# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  Crizal Sapphire with UV???

## gonzalesrebecca22

I would always try to dispense at least a poly lens unless a pt really insists not to. So my question is since it is already 100% uv proof then what is the big deal to upgrade to Crizal sapphire with uv? What are the advantages?

----------


## Judy Canty

$$$$

----------


## Uilleann

The benefits have been discussed here previously.  But because almost everyone (not all of us) on these boards are utterly _anti-Essilor at all costs_, much of the information was buried under mountains of bashing.   :Rolleyes:   Your local Crizal rep would be a good place to start for information.  There are benefits to the patient of course, and it sounds like of those dispensers who already dispense Crizal lenses, the cost to the patient is going to remain the same or very close to.

Best!  And welcome to OB.

----------


## vcom

It's basically just a re-branding of the product.  Has same hydrophobic/oleophobic properties as it did with crizal 'scotchguard', only they aren't calling it 'scotchguard' anymore.

----------


## Uilleann

> It's basically just a re-branding of the product.  Has same hydrophobic/oleophobic properties as it did with crizal 'scotchguard', only they aren't calling it 'scotchguard' anymore.


Except that's not really accurate at all is it.  It is a different product.  Talk to your rep to get details.

----------


## Pogu

Holy crap,  again? Make with the reading people.

----------


## kittyeyes

I'm trying to be open-minded about Essilor's claim that reflected UV off the inside of the lens is 1)not filtered by poly and 2)their A/R is the only solution to the problem. Thoughts?

----------


## mdeimler

Serious question...if the UV is absorbed/diffused by the front of the lens, why is it NOT absorbed/diffused by the back ?   Btw the Sapphire is bluer and is even more free of reflections than regular Crizal.

----------


## kittyeyes

> Serious question...if the UV is absorbed/diffused by the front of the lens, why is it NOT absorbed/diffused by the back ?   Btw the Sapphire is bluer and is even more free of reflections than regular Crizal.



...and why isn't Crizal EZ offered with the UV option?

----------


## AngeHamm

> I'm trying to be open-minded about Essilor's claim that reflected UV off the inside of the lens is 1)not filtered by poly and 2)their A/R is the only solution to the problem. Thoughts?


Reflected light from the backside doesn't pass through the material of the lens, therefore the UV-absorbing qualities of the poly don't factor in to reflected UV.

I like Sapphire a lot. I love the residual blue, and I like that it's even more clear than Avance. The only AR I like as much is PureCoat.

----------


## kittyeyes

Been trying to educate myself on whether UV coatings filter or absorb-thoughts?

----------


## mdeimler

> Reflected light from the backside doesn't pass through the material of the lens, therefore the UV-absorbing qualities of the poly don't factor in to reflected UV.


Can anyone elaborate why this happens ?  As in WHY doesn't the UV get asorbed/diffused by the backside ?

----------


## kittyeyes

I'm trying to get my head around that too-thanks for asking the question mdeimer!

----------


## AngeHamm

> Can anyone elaborate why this happens ?  As in WHY doesn't the UV get asorbed/diffused by the backside ?


Because that's the way reflection works. For the UV filtering/absorbing (same thing, by the way) properties of the lens material to work, the light has to go *through* the material for it to filter out. Light that reflects off the surface of a lens is not passing through it, therefore the filtering cannot happen.

----------


## kittyeyes

Thanks Andrew! Do you have a UV meter and does it read any differently with Crizal UV on the lens?

----------


## mdeimler

Actually makes sense.  Too bad someone had to spell it out for me.  I guess I shouldn't ask silly questions in between edging lenses and dispensing glasses.

----------


## Judy Canty

if this is such an eye health hazard, why is it only being addressed now?

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Can anyone elaborate why this happens ?  As in WHY doesn't the UV get absorbed/diffused by the backside ?


I could be wrong but think of it the same way a mirror can bounce a laser back to another point. The "reflection" of a lens not treated with AR returns a partial amount of the uv back to the cornea. The UV source (sunlight) has to be coming from the side or behind.

----------


## edKENdance

> I could be wrong but think of it the same way a mirror can bounce a laser back to another point. The "reflection" of a lens not treated with AR returns a partial amount of the uv back to the cornea. The UV source (sunlight) has to be coming from the side or behind.



I'm pretty sure that's exactly right and it's a total genius move.  One of those "why didn't anyone think of this before" kind of things.

----------


## kittyeyes

...and why aren't standard UV coatings addressing the "problem"?

----------


## becc971

the way our essilor rep described it to us is instead of wearing SPF 10, you're wearing SPF 25? haha.  i use that to describe it to patients and they seem to get the benefits of it.  

  As far as i understand it, it still has all of the benefits of the SGP, but they didnt want to pay for using the scotchguard logo so now its UV and it does give more protection because it provides protection from front and back side reflection.  i could just be drinking the kool aid, but i love my saphire coating. i see a million times better out of it than even avance.  but that could be my one funky high astig eye talking :)

----------


## kittyeyes

so the "UV 400" coating my lab offers doesn't block UV from the back of the lens?

----------


## becc971

> so the "UV 400" coating my lab offers doesn't block UV from the back of the lens?


i would ask, but from what i understand the avance and saphire UV are the only ones who do? could be totally incorrect though, but thats kind of what theyre basing the entire marketing join the essilor club thing on :) our rep says theyre the only ones who offer that now.

----------


## kittyeyes

has anyone put the Crizal UV in a UV meter to see if it really blocks UV?

----------


## oxmoon

Why is UV such a big dea?  Every other living thing seeks a place in the sun and does just fine without IV coating, and people did too until it was invented (and marketed).  It seems to me that we evolved with the sun, and we are built to be the better for sun exposure, including the eyeball.  Suncreen has already been exposed as a massive scam.  Maybe UV coating will be next.

----------


## rinselberg

> Why is UV such a big dea?  Every other living thing seeks a place in the sun and does just fine without IV coating, and people did too until it was invented (and marketed).  It seems to me that we evolved with the sun, and we are built to be the better for sun exposure, including the eyeball.  Suncreen has already been exposed as a massive scam.  Maybe UV coating will be next.


People are living much longer than was common when our bodies evolved to their present form. Our physical evolution has lagged behind our rapidly improving means to increase human life expectancy. And since the negative effects of UV exposure are cumulative, it is precisely in our "unnaturally" older ages (50s, 60s and up) when cataracts and macular degeneration are more commonly observed.

Bottom line: UV protection in its various forms is not a "scam".

