10 ms·
Many soft contact lenses in US made up of PFAS, research suggests
- pensatoio 3y agoWell then. LASIK it is.
- garyfirestorm 3y agowhat happened to glasses?
- throwway120385 3y agoThey fog up and fall off. Sometimes very far off. Farther than I'm willing to climb.
- Vecr 3y agoGet a nerd strap for them?
- hammyhavoc 3y agoIf your glasses fall off then it sounds like a fit or material issue. Rimless titanium wire (hingeless) with polycarb lenses and they'll stay put in the most extreme of conditions with a sensible arm design.
- loeg 3y agoOr you just aren't doing sports / physical activities.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago"the most extreme of conditions", so I'm not sure why you wouldn't think this includes sports or physical activities.
- armitron 3y agoCan you link to some examples of such frames?
- hammyhavoc 3y agoGoogle "rimless titanium wire hingeless frame polycarb". You'll find plenty. As they're hingeless, you get far superior fit. They weigh much less than standard glasses, as such, they don't slip.
- loeg 3y agoI google those and the ones I see do not look like they would stay on your face if you were upside down, for example (and less extreme positions, of course, but that's easiest to describe). I wear glasses and contacts, and do sports, and contacts just work a lot better for sports. Glasses are totally fine for sitting at a computer or walking around or driving.
- seized 3y agoSome of us have high prescriptions which make glasses expensive and horribly unpleasant to wear regardless of frame size or lens choice. I am at -11.5 and with enough astigmatism that modern LASIK isn't an option, id have to get the old "slice a flap off" style. Hard pass.
- DiabloD3 3y agoYou know glasses exist, right?
- gabrielsroka 3y agoNot the OP, but I can't wear glasses. Contacts are a lifesaver.
- steve_adams_86 3y agoI was just cleaning my shop and was constantly between fogged glasses behind eye protection and tons of dust accumulating on the lenses. I’ve worn glasses for 30 years and that aspect of wearing them is vastly inferior to corrective procedures or contacts. I would stick with contacts but, like this topic suggests, there are legitimate health concerns, and I can’t justify how disposable they are with no consideration of environmental impacts. I wish that wasn’t the case.
- nawgz 3y agoThe level of waste from monthly contact lenses is surely less than a grocery trip where you forget your reusable bags. I wouldn't even consider that aspect personally, they're tiny.
- steve_adams_86 3y agoI suppose the way I look at it is that any practical option I have to reduce waste is likely worthwhile, and contacts falls square in that category.
- nawgz 3y agoI find that a ridiculous viewpoint. Contacts are, as addressed, tiny. The amount of waste you generate from these things is almost nothing. I compared to a plastic bag earlier, but just imagine how much shit is wasted on a single private jet flight. Don't torture yourself when the people in position to enact change don't. Contacts also have an insane value prop. Vision assistance is more of a need than a want in a modern society where one has to work for money.
- m463 3y agoThe best vision you can get is your real eyes plus contact lenses. Vision surgery will correct the central portion of your eyes, and it won't last your lifetime. After vision surgery, your prescription can continue to change, however it is difficult to correct the vision with contact lenses at that point because your eye has a "plateau" shape, which contacts aren't really designed for. Also, if there is astigmatism, it's hard to correct it at low diopters of correction.
- ademup 3y agoI had low diopter astigmatism and got lazik 6 years ago at 39. I consider it the best decision I've ever made that was just for me. I still have perfect vision, and if it degrades again I will happily get it done again. Just my experience, but I have yet to meet anyone who has regretted it.
- pensatoio 3y agoCan you really have the procedure done a second time?
- hammyhavoc 3y agoThere is no limit for LASIK procedures.
- nawgz 3y agoIt just re-shapes your lens via subtraction. you can have it done as many times as your lens has enough material to be molded into the required geometry via removing material.
