is the science showing actual human issues?  What are the exact frequencies?  What is the measured exposure level that causes change?  What is the change?

We can easily measure X radiation exposure levels, and know what is safe and what is harmful, both in long and short terms.  We can do the same for UV (in the A,B and C ranges) with extremely high repeatability.  Why is this "new" form of "dangerous" light so impossible for scientists to define and pin down?

And of course, none of these lenses address the simple fact that the instant we step outside, we're instantly exposed to every frequency of blue light, on a scale orders of magnitude more than any LED screen on the planet.  Seemingly rendering such "protective" lenses an utterly moot exercise.  The ex-Oakley guys at Gunnar started the fad a decade or so back, and ever since, it's been all the lens guys could do to not fall all over each other rushing their "newer, better faster, sexier" products to the market fore.

 :Cool:

----------


## Uncle Fester

> First, remember that Big E only does things that put money into the pockets of its investors.
> 
> Next, remember that energy decreases by the square of the distance.
> 
> Put those together, and follow the money.


Next you're going to tell me W.A.V.E. technology is smoke and mirrors!!!  :Eek:

----------


## MikeAurelius

W.A.V.E. technology is smoke and mirrors!!!  :Eek: 

 :Bounce:

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> The unnatural deep blue coming off those video displays is my idea of "messin" with the creation in a way that can be harmful and is probably preventable.  I'm thinking He gave us brains for this kind of stuff, and expects us to use them.


This works for me, although the science isn't there yet for blue-light hazards. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

https://fluxometer.com/rainbow/#!id=...02/6500K-iPad2

----------


## Trip

> !! It is "high energy" light!!! Riiiight. Pull the other one. Humans and proto-humans have been around a long time, I think the oldest I read was about 3 million years. Life expectancy has increased since then, it's also moved from the desert to the plains and the edges of the Arctic. And all of a sudden, "blue light" is bad for you.


Curious, isn't there merit in pointing out a life time of exposure in this discussion?  .... life expectancy has exceeded what evolution originally provided/designed for ... ... what does an extra 20, 30 years of exposure /absorption do?

----------


## MikeAurelius

I don't think it matters (my opinion). We are designed to see the colors down to an average of 400 nm, which begs the question: which is smarter? A for-profit corporation or evolution? I vote for evolution.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *To me, the "blue light hazard" is nothing more than another round of snake oil to push up the cost of a pair of spectacles to the patient.
> *




Ity used to be called long wave UV, between 350 and 400 nm in 1982 and everybody went and sold protection for it...............and for a valid reason.

With the new wave of AR coatings everybody on the manufacturing end wants to cover their back because the ARE does not provide that coverage no more. Even the blue reflection bit seems to be a bit fishy.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Ity used to be called long wave UV, between 350 and 400 nm in 1982 and everybody went and sold protection for it...............and for a valid reason.
> 
> With the new wave of AR coatings everybody on the manufacturing end wants to cover their back because the ARE does not provide that coverage no more. Even the blue reflection bit seems to be a bit fishy.


Chris, I'm not disputing the protection for under 400 nm, there's solid science behind that, not to mention that it's pretty much "built-in" to every lens sold these days. I do dispute moving the top end to 420-430 nm.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Curious, isn't there merit in pointing out a life time of exposure in this discussion?  .... life expectancy has exceeded what evolution originally provided/designed for ... ... what does an extra 20, 30 years of exposure /absorption do?


Another thought, Trip...there are negative outcomes certainly, AMD, cataracts, cancers, etc. Modern humans haven't had enough evolutionary time yet to sort that out, but if you look at folks with higher concentrations melanin in their bodies (not those taking pills LOL), with darker skin pigmentation, dark colored eyes, it's long been my opinion that these folks have a much greater genetic resistance to problematical UV-VIS-NIR exposure. I work with folks who every day are exposed to as much as 50-60 thousand lumens (bright sun on white sand ~30,000 lumens) multiple times a day for 20-30 minutes at a time. My observations are showing that those with lower levels of melanin (think northern european heritage) require an average of 2 welding shades darker than someone who has higher levels of melanin (mediterranean or african heritage).

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Regarding the comments that all blue light is naturally occuring so it can't be harmful ignores the Essilor data that clearly shows that STRONG exposure to very specific wavelengths rapidly kills rat retina cells.  Nobody is claiming that natural light is killing retinal cells.  They are claiming that the EXCESSIVE blue light coming off of those video displays that are held close to the eyes (tablets and smart phones) for extended periods of time (like kids like to do under the covers) MAY be harmful to the human retina.  It's no different for UV.  It's naturally occurring and in moderate amounts is good for you (vitamin D), but in unnatural (tanning booths) amounts or excessive (sun worshiping) it's pretty obviously harmful.  I remember being cautioned about excessive use of a binocular indirect ophthalmoscope can be harmful to the retinas being examined, even my BIO which has an ordinary incandescent bulb in it (oldie but goodie).  One of the reasons I bought a retina camera 10 years ago. Still use the BIO but not as much as I did.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Again, reduction by the square of the distance.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

which is why it's a good thing the sun is 93 million miles away.  But it's also why it's a bad thing if the radiant source is only 6-10 inches from the eye.  Ever watch a kid gaming?  And see my addendum above, condensing lenses used in BIO and biomicroscopy are held 1-3 inches from the eye.  These lenses are from +20D to +90D, pretty good concentrators...

----------


## Uilleann

So - once again, these lenses are all making wild and varied claims about the horrific damage these new evil LED type devices are going to cause from all the "dangerous" blue light they're putting out.

And it's all negated the second a body steps outside and is subject to what - like three seconds of solar exposure (even on a cloudy day).  Because you've just been hit with those very same frequencies at intensities many orders of magnitude stronger than any screen on the planet.  So those new expensive "magic" lenses have done nothing to "protect" your delicate eyes.  But they HAVE lined the pockets of the labs and lens guys with an easy new source of revenue.

As an interesting note, using the buttons on my monitor, I can do far more to boost or attenuate numerous frequencies of visible light (including blue) than any of the lenses on the market can.  And those buttons are already there.  What does it cost me to do so?  About a half second of my precious time, and no money whatsoever.  Using the simulator linked earlier in the thread, the "dangerous" blue light spikes were dramatically reduced on every setting I tried - apart from the absolute highest K settings...big surprise.  I obviously remain extremely skeptical.

----------


## Tallboy

Oh the horror, won't somebody please think of the children! Their eyes are melting from the blue light! Please think of the children!!!

For real though, I think Blue tech lenses relax the few people who I've made them for, as do traditionally tinted lenses.  It works for them, but I hardly push those products.  There was a young lady in her late 30's who had macular degeneration happening, she asked about lenses to protect her eyes from blue light, I fit her in prevencia.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> And it's all negated the second a body steps outside and is subject to what - like three seconds of solar exposure (even on a cloudy day).  Because you've just been hit with those very same frequencies at intensities many orders of magnitude stronger than any screen on the planet. 
> .


I think you need to study the physics and associated math of your claim.  The square root of the distance from the sun is about 10,000 miles, which is about 1/10,000 of the radiation off the surface of the sun.  All wavelengths except cosmic rays are further attenuated by the earth's atmosphere and some of the worst wavelengths are completely absorbed by the ozone layer (thank God), but come through the big hole we now have in that precious layer (thank big oil and big coal). Now comes the kid under the covers with his ipad 6 inches from his eye.  The square root of 6 inches is about 2.5 inches, or nearly 1/2 of the radiation is reaching his eye. Given the fact that I can use the screen my iphone as a flashlight (and do so often),  and it lights up a dark room pretty well so that I don't even need the flash function at all.  I'm just guessing, but I suspect the actual intensities might come as a big shock to you.  1/2 of a small amount can be much larger than 1/10,000 of a  very large amount.

----------


## Uilleann

Spent more than a decade at the Planetarium.  EM frequencies - particularly as applied to human vision - were a big deal to us there.  As were relative intensities.  So you're comparing the amount of maximum brightness of a phone or tablet in a darkened room to sunlight?  I'll take the low estimate of sunlight at 100,000 lux, and compare it to your puny iphone screen at maximum brightness any day!  ;)  Guess which intensity wins?

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I think you need to study the physics and associated math of your claim.


Ummm... so do you.

Here is the basic formula for calculating exposure to any type of radiation:  R * (A / (2 * 3.14159 * r^2) ) Where R = Radiance of the object in watts per square centimeter, A = the area of the radiation, in square centimeters, and r = the distance to the eye from the radiation source, in centimeters.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the radiance of a given object is 2 watts per square centimeter, the area of the object is 1 square centimeter, and the distance is 10 centimeters. Plugging the data into the formula, you get the following:

2 * (1 / (2 * 3.14159 * 10^2))

2 * (1 / (2 * 3.14159 * 100))

2 * (1 / 628.32)

2 * 0.00159

0.00318

At 10 centimeters, an object that measures 1 square centimeters with a radiance of 2 watts per square centimeter has the effect of 0.00318 watts per square centimeter.

Now, I haven't been able to find any data that suggests that a television or computer monitor puts out 2 watts per square cm of energy. It's more likely it is in the 1/4 watt range or less.

My Samsung smartphone has a screen with a measurement of 6 x 11 centimeters (66 square cm). Let's assume the output is .25 watts per square cm (I believe it is certainly less than that), and I read at 30 cm distance.

From above:

.25 * (66 / (2 * 3.14159 * 30^2))
.25 * (66 / (2 * 3.14159 * 900))
.25 * (66 / 5654.86)
.25 * .01167

0.00292 watts per cm squared entering the eye

Now, all this supposes that the radiation emitted from the source is equal across the spectrum, as a black body emitter does, and we know that this is not the case. To be precise, you would need exact emissions per wavelength across the spectrum you are interested in and plug in the numbers accordingly. But this basic formula gives a close approximation for a "white light" emitter.

I've looked at a lot of the white papers written about the so-called 'blue light hazard' and there is no detailed referential information given about where the data was originally calculated and what source of energy was used. There's lots of "this is bad" but there's nothing to back it up.

Yes, the energy required to get from red to blue is higher. This is scientific fact. The question remains though, at what point does it become hazardous to the eye? It's been established that 380 nm and below is hazardous. But how did the "researchers" get from 380 nm to 430 nm? Where's the proof that it's "hazardous". The only thing I've seen is the oft-repeated "we don't need to see it", and I find that to be a lot of hokum.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> Ummm... so do you.
> 
> Here is the basic formula for calculating exposure to any type of radiation:  R * (A / (2 * 3.14159 * r^2) ) Where R = Radiance of the object in watts per square centimeter, A = the area of the radiation, in square centimeters, and r = the distance to the eye from the radiation source, in centimeters.
> 
> Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the radiance of a given object is 2 watts per square centimeter, the area of the object is 1 square centimeter, and the distance is 10 centimeters. Plugging the data into the formula, you get the following:
> 
> 2 * (1 / (2 * 3.14159 * 10^2))
> 
> 2 * (1 / (2 * 3.14159 * 100))
> ...



