Post-eclipse complaining
Aug. 22nd, 2017 01:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulySo, prior to the eclipse there were FAQs and news reports about people who didn't want to go out on the day of the eclipse - even before it started! - for fear that they'd go blind, or didn't want to walk their dog because the dog might go blind (not knowing not to look at the sky on eclipse day, of course) or not letting the kids out at all during recess because, you got it, they might freeze in place, stare at the sun, and go blind.
And then Trump looked at the sun without glasses. And everybody is throwing fits about what an idiot he is. I commented on one article that no, it's not likely you'll go blind if you just glance at the sun for a second*, and one person replied "but this isn't the sun, it's the eclipse!" like that's a winning argument. I mentioned to another, who claimed you couldn't see anything without the glasses until totality anyway that I'd been staring at the cloud cover impatiently before the peak, and when the clouds parted I'd gotten an unprotected glimpse of the sun and yes, I could see the bite of it - and that person went "Well, you do permanent damage at 20 seconds, so you might've been lucky". How long do they imagine it takes to see the sun when the clouds break and then look down again?
I think I've figured this out.
The rule is "You should not stare at the sun, even during an eclipse". This is a sensible rule that nobody has ever needed to tell anybody over the age of, say, six weeks. We don't stare at the sun. Even infants know better - if the sun shines in your eyes, you squint, put your hand up, and turn away. Aniamls are even smarter! No matter what happens, they don't need to be told.
But humans think we're cleverer than animals, and during an eclipse we sometimes break that rule and look at the sun because it's cool. And because the light seems dimmer, we can look longer. But it's not really dimmer - it's just as bright, it's just that some of it is blocked. So for the past year, we've had it drummed into our heads that you shouldn't look at the eclipse without glasses. Consequently, many people have internalized the rule as "You shouldn't stare at the sun, especially during an eclipse". But the sun isn't any more dangerous then. It's only our behavior that changes!
If you look for up to five seconds, you're probably fine, just like when you turn a corner and find yourself driving toward the sun. (Or look up at a flock of birds just as the clouds part and find the sun glaring in your eyes, or wake up with the sun in your eyes.) According to the only study on the subject, you're not likely to have visible damage unless you look for 15 seconds or longer... and even then, most patients improved with time.
So don't stare at the sun, but if you did catch a glimpse, whether on purpose or not, it's probably no more harmful than when you catch a glimpse of the sun on regular days.
(As for Trump, this was a dumb move, but not because of the potential eye damage. It was a dumb move because everybody and their dog, literally, knows better but he still did it on national TV. Doofus. And if he's getting any flak from it he probably blames the aide for calling attention to his behavior rather than his own foolish decision to do something everybody knows, from the very day they're born, not to do.)
* Turns out it was more like 30 seconds in his case, which is really way too long. Not that I give a fuck what that person does to his eyes.
And then Trump looked at the sun without glasses. And everybody is throwing fits about what an idiot he is. I commented on one article that no, it's not likely you'll go blind if you just glance at the sun for a second*, and one person replied "but this isn't the sun, it's the eclipse!" like that's a winning argument. I mentioned to another, who claimed you couldn't see anything without the glasses until totality anyway that I'd been staring at the cloud cover impatiently before the peak, and when the clouds parted I'd gotten an unprotected glimpse of the sun and yes, I could see the bite of it - and that person went "Well, you do permanent damage at 20 seconds, so you might've been lucky". How long do they imagine it takes to see the sun when the clouds break and then look down again?
I think I've figured this out.
The rule is "You should not stare at the sun, even during an eclipse". This is a sensible rule that nobody has ever needed to tell anybody over the age of, say, six weeks. We don't stare at the sun. Even infants know better - if the sun shines in your eyes, you squint, put your hand up, and turn away. Aniamls are even smarter! No matter what happens, they don't need to be told.
