2

I have found this article which claims (for chicken) that blocking outdoors UV light made myopia worse.

Some kids require glasses from a young age, e.g. 6 years old. Most of these glasses do have UV filter on their lenses. Another study claims that the younger the patient is when the onset of myopia the worse their outcome is.

The question: is it possible that the lack of outdoors UV light at a young age causes the worsening of myopia? If so, would glasses with no UV blocker be a better alternative for kids?

  • 2
    Interesting question, but ask yourself this: What's worse, myopia when you're young or macular degeneration, cataracts and melanoma when you're old? – Carey Gregory Jan 30 '19 at 23:59
  • Thank you for the comment but I do not think this should be an issue. Most kids wear no UV filtering glasses and manage just fine. After all, human body should have been designed to withstand outdoor lighting. – agiro Feb 2 '19 at 1:08
  • From the paleolithic period until as late as 1900 the typical human lifespan was only about 30 years, but the problems I mentioned typically don't appear until people are over 50. There's no question that UV exposure leads to those problems later in life, so using glasses on kids with no UV blocker would indeed be trading myopia early in life (maybe) for more serious problems later in life. But that's not really pertinent to your question. I'm just pointing out that it would be a two-edged sword. – Carey Gregory Feb 2 '19 at 1:38
  • True and thank you for the remark, indeed I forgot the lifespan parameter out of the equation. It is also true that the benefits of UV are a "maybe", some said that it's the ambient light strength that has the benefit, others said that it's the blue light (like the visible wavelength blue). – agiro Feb 2 '19 at 12:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.