Nice work.  I'd just point out that the "white" light coming off a cell phone contains a lot of the blue visible wavelengths that are of concern, but you're right, I don't have the actual output.  I understand that blue light requires less energy to put out than red, but contains more energy than the equivalent flux of red.  Kind of a paradox.  I missed quantum mechanics because I took physics so long ago.

I'd also point out that the kid with the cell phone or ipad is getting a huge chunk of is visual field filled up with the screen.  Way, way larger in angular subtense than the sun would ever subtend on earth.  And nobody is claiming (I hope) that kids go out and stare at the sun, even for "3 seconds".  But the kid is doing the ipad thing for HOURS.  

You're also right that Essilor's research is pretty rudimentary, some might say crude, but still impressive to me, certainly enough to get me thinking about it...

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Speaking of white papers, here's a pretty good one on this subject: 
http://www.crizalusa.com/content/dam...hite-Paper.pdf

try to ignore that it was sponsored by crizal; if you can't do that, keep moving, there's nothing here for you to see...

----------


## MikeAurelius

Page 9 is probably the most crucial, as it shows what the energy reaching the eyes from sunlight is: about 0.020 mw/cm2. Which pretty blows the computer monitor/video screen/iPad issues out of the realm of hazards.

I'm still skeptical.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> Page 9 is probably the most crucial, as it shows what the energy reaching the eyes from sunlight is: about 0.020 mw/cm2. Which pretty blows the computer monitor/video screen/iPad issues out of the realm of hazards.
> 
> I'm still skeptical.


*I read that graph more like 0.1 mW/cm^2 at around 440 nm which is the part of the spectrum under dispute.  At the risk of getting in over my head here, my iPhone 6 + is advertised by apple to put out 500 candelas at max brightness, which is about what you'd expect a kid to run it.  Now 500 candelas equates to roughly about .07 mW/cm^2 at 6 inches.  

Now if the sun is outputting .1 mW/cm^2 and the iPhone is outputting nearly that much, I'm a concerned grandpa.  

My very rough calculation assumes about 1 steradian of exposure angle.  

*

----------


## MikeAurelius

Look on the right side of the graph for mw/cm2, left side is mw/cm2/nm. Move the decimal place to the left one place.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

The per nano (/nm) bit refers to the wavelength of interest and is correct.

----------


## MikeAurelius

So what you are saying is that your grandson's iPad is putting out roughly the same amount of energy that the sun is at 6' above ground on Earth. Think about that for a moment.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> So what you are saying is that your grandson's iPad is putting out roughly the same amount of energy that the sun is at 6' above ground on Earth. Think about that for a moment.


Yes, putting a bit of faith in Essilor's numbers and Apple's numbers and doing some extrapolation, I'd say that's about right, at least for the 540 nano visible blue light.

Your mileage may vary, depending on your altitude, the time of day and your attitude.

----------


## MikeAurelius

*smh*

----------


## MikeAurelius

BTW, I've yet to see a reported case of iPod burn on the face, unlike sunburn which can be gotten in as little as 20 minutes...

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

[QUOTE=MikeAurelius;511900]BTW, I've yet to see a reported case of iPod burn on the face, unlike sunburn which can be gotten in as little as 20 minutes...[/QUOTE
*

That's because the VISIBLE BLUE which is what we were talking about doesn't cause sunburn.  Only UV does that, but just to be sure, I held my iPhone up to Gilda's photochromatic eyes and you guessed it, no reaction, no measurable UV.  

Some high school kid should do a science project on a rat.  Put him in a little box with iPads turned on with no screen saver but with deep blue cheese moons floating across a black background .  See how long premature apoptosis of his retina cells take to blind him.  The control would be a rat that gets to watch yellow cheese wedges floating across an also black background.  


*

----------


## MikeAurelius

Thank you for proving my point in this entire discussion. It has been fun.

Game. Set. Match.

----------


## Lazarus

There are many studies being conducted worldwide on HEV Blue Light exposure. Linked below is just one of them posted in the World Journal of Ophthalmology by Professor Richard Funk of the University of Dresden. 
I believe science is uncovering very real consequences and its not all snake oil.  I believe future studies will prove this beyond doubt and that there will be proven a definite need for various Blue Light protection products coming to market. 

This is a highly interesting study http://www.wjgnet.com/2218-6239/full/v4/i3/29.htm

and  http://nebula.wsimg.com/bc4320137eb4...&alloworigin=1

----------


## MikeAurelius

Blue light has been around since the sun stabilized some 5 billion years ago. Proto-humans began walking upright a couple of million years ago. We've had AMD and cataracts and all the rest for as long as humans have been able to figure out something is wrong with their vision. Not everyone is affected by it. There are a lot of old folks in their 80's, 90's, and 100's whose vision is still good, have not had incidents of AMD and relatively few cataracts (and those, mostly age related). Where is the epidemic of AMD? Where is the epidemic of vision reducing cataracts? According to fear mongering present in some of these reports, every person over the age of 50 should be showing signs of AMD, and that's nowhere near true.

This still looks like bored scientists being pushed into researching something that will earn the corporate bosses their bonuses and seduce the customer out of more money.

----------


## Jacqui

> This still looks like bored scientists being pushed into researching something that will earn the corporate bosses their bonuses and seduce the customer out of more money.


Yup

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> Blue light has been around since the sun stabilized some 5 billion years ago. Proto-humans began walking upright a couple of million years ago. We've had AMD and cataracts and all the rest for as long as humans have been able to figure out something is wrong with their vision. Not everyone is affected by it. There are a lot of old folks in their 80's, 90's, and 100's whose vision is still good, have not had incidents of AMD and relatively few cataracts (and those, mostly age related). Where is the epidemic of AMD? Where is the epidemic of vision reducing cataracts? According to fear mongering present in some of these reports, every person over the age of 50 should be showing signs of AMD, and that's nowhere near true.
> 
> This still looks like bored scientists being pushed into researching something that will earn the corporate bosses their bonuses and seduce the customer out of more money.


*You're painting the scientists with a pretty broad brush there, Mike. AMD is not exactly pandemic, but the scientific inquiry is totally justified due to the harsh iPhone and iPad type environment very young eyes  are being subjected to. The effects of this will not be known for sure for several more years.  At that time, it is of course possible that we will see an epidemic in mac. degen. much like the second worldwide increase in myopia after the PC came along (the first one when the printing press came along).  Of course unlike myopia, the 3 Os can't do much to help macular degeneration; once you lose your macula you can't get a new one.  

The early base science points to a probable link of heavy visible blue exposure (of a type that has not been around not for millions of years, not ever) with retina damage, the health industry HAS TO react aggressively if they are not to be branded as old thinking ostriches. Your characterization of "bored scientists" is way off base, these people have lots of exciting work to do in all fields.
**
As far as cataracts, for sure they were less prevalent before the advent of fire, cooking, metal work and your favorite glass blowing.  But however prevalent they might have been back then, humans died of other causes long before they were old enough to be blinded by cataracts.  These days, I can assure you that 100% of humans over the age of 60 have some cataractous changes in their eyes, or they are already pseudophakic.  Sure, there are 90 year olds that can see "pretty well" through their cataracts, but with a 12 minute per eye permanent fix that yields spectacular results, those old timers are mercifully getting rarer and rarer in the developed world.*

----------


## MikeAurelius

You bring up some good points, Bill. I have to leave for a bit to have dinner with my parents, but I'd like to make one point before I go.

Hand and lap portable and semi-portable battery driven devices have a built-in energy budget. They are limited to several factors: battery age, processor use, and screen display requirements. The last is the most important, as it usually totals at least half of the energy budget. Do you honestly think that, given the amount of energy required to put out blue light, that the screen makers would actually have the device emit radiation below 400 nm? It really sounds preposterous when you step back from a blanket statement like you've made several times.

And you keep making a point of "heavy blue exposure" like every page on every website or game contains large amounts of "heavy blue". That's simply not the case. In fact, page and game designers avoid the deeper blues simply because they don't show detail like the lighter colors do. However, if the "heavy blue" is coded in, its there for a reason. And if all of a sudden, people can no longer "see" the "heavy blue", what do you think is going to happen? Artists, designers, gamers, etc., are going to raise a stink like hasn't ever been seen before.

Food for thought for a couple of hours...

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Again, I've been talking about _visible blue_, namely 415 to 445 nm, _not UV_.  Nothing sub 400 nm. In fact LEDs used for generating the visible blue in flat screen video displays  do not emit at all below 400 nm, but they surely emit strongly in the VISIBLE BLUE, including the deeper blue and visible violet which is what this discussion is all about.  Not sure why you keep going into UV in this discussion. 

As for the minimizing of blue on the display is great and I'm all for it (you may have noticed www.noviolens.com text is all black on green background), but the larger problem is the white.  All the white output by these displays is loaded with what, you guessed it VISIBLE BLUE.  You can't get white without a large portion of blue in there, along with the other primary colors. 

Until science comes up with a blue emitting LED that will emit only above 440 nm or so, they may not want the "heavy blue" but they get it as an unwanted side effect.   It's not "coded in", it's an undesirable by-product of current LED technology.

----------


## MikeAurelius

FYI, I *have* been talking about visible blue, all the time. The post about "iPad burn" was to get you to actually look at what you were thinking, and prove to yourself via the simple test you performed, that there isn't a problem with portable devices. You _THINK_ there is, but you have no absolute proof.

And what about the law of unintended consequences?

Filtering out radiators is all well and good, but filters also remove reflected light.

Wear a filter that blocks out blue up to 445 nm and walk into an art museum and look at a Renoir or a Picasso and tell me what you see. Then tell me how the general public is going to react.

I won't disagree with putting filters on computer monitors and portable devices, that's pretty much a no-brainer. If you look at the transmission spectrum for Gorilla Glass from Corning, you will see that it starts transmitting about 280 nm, and is at 92% at 380 nm. Start a discussion with them about the problem. But putting filter eyewear on anyone and everyone just because...well, IMO, that's crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

I believe the potential purchaser should be informed of what they are being sold. Demonstration lenses with various pictures to show the results of filtration. "But that will destroy the sale!!" Yep. Unintended consequences.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Special effects of Blue Blocker lenses*Full 100% UV and BlueLight block  or absorption*By eliminating blue light, which is diffused fuzzy light one has a superb clear image looking through these lenses;Clouds will be visible on a grey day , clear vision through fog and mist.Perfect for driving, and they will not be affected by missing UV rays not getting through the windshield to activate photochromatic particles.

see at : ===================>

http://optochemicals.com/products/info_blueblocker.htm

----------


## AngeHamm

> Wear a filter that blocks out blue up to 445 nm and walk into an art museum and look at a Renoir or a Picasso and tell me what you see. Then tell me how the general public is going to react.
> 
> ...
> 
> I believe the potential purchaser should be informed of what they are being sold. Demonstration lenses with various pictures to show the results of filtration. "But that will destroy the sale!!" Yep. Unintended consequences.


And here we get back to the OP, wherein this issue is rendered completely moot by Mitsui's virtually-transparent TheraBlue lens.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> And here we get back to the OP, wherein this issue is rendered completely moot by Mitsui's virtually-transparent TheraBlue lens.