- merlincorey 3y agoSo how many times is that on average? Naively searching seems to mostly get well SEO'd results from LASIK related companies making claims like "In general, there is no limit on how many LASIK procedures you can get in your lifetime"[0]. Though that is followed by "The thickness of the cornea is one of the main determinations regarding the safety of multiple LASIK surgeries" in the same article which seems to contradict the previous statement as there is clearly a limit before it becomes unsafe to perform another procedure. Meanwhile on a very short search, I cannot seem to find any study or report about literally anyone having more than two laser eye surgeries. I did find an FDA guideline from 2022 that lists a surprising number of risks for laser eye surgeries[1]. [0] https://vson.com.au/how-many-times-can-you-have-lasik-eye-surgery/ https://vson.com.au/how-many-times-can-you-have-lasik-eye-su... [1] Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) Lasers - Patient Labeling Recommendations (https://www.fda.gov/media/160239/download https://www.fda.gov/media/160239/download)
- PostOnce 3y agoThe other commenters pointed out that glasses are an option, but I feel like the real thing that is missed in lasik discussions is risk -- there is no risk of ruining your eyes by wearing glasses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#Risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#Risks
- lordofgibbons 3y agoThere's also a risk every time you go outside. Without actual odds of the risk occurring to you, it's a meaningless point. I looked into this 12 years ago when I was debating whether I should get LASIK, and the risk seemed minuscule. I'm sure odds of a bad outcome have gone down even more in that time.
- nocsi 3y agoIf you already waited 12 years, might as well wait more. What they don’t tell you is your eyes will continue to deteriorate after lasik. You might as well wait for the contact lens with stem cells sewn into it
- lordofgibbons 3y agoThere might have been a misunderstanding. I meant I got mine done 12 years ago and that's when I was researching the risks. I'm fine with getting them done again after another 15-20 years from now - well worth the money.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bhaney 3y agoSo is there a health concern with having PFAS in contact with your eyes, or is this an environmental issue because they don't degrade? It sounds like there's something here meant to get upset about, but I don't know what it's supposed to be.
- gilgoomesh 3y agoThe research is ongoing and unclear. The primary reason people are concerned is that the half-life of PFAS in the human body is between 2 and 9 years – so if you're exposed, you're really exposed. There's been a range of studies that have shown possible links with a number of different diseases which is concerning only because the effects of PFAS had been largely unstudied until the last 15 years. But that this point, there are few clear problems from PFAS. https://www.pfas.gov.au/about-pfas/affects https://www.pfas.gov.au/about-pfas/affects
- KMnO4 3y agoBest to avoid 94% of biodegradable straws as well. https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Biodegradabledrinking-straws-contain-PFAS/99/i11 https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Biodeg... I hope some research is done on PFAs before it’s too late.
- Gigachad 3y agoThese straws are just awful. They seem instantly de carbonate drinks resulting in only foam coming up the straw. Though they aren't all the same, the McDonald's ones seem to work ok. Banning the plastic ones was fine, but I'd rather no straw over a coated paper one.
- bigbillheck 3y ago> Best to avoid 94% of biodegradable straws as well. Way ahead of you on that one.
- r00fus 3y agoEasy - even my kids when they were under 2 could drink without straws. Of course if you have ice cubes in everything then straws are needed - which is why we avoid ice cubes also.
- codersfocus 3y agoIf I want to sell lemonade, tea or coffee by the road, I need to apply for 5 different documents of some kind or another in my city. If I want to manufacture (or moreso, import) things with all kinds of unknown, untested chemicals, I am free to do as I wish with no supervision.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hammyhavoc 3y agoGetting a medical device certified is much more difficult than selling beverages from a food cart. People used to drink radium water for health benefits and think smoking wasn't a problem. Good science is reevaluating based on gained knowledge then behaving accordingly. Expect gained knowledge to lead to more strict regulation and certification standards.
- superchroma 3y agoWell, arguably, we understand lemonade well so we can regulate the sale of it. The same can't be said for PFAS. People move slow, and regulatory legislation, particularly under conservative rule, desperately so.
