Vision Loss

Corey Hart, the Federation, and E40, all wear sunglasses at night. Now young club-hoppers and trendsetters everywhere are mimicking their style, sporting clunky designer sunglasses both indoors and at night, in a shameless attempt to look cool.

I guess sunglasses aren’t what they used to be. Gone are the days when their main function was to hide the eyes from the sun’s harmful rays. Now they apparently protect your eyes from moon-rays too.

While hitting the club scene last weekend, I came across a peculiar sight. As I made my way to the dance floor, I saw huddled in a dark corner a group of fashionably-clad gentlemen with brewed drinks in hand— conspicuously sporting sunglasses, as if they just stepped out of a James Bond flick.

Sunglasses? At night? Isn’t it dark in here, or is it just me?

It seemed my drink wasn’t playing tricks on me. So I wondered: what is the point of wearing shades in a club where it’s so dark you can barely tell who (or what) you are dancing with? The green and blue flashing lights must have been blinding. Or maybe they thought they were just too cool to be seen. To me, they looked like idiots wearing sunglasses when there really was no reason to.

Sure, society has accepted some people for their habitual “glamourflage” capabilities. Tom Cruise (before he was jumping on couches) made Wayfarers look good. Angelina Jolie and Heidi Klum look sexy in their Aviators. Bono rocks his signature pair of Armani’s; which according to the rockstar, make him look not-so-ordinary.

But just because a celebrity or two can pull off such a pretentious and purposeless look (or just because a new song makes the fashion faux pas sound cool) doesn’t mean it looks good on everyone. So to avoid looking stupid, just stick to wearing shades in the sun only.

Parents – There is far more to fear from WHAT your children watch on television than WHERE they sit when they watch it.

I like to sit on the floor. It’s just a personal preference, but I find that a nice, soft carpet and a couple of squishy pillows offer much more in the way of comfortable reclining possibilities than your average sofa. As a child, however, as soon as I would find just the perfect comfortable position on the living room floor, I would invariably receive the following admonishment:

“You’re too close to the TV! If you sit there, you’ll ruin your eyes. Get up and go sit on the couch!”

Grumpily, I would relinquish my chosen spot, knowing full well that an argument would surely result in my not being allowed to watch anything at all, from any distance. But I could not help but ponder whether sitting too close to the TV would actually damage my vision, or if this was just another load of parental hooey.

Turns out, it was the latter. Despite the sureness with which overzealous mothers assert this “wisdom,” there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that viewing a television (or any other screen) up close has any effect at all on eyesight.

Poor eyesight is, in almost all cases, a genetic trait. Sitting up close to a television set won’t cause a child to develop nearsightedness, farsightedness, or any similar condition, any more than sitting well away from the set will prevent them from needing glasses if they are genetically predisposed to vision problems.

Watching certain types of programming, however, WILL result in a skewed sense of reality and diminished general intelligence. So stop worrying about where your kids sit and start paying attention to what the heck they’re watching.

Finally able to spot the proverbial carving knife, mice who once suffered from a form of hereditary blindness are now free to taunt the Farmer’s Wife at will.

Scientists at the University of Florida have successfully restored the vision of mice affected by achromatopsia, a form of hereditary visual impairment the results in complete color blindness and nearly non-existent central vision. By injecting the mice with a harmless virus, the scientists were able to deliver corrective genes to the mice’s cone photoreceptor cells, which define whether or not someone is blind.

“Initially I was skeptical,” says Marty McMouse, who traveled all the way his home in East Sussex to participate in the study. “I mean, the idea of being injected with a so-called ‘harmless’ virus was a little new-fangled for this country mouse.”

But when Marty was able to locate his water feeder for the first time in his life without assistance, he knew he’d made the right choice.

After two months of gene therapy, McMouse and his fellow participants experienced exceptional results. Of the 21 treated eyes, 19 responded positively to the treatment, 17 of which had vision comparable to that of normal mice. The study showed that gene therapy can be used to target cone cells and effectively restore their function. UF’s researchers believe that this approach will soon be able to be used to correct vision problems in people.

“Sure, this study has positive implications for humans,” McMouse concedes, “but as a descendant of a long line of visually challenged mice so long stigmatized by the famous nursery rhyme, I find this discovery empowering in and of itself.”

Indeed, formerly blind mice can now hold their heads high and proclaim, “Why yes, I have seen such a thing in my life!”