On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 10:43:01 +0100, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>On 04/08/2023 19:49, Penny wrote:
>> I couldn't hear the cow bell calling me home from down
>> there.
>
>My siblings and I were called home with a cow bell too. I think a lot
>of the neighbours with children were glad of it too! I think it came
>from Chamonix in about 1950 and my still has it.

I've no idea where ours came from, or where it went. Paternal grandmother
had a set of 4 or 5 in different sizes, the largest having a lovely deep
note. They probably ended up with the Cornwall end of the family.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:30:43 PM UTC, Penny wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 23:05:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
> scrawled in the dust...
> >[The ecologists won't like me - I'm more
> >likely to turn on a light than dig out glasses. (It is an LED light.)]
> I have a strong dislike for LED light. It's ok in small doses in the garden
> on various little solar displays, but not indoors. Far too bright for me,
> it triggers migraine. When I first ventured into the new Aldi here I swore
> 'never again'. I have been in since, but only when wearing one of my big
> sun visors to shield me from the over-bright lights in the roof.

I am (mostly) still using CFL bulbs and like you I still have a stash. I have a friend who not only reacts badly to LED lights but to CFLs as well However, I also have a stash of part-used incandescent bulbs and when she comes over, I swap out all the kitchen CFLs.

>
> I was horrified to find, when I needed to replace a lightbulb, it was very
> difficult to find one which was not LED. I have a large hoard of 'low
> energy' bulbs from the noughties but they are all bayonet style, mostly
> large. The only new light fittings I put in in this house take small screw
> fitting bulbs. Even replacing one of the long tubes in the kitchen was
> tricky, they've gone LED too. When the normal fluorescents disappear, it
> will mean putting in new fittings. Ho hum, the long life bulbs do last a
> long time - I hope they see me out.

There are still some of the type of CFL you need advertised for sale on eBay so I suspect they will still be around for a while. They're not as cheap as they used to be at Wilco's - ooh, there's a thing...

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

On 05/08/2023 16:30, Penny wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 23:05:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> [The ecologists won't like me - I'm more
>> likely to turn on a light than dig out glasses. (It is an LED light.)]
>
> I have a strong dislike for LED light. It's ok in small doses in the garden
> on various little solar displays, but not indoors. Far too bright for me,
> it triggers migraine. When I first ventured into the new Aldi here I swore
> 'never again'. I have been in since, but only when wearing one of my big
> sun visors to shield me from the over-bright lights in the roof.
>
> I was horrified to find, when I needed to replace a lightbulb, it was very
> difficult to find one which was not LED. I have a large hoard of 'low
> energy' bulbs from the noughties but they are all bayonet style, mostly
> large. The only new light fittings I put in in this house take small screw
> fitting bulbs. Even replacing one of the long tubes in the kitchen was
> tricky, they've gone LED too. When the normal fluorescents disappear, it
> will mean putting in new fittings. Ho hum, the long life bulbs do last a
> long time - I hope they see me out.

They are still available. This search
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=incandescent%2Blight%2Bbulbs%2Bscrew%2Bfitting&crid=2VRF3WSXL4VUA&sprefix=incandescent%2Blight%2Bbulbs%2Bscrew%2Bfitting%2Caps%2C67&ref=nb_sb_noss

Will find some on Amazon. Most are LED but there are 40W and 60 bayonet
incandescent bulbs in there too.

On 05-Aug-23 9:46, Penny wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 20:59:38 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> scrawled in
> the dust...
>
>> On 04-Aug-23 14:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals most
>>> of the year, for a start),
>>
>> John, Have you considered becoming a Postman?
>> You seem to have the uniform already.
>>
>> (I too mostly wear sandals - with socks if I feel so inclined.)
>>
>>
>> but for some reason can't remember doing
>>> that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
>>> glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.
>>
>> For many years I have only had to wear glasses when driving. I could
>> manage everything else, reasonably well, without.
>>
>> I'm now at the point where I really need to carry reading glasses with
>> me, but I hate the idea - and tend to 'forget'.
>>
>> I mostly manage by having half a dozen pairs of cheap reading glasses
>> scattered around the house, the caravan, the car... etc.
>
> Ray had a hoard of cheap reading glasses when I met him. Only one of his
> eyes worked so there was no problem with catering for both eyes. He often
> wore two pairs at a time, creating a bifocal effect. As a navigator on car
> journeys, he was unwilling to wear the double set so was not very helpful
> as he couldn't cope with reading the map, the road signs and road names.
> When I finally persuaded him to take an eye test and get some actual
> bifocals, the optician said his double specs were pretty much spot on for
> his prescription.