Not really, Andrew. In fact, not at all. If it filters visible blue, it will affect the wearers ability to see blue, and there will be a noticeable effect when viewing "blue" art, so it's not just emitted light (like from Bill's iPad), but reflected light (as in a painting or blue art glass) as well.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Not really, Andrew. In fact, not at all. If it filters visible blue, it will affect the wearers ability to see blue, and there will be a noticeable effect when viewing "blue" art, so it's not just emitted light (like from Bill's iPad), but reflected light (as in a painting or blue art glass) as well.


You're kind of discounting the fact that I have seen this lens and held it in my hand. I'm not speaking hypothetically, or extrapolating based on theory or white papers. I'm telling you. There is no more visible color effect than an un-activated Transitions VI lens.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Wear a filter that blocks out blue up to 445 nm and walk into an art museum and look at a Renoir or a Picasso and tell me what you see. Then tell me how the general public is going to react.
> *


You will not see the blue color or see them as grey.

However as the first manufacturer of a one step blue blocking dye in 1984 that works 100%, if have worn them more and more since I had my carataracts done, not only for protection, but have also started to like them.

One phenomen that has occurred, of which I have not read in any publication on this subject, that after a certain time of wearing fully blue blocking lenses, you actually see and recognize the blue color again that has been filtered out.

*Somehow the brain compensates for the filterered out blue color and you see it again, while the lens filters it out.*

----------


## MikeAurelius

> You're kind of discounting the fact that I have seen this lens and held it in my hand. I'm not speaking hypothetically, or extrapolating based on theory or white papers. I'm telling you. There is no more visible color effect than an un-activated Transitions VI lens.


I totally understand what you are saying, and I'm not discounting that you've seen and held it. What I'm saying is to put a pair on, and walk into an art gallery. Stand in front of a picture that has a multitude of blue in it. Take the pair off and switch back and forth.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> *Somehow the brain compensates for the filterered out blue color and you see it again, while the lens filters it out.*


*snort*

This is like trying to describe an elephant to a blind man.

----------


## MikeAurelius

For purposes of discussion

----------


## Judy Canty

Wow. You all have spent a LOT of time speculating/bashing/disproving the efficacy of something that only 1 poster on this thread, other than I, have actually seen. It works. I saw it work and I have all the optical credentials that most of you have. Ange saw it work. He has the optical "chops" to know what he's looking at. 

You want a sample? Fine. Buy it from Luzerne or Single Vision Express. Maybe Mitsui will provide one. The rest of this discussion is just so much "weenie-waggin".

----------


## AngeHamm

> I totally understand what you are saying, and I'm not discounting that you've seen and held it. What I'm saying is to put a pair on, and walk into an art gallery. Stand in front of a picture that has a multitude of blue in it. Take the pair off and switch back and forth.


I stood in front of a window with blue sky and lovely clouds, gorgeous green vegetation, and cars of many colors. I looked around my office, which is full of rich colors of many hues. I know what I'm looking for, and I knew what I was doing. I knew what I was saying when I called this product a game-changer in its niche. You can debate the value, or lack of value, of this particular niche if you like. It's a valid discussion. But if your primary argument against this product niche is a distortion of blue hues for the wearer (a legitimate concern), this particular product answers your concerns quite definitively. That is all I said, and, frankly, all this thread should be about.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> But if your primary argument against this product niche is a distortion of blue hues for the wearer (a legitimate concern), this particular product answers your concerns quite definitively. That is all I said, and, frankly, all this thread should be about.


It is my primary concern, as an artist myself, and as a vendor *TO* artists.

Any filter that removes a "known" visible light color or range of colors is going to objectionable to artists, especially those that work mainly on that end of the spectrum. The other part of this, which Chris touched on before is the "brain will compensate" theory. That may work well for prisms (the famous inverted prism experiment for example), however, a person doesn't wear their glasses all the time, they come off, get cleaned, they look around, maybe they take them off to eat (I do), etc. There are going to be differences in color vision, in basic essence, you are forcing a kind of 'color blindness' on people that is going to be problematic.

How many women absolutely *LOVE* the color purple? Off hand, I know a bunch. If they suddenly see shades of grey instead of a purple scarf, you are going to get an earful when they march into your office.

I've got some pictures around here of filtered and unfiltered yellow light (glass working examples). I'll put them up and we can discuss further what I'm talking about.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

I presume Mike and his artists would be ok with a neutral grey tint, since theoretically it wouldn't affect color vision much (remember the AO "True Color" sun lens?)  And the Luzerne lens may have a slight grey, at least that's what it looks like on my display.  Of course my question was if it' is blue protective by itself (without any ar or reflective coatings), by how much and which blue wavelengths does it actually attenuate?  I'm thinking it can't be much, or a noticeable yellow tint would be apparent.  

Now where is that darned spectrophotometer?

----------


## MikeAurelius

I'm going to start a new thread on this, my apologies, Judy Cant. I wasn't purposely waggling my weenie on your thread.

----------


## Chris Ryser

QUOTE=Dr. Bill Stacy;512022]

* Of course my question was if it' is blue protective by itself (without any ar or reflective coatings), by how much and which blue wavelengths does it actually attenuate?  I'm thinking it can't be much, or a noticeable yellow tint would be apparent.  

**Now where is that darned spectrophotometer?*

[/QUOTE]




it is right here, only that it is my own ...................

so I can prove what I m saying.  We use it on a daily basis.

* "Cecil Reflectascan Spectrophotometer" 
with capability to measure the thickness of AR coatings, 
full range of UV, visible light to infra red,  as well as the same 
applies for all liquid products.




*

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Somebody send Chris a sample of Therablue.  We are all waiting with baited breath...

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Somebody send Chris a sample of Therablue.  We are all waiting with baited breath...*



It will be a pleasure to measure that and put the resulting graph on an OptiBoard display.

I am kind of wondering myself what the result would, or will be.

----------


## farawayC

As far as I understand it, TheraBlue, UV++, et al. heavily attenuate in the lower SWB regions that are harder to visualize, say 400-420nm, at which point attenuation exponentially climbs to zero around 450nm where light is more visible. If I had to hazard a guess, traditional blue blocking selective AR coatings attenuate more linearly across the SWB region, so while overall attenuation is less, visible wavelengths near and at 250nm are more attenuated. This, of course, leads to the characteristic yellow in the lens.

On that note, does anyone have spectrum data for one or more of the blue blocking selective AR coatings?

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

I refrain from calling them AR coatings because AR traditionally means less reflections, not more.  I like to call them what they are, Blue and Violet reflective coatings, AKA mirrors.  I know one thing, they all reflect strongly in the visible blue, indigo and violet, as well as the UV, with some reflecting hues more in the blue, others more in the violet.

They are kind of hideous to look at and can be dangerous, as pointed out on www.noviolens.com.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *They are kind of hideous to look at and can be dangerous, as pointed out on 
> 
> *http://www.noviolens.com




very interesting .............

Hazards of “Blue Protective” Spectacle Lens Coatings
By William Stacy, O.D.  a practicing California optometrist

and then there is even more at:

http://www.noviolens.com/history.html

----------


## Uncle Fester

> As far as I understand it, TheraBlue, UV++, et al. heavily attenuate in the lower SWB regions that are harder to visualize, say 400-420nm, at which point attenuation exponentially climbs to zero around 450nm where light is more visible. If I had to hazard a guess, traditional blue blocking selective AR coatings attenuate more linearly across the SWB region, so while overall attenuation is less, visible wavelengths near and at 250nm are more attenuated. This, of course, leads to the characteristic yellow in the lens.
> 
> On that note, does anyone have spectrum data for one or more of the blue blocking selective AR coatings?


Welcome to Otiboard farawayC!!!

SWB = ?

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

I'd guess short wave blue, but then he threw in the 250 nm with it which is definitely UV and not visible, so would have no effect on lens color.  Maybe that was a typo. I think most modern lenses we are talking about absorb at 250 without additives.

But I have a question for Chris, does your photometer do both absorbption and reflectance?  If it handles reflectance I'd send you some samples to test (recharge, prevencia) although these are 70 mm blanks, would I need to cut the size down?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *But I have a question for Chris, does your photometer do both absorbption and reflectance?  If it handles reflectance I'd send you some samples to test (recharge, prevencia) although these are 70 mm blanks, would I need to cut the size down?*



Ours does transmission, however logic tells me that what is not transmittet is either absorbed or reflected.

If one sets the lens holder in its bracket at 90 degrees,  we get straight transmission and I suppose if we angle it, we will get a result that is minus reflected light.

70mm size is OK the lens holder is adjustable.

----------


## AngeHamm

> As far as I understand it, TheraBlue, UV++, et al. heavily attenuate in the lower SWB regions that are harder to visualize, say 400-420nm, at which point attenuation exponentially climbs to zero around 450nm where light is more visible. If I had to hazard a guess, traditional blue blocking selective AR coatings attenuate more linearly across the SWB region, so while overall attenuation is less, visible wavelengths near and at 250nm are more attenuated. This, of course, leads to the characteristic yellow in the lens.
> 
> On that note, does anyone have spectrum data for one or more of the blue blocking selective AR coatings?


This particular product is a lens material (three lens materials, actually, an ANSI-Z87.1 impact-resistant 1.56, a 1.60, and a 1.67), not an AR coating. It is compatible with a wide variety of AR coatings. And there is no yellow to be seen.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Until a blue reflective coating is added, then it will be yellow, for sure.

----------


## Judy Canty

> Until a blue reflective coating is added, then it will be yellow, for sure.


If the lens material is already absorbing blue light, why would you add a blue light reflecting treatment? Gilding the lily? Maxing profit potential? Why?

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

I think the visible blue absorption of these lenses MUST be minimal, or there would be a yellow tint already.  If one believes that maximal protection against the blue is needed, that would be by additional yellow tinting and or blue reflective coatings.  The only other option is to minimize blue and white coming off the screen (by filters and/or by modifying colors on the display).  If one doesn't buy the science of blue protection, fine, why bother with absorbing a tiny amount or any at all?  So far I think this lens is a solution to no problem. But I'm keeping an open mind until the spectrophotometry is released.

----------


## farawayC

> Welcome to Otiboard farawayC!!!
> 
> SWB = ?


Thanks, Fester. I look forward to being here.

Short wave blue. I think basically interchangeable with high energy visible light (HEV) in the 400-500nm range. Actually, I like the term HEV better because that's an ophthalmological term. Not sure where I picked up short wave blue from.




> I'd guess short wave blue, but then he threw in the 250 nm with it which is definitely UV and not visible, so would have no effect on lens color.  Maybe that was a typo. I think most modern lenses we are talking about absorb at 250 without additives.


Yes, 250nm was a typo. Meant to say 450nm.




> This particular product is a lens material (three lens materials, actually, an ANSI-Z87.1 impact-resistant 1.56, a 1.60, and a 1.67), not an AR coating. It is compatible with a wide variety of AR coatings. And there is no yellow to be seen.


Sorry, I should have made that distinction clear in my post. But, yes, I'm aware that TheraBlue, UV++, etc. are material based absorbents.