----------


## Uilleann

> Why is UV such a big dea?  Every other living thing seeks a place in the sun and does just fine without IV coating, and people did too until it was invented (and marketed).  It seems to me that we evolved with the sun, and we are built to be the better for sun exposure, including the eyeball.  Suncreen has already been exposed as a massive scam.  Maybe UV coating will be next.


^ LOL!

Seriously???

----------


## chip anderson

Oxmoon: I agreed with you until I had a 40mm Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Still think there is a lot of over selling and marketing. However I tries to fish before 10:00 A.M. and After 4:00 P.M. Not even sure if UV reflects.
Did see a lot of patients with macular edema post catarct in the days before implants.
Have heard "experts" lecture that said the cataracts were much more frequent in hole in the Ozone areas. Others lecture that they were no more present there than in other areas.
Kind of like "seat belts and air bags save lives", yeah, whole 2% statistical difference and adds only about 4K to the cost of each and every car. Or helments protect you up to a 14 mph impact.

Chip

Somebody is makin a whole bunch o' money on safety equipment and we gonna make a whole bunch of o' money on sheep dip.

----------


## oxmoon

> People are living much longer than was common when our bodies evolved to their present form. Our physical evolution has lagged behind our rapidly improving means to increase human life expectancy. And since the negative effects of UV exposure are cumulative, it is precisely in our "unnaturally" older ages (50s, 60s and up) when cataracts and macular degeneration are more commonly observed.
> 
> Bottom line: UV protection in its various forms is not a "scam".


The human body was made to live at least 150 years, and what you refer to an "unnaturally" older ages should really just be the beginning of the prime of life.  We don't live to our true expectancy because  most of us live in cities with bad water, eat bad food and don't use out bodies in the way they were meant to be used.  We have become disconnected from nature.  Cataracts and macular degeneration are examples of the degenerative diseases our modern lifestyle has brought us.  The people you see with these diseases are the ones who have chosen to fear the sun and hide indoors or under sunscreen.

----------


## Uilleann

LOL - I bet yogic eye exercises will help cure all that rampant mac degen and cataracts as well.  ...Cause we never used to get this stuff hundreds of years ago.   :Rolleyes:

----------


## oxmoon

> ...Cause we never used to get this stuff hundreds of years ago.


Thanks Uilleann, you're making my point for me!

----------


## edKENdance

> The human body was made to live at least 150 years, and what you refer to an "unnaturally" older ages should really just be the beginning of the prime of life.  We don't live to our true expectancy because  most of us live in cities with bad water, eat bad food and don't use out bodies in the way they were meant to be used.  We have become disconnected from nature.  Cataracts and macular degeneration are examples of the degenerative diseases our modern lifestyle has brought us.  The people you see with these diseases are the ones who have chosen to fear the sun and hide indoors or under sunscreen.


Oh right!  The old timey days when people used to live for 150 years.

----------


## Happylady

> Why is UV such a big dea?  Every other living thing seeks a place in the sun and does just fine without IV coating, and people did too until it was invented (and marketed).  It seems to me that we evolved with the sun, and we are built to be the better for sun exposure, including the eyeball.  Suncreen has already been exposed as a massive scam.  Maybe UV coating will be next.


How is sunscreen a scam? Now I know that some sunscreens don't block UVA, which doesn't burn but causes other problems, but many do. 

And since no one has EVER lived anywhere close to 150 years I don't think it's bad air, bad food, and so forth that is preventing it.

----------


## Java99

> has anyone put the Crizal UV in a UV meter to see if it really blocks UV?


Yes and it does.

----------


## Uilleann

> Thanks Uilleann, you're making my point for me!


Riiiiiiiiiiiight...  [/sarcasm]   :Rolleyes:

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Except that's not really accurate at all is it.  It is a different product.  Talk to your rep to get details.
> 
> *




Villeann..........................You are totally right and accurate, re-packaging and making a big fuss about it, makes it a different product. 
Yes talk to rep about it.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Themeasures include the following:

final regulations     that establish standards for testing the effectiveness of sunscreen     products and require labeling that accurately reflects test results a proposed     regulation that would limit the maximum SPF value on sunscreen labeling to     SPF 50+ a data request for     safety and effectiveness information for sunscreen products formulated in     certain dosage forms (e.g., sprays) a draft guidance     for sunscreen manufacturers on how to test and label their products in     light of these new measures. 
Thesemeasures are necessary, says Lydia Velazquez, PharmD, in FDAs Division ofNonprescription Regulation Development, because our scientific understandinghas grown. We want consumers to understand that not all sunscreens are createdequal.
Thisnew information will help consumers know which products offer the bestprotection from the harmful rays of the sun, Velazquez says. It is importantfor consumers to read the entire label, both front and back, in order to choosethe appropriate sunscreen for their needs.
Everyoneis potentially susceptible to sunburn and the other detrimental effects ofexposure to UV radiation.

*FDA's Final Regulations
*
Thefinal regulations, which become effective June 18, 2012, establish a standard testfor over-the-counter (sold without a prescription) sunscreen products that willdetermine which products are allowed to be labeled as Broad Spectrum. 
However,to avert a shortage of sunscreen in the upcoming months, FDA has extended thecompliance dates for testing and labeling until Dec. 17, 2012 for mostover-the-counter sunscreen products. This decision followed a review oftimelines and other data submitted by trade associations representing sunscreenmanufacturers.
Withsummer coming, we wanted to ensure we had sunscreen products available on storeshelves for everyone, says Velazquez. 
Productsthat pass the broad spectrum test will provide protection against bothultraviolet B radiation (UVB) and ultraviolet A radiation (UVA). Sunburn is primarilycaused by UVB. Both UVB and UVA can cause sunburn, skin cancer, and prematureskin aging. A certain percentage of a broad spectrum products total protectionis against UVA. 
Underthe new regulations, sunscreen products that protect against all types ofsun-induced skin damage will be labeled "Broad Spectrum" and SPF 15(or higher) on the front.
The newlabeling will also tell consumers on the back of the product that sunscreenslabeled as both Broad Spectrum and SPF 15 (or higher) not only protectagainst sunburn, but, if used as directed with other sun protection measures,can reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging. For these broadspectrum products, higher SPF (Sun Protection Factor) values also indicatehigher levels of overall protection.
Bycontrast, any sunscreen not labeled as Broad Spectrum or that has an SPFvalue between 2 and 14, has only been shown to help prevent sunburn.
ReynoldTan, a scientist in FDAs Division of Nonprescription Regulation Development,notes that FDA has been developing testing and labeling requirements forsunscreen products for decades. However, only recently have the data becomesufficient to establish an accurate and reliable test for broad spectrum UVprotection, he says.
To helpconsumers select and use sunscreens appropriately, the final regulationsinclude these additional labeling provisions:

Sunscreen products     that are not broad spectrum or that are broad spectrum with SPF values     from 2 to14 will be labeled with a warning that reads: Skin Cancer/Skin     Aging Alert: Spending time in the sun increases your risk of skin cancer     and early skin aging. This product has been shown only to help prevent     sunburn, not skin cancer or early skin aging. Water resistance     claims on the product's front label must tell how much time a user can     expect to get the declared SPF level of protection while swimming or     sweating, based on standard testing. Two times will be permitted on     labels: 40 minutes or 80 minutes. Manufacturers     cannot make claims that sunscreens are waterproof or sweatproof or     identify their products as sunblocks. Also, sunscreens cannot claim     protection immediately on application (for example, instant protection)     or protection for more than two hours without reapplication, unless they submit     data and get approval from FDA. 