I have an eye test booked in a couple of weeks and will ask for a
prescription for reading glasses (never done that before).
Is it unethical to take a prescription from Specsavers, and just buy
cheap ones, off the shelf, from somewhere else?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 7:36:25 PM UTC, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 05-Aug-23 9:46, Penny wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 20:59:38 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> scrawled in
> > the dust...
> >
> >> On 04-Aug-23 14:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> >>> I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals most
> >>> of the year, for a start),
> >>
> >> John, Have you considered becoming a Postman?
> >> You seem to have the uniform already.
> >>
> >> (I too mostly wear sandals - with socks if I feel so inclined.)
> >>
> >>
> >> but for some reason can't remember doing
> >>> that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
> >>> glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.
> >>
> >> For many years I have only had to wear glasses when driving. I could
> >> manage everything else, reasonably well, without.
> >>
> >> I'm now at the point where I really need to carry reading glasses with
> >> me, but I hate the idea - and tend to 'forget'.
> >>
> >> I mostly manage by having half a dozen pairs of cheap reading glasses
> >> scattered around the house, the caravan, the car... etc.
> >
> > Ray had a hoard of cheap reading glasses when I met him. Only one of his
> > eyes worked so there was no problem with catering for both eyes. He often
> > wore two pairs at a time, creating a bifocal effect. As a navigator on car
> > journeys, he was unwilling to wear the double set so was not very helpful
> > as he couldn't cope with reading the map, the road signs and road names..
> > When I finally persuaded him to take an eye test and get some actual
> > bifocals, the optician said his double specs were pretty much spot on for
> > his prescription.
> I have an eye test booked in a couple of weeks and will ask for a
> prescription for reading glasses (never done that before).
> Is it unethical to take a prescription from Specsavers, and just buy
> cheap ones, off the shelf, from somewhere else?

If it's an NHS eye test then it's all bought and paid for by the NHS and even though some opticians try to withhold the prescription, they are legally obliged to provide it to you. The snag, AIUI is that some fairly essential information such as the pitch between pupils and the length of the frame sides is not part of the prescription. If you are going to physical premise for your cheaper products then I am sure they will sort you out but if you were thinking of a mail order or internet supplier, there could be complications.

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

In message <93qscih00h2fdbsilhmjvp6t101d6qa7s0@4ax.com> at Sat, 5 Aug
2023 16:30:32, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 23:05:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>scrawled in the dust...
>
>>[The ecologists won't like me - I'm more
>>likely to turn on a light than dig out glasses. (It is an LED light.)]
>
>I have a strong dislike for LED light. It's ok in small doses in the garden
>on various little solar displays, but not indoors. Far too bright for me,
>it triggers migraine. When I first ventured into the new Aldi here I swore
>'never again'. I have been in since, but only when wearing one of my big
>sun visors to shield me from the over-bright lights in the roof.

If it's the brightness alone, that ought to be gettable round (is that
correct grammar?). More likely it's the colour (sometimes called colour
temperature) - _combined_ with the brightness level.

My little lamp - I _want_ it to be bright, but that's an aside - is what
some would call "warm"; it produces a slightly yellowish white light,
rather than the slightly bluish one I associate with LEDs. In fact, if I
didn't know it _was_ LED, I'd think it _was_ incandescents, other than
the fact that there are 9 small ones (in a square grid) and it doesn't
get hot. (It _does_ get warm.) I've just looked at its manual, and I'm
afraid it doesn't say what the "colour temperature" is: it says it used
3.6 W, 11V, 300 mA, max 0.5W per LED. (Though it says the mains adapter
is max. 3.3W, which agrees with the 11V/300mA.) FWIW it's LIVARNOLUX
(which I think means it was Aldi or Lidl), model IAN 303075, but I'd be
surprised if it's still in production (it has 2018 in some places on the
back of the manual).
>
>I was horrified to find, when I needed to replace a lightbulb, it was very
>difficult to find one which was not LED. I have a large hoard of 'low

And pricey, too. (OK, they may last so long that they're not expensive,
but the unit price is very high compared to what the incandescents used
to be.) I remember when incandescents started to be phased out, we were
led to believe that the replacements would be cheap, and I do remember
some being 10p and others being given away (even sent to me by post,
from British Gas and I think other sources). But those were the
fluorescents. I still should have stocked up more, but it did seem I'd
accumulated quite a pile. I remember thinking that once they'd got us
all hooked on them, the price would soar; I admit I didn't think _those_
would disappear, leaving _only_ the LED type, at 3 to 6 pounds each.