But humans think we're cleverer than animals, and during an eclipse we sometimes break that rule and look at the sun because it's cool. And because the light seems dimmer, we can look longer. But it's not really dimmer - it's just as bright, it's just that some of it is blocked. So for the past year, we've had it drummed into our heads that you shouldn't look at the eclipse without glasses. Consequently, many people have internalized the rule as "You shouldn't stare at the sun, especially during an eclipse". But the sun isn't any more dangerous then. It's only our behavior that changes!
If you look for up to five seconds, you're probably fine, just like when you turn a corner and find yourself driving toward the sun. (Or look up at a flock of birds just as the clouds part and find the sun glaring in your eyes, or wake up with the sun in your eyes.) According to the only study on the subject, you're not likely to have visible damage unless you look for 15 seconds or longer... and even then, most patients improved with time.
So don't stare at the sun, but if you did catch a glimpse, whether on purpose or not, it's probably no more harmful than when you catch a glimpse of the sun on regular days.
(As for Trump, this was a dumb move, but not because of the potential eye damage. It was a dumb move because everybody and their dog, literally, knows better but he still did it on national TV. Doofus. And if he's getting any flak from it he probably blames the aide for calling attention to his behavior rather than his own foolish decision to do something everybody knows, from the very day they're born, not to do.)
* Turns out it was more like 30 seconds in his case, which is really way too long. Not that I give a fuck what that person does to his eyes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 06:33 pm (UTC)derp!
no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 06:34 pm (UTC)huh didn't know that.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 06:43 pm (UTC)More than 20 seconds is essentially KNOWN NOT OKAY, which makes Trump's 30 a rather compelling proof that he didn't do his research. What's the source on that 30 seconds, by the way?
no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 06:43 pm (UTC)Trump doing it on TV is not funny because he's actually going to go blind, but because everyone was joking that he would, assuming, incorrectly, that no one would be so stupid as to look up at the sun during an eclipse with a million cameras around when they happened to be President of the United States. The fact that he did it will never fail to be hilarious.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 06:46 pm (UTC)(My current job means I was at a fascinating workshop/hopefully larger project with a bunch of people from different disability orgs and collections last summer. The presidential library folks were fascinating. We also had Bush Sr's library because of the ADA)
no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 07:57 pm (UTC)Which I don't understand, because thus far he's certainly been stupid enough to do everything else most people know better than to do.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 11:59 pm (UTC)Thank you, I have learned something useful and reassuring today. :)
no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 01:04 am (UTC)Maybe we'll get a new study with all the new eclipse watchers, then we'll be more clear on the numbers.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 01:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 02:40 am (UTC)This is the article I was basing my information on. Discussion of eclipses shows up in several places, but probably most relevantly under the heading 'Statistical evidence'.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 02:43 am (UTC)1. Why Eclipse Damages Eyes
2. No Seriously Don't Look at the Sun During an Eclipse
3. A Solar Eclipse Can Blind You from Space.com
4. NASA on why it is dangerous to look at a solar eclipse.
However, observing the Sun can be dangerous if you do not take the proper precautions. The solar radiation that reaches the surface of Earth ranges from ultraviolet (UV) radiation at wavelengths longer than 290 nm to radio waves in the meter range. The tissues in the eye transmit a substantial part of the radiation between 380 and 1400 nm to the light-sensitive retina at the back of the eye. While environmental exposure to UV radiation is known to contribute to the accelerated aging of the outer layers of the eye and the development of cataracts, the concern over improper viewing of the Sun during an eclipse is for the development of "eclipse blindness" or retinal burns.
Exposure of the retina to intense visible light causes damage to its light-sensitive rod and cone cells. The light triggers a series of complex chemical reactions within the cells which damages their ability to respond to a visual stimulus, and in extreme cases, can destroy them. The result is a loss of visual function which may be either temporary or permanent, depending on the severity of the damage. When a person looks repeatedly or for a long time at the Sun without proper protection for the eyes, this photochemical retinal damage may be accompanied by a thermal injury - the high level of visible and near-infrared radiation causes heating that literally cooks the exposed tissue. This thermal injury or photocoagulation destroys the rods and cones, creating a small blind area. The danger to vision is significant because photic retinal injuries occur without any feeling of pain (there are no pain receptors in the retina), and the visual effects do not occur for at least several hours after the damage is done [Pitts, 1993].