----------


## MikeAurelius

It all depends on where the 50% cut-on point lands. If it lands at 400 nm, the material will be clear. If it lands at 420 nm, it will be yellow. That's pure optics/physics. Especially on an uncoated, untreated lens. There is no way around it.

Look up Schott GG400 and GG420 long-pass filters. GG400 is a clear material, it's 50% cut-on is at 400 nm. GG420 is yellow, and it's 50% cut-on is at 420 nm.

GG400: http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/o...filters/46422/
GG420: http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/o...filters/46425/

Tech data is there, including transmission charts.

----------


## igirl

> I refrain from calling them AR coatings because AR traditionally means less reflections, not more.  I like to call them what they are, Blue and Violet reflective coatings, AKA mirrors.  I know one thing, they all reflect strongly in the visible blue, indigo and violet, as well as the UV, with some reflecting hues more in the blue, others more in the violet.
> 
> They are kind of hideous to look at and can be dangerous, as pointed out on www.noviolens.com.


Thank you!  I have been making this point for over a year now with manufacturer reps when they call their blue reflecting coatings "AR".  When uncoated plastic reflects roughly 10% of light, AR reflects less than 1%, how can you call a coating that reflects 17% of light (I think that is what Prevencia reflects) an AR coating?  Putting AR on the backsurface does not make it an AR lens.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

yes, a case of unintended consequences.  good idea, bad execution.  they should all come with a uv warning.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Thank you!  I have been making this point for over a year now with manufacturer reps when they call their blue reflecting coatings "AR".  When uncoated plastic reflects roughly 10% of light, AR reflects less than 1%, how can you call a coating that reflects 17% of light (I think that is what Prevencia reflects) an AR coating?  Putting AR on the backsurface does not make it an AR lens.


There is no way Prevencia reflects 17% of light. I'm looking at a sample in my office and it looks approximately as clear as a Super HiVision  sample right next to it, just with a selective reflex color in the blue/purple range instead of green.

----------


## igirl

I will have to go through my marketing pieces from when it was originally launched.  The 17% sticks in my head and it was either on one of their original pieces or our rep verbally told us.  Looks like a mild flash mirror to me.

----------


## AngeHamm

The "Prevencia is a flash mirror" trope has been repeated around here a few times. It's not true. I recommend looking at a Prevencia sample and an Avance sample next to each other. The residual reflections are approximately the same, just the color is different. It's similar to Zeiss blue and gold. The gold isn't a "gold flash mirror."

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

The problem here is some people are viewing the blue reflectors in an incandescent environment where there's not much blue to be reflected, so of course they won't see the heavy blue reflections when viewing under daylight or fluorescent lighting where there's so much blue you can't miss it unless you're color blind.  Take a pair ove to an open window, or find a fluorescent tube to see the reflection. Or watch the short video on www.noviolens.com to see it for yourself.

----------


## Judy Canty

Attachment 12274

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Why would you use a tinted polycarbonate lens in this comparison?

----------


## Judy Canty

My error. It's a SunSensors.

----------


## Judy Canty

This is tiresome. Visit our booth at VEW.  LP4090. Ask all the questions you like. See the lens in person.

----------


## AngeHamm

The amount of judgments made about this product by people who haven't seen it is astounding to me.

----------


## igirl

> The "Prevencia is a flash mirror" trope has been repeated around here a few times. It's not true. I recommend looking at a Prevencia sample and an Avance sample next to each other. The residual reflections are approximately the same, just the color is different. It's similar to Zeiss blue and gold. The gold isn't a "gold flash mirror."


I have samples of all Crizal products as well as Hoya and even the new Shamir AR.  The Prevencia and Hoya Recharge look like a light flash mirror to me, they just do.  We can agree to disagree :)  With that being said, I also have a sample of the new blue filtering lens Judy is promoting and think it is very promising and will be what I recommend for those concerned about exposure to blue light.

----------


## AngeHamm

> I have samples of all Crizal products as well as Hoya and even the new Shamir AR.  The Prevencia and Hoya Recharge look like a light flash mirror to me, they just do.  We can agree to disagree :)  With that being said, I also have a sample of the new blue filtering lens Judy is promoting and think it is very promising and will be what I recommend for those concerned about exposure to blue light.


Fair enough!

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

I think I've figured out the discrepancies posted about the blue reflectors.

These lenses have pretty strong reflections off both front and back surfaces, viewed from EITHER side, let me call them primary and secondary, the primary reflection being off the first surface (the one facing the observer) and the secondary being off the second surface the light hits.  The primary is usually the brighter image and usually blue.  The secondary is usually GREEN, because the first surface has reflected away most of the blue, leaving the remaining wavelengths to be reflected back, and is fainter because it is so attenuated by two passages through the lens substrate.  

Now most of us are looking at plano samples of the lenses, where the surfaces are completely parallel and so the reflected images are superimposed and identical in size and shape, so we only see the bright blue primary.  The secondary green image is washed out.

However, if the power is moderate to strong, the two curves are dramatically different, so the primary and secondary images are quite different.  The flatter surface will generate the larger reflection and will be the most obvious.  In the case of a minus lens, the front surface will reflect a bright blue mirror-like image to someone looking at the wearer.  For a plus lens, the front surface is very convex and will present a diffuse blue primary reflection that may be not noticeable because it's so diffuse, while the 2nd reflection will be a more conventional looking green reflection, subdued by the substrate but more noticeable than the blue because that back surface is more flat mirror-like. 

Now if you flip the minus lens over and look at the back side, the primary is the concave mirror that will form a real inverted blue reflection between the lens and the observer's eye.  Very noticeable and potentially harmful.  And the secondary reflection will be  large but somewhat subdued green reflection. If you flip the plus lens over the flat primary surface will reflect a large bright blue image of the light source, while the secondary will be a small, inverted real green image of the light source.  

A lot of the above is an educated guess, but I'm pretty confident that those wearing Prevencia or other blue reflectors will comment and prove me wrong or right. Remember, this all assumes the light source has some blue in it (uncovered window, fluorescent fixtures, etc.)

----------


## Chris Ryser

> Attachment 12274


I would love to see a spectrometer chart on each of these lenses to see how much of the blue light is transmitted into the eye.

Anti reflex does not mean that there is no transmission of direct light.

It transmitts actually up to 9% more light.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

http://www.google.com/patents/EP2618206A1?cl=en

This appears to be the origins of the technology used in the above mentioned UV/violet/blue absorbing ophthalmic lenses that show very little color, heretofore unprecedented in area of visible-light optics.




> The lens can thus cut ultraviolet and visible radiation having wavelengths of 430 nm and shorter, or even 500 nm and shorter, while keeping highly transparent light color.


Note the difference in spectral transmittance graphs from the above, and below. Mitsui may have found a way to increase the the total luminous transmittance, with a sharper high pass cutoff, or the graphs displayed by inventors and/or Mitsui are not highly accurate.

http://www.businesswire.com/multimed.../#.VfmtGbRH1LA

----------


## Judy Canty

Imagine that.

----------


## AngeHamm

It's almost as if the people claiming this lens is virtually clear were seasoned optical professionals who know what they're talking about.

----------


## drk

A solution looking for a problem, IMHO.

----------


## Judy Canty

drk via your website:

"Finally, some of the newer computer lenses are specifically designed to block the short-wavelength, blue light that is emitted from computer screens. Blue light is associated with glare, eyestrain and potentially more serious long-term vision problems."

----------


## drk

Yeah, I have to build my own and stop letting VSP run it.

----------


## Uilleann

Bazinga!

----------


## Chris Ryser

*Full 100% absorption      <-------------------->  from 280 nm to 535 nm*

----------


## Judy Canty

I invite all of you to visit our booth at Vision Expo West to see TheraBlue for yourselves.  LP 4090

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Thanks again the Luzerne guys in my 2 visits or was it 3?  Anyway got good info from those nice guys and a look at the new lens, which has a slight yellow color to it, similar to the UV++ lens I saw at the Conant booth, and as a result of these and other conversations am definitely moving toward 1.56 unless someone tells me a good reason to not go there.

----------


## Lee H

> Thanks again the Luzerne guys in my 2 visits or was it 3?  Anyway got good info from those nice guys and a look at the new lens, which has a slight yellow color to it, similar to the UV++ lens I saw at the Conant booth, and as a result of these and other conversations am definitely moving toward 1.56 unless someone tells me a good reason to not go there.



It was was good meeting you Dr. Stacy, thank you for stopping by our booth!

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Anyway got good info from those nice guys and a look at the new lens, which has a slight yellow color to it, similar to the UV++ lens I saw at the Conant booth, and as a result of these and other conversations am definitely moving toward 1.56 unless someone tells me a good reason to not go there.*



So finally whoever makes the original lenses has realized that you need a color to neutralize another visible color that transmits the lens, and not  just reflect it.

It is an old fact, we know since the early 1980s that if you have UV protection up to 400 nm the lenses have a slight yellowish tinge. 
The clear UV reatments that have been the most popular ones stop at 380 nm.

So now it boils down to the basics. How much more cost these lenses to the optical retailer, and what would it cost by doing just the plain UV 400 treatment, or just add more colors to the full 400 nm or and even go higher up in cutting blue light, which can be done in your in house lab at probably huge savings in cost and time.

These days you can even tint any tintable high index lens in a few short minutes in the microwave.

----------


## Diane

I was at VEW and took time to go look.  It is the material, not the color.  I believe that we should take our heads out of the sand (or the past).  Blue light is a real threat, and our industry is responding.  I was hoping to see my good friend Judy.  The first generation of lenses / coatings that filter blue light have started the industrial revolution.  I believe that we are now moving positively forward.  Good technology.

Diane

----------


## Judy Canty

I wish I could have been there too Diane! I know it was a great show and I am also happy that some OB members visited our booth to see this product up close.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Anyway got good info from those nice guys and a look at the new lens, which has a slight yellow color to it, similar to the UV++ lens I saw at the Conant booth, and as a result of these and other conversations am definitely moving toward 1.56 unless someone tells me a good reason to not go there.*





> *I was at VEW and took time to go look. It is the material, not the color. I believe that we should take our heads out of the sand (or the past).*



The yellowish color neutralizes the blue light around the 400 nm mark (visible blue) and that is a fact now, as it was then. It also makes no difference if the yellow was added to the lens material before casting the lens or afterwards, it is there and seems to work now, as it did then.

Lens manufacturers started to push UV absorbing lenses in the early 1980's, and dye manufacturers came up with UV solutions you could do in the dye pot, or even in the Microwave in your own in house lab and save a ton of money.

If a Vision Ease would add a 400 nm UV absorber to their Polycarbonate raw material the would have the same yellowish tinge effect and absorb right up to 400 nm.

This not having the head in the sand, this is all a repeat of history as it always does and a "deja vue".