 
*FDA Proposed Regulations, Data Requests, and a Draft Guidance*
Inaddition to the final regulations, in June 2011 FDA proposed a regulation thatwould require sunscreen products that have SPF values higher than 50 to belabeled as SPF 50+. FDA does not have adequate data demonstrating thatproducts with SPF values higher than 50 provide additional protection comparedto products with SPF values of 50.
FDAalso requested data and information on different dosage forms of sunscreenproducts. The agency currently considers sunscreens in the form of oils,creams, lotions, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, sticks, and sprays to beeligible for potential inclusion in the OTC sunscreen monograph  meaning thatthey can be marketed without individual product approvals.
Theagency currently considers wipes, towelettes, powders, body washes, and shampoonot eligible for the monograph. Therefore, they cannot be marketed without anapproved application.
Forsunscreen spray products, the agency requested additional data to establisheffectiveness and to determine whether they present a safety concern if inhaledunintentionally. These requests arose because sprays are applied differentlyfrom other sunscreen dosage forms, such as lotions and sticks. 
Inaddition, FDA issued a draft guidance to help sunscreen manufacturersunderstand how to label and test their products in light of the final andproposed regulations and the data request on dosage forms.
FDA hasreceived numerous comments on the labeling proposal, draft guidance andrequests for data. The agency is currently evaluating the data and informationincluded in these comments.

*Sun Safety Tips*
Spendingtime in the sun increases the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging. Toreduce this risk, consumers should regularly use sun protection measuresincluding:

Use sunscreens with     broad spectrum SPF values of 15 or higher regularly and as directed. Limit time in the     sun, especially between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the suns     rays are most intense. Wear clothing to     cover skin exposed to the sun; for example, long-sleeved shirts, pants,     sunglasses, and broad-brimmed hats. Reapply sunscreen     at least every 2 hours, more often if youre sweating or jumping in and     out of the water. 
Thisarticle appears on FDA's Consumer Updates page, which features the latest onall FDA-regulated products.

_UpdatedMay 17, 2012_

----------


## Mauro.Airoldi

I present my reasoning.
It seems that all the novelty of the product consists in the fact that the anti-reflection on the concave side does not reflect the UV to the eye.
Wonder of wonders, our eyes finally safe! But we take some account before embarking on this amazing news.
*first element
*100-280 nm UV-C does not come to earth because they are filtered by the atmosphere at 100% (ozone layer)
UV-B 280-315 nm do not come to earth because they are filtered by the atmosphere of 95% (ozone layer)
315-400 nm UVC Only a part reaches the ground (about 90-95%), this radiation of the filtering effect of the clouds is evident
*second element
*A normal lens CR39 passes about 15% of UVA (350 nm and above), a lens MR8 (organic lens in index 1.6) does not pass (max about 5-10% between 390 and 400 nanometers).
*third element
*The reflectivity of different surfaces of UVA are:
grass, soil and water reflect less than 10% of incident radiation
The sand can reach a reflection of 20-25%
The snow may even reach a reflection of 80%
*Fourth element
*The exposure of the concave side of a lens (mounted on the glasses) to the reflected light is on average lower than the ambient light reflected from the surfaces multiplied by the sine of the average incident: an experimentally ascertained value is less than 0.5. All of course varies according to the eyeglasses amplitude and the angle of wrap of the frame
The reflection of a normal anti-reflective coating in the band grapes and about 20%

*Conclusion
*Do the math:
100% (UV-A) * 95/100 (the part that passes the Ozone layer) * 10/100 (a reflection of the ground) * 0.5 (due to the angle) * 20/100 (partially reflected by the AR) = 0.95% of UV-A radiation
So we are talking about less than 1% of incident radiation ... even though we were surrounded by snow with no wraparound glasses and dishes .... we would come up to 7.5%
Seen that the damage to the lens are to be considered a cumulative (as shown by several studies), we can say that the radiation, and therefore the losses due to reflection of the concave side of a lens treated AR (in a city), can be in 100 hours equal to 1 hour without glasses, with the person who looks at the environment without lenses.
Furthermore, since a CR39 lens, currently the most popular material in ophthalmic lenses, transmits about 15% of UV A (15 times more than previously concave socket in question), I worry about pushing the lens wearers to filter materials or using UV filters on CR 39.

_The__ question is ... i DO NOT wear glasses, how can they survive without UV Essilor Crizal?__?

personally I think it's just advertising_

----------


## Chris Ryser

*Sunglasses*Choose sunglasses that are labeled with a UVA/UVB rating of 100% to providethe most UV protection.

Do not mistake dark-tinted sunglasses as having more UV protection. Thedarkness of the lens does not indicate its ability to shield your eyes from UVrays. Many sunglasses with light-colored tints, such as green, amber, red, andgray offer the same UV protection as very dark lenses.
Children should also wear sunglasses that indicate the UV protection level.Toy sunglasses may not have any UV protection, so be sure to look for the UVprotection label.

Large, wraparound-style frames may provide more efficient UV protectionbecause they cover the entire eye-socket. This is especially important whendoing activities around or on water because much of the UV comes from lightreflected off the waters surface.
Sunglasses are the most effective when worn with a wide-brimmed hat andsunscreen.

----------


## Chris Ryser

There has been a lot of BS discussion about damage from the UV reflected from the back surface. This is absolute minimum as the light source would be behind or from the side and not even reflect through the pupil.

Many surfaces relect UV rays, adding to overall UV exposure. The World Health Organization estimates that grass, soil and water reflect less than 10% of UV radiation; fresh snow reflects up to 80%; dry beach sand reflects 15%, and sea foam reflects 25%. Even when you are in the shade, your eyes and skin are being exposed to UV rays!