>energy' bulbs from the noughties but they are all bayonet style, mostly
>large. The only new light fittings I put in in this house take small screw
>fitting bulbs. Even replacing one of the long tubes in the kitchen was

I think there is some - possibly unconscious - move to get away from the
bayonet fittings anyway. Sure, I'm not keen on them (possibly influenced
by having grown up in Germany where bayonet was unknown - large screw
was the norm), but I think mainly from experience of the plastic parts
of them becoming brittle with age, which is mainly due to heat, which
neither fluorescents nor LEDs produce much of. Moving away from what is
the established standard seems irritating. (Possibly them being a
UK-only thing makes life more difficult for manufacturers, who would
prefer to just make one fitting for all.)

>tricky, they've gone LED too. When the normal fluorescents disappear, it
>will mean putting in new fittings. Ho hum, the long life bulbs do last a
>long time - I hope they see me out.

(-:

I have one of the very early ones in a standard lamp that takes some
minutes to come up to full brightness. I keep hoping that _will_ fail!
(On principle, I'm not going to replace it just for the sake of it.) At
least LED ones are instant-on (even the later fluorescents took a few
seconds to come on fully [which seems odd, as the old "striplights" were
pretty instant, once they'd "struck", and they were fluorescents]).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 20:36:21 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> Is it unethical to take a prescription from Specsavers, and just buy
> cheap ones, off the shelf, from somewhere else?

Given the way Specsavers treat their victims, no.

--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

In message <03d0bfc8-3e79-40a9-a284-0a39ac40d856n@googlegroups.com> at
Sat, 5 Aug 2023 13:57:11, Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com> writes
>On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 7:36:250 []
>> I have an eye test booked in a couple of weeks and will ask for a
>> prescription for reading glasses (never done that before).

I'm not sure there is much of one for those, other than strength -
though I'm sure an optician will do one if you ask for it. There are
usually a selection of strengths (1.0 to 3.5 [diopters I think]) at most
places (poundshops and the like) that sell them, often with a selection
of sizes of print to look at; have a look and try a few before spending
on more expensive ones.

>> Is it unethical to take a prescription from Specsavers, and just buy
>> cheap ones, off the shelf, from somewhere else?

I don't know when it comes to reading glasses - as I say, I'm not aware
of there _being_ any parameter other than strength. When it comes to
"proper" glasses, I have no compunction in taking the prescription and
going online: I did initially feel a bit guilty, but the discrepancy in
prices seemed far more than just that needed to cover overheads. Plus
the stupid thing about "designer frames". Last (actually the only) time
I used such a prescription online, the online company had quite a range
of designs, a significant number of which cost (well, for the complete
glasses) less than the cheapest available from the shop, with several at
or around a third the price of the cheapest. (I used - and was happy
with - Glasses Direct; they had an offer at the time, I think 2 pairs
for 15. I suspect many of the online suppliers are also OK. OK, if
really pushed, I suppose I could say that the colour of their case -
quite a bright purple - might put off some; I quite like it.)
>
>If it's an NHS eye test then it's all bought and paid for by the NHS
>and even though some opticians try to withhold the prescription, they
>are legally obliged to provide it to you. The snag, AIUI is that some
>fairly essential information such as the pitch between pupils and the
>length of the frame sides is not part of the prescription. If you are

Yes, I was going to mention the "intraocular difference" not being
included. (Last time, I actually asked for that, and was told I'd only
get it if buying from them!) But I've had no difficulty measuring it
myself, using a mirror; if you live with someone else, it's probably
even easier. I'd not thought of the earpiece length as a parameter, but
presumably you can measure that from an existing pair you find
comfortable.

>going to physical premise for your cheaper products then I am sure they
>will sort you out but if you were thinking of a mail order or internet
>supplier, there could be complications.
[]
I _think_ Glasses Direct had a return for refund policy, which seemed
odd as they'd be making them specifically for me; however, I may be
wrong about that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 17:12:46 +0100, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>there are 40W and 60 bayonet
>incandescent bulbs in there too.