----------


## Judy Canty

Attachment 12341Chris, have you seen the lens yet or are you guessing based on old information?  The top pair are my TheraBlue. The bottom pair are my BluTech. The difference in depth of color is noticeable.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Chris, have you seen the lens yet or are you guessing based on old information?  The top pair are my TheraBlue. The bottom pair are my BluTech. The difference in depth of color is noticeable.
> *



Judy,  Your yellowish top Thera Blue are yellowish, and will most probably absorb to 400 nm,, while the bottom one, Blue Tech has added some more orange-red which will cut more visible blue light. As I have not measured this lens in the spectrometer I do not know how far it will go.

By reducing transmission of visible blue light you will get a noticeable increase of contrast, that is a fact. 

However this is no new science. It can be done in any dye pot or Microwave with the right products. This is all based on information I have collected over the years and is no new science whatsoever.

----------


## Judy Canty

Theory is the same. Delivery system is different.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Theory is the same. Delivery system is different.


+1. TheraBlue is not comparable to any HEV-blue-blocking technology I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot of it.

----------


## EyeCare Rich

> Theory is the same. Delivery system is different.


This is when I wish there was a LIKE button!  Nice post Judy.  I didn't stop by your booth Judy, but I did stop by the Matsui booth and saw the lens material in question on this thread.  Very impressive!  I don't know why people have so much trouble with change.  I say, move with change, or become extinct!  Thanks for showing us some change Judy, I appreciate it.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Instead of arguing about whether the lens is clear or not, how about changing the terminology to: is the lens "water white"/"transparent white against a white background" or does it have an obvious color? 

If the discussion is based on comparison to a clear glass lens or an untreated CR-39 lens, it's blatantly obvious that the "TheraBlue" lens definitely *HAS* color to it. The only way to remove color from a lens and still block a certain amount of UV is to shift the 50 percentile filtration back towards 380 nm. Once 50% or more of light over 400 nm is being removed, the lens is going to have a color to it, this is basic, un-mutable physics. Whether that color is lighter or darker is not the point, it is that obvious FACT that there is a noticeable color to the lens.

----------


## Judy Canty

Semantics.

vir·tu·al
ˈvərCH(əw)əl/
_adjective_
adjective: *virtual*

almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition.
"the virtual absence of border controls"
synonyms:
effective, in effect, near, near enough, essential, practical, to all intents and purposes "a virtual guarantee"






Computing
not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
"a virtual computer"
synonyms:
simulated, artificial, imitation, make-believe; Morecomputer-generated, online, virtual reality 
"a virtual shopping environment"






carried out, accessed, or stored by means of a computer, especially over a network.
"a virtual library"

----------


## Diane

> The yellowish color neutralizes the blue light around the 400 nm mark (visible blue) and that is a fact now, as it was then. It also makes no difference if the yellow was added to the lens material before casting the lens or afterwards, it is there and seems to work now, as it did then.
> 
> Lens manufacturers started to push UV absorbing lenses in the early 1980's, and dye manufacturers came up with UV solutions you could do in the dye pot, or even in the Microwave in your own in house lab and save a ton of money.
> 
> If a Vision Ease would add a 400 nm UV absorber to their Polycarbonate raw material the would have the same yellowish tinge effect and absorb right up to 400 nm.
> 
> This not having the head in the sand, this is all a repeat of history as it always does and a "deja vue".


I will say "head in the sand".  I have been around a while also, but I look at product and the documentation and then judge it.  ALMOST isn't quite clear and I don't think Judy ever said completely clear. I won't argue, but don't judge based upon "OLD" knowledge. 

I can understand your wanting to "sell" your dyes.

Diane

----------


## Lee H

> I will say "head in the sand".  I have been around a while also, but I look at product and the documentation and then judge it.  ALMOST isn't quite clear and I don't think Judy ever said completely clear. I won't argue, but don't judge based upon "OLD" knowledge. 
> 
> I can understand your wanting to "sell" your dyes.
> 
> Diane




Amen Diane!
It was really good meeting you at VEW

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Semantics.


No. Simple, unassailable logic.

The lens is either white (clear) or it is not. Per the picture, it is not. And not one single weasel word will remove the logic of the statement.

Now, that said, you could always go back and *MODIFY* what has been written by the sales wonks about the lens, to say perhaps that it is a very very pale shade of light yellow. But of course, that would totally destroy the use of semantics to get around the logic of clear/not clear, right?

----------


## Diane

> Amen Diane!
> It was really good meeting you at VEW


Good meeting you as well Lee.

Diane

----------


## Lee H

It has a very slight tint, 2%.  At VEW, most couldnt believe it when I told them I was wearing TheraBlue. With that being said, its very obvious when someone is wearing any of the other products on the market whether coatings or substrates. I happen to wear most all of them (Blutech Indoor, BluTech OutDoor, Prevencia, TechShield, ReCharge, and TheraBlue).  I happen to like them all. With that being said, a percentage of people prefer a lens that is clear. With TheraBlue, these people now have an option. Qne product is not for all people. Some believe the studies showing retinal cell damage, some are skeptical, and some think it is and will always be snake oil.  I hope I am wrong but, I believe there will be peer reviewed studies showing a link to heavy blue light exposure and AMD.  There are several non sponsored studies showing there is definitely retina damage caused by blue light, especially in the 420nm range. Will this damage lead to  the early onset of AMD? I  sincerely hope that's not the case. As for me and my family, we will wear lenses that limit the transmission of blue light. . As for my ECP clents, I will continue to present the options and let them make up their own minds. The bottom line is for those that believe they need to protect their retina, they now have another option.  

Peace

----------


## Judy Canty

Thanks Lee.  Peace out.

----------


## RT

> There are several non sponsored studies showing there is definitely retin damage cause by blue light, especially in the 420nm range.


Do you have a link to one of those studies?  According to the blue light hazard function in ANSI Z87.1, peak blue light hazard is at 435 to 440 nm.  Less than 19% of the total blue light hazard is at 420 nm or less, and less than 1.5% is at 400 nm or less.

----------


## Lee H

Below is one I was referring to.  

http://nebula.wsimg.com/bc4320137eb4...&alloworigin=1

there are other reference at the end of the article 

here are a few other "reads" I have enjoyed as I am trying to absorb as much information as possible:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/stayin...as-a-dark-side

http://www.wjgnet.com/2218-6239/full/v4/i3/29.htm

Zhou/Sparrow study published in Optometry and Vision Science 2011 Vol 88
i do not have the link but it is easy to google. 


AMD study...not anything to do with blue light but good information
http://www.schepens.harvard.edu/rest...rch-story.html


If you have any good additional reads, I would love to check them out.   Thanks in advance 

Lee

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I will say "head in the sand". I have been around a while also, but I look at product and the documentation and then judge it. ALMOST isn't quite clear and I don't think Judy ever said completely clear. I won't argue,* *but don't judge based upon "OLD" knowledge. 
> 
> **I can understand your wanting to "sell" your dyes.**
> 
> Diane*


I just went on Google and asked  for”blue light blocking lenses” and get and got the following answer “300,000 results in 30 seconds”. Would that not make the whole subject old KNOWLEDGE with a large amount of products advertised.  Blue light protection is nothing new, it has been around for a long time, as exactly 31 years.

It really started in the mid 1980’s when the dental industry introduced their blue light curing units for dental fillings, and every dentist needed at least a pair to protect their eyes.
Blue Blocking lenses were made then, and still today to absorb 100% UV and blue light from 280 nm to the visible range of 535 nm.

If you bring the color down to the same range as the sample in the picture Judy made, you will get absorption in the low 400 nm range only.

So the latest novelty is still old hat and has been around for a long time and has nothing to do with selling dyes as you suggest.

----------


## ml43

> I just went on Google and asked  for”blue light blocking lenses” and get and got the following answer “300,000 results in 30 seconds”. Would that not make the whole subject old KNOWLEDGE with a large amount of products advertised.  Blue light protection is nothing new, it has been around for a long time, as exactly 31 years.
> 
> It really started in the mid 1980’s when the dental industry introduced their blue light curing units for dental fillings, and every dentist needed at least a pair to protect their eyes.
> Blue Blocking lenses were made then, and still today to absorb 100% UV and blue light from 280 nm to the visible range of 535 nm.
> 
> If you bring the color down to the same range as the sample in the picture Judy made, you will get absorption in the low 400 nm range only.
> 
> So the latest novelty is still old hat and has been around for a long time and has nothing to do with selling dyes as you suggest.


Chris, I don't believe you can absolutely say that the visible spectroscipy(380nm-700nm) of two different compounds must be the same in perceived appearance.

maybe if the whole optical spectrum is identical(200nm-1400nm), then maybe, as they would likely be the same compound(or as least be an enantiomer).

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Chris, I don't believe you can absolutely say that the visible spectroscipy(380nm-700nm) of two different compounds must be the same in perceived appearance.
> 
> maybe if the whole optical spectrum is identical(200nm-1400nm), then maybe, as they would likely be the same compound(or as least be an enantiomer).


Actually, he can. Visible light response is base on the visible light spectrum ONLY. Remove one part of the visible spectrum from a lens, and you get a color or a color shift. It isn't about the compound, it is about the transmission of light THROUGH those compounds.

This is one of those times when I absolutely agree with Chris.

----------


## Diane

OK, I saw a good product and saw what it does.  Draw your own conclusions.  Lee did a good job of discussing them all.  I have simply added what I saw.  Each of the blue light lenses / coatings that Lee discussed brings something to the table and I think we would be better off to embrace them all rather than argue.  

Cheerio.

Diane

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Actually, he can. Visible light response is base on the visible light spectrum ONLY. Remove one part of the visible spectrum from a lens, and you get a color or a color shift. It isn't about the compound, it is about the transmission of light THROUGH those compounds.
> 
> **This is one of those times when I absolutely agree with Chris.*



Thank you Mike for a fair and sound response. 

I saw it all coming a few years back when Prof.Dr Peter Wilkinson (UK) asked me for copies of some reports on on the research the School of Optometry in Waterloo Ont. had published. Wilkinson had been hired by the one mega optical corporation to look into Blue light blocking. Furthermore that report was done in the late 1980's supplied with all the details from me..

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *OK, I saw a good product and saw what it does.  Draw your own conclusions.  Lee did a good job of discussing them all.  I have simply added what I saw.**  Each of the blue light lenses / coatings that Lee discussed brings something to the table and I think we would be better off to embrace them all rather than argue.* * 
> 
> Cheerio.
> 
> Diane*



I am not arguing this one, just would like to add that we have now established that this newest technology is nothing new and has been around for over 30 years, and the technology from then still applies today.

----------


## ml43

> Actually, he can. Visible light response is base on the visible light spectrum ONLY. Remove one part of the visible spectrum from a lens, and you get a color or a color shift. It isn't about the compound, it is about the transmission of light THROUGH those compounds.
> 
> This is one of those times when I absolutely agree with Chris.


that would be true if were talking about exactly the same materials.

like I said before, two transmission spectrums of only the visible(380-700nm) is not enough to determine the perceived color of a mostly transmissive medium.

if we are talking about the entire optical spectrum, then maybe.  

but based on just the transmission spectrum/spectrograph is not enough, unless you are assuming the base material/dye/coating is the same.  