The only time that the Sun can be viewed safely with the naked eye is during a total eclipse, when the Moon completely covers the disk of the Sun. It is never safe to look at a partial or annular eclipse, or the partial phases of a total solar eclipse, without the proper equipment and techniques. Even when 99% of the Sun's surface (the photosphere) is obscured during the partial phases of a solar eclipse, the remaining crescent Sun is still intense enough to cause a retinal burn, even though illumination levels are comparable to twilight [Chou, 1981, 1996; Marsh, 1982]. Failure to use proper observing methods may result in permanent eye damage or severe visual loss. This can have important adverse effects on career choices and earning potential, since it has been shown that most individuals who sustain eclipse-related eye injuries are children and young adults [Penner and McNair, 1966; Chou and Krailo, 1981].
5. Donald Trump looks at eclipse without glasses. He doesn't look for that long, maybe several seconds. But you can got and count for yourself. He looks like someone might squint at the sun.
According to the links above...there's a bit of a disagreement, some state you are fine for a second or two, NASA seems to indicate that the UV is worse during an eclipse than otherwise or intensified. I honestly don't know. The information hasn't been clear or straightforward.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 03:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 03:33 am (UTC)This alone suggests to me that it's probably not more dangerous than usual - or not much more - or else every source would back up their warnings with statistics and hard numbers, and they'd all agree. Every one of them would say things like "After the eclipse in YEAR, this injury increased 17%. All people with that injury reported looking at the sun with their unprotected eyes for at least 10 seconds, and only about 50% of cases improved within 6 months". (Or whatever the stats would be.)
It's not that I want people to gaze at eclipses. But where before we saw people worried that their doggies would go blind, we're now seeing people worried that they'll go blind because they accidentally glimpsed the sun for, like, 2 seconds. There is such a thing as being too cautious.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 06:29 am (UTC)Back in 1999, when we actually got a total eclipse, we got these warnings too, but we were also encouraged to buy certified eclipse glasses or use the pinhole method in order to observe that spectacular event. We were told not to use our unprotected eyes, but above all we were warned not to use inadequate protection like ordinary sunglasses (yikes!), thermo blankets, CDs or blackened glass in order to look at the sun. I totally get that: These things might give you a false sense of security so you actually would look at the sun for too long. I mean, with your unprocted eye, you'll probably go FUCK! BRIGHT! and look away at once. But if you think "Yeah I'm safe" you're going to override that instinct. And THAT'S the actual problem. As long as people are aware of that, they should be fine.
IIRC, we were also told that during totality, it was actually to look at the sun directly (or through a camera lense for that matter), but only for that one minute so better use the glasses all the time. But who knows. The Trumpster might actually have been catching the one minute (or 30 seconds) in which it was safe to be stupid?
In the event of the 2014 (or 15? I forget) partial eclipse, the ironic thing was that you couldn't even see anything special without eclipse glasses. Coverage was genuinely so small that it looked perfectly normal, and there was absolutely zero temptation to look at the sun any more than usual. *sighs*
Sometimes I wonder whether the problem is that a lot of the 90s scientophobic ignoramuses are now grown-up and in charge. And either nobody takes the time to explain it properly, or the people who should do the explaining didn't understand it themselves...
no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 02:39 pm (UTC)Well, that's not entirely true. They've done various studies. And various opthamalogists are rather concerned about it. And they'd be the experts.
