WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health

[ned]

You are full of it

Could you be more specific? What part of my statement is untrue?

I've been in the medical field long enough to discern articles intended to hyped or to warn. Anything in excess is bad - that's common sense.

The research that you link is a review of literature not an actual study. That kind of research is the least credible one in the medical community

[ned]

I think an important disctinction is levels of exposure.

Going to the odd 3D movie probably won't hurt anyone. But some people sit around watching 6 or more hours of TV a day. What happens when that becomes 3D TV viewing?

Of course the headline is a bit sensational. Is there a way to casually suggest 3D video might pose a health hazard in a headline?

The opener to the story was channeling the style of the "Stuff they Don't Want You to Know" conspiracy blog/podcast. It's a bit tongue-in-cheek.

I was careful not to draw any connection between 3D video issues and any specific medical condition, it's just not known.

I find it interesting seeing the story called 'hype' and 'alarmist' as if it's a bad thing or some failing in the writing or research. Writing about something (that doesn't put the reader to sleep) probably makes it alarmist.

Wayde,

Your title made this claim "WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health"

You've just concluded that it's in fact hazardous. You've admitted that there are no know specific issues or incidents. If you've titled it as "maybe hazardous" that would have been totally acceptable.

The article raises a lot of possible causation which is a good starting point for an investigation and discussion. I do recognize your research and hard work in getting this article out. But medicine just doesn't work like that. It's a lot more complicated. Our knowledge of medicine is very limited that specific medical condition or "side effects" have to be identified first and possible cause and effect before any credible warning can be issued.

There are a lot of things in medical science that we can't explain but a condition has to exist first and not the other way around.

[ned]

PS. Hearing from ODs is awesome, but please make sure you can cite the applicable research and your reasons for dissenting.

The informations provided by Jefferey are basic optometry which can be found in any optometry textbooks.

[ned]

You are full of it

A gentle reminder:

2. No constantly attacking other posters rather than disagreeing with the message. It doesn't matter to us whether or not what your viewpoints are; if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head or civil fingers on a keyboard, your value to discussion is limited and possibly nil.

[Wayde Robson]

Wayde,

Your title made this claim "WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health"

Funny you'd mention it... the title is incomplete, a total typeo on my part. A word needed to go in there.

But - it's just a headline, not the content. A headline's job is to evoke a promise that will be fullfilled by reading the story. A headline is not meant to be a synopsis.

The headline passed the Journalism 101 Bar Test.

You've just concluded that it's in fact hazardous.

Noooo - I am very careful not to draw any conclusions on my own. Exactly because it's medical and I am unqualified to comment.

The point of the story was connected dots between the current 3D TV and the burying of the last consumer-grade / 'home' 3D technology.

An earlier post mentioned that I didn't give any 'mechanical' reasons why it's bad - I am not qualified to comment on this. I linked to sources that could do that topic justice.

I do say in the piece that more investigation is needed, not because I think so, medical professionals think so.

For some reason, today we go ahead and release a technology anyway and worry about the research later.

But I was very careful not to draw any medical conclusions on my own out of respect for the subject.

[ned]

Funny you'd mention it... the title is incomplete, a total typeo on my part. A word needed to go in there.

But - it's just a headline, not the content. A headline's job is to evoke a promise that will be fullfilled by reading the story. A headline is not meant to be a synopsis.

The headline passed the Journalism 101 Bar Test.



Noooo - I am very careful not to draw any conclusions on my own. Exactly because it's medical and I am unqualified to comment.

The point of the story was connected dots between the current 3D TV and the burying of the last consumer-grade / 'home' 3D technology.

An earlier post mentioned that I didn't give any 'mechanical' reasons why it's bad - I am not qualified to comment on this. I linked to sources that could do that topic justice.

I do say in the piece that more investigation is needed, not because I think so, medical professionals think so.

For some reason, today we go ahead and release a technology anyway and worry about the research later.

But I was very careful not to draw any medical conclusions on my own out of respect for the subject.

I do appreciate your work that you put out in this article. Articles regarding health has a higher calling beyond journalism. It can have the unintended consequence of causing harm.

Case in point (not relating to this article): There was a potential but rare MINOR side effect reported about medicine x that was hyped up in the media. People got scared and stopped the medicine that have saved millions of lives. Guess what happened?

Not only people got hurt but it generate lawsuits using junk science/unproven facts. Such is the nature of our society. Samaritans are being sued.

[darien87]

I do appreciate your work that you put out in this article. Articles regarding health has a higher calling beyond journalism. It can have the unintended consequence of causing harm.

Case in point (not relating to this article): There was a potential but rare MINOR side effect reported about medicine x that was hyped up in the media. People got scared and stopped the medicine that have saved millions of lives. Guess what happened?

Not only people got hurt but it generate lawsuits using junk science/unproven facts. Such is the nature of our society. Samaritans are being sued.

Kind of like how Ephedra was stupidly banned. Every instance that I read about where a person was harmed was due to the fact that they greatly exceeded the recommended dosage. "Well if taking 2 is good, then taking 4 must be twice as good."

I took Ephedra products for years and never had any issues.

[thomaco]

I'm curious as to why Sega would bury the results? There was no reason to do so, and every good reason to publish them. They had invested a lot of time and money in the research and raised expectations of a forthcoming product. Publishing the results would provide a rationale for the lack of product, which would be better for investors. I also find it extremely unlikely that the SRI would not publish the results. They live by their reputation based on their publications.

[phokus]

ephedra was banned because it's the core ingredient in crystal meth production

[diverflyer]

Stereo Vision is an active component only of relatively fine depth perception relatively close in. If you don't believe me, close or cover one eye...

Can you still tell that some objects are further away than others? Can you still tell roughly how far away everything you can see is pretty much as well as you could before? Right... Stereo vision isn't that critical beyond a certain limited distance.

However, slight differences in angle do provide strong visual cues to objects which are close in or at high angles of incidence (further out in our peripheral vision as opposed to in front of our face).

Can prolonged use of 3d glasses lead to eye-strain and other visual problems? Probably... Prolonged focusing at a fixed distance on a 2D screen can do that already. As a matter of fact, 3d may, in some ways, actually be better for you than 2d since it does cause slight shifts in your focus as things seem to move in and out.

I wouldn't recommend watching 3D movies 8 hours a day, but, frankly, I wouldn't recommend that in 2D either. Move along.

Owen