I'll post more later tonight on this subject.  This is actually very advanced photochemistry that is beginning to be used on the nano scale for much more than just glasses.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I'll post more later tonight on this subject.  This is actually very advanced photochemistry* *that is beginning* *to be used on the nano scale for much more than just glasses.
> *



ml43,  Maybe you should keep it to the optical lenses and their manufacturers to make claims according to recent studies made in advanced photochemistry, and stay with the facts as we know them until proven otherwise, with published studies by official scientific bodies.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *but based on just the transmission spectrum/spectrograph is not enough, unless you are assuming the base material/dye/coating is the same.* * 
> 
> I'll post more later tonight on this subject.  This is actually very advanced photochemistry that is beginning to be used on the nano scale for much more than just glasses.*


That is not correct in my opinion, as I have been talking about a layer of added tints on the surface of the lens substrate which can be anything you want from CR39 to whatever, as long as it is tintable on its surface or coating.

The blue blocking tint layer is on the surface of the lens, front or back, or both.
It blocks the UV and visible blue light from entering the lens material whatever it is, or blocks it from passing on to the eye if tinted on the back side or both.

So the theory that different lens materials can make a change, seems to be 
invalid.

*       * 

*                      Tinted layer on surfaces of the lens blocks from 280 nm to 535 nm whatever the lens material*

----------


## ml43

Chris, 

I believe you and Mike are forgetting that this lens(MR-95/UV420) is not a dye or a coating, but a compound either mixed in the polymer, or attached to the monomer.

Like I stated earlier, we cannot say with absolution given only a visible spectrum of only transmission, and define the perceived color of a medium.

Unless we know
1. The base material
2. The coating
3. The dye(which can either be in the coating or the base material)

It's the same reason a tinted lens designed to filter/absorb a certain spectrum will be different in perceived color than a lens that has been thin film coated to filter/reflect a certain spectrum.  

Incidence = Transmission + Reflection + Absorption 

I totally agree with both of you that you can judge perceived color with a decent amount of accuracy using a transmission spectrum, if and only if we are talking about a lens dye, done in the same material.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> Chris, 
> Incidence = Transmission + Reflection + Absorption 
> 
> I totally agree with both of you that you can judge perceived color with a decent amount of accuracy using a transmission spectrum, if and only if we are talking about a lens dye, done in the same material.



ml47,     I agree with your statement that there is a difference between having the color mixed into the basic lens material or by simply treating the surfaces. Different tinted materials also will show the same tint combination a different way and it is a huge time consuming job to get them all equal.

So it is now up to the Optican or Optometrist and the consumer to sell or purchase a blue blocking lens that came finished from a manufacturer with a fixed blue light absorbing tint in the basic material or one that has been added by the lab by means of tinting. In many cases it will also boil down to purchase and retail pricing. 

The latest thing in blue blocking sunglass dyes is that they are now also available in different colors from the standard  amber, also in brown, chocolate brown and dark green.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Chris, 
> 
> I believe you and Mike are forgetting that this lens(MR-95/UV420) is not a dye or a coating, but a compound either mixed in the polymer, or attached to the monomer.
> 
> Like I stated earlier, we cannot say with absolution given only a visible spectrum of only transmission, and define the perceived color of a medium.
> 
> Unless we know
> 1. The base material
> 2. The coating
> ...


I totally disagree.

I base this opinion on optical physics, the science of which has been long set and proven.

Optical glass filters, such as the Schott GG/OG UV filters do not rely on coatings, they use an colloidal process that activates during a heat-striking operation, and once activated, do not ever change back.

There is one filter, Schott GG400, which is a base-line for measuring UV cut-off. It's 50% transmission point is at 400 nm, and the color of the filter is a pale straw yellow.

http://www.schott.com/advanced_optic...ec-2014-en.pdf

Another is the Schott GG395, which is clear in color.

The 'gold standard' for filter property discussion can be found here: http://www.schott.com/advanced_optic...n-2015-eng.pdf

And again, I will remind you that it doesn't matter WHAT material the filter is made from, glass, plastic, monomer, polymer, or what constituent components are added to it. The result is the exact same regardless. 

Any time you change the transmission/absorbtion properties of a given material inside the boundaries of the visible light spectrum, through any means, you also change its apparent color. Again, this is basic optical physics.

This is, and always has been the reason for reluctance on the buyers side to purchase UV/Blue Light filtering lenses: unacceptable (to the consumer) color shifts.

----------


## AngeHamm

> This is, and always has been the reason for reluctance on the buyers side to purchase UV/Blue Light filtering lenses: unacceptable (to the consumer) color shifts.


All this in mind, this lens* is* virtually clear in the visible spectrum. It has no more visible tint than an unactivated Transitions lens, while demonstrably and definitively blocking the HEV blue spectrum it's designed to block. It is clear enough to satisfy all but the most unreasonable engineer patients, unlike BlueTech, Prevencia, Gunnar, and other products. It addresses the primary issue of buyer reluctance to order an HEV/Blue light filtering lens brilliantly, and in a fashion previously not seen in this industry, despite Chris's claims that everything old is new again. 

This *is* a new and unprecedented product. *Period.* You can argue the need for it all you like, but my point is that is does what it says it does in a way that we have not seen it done before.

----------


## MikeAurelius

Virtually clear is **NOT** clear.

I will grant you that it is the clearest of the UV filters so far, but it's **NOT** clear.

----------


## AngeHamm

> Virtually clear is **NOT** clear.
> 
> I will grant you that it is the clearest of the UV filters so far, but it's **NOT** clear.


Sure. No one here has claimed even once that it *is* clear. But, as I've said about 20 times now, it has no more tint that unactivated Transitions or Photofusion, and no more tint than run-of-the-mill "clear" 1.67, 1.70, or 1.74 lenses, all of which we dispense to very happy patients on a daily basis. None of my high-index lens patients complain of the miniscule tint endemic to their materials, and I predict a similar 0% of patients wishing an HEV-blocking lens option will complain of the 2% tint in TheraBlue lenses.

----------


## Judy Canty

*I. Have. Never. Said. The. Lens. Is. Clear.*

----------


## AngeHamm

> 


Also, this picture does not agree with my personal experience with this material. It is clearer in the flesh than in this picture. A lot clearer.

----------


## Judy Canty

Sorry. Working from home today. No make-up. In order from left to right. Clear 1.67, TheraBlue, BluTech

Attachment 12344Attachment 12345Attachment 12346

----------


## ml43

> I totally disagree.
> 
> I base this opinion on optical physics, the science of which has been long set and proven.
> 
> Optical glass filters, such as the Schott GG/OG UV filters do not rely on coatings, they use an colloidal process that activates during a heat-striking operation, and once activated, do not ever change back.
> 
> There is one filter, Schott GG400, which is a base-line for measuring UV cut-off. It's 50% transmission point is at 400 nm, and the color of the filter is a pale straw yellow.
> 
> http://www.schott.com/advanced_optic...ec-2014-en.pdf
> ...


Mike, you would be correct, if we were only talking about glass.


no one is arguing that MR-95/UV420 is clear, but it is definitely clearer than any glass 420nm long pass filter, and any tinted cr39/poly lens that has been designed to block 50-100% from 420nm-380nm, simply because it reflects a lot less and absorbs more due to whats in the substrate.

most compounds that absorb visible light, or light in general(200-1400nm) are some type of organic molecule/compound.
most chemist will use IR light(FT-IR) to do chemical analysis on organic substances to either determine purity or identity.
However, you can have two molecules with nearly the same FT-IR spectrum, that are different in terms of molecular weight, melting point, boiling point, and sometime color.  

going back, when comparing two different transparent mediums, judging perceived color only works if you have all the information.
just a transmission spectrum is not enough, unless you are assuming the two mediums are made of the same material, have the same coating, or are dyed in the same way.  

or you are assuming reflectance and absorption are equal in both materials.
Which is normally done in glass, due to the transmission of glass being decently consistent, and in most optical systems, you really don't care.  
Especially for a long pass filter, which is designed to filter light in the most effect matter, not appear clear.   

I'll be in the lab later this week, I should be able to find a GG395/GG400/GG420/GG435 to compare the MR-95/UV420 to.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *no one is arguing that MR-95/UV420 is clear, but it is definitely clearer than any glass 420nm long pass filter, and any tinted cr39/poly lens that has been designed to block 50-100% from 420nm-380nm,* *simply because it reflects a lot less and absorbs more due to whats in the substrate.*


......................, is because of the AR coating that will pass up to 9 to 10% more light through the basic lens material which absorbs the blue light up to a certain degree at 320 nm .

However a blue-blocking tinted CR39/Poly lens can absorb up to 100 % of the blue spectrum if tinted into sunglass shades. And you can have you own choice of how far you want to go. And as it is surface treated the lens material
would be of no importance.

Not every consumer is willing to pay through the nose for the latest and probably most expensive newest type of AR coating when there is any alternative that works as well or even better in dark shades, when a light yellowish tint can provide the same end result as a 400 nm UV dye has done the last 30 years, without the added feature of the AR coating.  

Anybody that owns and operates a on-line optical retailer on the web is out to gain market share and will look for alternatives that are less expensive and still get to a good end result.

----------


## ml43

> ......................, is because of the AR coating that will pass up to 9 to 10% more light through the basic lens material which absorbs the blue light up to a certain degree at 320 nm .
> 
> However a blue-blocking tinted CR39/Poly lens can absorb up to 100 % of the blue spectrum if tinted into sunglass shades. And you can have you own choice of how far you want to go. And as it is surface treated the lens material
> would be of no importance.
> 
> Not every consumer is willing to pay through the nose for the latest and probably most expensive newest type of AR coating when there is any alternative that works as well or even better in dark shades, when a light yellowish tint can provide the same end result as a 400 nm UV dye has done the last 30 years, without the added feature of the AR coating.  
> 
> Anybody that owns and operates a on-line optical retailer on the web is out to gain market share and will look for alternatives that are less expensive and still get to a good end result.


no objection to that point chris.

I, like you believe, the most valuable tools available to opticians are a tint pot and a hand stone.  

Over the years as a tech I have processed well over 10,000 jobs, maybe even more, all of which were final touched on the hand stone to get the perfect fit/finish.  

Tinting is an art, not a science.  Unfortunately, it is an art that is slowly becoming a dying breed.  

However, to dismiss a new technology because it achieves the same thing as old technology in a different way is a bit myopic.  

Technology will move forward, with or without the artisans of the past.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Technology will move forward, with or without the artisans of the past.


Technology isn't the issue. Marketing and advertising is. When bringing a product to the attention of professionals in the industry, it is a good thing to not treat us as if we are just off the potato truck. Get rid of the weasel words, present graphs, show pictures of competing products in a similar condition (if your new product is A/R coated, please don't try to palm off uncoated competitors products). Describe the products using technical words the professionals of the industry will understand and know.

Don't say 'virtually clear', instead say 'very pale yellow'. Be honest in your descriptions. 

If you are going to sell a product that filters...anything, show the doggone transmission chart so that your customers can see exactly how the material performs.

When you show pictures, use bright white bond paper and lay 'your' lenses and the 'other' lenses side by side, then take photographs under natural (sun) light, incandescent, florescent, and LED light. All for comparison under varying light conditions.