Oh, I have a small stash of 60W & 100W incandescent too, they were in the
cupboard under the stairs when I moved in.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 22:34:39 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>In message <93qscih00h2fdbsilhmjvp6t101d6qa7s0@4ax.com> at Sat, 5 Aug
>2023 16:30:32, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes

>>I have a strong dislike for LED light. It's ok in small doses in the garden
>>on various little solar displays, but not indoors. Far too bright for me,
>>it triggers migraine. When I first ventured into the new Aldi here I swore
>>'never again'. I have been in since, but only when wearing one of my big
>>sun visors to shield me from the over-bright lights in the roof.
>
>If it's the brightness alone, that ought to be gettable round (is that
>correct grammar?). More likely it's the colour (sometimes called colour
>temperature) - _combined_ with the brightness level.

It probably is a combination, certainly the bluer type are worse. But I
have the same problem with sunlight, particularly in the winter months when
I see more of it at eye-level IYSWIM. I have some green goggles which help
- they do mess with the colour of things though, very noticeable in the
greengrocery aisle.

[...]

>>energy' bulbs from the noughties but they are all bayonet style, mostly
>>large. The only new light fittings I put in in this house take small screw
>>fitting bulbs. Even replacing one of the long tubes in the kitchen was
>
>I think there is some - possibly unconscious - move to get away from the
>bayonet fittings anyway. Sure, I'm not keen on them (possibly influenced
>by having grown up in Germany where bayonet was unknown - large screw
>was the norm), but I think mainly from experience of the plastic parts
>of them becoming brittle with age, which is mainly due to heat, which
>neither fluorescents nor LEDs produce much of. Moving away from what is
>the established standard seems irritating. (Possibly them being a
>UK-only thing makes life more difficult for manufacturers, who would
>prefer to just make one fitting for all.)

I prefer bayonets, once the bulb is in it's not going anywhere. The screw
version can work loose.

>I have one of the very early ones in a standard lamp that takes some
>minutes to come up to full brightness. I keep hoping that _will_ fail!

:)
I replaced a couple of those with the more 'instant' type, but have not
chucked the others out, they're better than nothing, if it comes to it ;)

It does occur to me, that one of the reasons new light bulbs seem far too
bright to me, is that they are clean. I don't clean light bulbs - it has
never occurred to me to do so (to be honest, I don't clean much at all).
Old style bulbs which were used every day didn't last long enough to get
really dirty, even in a smoker's house.

Perhaps I could paint the newer ones...

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 5 Aug 2023 21:44:24 GMT, Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 20:36:21 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>> Is it unethical to take a prescription from Specsavers, and just buy
>> cheap ones, off the shelf, from somewhere else?
>
>Given the way Specsavers treat their victims, no.

I've got along quite happily with Specsavers for some years now.
I also heard Mr & Mrs Specsavers say recently that they were quite happy if
people take the prescription and go elsewhere for the frames.

I think you may find you would have to buy two pairs of the cheap ones,
with identical frames to match your prescription and then swap the lenses
around and throw the rest away so you don't use them by mistake.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 05-Aug-23 21:57, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 7:36:25 PM UTC, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 05-Aug-23 9:46, Penny wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 20:59:38 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> scrawled in
>>> the dust...
>>>
>>>> On 04-Aug-23 14:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals most
>>>>> of the year, for a start),
>>>>
>>>> John, Have you considered becoming a Postman?
>>>> You seem to have the uniform already.
>>>>
>>>> (I too mostly wear sandals - with socks if I feel so inclined.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but for some reason can't remember doing
>>>>> that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
>>>>> glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.
>>>>
>>>> For many years I have only had to wear glasses when driving. I could
>>>> manage everything else, reasonably well, without.
>>>>
>>>> I'm now at the point where I really need to carry reading glasses with
>>>> me, but I hate the idea - and tend to 'forget'.
>>>>
>>>> I mostly manage by having half a dozen pairs of cheap reading glasses
>>>> scattered around the house, the caravan, the car... etc.
>>>
>>> Ray had a hoard of cheap reading glasses when I met him. Only one of his
>>> eyes worked so there was no problem with catering for both eyes. He often
>>> wore two pairs at a time, creating a bifocal effect. As a navigator on car
>>> journeys, he was unwilling to wear the double set so was not very helpful
>>> as he couldn't cope with reading the map, the road signs and road names.
>>> When I finally persuaded him to take an eye test and get some actual
>>> bifocals, the optician said his double specs were pretty much spot on for
>>> his prescription.
>> I have an eye test booked in a couple of weeks and will ask for a
>> prescription for reading glasses (never done that before).
>> Is it unethical to take a prescription from Specsavers, and just buy
>> cheap ones, off the shelf, from somewhere else?
>
> If it's an NHS eye test then it's all bought and paid for by the NHS and even though some opticians try to withhold the prescription, they are legally obliged to provide it to you. The snag, AIUI is that some fairly essential information such as the pitch between pupils and the length of the frame sides is not part of the prescription. If you are going to physical premise for your cheaper products then I am sure they will sort you out but if you were thinking of a mail order or internet supplier, there could be complications.

