Talk:Computer vision syndrome

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

note

To member that added the prod tag: Please bring up concerns in the talk page to see if they can be resolved before starting deletion procedures. A term being unscientific does not automatically mean its article should be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a science journal. If anything, this article should be improved to demonstrate how this term is used popularly but not much in medical science. And a google search reveals that this term is used frequently, so the article should stay. Vic sinclair 04:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Condition

A mention should go to the fact that CVS is a TEMPORARY CONDITION to ease the minds of parents (regarding their children's computer use) about the myths associated with this issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.212.154 (talk) 16:40, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Disease?

Should CVS be classified as a disease if its only a temporary condition? Its like saying muscle fatigue after a sporting contest or exercise is a disease! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleone (talk • contribs) 16:52, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Bill Nye the Science Guy Video

That video is nonsense, Please do not put back on this page thx!

It is also obvious he is clearly just a puppet for some sleazy health care company trying to scare parents into signing up with their rip off money hungry programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleone (talk • contribs) 14:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, period. Duhman0009 12:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but wat about the opacity iof lences if any —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.254.3 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

There do seem to be some book sources that can be used to make this article into something verifiable, instead of just linking strange web junk. Dicklyon 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duhman0009 obsession with the Bill Nye Video

The video has a clear advertising in the background. (which is not allowed on wikipedia)

The video is full of generalized NONSENSE information based on NO EVIDENCE. He is not an optician, he is some self righteous science man.

The Video clearly just wants to scare people. It is just webjunk. --Purpleone 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there are plenty of good book sources we can use for the article, as I pointed out above. Nye is unlikely to have anything reliable to add, so an external link would seem to be inappropriate. Dicklyon 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it CVS if you sit at a computer in complete darkness for extremely long (24/7) and get bad vision?80.165.62.246 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The article states

Decreased focusing capability is mitigated by wearing a small plus-powered (+1.00 to +1.50) over-the-counter pair of eyeglasses.

That sentence is ambiguous. Would those be worn during the computer work to prevent the problem, or after to help re-gain focus? Tenbergen (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it's not a urban legend?

I thought this thing about screens being bad for your eyes was just a myth perpetrated by popular fear of technology and new things...

Wasn't there a similar fear over reading books for prolonged periods? --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Sources

There is a whopping one source, and it's to the Wall Street Journal. Although that's not a suspicious or invalid source, it is a purely news source, and news vendors tend to sensationalize in order to attract viewers. The article linked to in the sources illustrates this perfectly; the image in the header of the article depicts several electronic devices with "screens" in order to illustrate the topic "Computer screens melt your eyes". One of the devices pictured prominently is an Amazon Kindle, which is a laughably poor example due to the fact that Kindles do not employ "screens" like those used by iPhones or TVs, but rather electrically re-arrange tiny beads of "E-Ink". Hence a Kindle can not cause eyestrain any more than a normal book can, due to the fact that once the screen is refreshed when the "page" is turned, it remains static. There isn't even a backlight. There's also the fact that the author failed to understand that LCD's do not inherently posses flicker, as the root technology (Liquid Crystals) do not actually emit light, but modulate it's color (amongst other properties). Whether or not an LCD screen flickers depends on the backlight technology, and various external light sources (combining certain LCD monitors with cheap fluorescent light bulbs as external light sources has been observed to introduce the perception of flicker). Many devices use backlights which introduce no flicker, and even cheaper LCD displays produce very little flicker. All of this hints that the author possibly already possessed the conviction that electronic devices were bad for you, and merely sought to find any evidence she could without truly understanding what she was talking about. 174.112.6.146 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary??

I get bothered with it constantly myself. I am not a reliable source, obviously. Nevertheless, I submit that unless we find a reliable source asserting that it's merely a temporary condition in every case (in other words, temporary for every single individual afflicted by it--or at least insofar as studies, etc. have manifested), the word "temporary" may need to be removed. Thoughts? 67.186.207.83 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photophobia

Is there a relationship between Computer Vision Syndrome and Photophobia? Is there overlap in the two conditions? ParticipantObserver (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Eyeleo a trojan carrier?

Having just tried to download Eyeleo (I've had it before on another PC) I got a warning from my antivirus to tell me it was carrying trojans. Having tried to cancel it the Eyeleo managed to still get through, it's gone now but I am wondering if it maybe should be removed as a suggestion in the article? I am reluctant to do it without some feedback first. Wandererjon (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd

I'm immune for some odd reason even though I use my HP 6 hours a day with Windows 8 without Windows 8.1. Why is that? 216.145.84.247 (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]