*The American Academy of Dermatology awards sunglasses a Seal of Recognition if they meet the following guidelines:
*

Mean UVB transmittance of 1 percent or less (absorption of 99 percent of UVB).Mean UVA transmittance of 1 percent or less (absorption of 99 percent of UVA).Minimal lens sizes for children and adults in accordance with AS/NZS 1067.
For adults: 40mm x 28mm with centers separated by 64mm.For children: 34mm x 24mm with centers separated by 54mm.Sunglass frames should be of the wrap-around style or have sufficiently thick arms or side shields such that the eye cannot be viewed from the side when worn.Documentation supporting adherence for all color, traffic signal transmittance, and flammability testing specifications of ANSI Z80.3.Demonstration of impact resistance per FDA regulations 21CFR801.410, with lenses for children’s sunglasses constructed only from polycarbonate.


UV protection has been neglected over the past years and is and stays to be an actual threat to vision. UV protection also can be applied easily in house.

----------


## Uilleann

> Villeann..........................You are totally right and accurate, re-packaging and making a big fuss about it, makes it a different product. 
> Yes talk to rep about it.


No need to make ignorant statements about a product you have no direct experience with, have never used, nor indeed know anything about.  A little time to learn the specifics here easily saves one from pie on their face.   :Tongue:  :Wink:  :Rolleyes:

----------


## optilady1

Look at anyone who has spent years in the sun verses those who choose to use the correct sunscreen and wear protective clothing. The proof that sun does cause damage is in the leathery, spotted and wrinkly pudding.  Fifteen minutes per day of pure exposure to the sun is all that is needed to absorb enough vitamin D to be healthy.  I've watched my grandfather get cancer spots burned off his bald head, shoulders, forearms and hands for the last 30 years, after decades of yard work with no sunscreen or sleeves.  

If the dangers of the sun and sunscreen are a conspiracy, than I'll drink the Kool Aid, and I'll be laughing my @ss off at the people who look like George Hamilton when they are 40.  I get made fun of at the camp ground all the time, people watching me drown my kids and myself in SPF, but they are also the people asking me for skin care advice.  Weird....

----------


## chip anderson

Chris:
I didn't know anyone had a product and that the govment on Sinscreen.  Or that we had Singlasses available.
Now that I do, I can make a fortune on the Baptists _and_ the Atheists amoung us.

Chip

----------


## becc971

*drinks kool-aid* all praise the UV gods *slathers sunscreen*

----------


## eyes4u

Its a proven fact that prolonged exposure to the sun and the UV rays cause cancer,cause cataracts,etc....
and the damage starts early..just doesn't show up til you get older. Like everything else on our bodies! Protect your kids from Uv exposure and they may not get cataracts until much much later in life. My grandmother didn't get cat sx until in her 70's. She never went out in the sun without a BIG brimmed hat. Neverlaid out in the sun and had the most gorgeous milky white complexion and hardly any wrinkles until her 70's! All because she protected herself from UV exposure.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> so the "UV 400" coating my lab offers doesn't block UV from the back of the lens?


Kitty- Don't confuse reflection with absorption. The uv never passes through the lens. A small amount is bouncing (reflecting) back. The AR allows it to pass into the lens from back to front so it doesn't get a chance to reflect back to the cornea.   :Smile:

----------


## optilady1

> Kitty- Don't confuse reflection with absorption. The uv never passes through the lens. A small amount is bouncing (reflecting) back. The AR allows it to pass through from back to front so it does'nt get a chance to reflect back to the cornea.


So wouldn't all AR do that?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *No need to make ignorant statements about a product you have no direct experience with,**have** never used, nor indeed know anything about.  A little time to learn the specifics here easily saves one from pie on their face. *



...............you being an anti education guy (see other threads on that subject), I actually should forgive you your sharp satirical language. I most probably had professionally to do with UV protection, when your mother still changed your diapers.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Chris:
> I didn't know anyone had a product and that the govment on Sinscreen.  Or that we had Singlasses available.
> Now that I do, I can make a fortune on the Baptists and the Atheists amoung us.
> 
> *



Chip

I hope you are going to be thankful for that you now can buy a larger fishing boat, and I will convince your wife to allow you to get the biggest Harley around, you still dream of.

Chris

----------


## EyeCare Rich

> So wouldn't all AR do that?


Ding Ding Ding Ding,  I think we have a winner here.  Everyone in this multi thread argument keeps missing the point.  Crizal UV is allowing the "UV" light to pass through the back side of the lens rather than reflect back to the eye.  If you already make the lenses with A/R on both surfaces, You already are protecting your patients.  I suppose Essilor could have formulated/calculated this particular product to allow UV more pass through than previous/other A/R treatments (in which I believe our master Daryl Meister elluded to in another thread) but rest assured, like usuall, it is just great marketing.  Not a bad thing to market though.  

Brilliant!!!!

----------


## Uilleann

> ...............you being an anti education guy (see other threads on that subject), I actually should forgive you your sharp satirical language. I most probably had professionally to do with UV protection, when your mother still changed your diapers.


Simply being old does not make one wise.

If you spent the time to read what I have written over the years, as well as recently here, you would know how absolutely incorrect your statement about me is.  And again - you're making assumptions and derisive comments about a product you've never seen nor used.  If you don't have direct experience with it, you're not very qualified to speak to it's efficacy vs anything else are you...even your own wares you sell here so often.

----------


## MakeOptics

> ...............you being an anti education guy (see other threads on that subject), I actually should forgive you your sharp satirical language. I most probably had professionally to do with UV protection, when your mother still changed your diapers.


How is that acceptable decorum.  For an educated professional you sure do act like a rat.  No one's gonna sit there and UV coat CR-39 lenses, they're ordered with coatings get over it and push another product that applies to more relevant materials.

----------


## HarryChiling

Brian,

Check your e-mail for a recent study that will prove your point with education and science.  It's unfortunate that the older mind set seems to be I learned it once and it is now a hard fact.  Things change, the most relevant facts are the current right facts and if you are in possession of those facts then sit back and relax, and don't let the fogeys get you down, bro.

----------


## uncut

The only "thinking out loud" question I would pose is................if it is not being reflected, where is it going? :Unsure:

----------


## MakeOptics

> The only "thinking out loud" question I would pose is................if it is not being reflected, where is it going?


Light is energy, and in physics you have a law of conservation.  With light you are either going to reflect, refract, and/or absorb.  If it is not being reflected and it is not passing through the lens then it is more than likely being absorbed by the lens.  The energy doesn't just remain in the lens it is converted into another form of energy, for instance heat.

