pete wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Darryl or Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
Hi Pete,
I duplicated a bit more of the article below. I knew the content would
hit a nerve or two
and as usual you were wrong. There are no nerves being hit, because
the article is so badly muddled it fails to make any cogent points.
I believe a nerve was hit, not by the article, as you are suggesting,
because you had not yet visited the entire article at the time I wrote
my first response. The fact that you initially chose to take the time to
respond skeptically to my introduction of the theory's overview, (and
provide me with specific instruction on how best to exercise, when it
was actually vision and melatonin levels which were my personal concern)
rather than to take the moments to visit the web site I provided, where
you could absorb the entire article and comment upon it, if you so
chose, possibly speaks to your need to distract from guilt feelings
about the amount of time you or possibly some family members spend on
computer, rather than elsewhere. There have, after all, been countless
other topic introductions with links you could have selected, for which
you could have accused me of being "usually wrong", but you chose this one.
For such a busy guy, you've gone to some length to explain how vision
systems develop and respond (though not much was offered specifically to
contradict possible ill effects of years of extended bright screen
exposure), and also to offer your personal observations of how engaged,
well-rounded and stimulated your son was by computer/internet services.
Offering my own personal observations, however, hardly weigh in as much
as your own.
I was not presuming to pass along data from the article, because there
really weren't any provided. You claimed to find the research
acceptable, but not the theory. Within the full article, which I only
partially further reproduced for you, concerns are raised over the
estimated 12 years of TV exposure for a 70 year old person, and the
average exposure for a working adult. With most of today's on-line
users, attention is split between TV and computers/games, therefore
their total screen exposure has probably doubled. Add required computer
learning for kids and teens. It's a theory that raises several concerns
which I find plausible, and was inviting comment on the possible
acceptance of possibly supportive evidence.
I'm wondering, however, if your views account for negative effects from
snow blindness, direct sun or eclipsed sun exposure, or damage from
popular intensive light torture techniques. What about strobe effects on
people, especially if they suffer from seizures?
Well, TV and high-screen adverse effects are a relatively new research
area, much like global warming once was.
Natalia
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