On position of eyeballs. That matters a great deal if you are after
varifocals or the like, but much less so for simple (+1.50 or whatever)
reading glasses.

As to where your ears are located. I've used a range of cheap glasses
in the £1 - £5 range and not noticed a problem. Maybe I have standard ears?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 05-Aug-23 23:57, Penny wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2023 21:44:24 GMT, Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 20:36:21 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>>> Is it unethical to take a prescription from Specsavers, and just buy
>>> cheap ones, off the shelf, from somewhere else?
>>
>> Given the way Specsavers treat their victims, no.
>
> I've got along quite happily with Specsavers for some years now.
> I also heard Mr & Mrs Specsavers say recently that they were quite happy if
> people take the prescription and go elsewhere for the frames.
>
> I think you may find you would have to buy two pairs of the cheap ones,
> with identical frames to match your prescription and then swap the lenses
> around and throw the rest away so you don't use them by mistake.

Wofe now has three pairs[1].
Varifocals, reading glasses, and computer glasses.
I suggested that she make sure they each were of a distinctly different
design and colour.
She still finds she is wearing the wrong glasses a couple of time per day.

[1] I mean three different prescriptions, she also has spares.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 05/08/2023 23:57, Penny wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2023 21:44:24 GMT, Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 20:36:21 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>
>>> Is it unethical to take a prescription from Specsavers, and just buy
>>> cheap ones, off the shelf, from somewhere else?
>>
>> Given the way Specsavers treat their victims, no.
>
> I've got along quite happily with Specsavers for some years now.

Me too.

I am lucky in that my distance vision is still pretty much perfect - I
can still read a street sign that's so far away that waife can barely
see sign, let alone what is writ on it.
I amazed someone once at Frod once by reading what was on her monitor. I
was sat at my desk, there was another desk facing mine, then a gap and
then her desk facing same way as mine, so 4-5m away.

There is a small difference between my eyes for reading, but a 2.5
cheapo reader is fine. I buy a batch of several from Amazon for a tenner
that includes one pair with a yellowish lens that I use at night to cut
out blue light which is apparently good for me.

My last visit to SS showed a slight improvement in reading and I
remarked that I'd noticed that myself when looking at phone unaided for
example. I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not noticeable
otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small flash at the
edge of my vision when I turn my head. When it gets worse I'll get them
done...

On 06/08/2023 10:23, BrritSki wrote:

<snip>

> My last visit to SS showed a slight improvement in reading and I
> remarked that I'd noticed that myself when looking at phone unaided for
> example. I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not noticeable
> otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small flash at the
> edge of my vision when I turn my head. When it gets worse I'll get them
> done...
>

I had small flashes at night when turning my head, I noticed it when
coming home from work on my bike about fifteen years ago. Almost like a
shooting star right on the edge of my vision.

I went to the hospital eye department (at the RBH), mainly because I had
a day off and it was five minutes away, not thinking it was anything
serious. Next thing I knew, there and then I was examined and the small
retinal tear (nothing to do with cataracts) was lasered to stop it
increasing. I think I was at greater risk than most because of my short
sight, but it may be worth checking.

The speed and quality of treatment was magnificently impressive.