None of us are idiots, although one or two of us *might* be lunatics (I include myself in that description).

Don't use the same sales techniques to sell to industry professionals that you use to sell to consumers.

These several threads have been an excellent class on what not to do with a new product. Maybe OptiBoard can offer CE credits to those of us who participated  :Bounce:

----------


## Judy Canty

Is the horse dead yet?

----------


## MikeAurelius

> Is the horse dead yet?


No, I think the horse is still showing some signs of life.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *no objection to that point chris.
> 
> I, like you believe, the most valuable tools available to opticians are a tint pot and a hand stone. ...................
> 
> **Tinting is an art, not a science.  Unfortunately, it is an art that is slowly becoming a dying breed.  
> 
> However, to dismiss a new technology because it achieves the same thing as old technology in a different way is a bit myopic.* * 
> 
> Technology will move forward, with or without the artisans of the past.*



ml43..........nice post, but,  Actually when you call a tint pot old technology, I am of the same opinion.

However there is also some new technology in that field which you forget to mention or you don't know about it. 

Instead of a dye pot with the old low temperature dyes you could use the Microwave with the latest technology high temperature dyes, which lets you tint a high index lens in 4-to-6 minutes to the darkest shades you want. You can also get a regular CR39 there in a minute, or less.

.......to your last point.

If an optician looses his last bit of the artisanat on which the profession is based on, then he/she becomes nothing than a reseller for the optical corporations and, or their labs. Their price markups that were based on their artisanat and know how to do it, would not be justified no more.




> *However, to dismiss a new technology because it achieves the same thing as old technology in a different way is a bit myopic.*


Also old technology has advanced as stated above. If the artisan becomes just a reseller because the manufacturers of new technology that supplies the finished and cooked Hamburger to the reseller who passes it on to the consumer at their rates, will encourage the consumer to purchase these items on-line.

----------


## Judy Canty

> Instead of a dye pot with the old low temperature dyes you could use the Microwave with the latest technology high temperature dyes, which lets you tint a high index lens in 4-to-6 minutes to the darkest shades you want. You can also get a regular CR39 there in a minute, or less.


And the circle is complete.

----------


## mdeimler

> Instead of a dye pot with the old low temperature dyes you could use the Microwave with the latest technology high temperature dyes, which lets you tint a high index lens in 4-to-6 minutes to the darkest shades you want. You can also get a regular CR39 there in a minute, or less.


Sounds awesome.  Thanks Chris

----------


## optilady1

How on earth has this thread continued for so long?  Is blue light blocking the new "are you giving out PD"?

----------


## Judy Canty

Annie, it must be. My original post back in early August was simply to introduce a new product. One that is not sold at chains. One that is not available from online merchants. Rather than see this as an opportunity, a handful of members chose to pick apart everything about it. I was shocked and dismayed at the lack of professionalism. I was lectured on how to be a good rep (giving away free products) and accused of using "weasel" words if not outright lying. 

Years ago, maybe 2000-2001 at an OAA meeting, I defended our forum when it was described as a "bunch of wackos and nut-jobs". I've done everything I promised in that original post. I've supplied multiple pictures as requested and have still been met with rude and unprofessional comments from members who question my veracity, even though they admit to never having the product in hand.

I can only assume that the problem is with me, not the product.  So to end this discussion, do you give out PDs?

----------


## optilady1

I've read most of this thread, although I'll admit some of the more techy crap I've skimmed over.  Quite frankly, it's been a bunch of weenie wagging about who's science is more sciency.  

As to the PD question, I do what my employer tells me to do.  I currently am not giving them out, for free or for a price.

If one day I own the zoo and run it, I think that there are arguments that are very valid on both sides.  The reality to all things optical is this: While our jobs are based on science, our products rely heavily on the perception of our patients.  Therefore everything we do is really magic, and sometimes the magic works, sometimes not, and we roll with the punches and adapt to each individual patient.

----------


## Judy Canty

> I've read most of this thread, although I'll admit some of the more techy crap I've skimmed over.  Quite frankly, it's been a bunch of weenie wagging about who's science is more sciency.  
> 
> As to the PD question, I do what my employer tells me to do.  I currently am not giving them out, for free or for a price.
> 
> If one day I own the zoo and run it, I think that there are arguments that are very valid on both sides.  The reality to all things optical is this: While our jobs are based on science, our products rely heavily on the perception of our patients.  Therefore everything we do is really magic, and sometimes the magic works, sometimes not, and we roll with the punches and adapt to each individual patient.


+1

----------


## rbaker

> How on earth has this thread continued for so long?  Is blue light blocking the new "are you giving out PD"?


Well, you see it's like this. The topic really has very little impact on the visual system of the patient. 

It does, however have an immense impact on the egos of all those erudite  respondents to something that most of them have apparently never seen. It sort of reminds me of the good old College days sitting around with a jug of cheap wine and a bag of Appleton Gold Kush debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Personally, I find discussions, and I use the term loosely, of this nature to be very amusing.

As to the PD thingy, you got much bigger fish to fry.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

You can pooh pooh the threat of artificially strong and and near blue visible light sources on the retina (premature apoptotic cell death) and on the circadian sleep cycle (general health damage from too little sleep), but I think the jury is in on those scientifically, and I'm using that jury information to help keep my patients as healthy optically as I can. If I happen to make a few bucks doing it, I'll sleep just fine doing so.

----------


## optilady1

Well, If you are taking care of your patients then I hope you are making sure that they are all eating an all organic diet full of all of the vitamin/mineral supplements that we as a nation are missing.  And Free Range only meat and wild caught fish.  Why not sell supplement in your office too.  That will also make you a few bucks.  

Are you also preparing them for an impending apocalypse?  You should have a side business selling shelf stable food and prepper gear.  That will also give you added income.  

Fear will make them buy anything.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

No I do not sell any supplements and never have.  However, I freely give nutritional advice when appropriate or when asked for it.  

My most common nutritional advice is to eat at least one whole egg per week.  Why?  Because the yolk is loaded with more zeaxanthin than you can get from a whole bottle of expensive supplements that contain it.  I have lots of vegetarians in my practice, but most of them are ok with 1 egg a week for macular health.  

But I also don't sell eggs.  I'm an optometrist.  I do eye care and fit vision corrective and protective devices.  That's all I do.  I also don't cotton to apocalyptic or conspiracy theories.  I'm a Californian.

----------


## rbaker

> You can pooh pooh the threat of artificially strong and and near blue visible light sources on the retina (premature apoptotic cell death) and on the circadian sleep cycle (general health damage from too little sleep), but I think the jury is in on those scientifically, and I'm using that jury information to help keep my patients as healthy optically as I can. If I happen to make a few bucks doing it, I'll sleep just fine doing so.


Pooh, pooh.

----------


## farawayC

I received a Conant UV++ sample kit the other week. The lenses have, unsurprisingly, a noticeable color cast when placed on a piece of paper. However, as mentioned previously, the cast is comparable to an unactivated Transition lens. It's also very comparable to a SeeCoat Blue with paper backing (but without any of the blue reflection, obviously).

Unscientific but noteworthy anecdote: when shining a blue laser through the UV++ lens, the laser loses probably ~20-40% intensity, whereas when shone through a SeeCoat Blue there's no noticeable change in intensity.

Regardless of potential ARMD and all the rest, this new in-monomer technology has anti-blue reflective coatings beat, even if just for the lack of any blue reflections.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Yeah, the Conant rep gave me one of those.  Careful, that's a real LASER putting out real UV as well as Blue and Violet visible. I'm amazed they are giving those out like candy.  If a kid aimed one of those at someone's eye for a while there could be hell to pay.  And if you must use them for demo purposes, make sure the REFLECTED laser radiation is also directed away from all eyes.

----------


## sharpstick777

I have compiled all of the available published studies, and am trying to dig up unpublished ones, but have found grave errors in most of them (most don't accurately identify either the intensity or the exact frequency they tested with, "Blue" is very vague).  I do recommend Blue Light reducing products, but not to prevent a specific disease like but to improve clarity and depth perception, which they do very well.

Vastly better studies are needed really to determine a health benefit to any of these products, because our bodies own systems for dealing with harmfull light of all spectrums have not been assessed at all, and barely identified.  

But the one glaring exception is post IOL patients, who have their crystalline lens replaced with a clear IOL with no Melonin or yellowing from aging.  They remain to me the group at greatest potential risk.

Thereblue / UV++ is the only product that is both highly effective, and can be worn at night.  Products that only block 20% or less of Short Wave Blue are not very effective when simply turning down the brightness can have a great net benefit, at far lower cost.  Blue-Tech remains effective, but is best in a clip-on that can be removed.

Sunglasses are simply the greatest tool anyone has to reduce the greatest source of Blue Light exposure, and those also remain sadly untested, but its where we should begin our Blue Light reducing dialogue.






> You can pooh pooh the threat of artificially strong and and near blue visible light sources on the retina (premature apoptotic cell death) and on the circadian sleep cycle (general health damage from too little sleep), but I think the jury is in on those scientifically, and I'm using that jury information to help keep my patients as healthy optically as I can. If I happen to make a few bucks doing it, I'll sleep just fine doing so.

----------


## jakedt11

Where blue light is being mentioned more and more these days, is there anyone that can point me in a direction to where I could study up on it? Somewhere reliable that isn't backed by any major lens manufacturers.

----------


## drk

Sharpstick, my hero.

I think it's good to be skeptical. 

1. We don't really, really know what "blue light" (undefined) does to the eye, as a population.  That study would be immense.  Case-specific, well, yeah, there could be a justification.  But that's not the marketing plan.

2. We can't really easily test "blue light" blocking in most offices, and we have to rely on others.  We sure could use spectrometers.

3. Anything marketed as having to do with "digital devices" is automatically in the skeptical category, in my book.  Good gravy, we'll look back on this time and laugh at ourselves, someday.  Remember all the "buzz" about electricity at the turn of the century?  (I'll bet Chris and Judy do...)http://thequackdoctor.com/index.php/...ctrical-cures/

----------


## optical24/7

I try not to be skeptical, but I do like to remain on the cautious side in new stuff like this. Blue light may very well be bad for us. Time and more studies will tell. In the mean time I will offer the product if I have a client that insists on it. What could it hurt I figure. At least I never got on the bandwagon of the 'full spectrum lens" Signet put out in the early 80's or so. (Some doc convinced them that the human eye benefited from "All of God's light rays".)

----------


## braheem24

This thread makes me blue.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> But the one glaring exception is post IOL patients, who have their crystalline lens replaced with a clear IOL with no Melonin or yellowing from aging.


Not in the first year. Most AMD is diagnosed behind old, yellowed media!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19901205




> At least I never got on the bandwagon of the 'full spectrum lens" Signet put out in the early 80's or so. (Some doc convinced them that the human eye benefited from "All of God's light rays".)


They may have been on to something. HEV light may be good for us.