Samuel Wong, MD, and colleagues from the Leicester Royal Infirmary in Leicester, England, studied 45 patients after they observed an August 1999 solar eclipse. Although none of the patients who looked directly at the eclipse was totally blinded, 40 of them experienced discomfort or had visual disturbances or changes within the eye. Only five patients had no evidence of eye damage.
Nevertheless, the damage done to the eye can be severe enough to affect daily activities, according to the study, published in the British medical journal The Lancet.
Media warnings of possible eye damage when viewing eclipses may have made the observers more cautious, researchers postulate, resulting in less visual impairment than might otherwise have taken place. But while the researchers praised the media for these public health warnings, other eye experts have different opinions.
http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20010124/solar-eclipse-beware-glare#1
After Eclipse Keep Eye on After Images, Optometrist Warns.
Damaged eyes
Early observers of astronomy sometimes found out about solar retinopathy the hard way. Thomas Harriot, who observed sunspots in 1610 but did not publish his discovery, wrote in 1612 that after viewing the sun his "sight was dim for an hour." Oxford astronomer John Greaves was once quoted as saying that after sun observations, he saw afterimages that looked like a flock of crows in his vision. In the most famous case of all, Isaac Newton https://www.livescience.com/20296-isaac-newton.html tried looking at the sun in a mirror, essentially blinding himself for three days and experiencing afterimages for months.
Scientists don't have a good bead on the prevalence of eye damage after a solar eclipse https://www.livescience.com/59663-how-solar-eclipses-make-people-go-blind.html. In one study, conducted in 1999 after a solar eclipse visible in Europe, 45 patients with possible solar retinopathy showed up at an eye clinic in Leicester in the United Kingdom after viewing the eclipse. Forty were confirmed to have some sort of damage or symptoms of damage; five of those had visible changes in their retina.
Twenty of the patients reported eye pain, while another 20 reported problems with vision. Of the latter group, 12 reported that their sight had returned to normal seven months later, but four could still see the ghosts of the damage in their visual field, such as a crescent-shaped spot visible in dim light. [If the Sun Is 93 Million Miles Away, Why Can't We Look Directly at It? https://www.livescience.com/59699-solar-eclipse-eye-damage.html]
"Our series demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, the majority of people with eclipse retinopathy are not totally blinded," the researchers wrote in 2001 in the journal The Lancet. However, they warned, earlier Are the horror stories, valid? (shrugs) When I was in the 6th grade, the teachers didn't let us to go and watch the eclipse, even with the pin-hole boxes, because they were terrified we'd all look at the sun and blind ourselves. And various opthamologists were posting warnings on the internet. Also, I had my first pair of eclipse glasses recalled by Amazon because they didn't meet the criteria and could cause blindness.
Granted it probably doesn't completely, or birds would fall from the sky. But when you look at it, you may concentrate on it more than a bright sun.
Better safe than sorry, unless of course, you don't care about your eyesight? ;-)
no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 04:24 am (UTC)Or unless the fear of potential eye damage is causing serious anxiety even days later - which does seem to be the case for some people. That's not safe.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 04:40 am (UTC)DC never hit totality - and on that note, since there isn't an ongoing crisis (well, except the ones of his own making), he should've been somewhere that reached totality, preferably one with some sort of national or historical significance. Any other president would've milked that occasion for everything it was worth. Heck, any other parent with his resources would've brought their ten year old to a location that was going to see totality! (Many parents without nearly those resources did it anyway.)
But nope, not him.
Doofus.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 05:55 am (UTC)Well, you gotta give him credit for one thing, he is very consistent in his disregard for science...
(Except in the field of plastic surgery, I guess. Never mind.)
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 12:47 pm (UTC)True. I had some anxiety about it. So am somewhat relieved to discover that looking at the sun through filtered lenses for less than a minute or even if I look at it directly for a second without filtered, I'm safe.