--
Cheers
Clive

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 11:48:47 +0100, Clive Arthur
<clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

>On 06/08/2023 10:23, BrritSki wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> My last visit to SS showed a slight improvement in reading and I
>> remarked that I'd noticed that myself when looking at phone unaided for
>> example. I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not noticeable
>> otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small flash at the
>> edge of my vision when I turn my head. When it gets worse I'll get them
>> done...
>>
>
>I had small flashes at night when turning my head, I noticed it when
>coming home from work on my bike about fifteen years ago. Almost like a
>shooting star right on the edge of my vision.
>
>I went to the hospital eye department (at the RBH), mainly because I had
>a day off and it was five minutes away, not thinking it was anything
>serious. Next thing I knew, there and then I was examined and the small
>retinal tear (nothing to do with cataracts) was lasered to stop it
>increasing. I think I was at greater risk than most because of my short
>sight, but it may be worth checking.
>
>The speed and quality of treatment was magnificently impressive.

I had a retinal bleed spotted during an eye test locally and the
optician said if it were her mum she'd send her to Moorfields that
day, so she wrote me a letter and I went to their A&E. They saw me,
directed me to their retinal department, who decided to monitor it.
Which they did every few months.

I asked if,as I was now their patient, they could do the cataract
removals I needed. They had a local hub their opticians visited in
Potter's Bar, which was easier for me as B could drive me and wait, so
I had the cataracts done there and they checked the retina there from
then on.

Going to Moorfields meant coming home on the trains, 2 changes, with
blurred eyesight. I did go once more last year but apart from that
it's been Potter's Bar and they were fantastic. All NHS. Both eyes'
cataracts. And they no longer check the bleed but I can contact them
if worried.

On 06/08/2023 11:48, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 06/08/2023 10:23, BrritSki wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> My last visit to SS showed a slight improvement in reading and I
>> remarked that I'd noticed that myself when looking at phone unaided
>> for example. I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not
>> noticeable otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small
>> flash at the edge of my vision when I turn my head. When it gets worse
>> I'll get them done...
>>
>
> I had small flashes at night when turning my head, I noticed it when
> coming home from work on my bike about fifteen years ago.  Almost like a
> shooting star right on the edge of my vision.
>
> I went to the hospital eye department (at the RBH), mainly because I had
> a day off and it was five minutes away, not thinking it was anything
> serious.  Next thing I knew, there and then I was examined and the small
> retinal tear (nothing to do with cataracts) was lasered to stop it
> increasing.  I think I was at greater risk than most because of my short
> sight, but it may be worth checking.
>
> The speed and quality of treatment was magnificently impressive.
>
Thanks, but as I said, the optician at SS had already told me I had
early stage cataracts at the last checkup.

>
> I am lucky in that my distance vision is still pretty much perfect - I
> can still read a street sign that's so far away that waife can barely
> see sign, let alone what is writ on it.
> I amazed someone once at Frod once by reading what was on her monitor. I
> was sat at my desk, there was another desk facing mine, then a gap and
> then her desk facing same way as mine, so 4-5m away.
>
> There is a small difference between my eyes for reading, but a 2.5
> cheapo reader is fine. I buy a batch of several from Amazon for a tenner
> that includes one pair with a yellowish lens that I use at night to cut
> out blue light which is apparently good for me.
>
> My last visit to SS showed a slight improvement in reading and I
> remarked that I'd noticed that myself when looking at phone unaided for
> example. I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not noticeable
> otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small flash at the
> edge of my vision when I turn my head. When it gets worse I'll get them
> done...
>
My cataracts became a not so clear problem when I realised that when
driving at night, I would look up at a street lamp and see four, instead
of the one I was looking at. Since my cataracts were sorted I only need
glasses for reading and other close work.The operation isn't painful,
but the bright light they use is uncomfortable.
Steve

