The human eye is constantly exposed to sunlight and artificial lighting. Therefore the eye is exposed to UVB This website uses third-party cookies to offer you social share buttons. By continuing to browse this website, you consent to the use of these cookies. If you want to object such processing, please read the instructions described in our Cookie Policy.
Connect your account to archive this content. This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Languages en es fr de. About us. Refer as Print Font size Archive. Share this content. The infant's vision and light - The role of prevention in preserving visual capacity. Content The newborn child can see from the moment of birth, and even before.
The role of light Light plays a fundamental role in this visual performance. The sun is the villain. Sunglasses with side shields for adults and design not really optimized for babies. Wraparound design with wide bridge and wide temples that provide side protection. Wraparound design that covers the eyebrows. During the sixth or seventh month of pregnancy, the foetus begins to see and react to light. References Delcourt C.
Archives of Ophthalmology ; Arch Ophthalmol. Mitchell P. The Blue Mountain Eye Study. Ophthalmology Bach J. Institut de France. Le Pommier, , p. Delcourt et al. Desmurget M. Max Milo, , p. Vital-Durand F. Blue Light. The three pillars of myopia control in practice. Dr Langis Michaud. Dr Patrick Simard. Expert's Voice. Convergence insufficiency. The exposure time must be limited and controlled.
Between 7 and 10 minutes per day is ideal, though it depends on the amount of sun that penetrates through the window. However, consult your paediatrician to find out if this method is suitable for your child in particular. In general, pediatricians do not recommend directly exposing babies to the sun during their first months of life.
Depending on the baby mainly on their skin tone , it may be recommended to take them to the beach before 11 in the morning or in the late afternoon, when the sun is less intense. The skin of children, especially those who are breastfeeding, is very sensitive to the sun. Children with particularly fair skin burn easier and can even get dehydrated. Being under the umbrella does not relieve them of receiving solar radiation, as it is reflected and filtered through the umbrella. As for sun creams, they should never be applied to children under the age of 6 months.
The way to protect them is with clothes, baseball hats, sun hats and umbrellas we insist: these measures are not entirely effective on their own, because part of the radiation filters through. Between the age of 6 months and 3 years, mineral-based sun creams are recommended.
Your pharmacist will be able to inform you about the type of sun cream that meets these requirements. To protect them on sunny days on the beach, in the mountains, country or snow, they need to use baseball hats, sun hats, visors and umbrellas.
Another option is special sunglasses for children. Instead, they announced with great fanfare their knowingly false and fatal message that oxygen withholding had reduced the incidence of blinding without affecting the mortality rate. The physicians behind this deception were respected pillars of the pediatric and ophthalmological professions, and they jointly proclaimed their badly doctored trial result with great authority and pomp as the science-backed consensus of the most qualified top experts.
They did not mention that they had loaded the dice in their effort to end the surge of blind children that was by then overwhelming many schools in the U. This deception allowed them to slip into the neonatologist doctrine their crypto-eugenic euthanasia program for the early elimination of potential "defectives", under the guise of an allegedly risk-free prevention against the then still new but suddenly most common form of childhood blindness.
The resulting mad rush to oxygen withholding almost instantly ended the ROP epidemic because the babies who would otherwise have survived with eye damage were now dying, and so did many others who would otherwise have grown up normally.
During the first couple of decades after that bogus study, misled neonatologists around the world applied its oxygen withholding recommendation very strictly and with many fatal results.
In the U. Another estimate cited in the medical literature put the number of extra deaths caused by them at , in the first twenty years. This mass infanticide ended an ROP epidemic which until then had affected there about 2, children per year and totally blinded up to about a thousand of them. Yet, the strictly applied oxygen withholding policy greatly reduced the annual number of children blinded, and this much touted victory over ROP helped to convince the U. Congress to greatly expand government funding for medical research.
N o one counted these early deaths from that first crest of the oxygen withholding wave until many years later. The cost of this alleged victory over ROP remained hidden until the early s when two researchers in England and Wales estimated the number of victims.