> Despite analyses stratified by sun sensitivity, sun exposure was greater in control subjects than in cases with AMD.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9160021

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I have compiled all of the available published studies, and am trying to dig up unpublished ones, but have found grave errors in most of them (most don't accurately identify either the intensity or the exact frequency they tested with, "Blue" is very vague).  I do recommend Blue Light reducing products, but not to prevent a specific disease like but to improve clarity and depth perception, which they do very well.*


asking Google " amount of scientific studies on blue light damage ?" I got:

About 25,100,000 results (0.37 seconds)

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> asking Google " amount of scientific studies on blue light damage ?" I got:
> 
> About 25,100,000 results (0.37 seconds)


You are getting way too many results because of your query style.  You should enclose any phrase for which you want exact matches in double quotes.  For example, query google with "Blue light damage"  with quotes will ONLY return hits that contain that exact phrase and will eliminate a lot of garbage, in this case dropping the returns to less than 30,000 hits.  Alternatively, you might want to make use of the Search Tool button just below your query line and specify a time frame such as "past year" or a custom time range, instead of having google search "all time" back the beginning of google.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *You are getting way too many results because of your query style.
> *



You are right Bill, I am very familiar with what you are saying, but I wanted to get the highest number possible in this case to answer the original post.




> I have compiled all of the available published studies, and am trying to dig up unpublished ones, but have found grave errors in most of them (most don't accurately identify either the intensity or the exact frequency they tested with, "Blue" is very vague).

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> You are right Bill, I am very familiar with what you are saying, but I wanted to get the highest number possible in this case to answer the original post.


But 25 million is not really a manageable number for anyone I know of.  Referring to his original post, I just typed in:  Unpublished blue light vision   
and that going back to the beginning of time Google only returned some 630K; manageable?  maybe for a guy who claims he's found ALL the published ones.  I've found that for most google queries and really any database queries, fewer words are better than more words.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Beside the Google I have been looking into blue light protection since 1984 and seen plenty of reports on it ever since.

First we came up with a UV protection that protected 100% when everybody used products that just went to 380 nm because the lenses did not have the yellowish tinge, and then 1985 we came up with a full blue blocker that totally protected right up to 525 nm. And now this is all the latest fad in technology.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

Not quite.  The latest fad is reducing the VISIBLE BLUE  radiation.  UV protection is well known and well understood, as you state.  Total blue blocking is also well known and understood in the realm of sunglasses.  It's that pesky visible blue blocking while being wearable in public is the new problem.  I mean who wants to wear strongly blue reflectors and/or deeply yellow colored lenses in public?  

Not me

----------


## AngeHamm

> Not quite.  The latest fad is reducing the VISIBLE BLUE  radiation.  UV protection is well known and well understood, as you state.  Total blue blocking is also well known and understood in the realm of sunglasses.  It's that pesky visible blue blocking while being wearable in public is the new problem.  I mean who wants to wear strongly blue reflectors and/or deeply yellow colored lenses in public?  
> 
> Not me


aaaaaaaaaaand that's the problem TheraBlue addresses.

----------


## drk

I ask all the blue light worriers about this:

What's more important?  Wearing blue-blocker dress lenses or wearing wrap sunglasses outdoors? Which has more negative effect long term?

I. Don't. Know.

Nobody knows.

----------


## AngeHamm

> I ask all the blue light worriers about this:
> 
> What's more important?  Wearing blue-blocker dress lenses or wearing wrap sunglasses outdoors? Which has more negative effect long term?
> 
> I. Don't. Know.
> 
> Nobody knows.


I'm not really addressing you specifically, drk, despite quoting you here.

I think that the characterization of people in this discussion as "blue-light worriers" is an obstacle to productive conversation. Not everyone on OB is a decision-maker at their place of work. In my case, my doctor is very focused on the potential dangers of long-term HEV exposure, so it is my professional obligation to research products that address my employer's directives. My own skepticism on the subject is immaterial; I have a job to do. The biggest obstacle to dispensing effective HEV-blocking products has long been their obnoxious yellow or brown color. TheraBlue is a game-changer because it does the job with no more visible tint than Transitions or high-index lenses, products that I dispense every day. 

Whether or not you think that the job TheraBlue does is worth doing is, frankly, irrelevant to my need to explore products like this as part of my job. So I respectfully must object to being characterized as being some sort of apologist for technology some of my colleagues believe to be unnecessary. I have a professional obligation to fulfill, and TheraBlue is an excellent product in service of that goal.

If you don't want to dispense HEV-blocking technology, don't. Some people don't like to dispense AR or polycarbonate lenses, or Luxottica frames. Some don't use managed care. Let other professionals with needs different than yours do what they need to do. We can serve our different employers and client bases without disparaging each other. I prefer to assume that professionals on this board who do things I don't do are doing so with due diligence and conscience.

----------


## Plausible

> Judy Canty just stopped by my office to show us Mitsui's new TheraBlue lens.
> 
> Jaw drop. 
> 
> Mic drop. 
> 
> Game-changer.
> 
> I'm still shaking my head that a lens this clear can demonstrably block HEV blue light that completely. If I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes I wouldn't believe it. It has no more visible tint than an unactivated Transitions-VI lens. You *need* to check this out.



For such a.................... Jaw drop / Mic drop / Game-changer. This is the only place I see this even talked about.

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> I ask all the blue light worriers about this:
> 
> What's more important?  Wearing blue-blocker dress lenses or wearing wrap sunglasses outdoors? Which has more negative effect long term?
> 
> I. Don't. Know.
> 
> Nobody knows.


That's a pretty lame choice.  You are not specifying anything about the lens materials in the "wrap" sunglasses, nor anything about the frame details in the "dress" lenses.

I can envision some tiny little dress lens frames that don't offer much protection outdoors, and some big semi-wrap frames that would do just fine.  I can also envision "wrap" sunglasses that offer little UV and visible blue protection (cr39 tinted blue with no uV treatments).  

In this controversy as in most, you need to use your brain.  

And of course you need a modicum of knowledge.  

And then there's:

----------


## AngeHamm

> For such a.................... Jaw drop / Mic drop / Game-changer. This is the only place I see this even talked about.


It's only been in the market for a month, and is only available through one distributor in the U.S. If we restricted our lens choices to the things we "see talked about" all over the place, we'd put every patient in polycarbonate Varilux lenses with Transitions and Crizal. Our job is to be more knowledgeable than popular perception.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *I mean who wants to wear strongly blue reflectors* *and/or deeply yellow colored lenses in public?* * 
> 
> Not me*



Your last sentence is misleading.

..........you are not quite up to date in the available material knowledge of these lenses.

They can be tinted to appear in the following colors =  *Amber  /  Brown  /  Dark Brown  /  Green * and still provide the same protection.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Essilor Poll in the UK

Many people are unaware of blue light which is emitted from devices, screens, and low energy bulbs – whilst large numbers think of Ultra-Violet light as only a danger when looking directly at the sun, not realising that there reflections off water, windows, and roads.
Essilor has conducted a poll through YouGov to find out just how low awareness of these dangers is. Of the 2,096 people polled:

·                         29% that blue light was also damaging.

·                         76% had not heard of E-SPF ratings and how they protect                             eyes from UV.

·                         72% of people were unaware that blue and UV light                                        blocking lenses were an option for either.

·                         36% knew that smoking tobacco harmed your eyes

·                         35% knew the same about obesity

·                         One in ten people were completely unaware that any of                                 these factors could affect your eyesight at all.

*Here are the full results of the poll*

Before taking this survey, which, if any, of the following causes were you aware of that can damage people’s eyes?  (Please select all that apply)



see all of it:==============>
http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-.../?article=7776

----------


## Dr. Bill Stacy

> Your last sentence is misleading.
> 
> ..........you are not quite up to date in the available material knowledge of these lenses.
> 
> They can be tinted to appear in the following colors =  *Amber  /  Brown  /  Dark Brown  /  Green * and still provide the same protection.


It is well understood that you can take a lens that targets blue and violet wavelengths for absorption and/or reflection will appear yellow, the higher the absorption and/or reflectance of the blue, the more noticeably YELLOW the lens appears, and consequently the more YELLOW the wearers' visual world will appear, and the more YELLOW the wearers lenses and eyes will appear to observers.  

It seems very obvious to me that these lenses can be even more deeply colored by adding brown or green  or really any other tint which will make the lenses and visual world darker, more sunglass like.  My question was referring to indoor lenses, not sunglasses.  Perhaps I should have said "Who wants to wear yellow or any other color of deeply tinted lenses indoors?  Not me."   But most people already know not to wear sunglasses indoors or at night.

----------


## AngeHamm

> My question was referring to indoor lenses, not sunglasses.  Perhaps I should have said "Who wants to wear yellow or any other color of deeply tinted lenses indoors?  Not me."   But most people already know not to wear sunglasses indoors or at night.


You may know that, and I may know that. But Corey Hart does not know that.

----------


## braheem24

> see all of it:==============>
> http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-.../?article=7776



I am shocked smoking is not higher, Based on conversations I've had with several doctors I was not expecting it to be that low.

----------


## icare

I know this has been discussed ad infinitum, but just thought I'd add that there is room for a further description.

In my lab today I have two stock TheraBlue products, one is +2.00-0.50 and the other is -6.00-0.50.  It's now obvious that the thicker the lens is, the deeper the resultant hue will be.  It's a relatively greenish color.  The color cast is MUCH less detectable in the plano 'colorless' demo lens that's supplied by Luzerne and I wish I understood that better ahead of time.  I wouldn't market the product as colorless.  Still, the color less obvious than all of the competitive products.  The AR coat looks like a simple value AR that's pretty obvious, like what you'd see on an economy SOMO stock product.

Overall, it's an OK option and doesn't show that strong purple sheen that some patients have balked at.

----------


## AngeHamm

> I know this has been discussed ad infinitum, but just thought I'd add that there is room for a further description.
> 
> In my lab today I have two stock TheraBlue products, one is +2.00-0.50 and the other is -6.00-0.50.  It's now obvious that the thicker the lens is, the deeper the resultant hue will be.  It's a relatively greenish color.  The color cast is MUCH less detectable in the plano 'colorless' demo lens that's supplied by Luzerne and I wish I understood that better ahead of time.  I wouldn't market the product as colorless.  Still, the color less obvious than all of the competitive products.  The AR coat looks like a simple value AR that's pretty obvious, like what you'd see on an economy SOMO stock product.
> 
> Overall, it's an OK option and doesn't show that strong purple sheen that some patients have balked at.


That's pretty much to be expected. Transitions lenses have more hue in thicker RXes as well.

----------


## optical24/7

> That's pretty much to be expected. Transitions lenses have more hue in thicker RXes as well.


I'm pretty sure Transitions is only on the front surface, not through out the lens, poly for sure. Tint is the same no matter the thickness, now PGX is another story...

----------


## Uncle Fester

> I'm pretty sure Transitions is only on the front surface, not through out the lens, poly for sure. Tint is the same no matter the thickness, now PGX is another story...


Post #3---


http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...bibed+imbedded

----------


## javguy

Yeah!  We need big gov't to change the blue sky to another color.  I'm sure there's some way to waste billions of dollars trying to do that.  Or we can just wear video camera glasses all the time and set those monitors to only allow safe light to be seen.

----------