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:59:28 PM UTC, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <2cfpcih6hvugf1esm...@4ax.com> at Fri, 4 Aug
> 2023 10:19:47, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
> >On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 00:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
> >scrawled in the dust...
> >
> >>Apparently, the reason why people can see more clearly in bright light
> >>(apart from the light being brighter) is that the light stimulates the
> >>pupils and they shrink to a smaller aperture, thereby sharpening the
> >>image.
> My last optician told me that; he made analogy to photography - a
> smaller aperture gives greater depth of field.
> >>
> >>You can force a smaller aperture simply by rolling up your index
> >>finger and thumb and peering through the tiny little hole in between.
> >>It works. I can see things much more sharply that way. But I don't
> Same here.
> >>half look an idiot in the supermarket when I try to do that. That's
> I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals most
> of the year, for a start), but for some reason can't remember doing
> that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
> glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.
> >>why I squint at things just like everybody else. Maybe I should invest
> >>in some fake sunglasses and pierce them with pinhole apertures?
> >
> >You can buy those, I have a pair. The holes are about 1.5mm (I needed
> >reading glasses to figure that out). If I keep still, they sharpen my view
> >of the garden from my desk, but are no help reading the 4pt print on a
> >bottle of vitamin B12. I think the print size on food labels has to be
> >larger than that - it really should apply to 'medicines' too, some of us
> Agreed.
> >have nasty reactions to certain ingredients. I was told the other day that
> >one of the antibiotics in common use (which I already knew I couldn't take)
> >now contains a colour (E number, not sure which) thereby excluding its use
> >for more people.
> I agree, the addition of such - at least without extensive publicity -
> is a Bad Thing. I _don't_ hate E numbers, though: I always thought they
> were a great idea - the only reason for the hatred I can see is
> xenophobia (because the E comes from Europe), possibly added to general
> hatred of technology (some feeling that because it's a number, it's by
> definition more dangerous, less "natural" - which is silly, because lots
> of "natural" ingredients have E numbers [I'm not sure if even water has
> one]). Like the DHMO scares ... (-:
>
> Other than perhaps medicines, you hardly ever see E numbers nowadays in
> ingredients lists - the chemicals are named. Presumably _because_ of the
> prejudice against the numbers.

Is it worth mentioning here that "E-Numbers" =/= "Bad Stuff." (is that how you symbolise 'not equal' in ASCII?) It's just an EU-originated list of chemicals and compounds which might permissibly be found in food and drink and the E-Number is a standardised description of the same.

I think someone upthread was talking about "serving suggestions" and I have this impression that they may have been asking whether or not it appears on tinned goods? While I was in the pantry earlier, I checked a few tins and all of them which showed the foodstuff prepared in any way had "serving suggestion" printed in the margin of the picture. Meat, fish, vegetables, everything. Those tins which showed the unprepared contents did not have anything written there.

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 10:23:37 +0100, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not noticeable
>otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small flash at the
>edge of my vision when I turn my head.

Oh, is that what that is?
I've been aware I was heading towards cataracts for some time. One over
zealous new optician put me on annual reviews, without telling me why, for
a couple of years (some years back) until someone else took a closer look
at my file and took me off that frequency again. The flashes are a new
thing for me, and a little disconcerting at times.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 15:08:43 +0100, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 10:23:37 +0100, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com>
>scrawled in the dust...
>
>>I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not noticeable
>>otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small flash at the
>>edge of my vision when I turn my head.
>
>Oh, is that what that is?
>I've been aware I was heading towards cataracts for some time. One over
>zealous new optician put me on annual reviews, without telling me why, for
>a couple of years (some years back) until someone else took a closer look
>at my file and took me off that frequency again. The flashes are a new
>thing for me, and a little disconcerting at times.

Sorry to follow myself up...
When my M-in-L had her cataracts done, she was in the eye hospital for at
least 2 days (she was younger than I am now at the time). A woman in my
singing group reported the other day, she arrived at the hospital just
before the time of her appointment, waited 4 hours(!) to be seen, but the
op took about 30 minutes and she went home shortly afterwards.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 11:48:47 +0100, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>I had small flashes at night when turning my head, I noticed it when
>coming home from work on my bike about fifteen years ago. Almost like a
>shooting star right on the edge of my vision.
>
>I went to the hospital eye department (at the RBH), mainly because I had
>a day off and it was five minutes away, not thinking it was anything
>serious. Next thing I knew, there and then I was examined and the small
>retinal tear (nothing to do with cataracts) was lasered to stop it
>increasing. I think I was at greater risk than most because of my short
>sight, but it may be worth checking.

Ooer, maybe I'll ask in Specsavers. I've had a couple of emergency
appointments there in the past few years, when floaters started to appear.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 10:23:37 +0100, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not noticeable
>> otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small flash at the
>> edge of my vision when I turn my head.
>
> Oh, is that what that is?
> I've been aware I was heading towards cataracts for some time. One over
> zealous new optician put me on annual reviews, without telling me why, for
> a couple of years (some years back) until someone else took a closer look
> at my file and took me off that frequency again. The flashes are a new
> thing for me, and a little disconcerting at times.