- eulgro 3y agoThe full article is at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/09/contact-lenses-pfas-forever-chemicals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/09/contact-...
- dang 3y agoThanks! We've changed to that from https://superfund.ncsu.edu/news/3831/ https://superfund.ncsu.edu/news/3831/.
- spitfire 3y agoHow large are PFAS particles? Because the Bowman's layer found just under the epithelium should stop most particles from reaching the stroma. The Bowman's layer is particularly frustrating for medicinal delivery - it stops most particles from reaching stroma/endothelium. This makes corneal burn recovery quite difficult. So if PFAS has some mechanism to pass through the Bowman's layer, it could be useful for medicine delivery and healing corneal wounds.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoAbout 30% of pharmaceuticals being developed are PFAS, so the value for medicine is already quite understood.
- voz_ 3y agoPFAS is to my generation as leaded gasoline is to the prior generation(s), and asbestos to the ones before them, and so forth from when the first chimneys were put up to spew toxic sludge into our air and rivers at the start of the industrial revolution. There is something so sad, so unworkable, and so deeply troubling about how this kind of thing keeps happening.
- fsckboy 3y agowe used to live malnourished, with stunted growth, women dying in childbirth to bring 8 kids into the world half of whom would die in childhood, with large numbers of men dying before they couldn't afford reading glasses they would need. (my gf was 1 of 5 surviving from 10 born, with horsedrawn transportation and starvation) all that industrialization brought us to much healthier longer lives filled with amenities undreamed of 100 years ago, including corrective vision. now as a society we uncover problems, we fix them. We're doing pretty well.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- justinator 3y ago[flagged]
- gus_massa 3y ago> Bruh we're not going to have glaciers in like 5 years. Do you have a source for that? The predictions I remember are much longer.
- slily 3y agoLast I heard they were supposed to be gone by the year 2000. Edit: nevermind, it was actually just 10 years ago that Antarctica was supposed to be entirely ice-free in the summer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI I'm sure today's models and predictions are 100% accurate and undeniable, though. "Bruh."
- zachkatz 3y agoAny actionable advice here? Are there any safer contact lens brands?
- bighoki2885000 3y ago[dead]
- willtemperley 3y agoThis is a scare story - the original "research" The Guardian have linked to is an article by Mamavation which is the blog of Leah Segedie who "has a Masters degree from the University of Southern California in Communication Management". Leah found "Indications of PFAS", organic Fluorine, which may or may not be PFAS. Whilst she may not be wrong, as a wearer of contact lenses myself I would like to know the truth.
- willtemperley 3y agoBy the way, Leah (@bookieboo on twitter) is an affiliate marketer of many non-toxic products.
- ars 3y ago"extremely high levels of organic fluorine, a marker of ‘forever chemicals’" I hate this kind of garbage research. Florine can be used in lots of things, without actually checking there is absolutely no way they can claim it's PFAS.
- neurobama 3y agoGuess I'll stick with spectacles. Safe, inert, strong, transparent, recyclable, cheap, and abundant... glass is truly a Bronze Age wonder material!
- fwlr 3y agoThe crucial part of this research that is omitted is that the type of PFAS that contact lenses contain are “fluoropolymers”, a subcategory of PFAS that is considered to be less dangerous, and is not the subject of most PFAS regulation. Still potentially harmful, of course, I don’t claim to be an expert on this stuff, but it’s an important point that was left out of the article.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThis nuance will never reach public consciousness. Decisions will be made that are a net negative for global health, as the west will scare manufacturing of such materials to unregulated markets.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoCipro, Prozac, and Flonase are PFAS. The media has successfully stirred up fear on an entire class of compounds that have half-lives ranging over many orders of magnitude.
- bighoki2885000 3y ago[dead]
- enono 3y agoI appreciate that I can always trust HN to tear bullshit articles to shred. Thanks y’all