AR coatings are based on a principal in physics called destructive interference, if you have ever taken even a basic physics class you might remember the teacher asking two people to hold a slinky strectched out on a floor and sway it back and forth to create a wave.  Then the other person on the other end would swing it in such a way that even though both ends are having a force exerted upon them they cancel eachother out.  With light this is the same principal except applied to a specific wavelength.  Of course manufacturers must choose one wavelength to cancel adn by cancelling one wavelength others in the visible spectrum may be reduced but not fully cancelled.  Fast forward to current multiband coatings that are designed to calcel multiple wavelengths, as good as they are they cannot completely eliminate all of the visible spectrum.  Now with this quick and dirty explanation of destructive interference and ARC's you might be able to guess at this point that the Crizal is basically designed to be the most effective to a specific wavelength outside of the visible spectrum like the UV spectrum.

The technology is sound, someone mentioned that the UV rays are being allowed to pass through the lens, in reality they are being allowed to pass into the lens which is a very specific correct distinction over pass through the lens.  The lens is doing the converting of that UV energy into heat.

It's amazing how difficult a concept UV and AR coatings are to professionals, I'm just a meager salesman trying to peddle lenses.  

Now it would be foolish to assume that all UV is the same, using the McKinlay-Diffey Erythema action spectrum shorter wavelengths are weighted higher than longer wavelengths since they cause more damage to the skin.  Also the amount of UV is determined by the level of Ozone, altitude, angle of the sun (time of year), and location on earth amoung other factors.  The short and skinny UV does damage to humans skin, eye's, upholstery, car paint job's, etc.  

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration measures ozone levels across the globe and the EPA has a sunwise program that allows anyone to look up their local UV index which is a computed scale as to the level of UV exposure.  The scae is simple and a great presentation when talking to clients about sun protection.  They even have smart phone apps that allow you to get a daily update of the UV levels, if you don't have a smart phone they send SMS's and e-mails as well.

UV is real and does damage, lots of data and science behind that.  Their was a study out of an optometry school out west a few years back that compared different ARC's and materials and the level of refectance off of the back of a flatter lens or even fake sunglasses into a clients eye's is a problem and now their is a solution.  If you choose to use it that a personal choice, but it does not change the science.

This information was brought to you by your local frame stylist not optician.

----------


## Uilleann

> Brian,
> 
> Check your e-mail for a recent study that will prove your point with education and science.  It's unfortunate that the older mind set seems to be I learned it once and it is now a hard fact.  Things change, the most relevant facts are the current right facts and if you are in possession of those facts then sit back and relax, and don't let the fogeys get you down, bro.


Hey Harry!  Been a while friend.  :)  No worries, I'm not down in the least.  Perhaps a bit surprised by the "educated" among us, and their death grip cling to misinformation.  Essilor and Crizal have launched a new, fairly innovative concept with this product that no one else has bothered, thought about, or put any resources into.  Good for them!  I'm watching to see how many others run to catch up...as seems to usually be the case.

Cigars and pints on me next time I make it out to MD!   :Cool:

----------


## HarryChiling

> Hey Harry!  Been a while friend.  :)  No worries, I'm not down in the least.  Perhaps a bit surprised by the "educated" among us, and their death grip cling to misinformation.  Essilor and Crizal have launched a new, fairly innovative concept with this product that no one else has bothered, thought about, or put any resources into.  Good for them!  I'm watching to see how many others run to catch up...as seems to usually be the case.
> 
> Cigars and pints on me next time I make it out to MD!


It's just real easy to call them liars and put it all off on marketing and I have been guilty of it myself.  When you look behind the veil of the marketing they do have a good bit of science behind this one and good for them for selling it.

I look forward to a pint and cigar.

----------


## oxmoon

> Look at anyone who has spent years in the sun verses those who choose to use the correct sunscreen and wear protective clothing. The proof that sun does cause damage is in the leathery, spotted and wrinkly pudding. Fifteen minutes per day of pure exposure to the sun is all that is needed to absorb enough vitamin D to be healthy. I've watched my grandfather get cancer spots burned off his bald head, shoulders, forearms and hands for the last 30 years, after decades of yard work with no sunscreen or sleeves. 
> 
> If the dangers of the sun and sunscreen are a conspiracy, than I'll drink the Kool Aid, and I'll be laughing my @ss off at the people who look like George Hamilton when they are 40. I get made fun of at the camp ground all the time, people watching me drown my kids and myself in SPF, but they are also the people asking me for skin care advice. Weird....



Yes, your skin may look better if you like the lilly white look, but you will not be healthier.  There is plenty of research documenting that sun exposure reduces risk of many cancers.  Here are some examples:
A newly published study from Bethesda MD examined the relationship of sunlight to cancer using participants who were actively observed for a long duration. This study correlating sun exposure with cancer risk has found that people who are exposed to more sunlight have a significantly lowered risk of many types of cancer. The study followed 450,000 Caucasians aged 50-71 from geographic areas across the U.S. for over a period of nine years, and used hazard models to eliminate other risk factors. The scientists correlated the typical ambient ultraviolet radiation (URV) with a variety of cancers. 

Over the nine year period of follow up, UVR exposure was significantly inversely correlated with total cancer risk, meaning that higher levels of UVR were seen in those with lowered cancer risk. Twelve types of cancer were identified as risk-reduced by UVR exposure, including cancers of the lung, prostate, pancreas, colon, thyroid, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, kidney and bladder. Risk of melanoma was moderately elevated.

A recent study from the Cancer Institute of California examined the association between UVR exposure and cancers of the lymphatic system in 121,216 women. Researchers found that large B-cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and multiple myeloma were negatively correlated with UVR exposure, again meaning that higher rates of UVR exposure were correlated with lowered rates for these cancers. Interestingly, they noted that vitamin D was not associated with risk of lymphoid malignancies, suggesting the sun confers other protective benefits we have yet to learn.

In Sweden, researchers investigated the effects of sunlight on the risk of several diseases. Their study used a large cohort of women aged 30 to 49 who were followed for fifteen years. They found that women who got sunburned twice or more per year during adolescence had a reduced mortality rate from all causes compared with women who had been sunburned once or less. A reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease was observed in women who went on sunbathing vacations more than once a year over three decades.

----------


## chip anderson

Ain't it just amazing how one can find statistics and statistical studies to prove anything even both sides of a question.

For now I think the optical business will belive the sunlight is bad theory (and it is just a theory) mostly based on "We make money off it, so we will push this view." "Its been proven.