The pin pricks / flashes of light are indicative of retinal damage -
partial detachment should be repaired as soon as possible as the tissue
detached from nourishment will deteriorate resulting in sight loss. I have
been there and have the mug, towel and badge! THBANHSA.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:
> Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 10:23:37 +0100, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com>
>> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> I was told it was my early stage cataracts. Not noticeable
>>> otherwise except when driving at night and I get a small flash at the
>>> edge of my vision when I turn my head.
>>
>> Oh, is that what that is?
>> I've been aware I was heading towards cataracts for some time. One over
>> zealous new optician put me on annual reviews, without telling me why, for
>> a couple of years (some years back) until someone else took a closer look
>> at my file and took me off that frequency again. The flashes are a new
>> thing for me, and a little disconcerting at times.
>
> The pin pricks / flashes of light are indicative of retinal damage -
> partial detachment should be repaired as soon as possible as the tissue
> detached from nourishment will deteriorate resulting in sight loss. I have
> been there and have the mug, towel and badge! THBANHSA.
>

To follow-up; my first RD was operated on by the Chief Eye Surgeon, (by the
name of Jim McMillan who I knew well but no relation) and afterwards, I
spent some days lying on my back and was attended by hot & cold running
nurses as I had a room of my own and the staff used to enjoy coming in for
a few minutes of quiet and rest between rounds and attending to individual
needs of many patients. After a few weeks, it became apparent that the
re-attachment had partially failed and further surgery would be required.
My second operation was at Moorfields in City Rd., Lunnon. When the surgeon
(at that time an up and coming very capable surgeon by the name of Bob
Cooling - now retired) looked into my eye to assess the battlefield damage,
I sensed that he put his hands under his chin and rested them on the table,
then said to me ‘Well, you have a sod of an eye there!’ [in later years, he
could not recall saying that to me!] What he didn’t tell me then was that
the cryo-surgery he proposed to use to repair my retina had only been done
just the once before and had failed. My op was only the second time of
being employed and the first success! The op was a good-un and although I
did lose some peripheral vision to the right due to retinal damage, he
saved me from total blindness. In the subsequent months, the back of my eye
was photographed well over a hundred times and this was not a pleasant
experience due to the through the lens flash employed at that time; it was
like being kicked in the eye each time! Anyway, those photographs
apparently formed the basis of a North American lecture tour showing this
then radical new surgery for RD repair. You may be interested to know that
with medicine and surgical practice progressing so quickly, this procedure
is now old hat and has been superseded!!!

One other thing worth mentioning; I was transferred as an internal patient
from the Royal Berks to Moorfields and this entitled me to ambulance
transportation for the transfer. As the ambulance reached the outer
stretches of London and started on its’ journey around two or three other
medical establishments to deposit patients, traffic buildup was becoming a
nightmare and we were stuck in umpteen miles of staionary traffic and it
was becoming very warm too! Good fortune favoured the unworthy on that
occasion as eventually a police car drew up next to us and the drivers had
a quick chat … on went the blues and two and we were blue lighted right
into City Road!!!!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 06:53:06 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell
<nickodell@bigfoot.com> scrawled in the dust...

>I think someone upthread was talking about "serving suggestions" and I have this impression that they may have been asking whether or not it appears on tinned goods? While I was in the pantry earlier, I checked a few tins and all of them which showed the foodstuff prepared in any way had "serving suggestion" printed in the margin of the picture. Meat, fish, vegetables, everything. Those tins which showed the unprepared contents did not have anything written there.

Yes, I wondered vaguely if there was a rule about it and when it 'came in'
if there was.
I don't buy much in tins but just checked my cupboard. The butter beans
show butter beans all over the tin with no suggestion of how to serve them.
The mixed beans show a bowl of beans, a tomato and an onion - apparently
that counts as a suggestion. Cheap chopped tomatoes have no picture,
pilchards have a drawing, as does the somewhat ancient can of puree de
marron (mmm, chestnut ice cream...).
John West suggest a tiny sprig of parsley on their sild. Lidl's vorschlag a
tiny amount of red lettuce, three basil leaves and a sprig of dill with
their zarte heringsfilets and the laverbread suggests a sugar basin with
slices of red and green peppers, a sprig of parsley and a tea spoon.
The only suggestion I like is the millionaire shortbread shown on the
condensed milk - but I won't be making any. Oh dear, that tin is way out of
date, maybe I will investigate the marron and give that ice cream a go...
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959