They used different methods than the above extrapolation from U. When the magnitude of that carnage and the brain injuries became clear, and the s culture in America as well as in England led to generally more relaxed attitudes, the nursery doctors there tacitly began to relax the oxygen rationing rules a little, and more of the smaller preemies began again to survive.
Despite repeated attempts to replicate the results of that initial oxygen-blaming study, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the much asserted link between oxygen administration and blinding. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics never repudiated the original but unconfirmable eugenics-inspired and fraud-based doctrine. Its members know quite well by now that the belief in that link has no scientific or even theoretical basis, but they still restrict the flow of the life-saving gas to many preemies, and the result of their faucet-throttling is still often fatal.
Unfortunately, a ll this harmful and expensive oxygen management is entirely for naught. Its high costs in lives and disabilities and treatment dollars provide no benefit whatsoever against the blinding because they do not address its real and well documented cause. Many solidly established scientific facts about light damage to eyes compel the conclusion that the above cited Dr. Terry had been right, and that the obvious cause of ROP is the excessively bright and eye-damaging fluorescent lighting which the American Academy of Pediatrics specifies for intensive care nurseries.
Many n eonatologists claim that they try to recreate in their nurseries the environment of the womb where the preemies should normally have stayed. Even worse, the doctor-specified fluorescent nursery lamps emit a strong spike of radiation output at a wavelength of This spike varies only slightly from one type of fluorescent tube to the next, whether they are called "daylight" or "deluxe" or are engineered to provide different color temperatures.
Here is, for instance, a graph of the spectrum from a typical "Cool white Deluxe" fluorescent tube, in this case made by Sylvania:. That tallest radiation spike at Occupational Safety Guidelines have identified as the most retina-damaging in the entire visible spectrum, as documented by countless experiments and observations on animals from mice to monkeys and man. Moreover, the fluorescent ceiling lamps in the typical nursery are the same lamps which neonatologists use in slightly increased strength for the treatment of a preemie's excess bilirubin.
In that application as "bilirubin lights", those same fluorescent lamps require mandatory eye patching for the babies beneath them because their radiation would otherwise quickly destroy those babies' retinae even in brief exposures. For instance, in a group of newborn piglets, chosen for the developmental and pigmentation similarity of their eyes with those of preemies, suffered marked retinal damage under bilirubin lights.
One of them lost its eye patch and became totally blind the next day after less than 12 hours of exposure, despite its heavy eyelids and thick eyelashes, and despite the unusually short latency time between the irradiation and the detection of its morbid effects. These bilirubin phototherapy lamps are fluorescent lamps that shine only about three to five times brighter than the fluorescent ceiling lights in a typical intensive care nursery.
However, most American nursery doctors flatly deny that the almost as strong fluorescent ceiling lights could harm any baby, as if they had never heard of the need for safety margins in the dosage of powerful treatments. For comparison, the U. Evidence of hemolysis and age of the infant will impact the duration. In some cases, phototherapy will only be needed for 24 hours or less, in some cases, it may be required for 5 to 7 days. In general, serum bilirubin levels should show a significant decrease before the lights are turned off.
Physical examination for jaundice is not helpful once treatment has started as the yellow color of the skin is temporarily "bleached" by the phototherapy. The effectiveness of phototherapy is determined largely by the distance between the lamps and the infant, so phototherapy can easily be intensified by bringing the lamps closer to the infant.
Because a closed isolette does not allow the lamps to be moved in close, if there is a concern about the effectiveness of phototherapy, an isolette should not be used. With the infant in an open bassinet, it is possible to bring the lamps to within 10 cm of the infant.
An undressed term infant with not be overheated with this arrangement, however, is is important that halogen spotlights NOT be used. Halogen lights can get hot, and burns may result if used this way. Special blue, regular blue, and cool white lights are all acceptable alternatives.
0コメント