Chip

----------


## MakeOptics

Forget it.

----------


## uncut

Thanks for the great tech answer, PhiTrace!    Now.............does anyone know how to test a lens, both to confirm that it, indeed, has the product involved with an order, or  when faced with an unknown production pair?

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Ain't it just amazing how one can find statistics and statistical studies to prove anything even both sides of a question.
> 
> For now I think the optical business will belive the sunlight is bad theory (and it is just a theory) mostly based on "We make money off it, so we will push this view." "Its been proven.
> *




Chip..................You can find pros and counters on any subject, both of them published by scientists, backed by some research results.

It did not take much time to find a similar publication thatgoes in the same direction as above post, "get burned by UV" twice ayear. The author of the post just did not give a link to where he took the info from. Here is another link supporting that same idea:

------------>       http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrar.../1591.abstract 

However we are in the eye protection field and there isproven temporary or permanent damage to the eyes and vision and *anybody* *having a solution or using it* for proper protection is to berecommended. 

There are the easy and inexpensive ones as well as the sophisticated novelties, from an in house UV dipped CR39 to the latest Crizal Sapphire solutions. Each one will do the job of protection and the end solution will bedetermined by the affordability of the consumer.

I strongly believe that we in the specialised optical field should follow the established rules of protecting the eyes from getting burned and damaged as per FDA and the advise of the vision council  :   

UV rayscan penetrate the internal structures of the eye, causing serious temporary andpermanent vision disorders. Short-term damage can range from bloodshot orsensitive eyes, to painful conditions such as photokeratitis (sunburn of the eye).High doses of UV radiation can lead to long-term health issues such ascataracts, abnormal eye growths, cancer of the eye and surrounding skin, andmacular degeneration.
"Sunglasses and other UV protective prescriptioneyewear remain the best defense against UV damage to vision," said Paul Michelson, MD, chairperson of the Better Vision Institute. "In my practice, I've seen firsthand the painful and sometimes devastating consequences of unprotected UV eye exposure, most of which could be prevented by using UV-blocking sunglasses." 

Accordingto The Vision Council, here's what consumers need to know when purchasingsunglasses:
·                  Purchasesunglasses with both UVA and UVB protection.
·                  Considercomfort; sunglasses won't get worn if they aren't comfortable.
·                  Buy from areputable retailer.
·                  Talk with aretailer about the best lens and frame options for your face shape,        activities and lifestyle.                 
·                  Select a lenscolor that improves clarity and reduces glare.

------------->  http://www.physbiztech.com/how-to/pa...uv-danger-eyes






> 





> *
> Why is UV such abig dea? Every other living thing seeks a place in the sun and does just finewithout IV coating, and people did too until it was invented (and marketed). Itseems to me that we evolved with the sun, and we are built to be the better forsun exposure, including the eyeball. Suncreen has already been exposed as amassive scam. Maybe UV coating will be next.
> *





If I would be an optical judge with the necessary power: For making above statement I would convict you to do the following: 

A three day hike on a Swiss glacier at 3000 meters altitude (9000 feet)without any protective glasses amd no sunscreen protection allowed. And then come back and report on the results.

----------


## rinselberg

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm1104059

The subject of this photograph is a 69-year old man who drove delivery trucks for 28 years.

There's a dramatic difference between the right and left sides of his face. The left side, which was exposed to UVA radiation passing through the drivers side window glass, appears to have aged about 20 years more than the right side.

For more:
http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...your-skin?lite

So, is UV "good" for you?

Only in moderation--or within certain limits.

----------


## Robert_S

Thanks for posting that.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm1104059
> 
> The subject of this photograph is a 69-year old man who drove delivery trucks for 28 years.
> 
> There's a dramatic difference between the right and left sides of his face. The left side, which was exposed to UVA radiation passing through the drivers side window glass, appears to have aged about 20 years more than the right side.
> 
> *




Thanks Rinselberg...................you are always on the side of good reason, and always come up with some good and convincing search results.

To see UV damage of such dimensions from UV A only on facial skin, what will it do to the eyes ? Any optician that comes into contact with their patients should be aware that above posters have been giving crappy advise on the good of getting burned at least twice a year.

*The promotion of real UV protection by whatever means, should be one of the retail optical trades first duties, for the good of their patients and customers.*

----------


## optilady1

> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm1104059
> 
> The subject of this photograph is a 69-year old man who drove delivery trucks for 28 years.
> 
> There's a dramatic difference between the right and left sides of his face. The left side, which was exposed to UVA radiation passing through the drivers side window glass, appears to have aged about 20 years more than the right side.
> 
> For more:
> http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...your-skin?lite
> 
> ...


+1.  It's quite amazing.  While I faithfully apply sunscreen to my face, I will now be applying to my arms and neck area every day.  We should print out this photo and use it as a tool to show folks the dangers of UV exposure.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Just found this picture:
 
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...0428-alla.html


for all the ones that belittle UV, how would you like to look like them :

----------


## AngeHamm

I'm pretty sure there's a passing reference to the dangers of UV on this page, as well.  :Wink:

----------


## AngeHamm

Be careful with that sunscreen around the grill, though...

----------


## chip anderson

I got a question:  Would any of these people have had any less of a skin cancer if they had been wearing glasses or sunglasses with super zoomo anything?   Are emetropes that do not wear glasses in more danger of cataracts, or MD or corneal deterioration that spectacle wearers?  Remember all lens materials filter out quite a bit of UV even in bare un-coated form.

Chip

And yes, I've had a squamous Cell carcinoma and I wear sunglasses, and now try to avoid direct sunlight.   But I don't really think our sheep dip is saving the world.

----------


## optilady1

> I got a question: Would any of these people have had any less of a skin cancer if they had been wearing glasses or sunglasses with super zoomo anything? Are emetropes that do not wear glasses in more danger of cataracts, or MD or corneal deterioration that spectacle wearers? Remember all lens materials filter out quite a bit of UV even in bare un-coated form.
> 
> Chip
> 
> And yes, I've had a squamous Cell carcinoma and I wear sunglasses, and now try to avoid direct sunlight. But I don't really think our sheep dip is saving the world.


+1.  Chip, I'm just an absolute freak when it comes to my skin and aging and UV.  If the added benefits are lower risk of skin cancer, yay me.  And I always wear sunglasses because I'm sensitive to bright lights, and I have blue eyes.

