> "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowella[at]nospam.co.uk> wrote
> > I would be interested to see scientifically validated information on
> > exactly what factors lead to the prevalence of Myopia that is associated
> > with literacy,
> I would too, but myopia isn't necessarily what the OP meant by "ruining your
> eyes."
> > especially as these days (with cheap high quality LCD
> > displays, reading matter in soft copy, and good lights) we stand a
> > pretty good chance of doing something about it.
> So, as illumination improves we should see less myopia? I don't think it's
> happening.
> -MT
I think that we have the means to change the character of near work, but

> I would be interested to see scientifically validated information on
> exactly what factors lead to the prevalence of Myopia that is associated
> with literacy,

> especially as these days (with cheap high quality LCD
> displays, reading matter in soft copy, and good lights) we stand a
> pretty good chance of doing something about it.

> "pavel" <pavel.ferenc[at]seznam.cz> wrote
> > I heard that
> > you ruin your eyes when reading with combined light
> > (tungsten x daylight) more than when reading with the
> > illuminance level dropped a LITTLE bit(not much).
> This is what Bryce Courtenay calls a "Dad Fact," aka "urban legend."
> What makes it a "Dad Fact" is that my Dad used to tell me the same thing -
> "you'll RURN yer EYES if you don't turn on more light. Chopin wrote music by
> candlelight and it purt near BLINDED him."
> No mention of all the other musicians, poets and writers who scribbled away
> by candlelight for several centuries.
> But now that I'm Dad's age, I can see how he'd feel that way. I want lots of
> light too, because I no longer have accommodation to play with.
> > I am clever enough to know that in the darkness it´s better to turn on
> > the lights:-)
> Then you're clever enough to know there's no particular pathology associated
> with reading in dim light. It's a matter of comfort, not disease.
> -MT
I would be interested to see scientifically validated information on

> I heard that
> you ruin your eyes when reading with combined light
> (tungsten x daylight) more than when reading with the
> illuminance level dropped a LITTLE bit(not much).

> I am clever enough to know that in the darkness it´s better to turn on
> the lights:-)

> serebel wrote:
> > When you can't see, turn on the lights. Pretty simple you know.
> Now when he mentioned ambience, I thought he was asking a romantically
> speaking hypothetical. I always recommend you adjust the amount of
> light dependent on just how much detail you might find helpful.
> Obviously, in some situations, bright floodlights are in order, while in
> others, no light at all is a good thing...

> serebel wrote:
> > When you can't see, turn on the lights. Pretty simple you know.
> > > > Now when he mentioned ambience, I thought he was asking a romantically
> speaking hypothetical. I always recommend you adjust the amount of
> light dependent on just how much detail you might find helpful.
> Obviously, in some situations, bright floodlights are in order, while in
> others, no light at all is a good thing...

> When you can't see, turn on the lights. Pretty simple you know.
Now when he mentioned ambience, I thought he was asking a romantically