You are not wrong about the media traumatizing people over this. In my search for linkage, I found an article about a city in Australia panicking over the eclipse, due to misinformation:
That Time a City Scared Itself Silly Over a Total Solar Eclipse.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 04:26 pm (UTC)People put sunscreen in their eyes.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 05:51 pm (UTC)(It's not a crime but... how can someone NOT be interested in a total eclipse of the sun?)
no subject
Date: 2017-08-25 03:49 am (UTC)Do you mean "people are stupid and do stupid things like put sunscreen in their eyes ALL THE TIME" or "specifically, during the eclipse, people did put sunscreen into their eyes to protect them from the evil laser sun"?
no subject
Date: 2017-08-25 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-08-28 05:49 pm (UTC)but it upticked during the eclipse so people could look at it.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-22 09:53 pm (UTC)True Fact: the Sun is the Sun, regardless of whether it's partly obscured by the Moon, and the ultraviolet radiation it emits is very bad for the retina. Staring at the Sun is never a good idea, even when it's setting in a smoke-haze that makes it look like a dull-red rubber ball, because those UV rays are still coming. Staring at the reflection of the Sun (eclipsing or not) in water is not a good idea either, because some of those UV rays also reflect.
Practically everybody's retinas take some sun-damage over time, just like practically everybody's skin takes damage. Less if one avoids exposure, of course, but on the other hand, the more one avoids exposure, the more vulnerable one is to a burn if one does get exposed. Our species is predominantly diurnal, and originally evolved in the sub-tropics, so our bodies do have some useful adaptations to bright sunlight: enough to get us through the normal brief span of our lives, at least. Nobody reaches 100 with the eyesight, hearing, or sense of taste and smell they had at 10, regardless of how carefully they avoided bright light, loud noise, artificial flavors and polluted air.
The thing that bemuses me: so many people seem to have no frickin' clue what the Sun or the Moon even are, besides bright things in the sky. Oh sure, they know the Sun is hot and huge; they know we landed on the Moon, but... that's about it.
LOL, out at the Wildlife Refuge, I spend a lot of time explaining how the tides work - as briefly and simply as possible, but (fortunately) with the aid of an excellent tide-chart that an alert five-year-old could understand. The Sun and Moon have gravity, which is essentially the Power of Suck. The suck pulls the water toward it. When the Sun and Moon ride either together or opposite each other, both their suck is combined in one direction, so it pulls the water more; hence higher and lower tides. When the Sun and Moon are crossways, their suck is also crossways, so it cancels out somewhat; hence smaller tides. Not getting into the orbital parameters* that mean big minus (really low) tides come by day in Summer, by night in Winter.
Any real scientist would fall about laughing to hear such a sketchy excuse for an explanation. I'm not a scientist; I'm just a docent, and a sketchy explanation is as much as my peeps will stand still for. "Good enough for government work!"
*[Nobody - believe me, nobody - wants to hear me Explain orbital parameters: it's one of my little-known Evil Aspie Super-powers. 18 years ago, I had people seriously threatening to packet-bomb me back to the Stone Age for my obstreperous remarks re the Counter-Earth (with three moons!) vs. the Physics Police.]
Here's something to brighten your day! *hugs*
Indigo Girls - Galileo
no subject
Date: 2017-08-23 01:23 am (UTC)On the flipside, some evidence suggests that lack of adequate exposure to UV rays when growing increases myopia.
Any real scientist would fall about laughing to hear such a sketchy excuse for an explanation. I'm not a scientist; I'm just a docent, and a sketchy explanation is as much as my peeps will stand still for. "Good enough for government work!"
LOL. Somewhere else I commented that I spent an awful lot of time with the phrase "The pinhole projector does this, and really, your eye works the same way!" and got the reply from somebody who is usually very knowledgeable but also has a tendency to be painfully pedantic that "That's not how it works, because our pupils are bigger and we have lenses". Yeah, but this was a three minute spiel, not a science lesson. I wanted them to learn a little about this phenomenon, not learn that I'm boring as hell!
no subject
Date: 2017-08-24 01:01 am (UTC)