----------


## Uilleann

> I got a question:  Would any of these people have had any less of a skin cancer if they had been wearing glasses or sunglasses with super zoomo anything?   Are emetropes that do not wear glasses in more danger of cataracts, or MD or corneal deterioration that spectacle wearers?  Remember all lens materials filter out quite a bit of UV even in bare un-coated form.
> 
> Chip


Obviously any dispenser is perfectly free to ask your patients if they want to pay a couple meager dollars less, for less measurable protection, or would rather opt for more.  Regardless of how much, or how "little" value that extra UV protection might be worth to us as dispensers.  If UV wasn't a concern of more and more individuals, it's fair to say this product likely wouldn't have been developed.  It's unique for what it is and does, and Essilor, frankly, deserves full marks for bringing it to market.

----------


## optical24/7

It's simple, if you don't believe in a product or think it not have benefit, don't sell it. But be prepared to explain to the client why you don't offer it if asked.

----------


## Uilleann

> It's simple, if you don't believe in a product or think it not have benefit, don't sell it. But be prepared to explain to the client why you don't offer it if asked.


^ This.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Obviously any dispenser is perfectly free to ask your patients if they want to pay a couple meager dollars less, for less measurable protection, or would rather opt for more.  Regardless of how much, or how "little" value that extra UV protection might be worth to us as dispensers. * *If UV wasn't a concern of more and more individuals, it's fair to say this product likely wouldn't have been developed.  It's unique for what it is and does, and Essilor, frankly, deserves full marks for bringing it to market.
> *



UV has always been a concern in the optical world for the ones that have been around for a while, it just has been neglected and put on the bottom shelf for the last many years.

And yes Essilor with all their resources and power have to be recommended for bringing it back into the limelight and attention it deserves with that new product. They have had and still do, some of the most brilliant people within their ranks or they would not be where they are now, if we agree with their ways of doing business or not. 

It is sad to see that  this subject of UV damage should even be up for discussion, while large corporations in surface treatments like the paint industriy use the "Florida Test", (surface destruction by UV) to test the resistance of their products for many years. 

21 years ago  this month I got transported to a hospital by ambulance while on holidays with my boat, on a Sunday morning and after a 7 hour operation I was told that I had a deadly intestinal cancer and might live for another 5 to 8 month. I did finally survive it as fully cured, but it left its marks and any cancer, specially the ones affecting the skin which could be prevented should have more attention.

*Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in Canada.* It is estimated that about 75,000 Canadians develop non-melanoma skin cancer each year, and that number continues to rise. This would multiply by 10 in the USA.

check it out at --------------------------->  http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/chan...ation_id=10830

----------


## chip anderson

Hate to beg the question but...   Does anyone have any evidence that eyeglass wearers have any less skin cancer or retinal problems or cataracts than non-eyeglass wearers?   Does anyone have any evidence that eyeglass wearers with addittional UV filters have any less eye problems than  those without?
It's one thing to say that Floridians have more skin cancer than those from Maine, quite another to say we have evidence that specificly shows our sheep dip reduces lid/eyecancer/eye-problems    than those not using it.
Do not miss-understand me I am not against these things I am must aware that one can "prove" anything with statistics expecially if it will sell a product.

Chip

Chip

----------


## rdcoach5

OK, if they can do this with UV, why can't they invent something to stop the blinding glare that comes from the edge of the lens. Other than a dark color coat, that is not very appealing cosmetically.

----------


## optilady1

> Hate to beg the question but... Does anyone have any evidence that eyeglass wearers have any less skin cancer or retinal problems or cataracts than non-eyeglass wearers? Does anyone have any evidence that eyeglass wearers with addittional UV filters have any less eye problems than those without?
> It's one thing to say that Floridians have more skin cancer than those from Maine, quite another to say we have evidence that specificly shows our sheep dip reduces lid/eyecancer/eye-problems than those not using it.
> Do not miss-understand me I am not against these things I am must aware that one can "prove" anything with statistics expecially if it will sell a product.
> 
> Chip
> 
> Chip


My totally un-scientific evidence is this: In my current job for an MD, we obviously do a lot of cat surgery, and it seems that my patients who have been wearing glasses from very early ages have their cataracts removed much later in life than those who haven't

----------


## MikeAurelius

> My totally un-scientific evidence is this: In my current job for an MD, we obviously do a lot of cat surgery, and it seems that my patients who have been wearing glasses from very early ages have their cataracts removed much later in life than those who haven't


That's pretty good unscientific evidence IMO, now, even better, would be to go back in history (I know it can't be done, but it would be a fun investigation) and find out what they were wearing (material, coatings, etc) for all those years. Also then compare that to the non-glass wearing (assume no Rx, right?) to see if they wore sunglasses and what type.

----------


## optilady1

> That's pretty good unscientific evidence IMO, now, even better, would be to go back in history (I know it can't be done, but it would be a fun investigation) and find out what they were wearing (material, coatings, etc) for all those years. Also then compare that to the non-glass wearing (assume no Rx, right?) to see if they wore sunglasses and what type.



I see lot's of long wearing PGX/transition patients going into their late 80's before having their cataracts removed.  It's very hard to say who's had sunglasses, since most of the time when I'm filing post cataract surg. glasses, the patients are able to do non-rx suns, so I'm not discussing it at the time.  I would definitely say that the 50-60 year old surgery crowd are fair and blue eyed.  But there are plenty of examples to the opposite.  

There's also the fact that these generations of patient were not typically sun worshipers.  While they weren't wearing bonnets or using parisols, they still thought that lighter skin was more attractive than tan skin.  But even that fact can be argued by my many many patients who winter in Florida.

----------


## MikeAurelius

> I would definitely say that the 50-60 year old surgery crowd are fair and blue eyed.


And yet more proof of the "melanin link".

I've got plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to many of my glassblowing customers who have dark(er) skin and dark eyes (brown mainly) are much less sensitive to the bright color flares and intense heat from hot glassworking operations than the typical nordic blonde, blue-eyed or celtic red haired, green-eyed.

----------


## rdcoach5

> OK, if they can do this with UV, why can't they invent something to stop the blinding glare that comes from the edge of the lens. Other than a dark color coat, that is not very appealing cosmetically.



Just answered my own question. While walking 3 miles, I noticed I don't get the blinding glare with my new glasses. I didn't order my -9.00 Rx with polished edges. What a difference. DUH !!!

----------


## optilady1

> And yet more proof of the "melanin link".
> 
> I've got plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to many of my glassblowing customers who have dark(er) skin and dark eyes (brown mainly) are much less sensitive to the bright color flares and intense heat from hot glassworking operations than the typical nordic blonde, blue-eyed or celtic red haired, green-eyed.


The fact that so many African-American and other dark skinned ethnicities look freaking fabulous well into their 50's, 60's and 70's is proof that their skin doesn't age the same way as white skin does.  One time, I had a beautiful man and woman come in to pick out glasses, so I asked the guy what his wife thought, and he looked at me like I was crazy, and said, "Um, that's my mom."

----------


## Darryl Meister

> he looked at me like I was crazy, and said, "Um, that's my mom."


And then comes that awkward moment in which you must quickly come up with a clever response to extract your foot from your mouth as casually as possible...

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## optilady1

> And then comes that awkward moment in which you must quickly come up with a clever response to extract your foot from your mouth as casually as possible...
> 
> Best regards,
> Darryl


With my disposable socks...

----------


## Darryl Meister

> With my disposable socks


I'd probably be more worried about disposable underwear at the point.

----------


## optilady1

> I'd probably be more worried about disposable underwear at the point.


Still better than edible

----------


## braheem24

> The fact that so many African-American and other dark skinned ethnicities look freaking fabulous well into their 50's, 60's and 70's is proof that their skin doesn't age the same way as white skin does.  One time, I had a beautiful man and woman come in to pick out glasses, so I asked the guy what his wife thought, and he looked at me like I was crazy, and said, "Um, that's my mom."


Proof they don't ALL age better ;)

----------


## Uncle Fester

> The fact that so many African-American and other dark skinned ethnicities look freaking fabulous well into their 50's, 60's and 70's is proof that their skin doesn't age the same way as white skin does.  One time, I had a beautiful man and woman come in to pick out glasses, so I asked the guy what his wife thought, and he looked at me like I was crazy, and said, "Um, that's my mom."


I'm sure mom didn't see any problem with your confusion.  :Smile:

----------


## jade8975

> I would always try to dispense at least a poly lens unless a pt really insists not to. So my question is since it is already 100% uv proof then what is the big deal to upgrade to Crizal sapphire with uv? What are the advantages?


Some sunglasses and clear lenses made with higher quality material block UV light from transmitting through the front of the lens, but they do not address the UV light from reflecting off the backside of the lens. All Crizal coatings have an Eye Sun Protection Factor index of 25 (E-SPF 25), meaning your eyes are 25 times better protected from dangerous UV light reflecting off the back of the lens than wearing no protection at all.

----------


## edKENdance

> Some sunglasses and clear lenses made with higher quality material block UV light from transmitting through the front of the lens, but they do not address the UV light from reflecting off the backside of the lens. All Crizal coatings have an Eye Sun Protection Factor index of 25 (E-SPF 25), meaning your eyes are 25 times better protected from dangerous UV light reflecting off the back of the lens than wearing no protection at all.


I think it's worth noting that Essilor created the E-SPF rating system to help sell its lenses and coatings.

----------


## Uilleann

It's also worth nothing that despite what many here think of Essilor, minimizing UV reflectance from the posterior surface of ophthalmic lenses is by no means a negative.  They were the first to do so on the broad market, and now everyone and their dog is playing catch up.

Credit where it's due.

----------


## edKENdance

> It's also worth nothing that despite what many here think of Essilor, minimizing UV reflectance from the posterior surface of ophthalmic lenses is by no means a negative.  They were the first to do so on the broad market, and now everyone and their dog is playing catch up.
> 
> Credit where it's due.


The E-SPF system has more in common with the T-zone created by scientists to sell cigarettes then it has to do with actual science.  It's branded science to sell lenses.  Do they have the right to do it because they developed a lens coating that eliminates a problem nobody was aware they had to solve?  Maybe.  It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

----------


## Uilleann

Comparing UV reduction to selling cigarettes?  That's quite a stretch.  UV exposure is a known negative factor in human health.  Reducing it is good.  You can't fault them for being the first out of the gate in doing so.  At the end of the day, you don't have to use any of their products, as there are others who have rushed to compete with similar tech now.  But I wouldn't want to be one to turn away a patient who asked about it specifically.  

Cheers

----------


## edKENdance

> Comparing UV reduction to selling cigarettes?  That's quite a stretch.  UV exposure is a known negative factor in human health.  Reducing it is good.  You can't fault them for being the first out of the gate in doing so.  At the end of the day, you don't have to use any of their products, as there are others who have rushed to compete with similar tech now.  But I wouldn't want to be one to turn away a patient who asked about it specifically.  
> 
> Cheers


You're not getting me.  My issue isn't with the coating.  It's about branded "science" like the scale developed by Essilor.  When I read posts like the one from Jade8975 up there it sounds like she's referring to something developed by scientists as opposed to something that was created by an incredibly slick marketing team.  Everyone knows and trusts SPF ratings.  Slapping a big E in front of it is supposed to lend it a lot of credibility and it works and its infuriating.

----------


## Uilleann

Still...

It gets people aware of ocular health, and perhaps even buying into the concept that they can (and indeed should) be more aware of potential hazards such as UV.  Heath care of ANY kind is attached to marketing departments these days.  It's how awareness is created - love it or hate it.  No one can fault Essilor for taking the financial risk of developing a safer product (even if only slightly so - it's measurable and desirable), and bringing that product to market.  The sheer number of companies that copied this move should tell you that others see the value in it as well.

----------


## edKENdance

> Still...
> 
> It gets people aware of ocular health, and perhaps even buying into the concept that they can (and indeed should) be more aware of potential hazards such as UV.  Heath care of ANY kind is attached to marketing departments these days.  It's how awareness is created - love it or hate it.  No one can fault Essilor for taking the financial risk of developing a safer product (even if only slightly so - it's measurable and desirable), and bringing that product to market.  The sheer number of companies that copied this move should tell you that others see the value in it as well.


Just out of curiosity, who copied it?  I'm not aware of anything up here where I live.  It's not something that's patented?

----------


## racethe1320

> I think it's worth noting that Essilor created the E-SPF rating system to help sell its lenses and coatings.


Meh...in my opinion it was a very mild change used to jusify the price increase across the board to every lab out there.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Meh...in my opinion it was a very mild change used to jusify the price increase across the board to every lab out there.*



Amild change for a customer can reflect big time for a huge corporation.

----------


## racethe1320

> Amild change for a customer can reflect big time for a huge corporation.


Agree.  I remember they reported a growth of a few points after this to make it look as if they were actually "growing" when in fact all they are doing is growing through acquisition and hoping they can continue to do so as every private label lens and the competition continue to clean their clock.  Any day now someone from E will walk in our doors offering me a "contract" to lock me down.    No thanks.    They are doing this daily it seems.

----------

