The Physiology of 3D - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-08-2010, 10:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarqueeMarc View Post

But the exposure has already been determined to be relatively safe in adults and for more limited exposure of a couple of hours at a time in children.This is a basis for one to have less concern not more.

I'm trying to get, based on that and without demonstration of harm ,essentially anywhere ,why you believe that one should suddenly expect deleterious effects to show up.

Of course, I could kill my children with too much drinking water no doubt this is something to be concerned about but there is nothing to indicate that moderate use of 3D as it has been used for many years and with hundreds of thousands of children, is harmful.

To say that based on models of dose response in radiation that we should worry about 3D glasses is too much of a leap, by any reasonable estimation of concern,except for that of an alarmist,which appears to desribe you fairly well in this thread at least.



marc

I guess I'm just not able to get through. That's OK. I think for the most part there are enough who "get it" that unintended effects (if any) will be minimized and hopefully reversible at that.

Here's another way to think about it: Fluoride in your water at the current levels has been shown to be safe and even beneficial. Would you be OK with a 10-fold increase in the levels without further study? Afterall, it's been harmless so far, right?
cpcat is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-08-2010, 10:38 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Gault View Post

What ? My experience ? 3D using shutter or polarized glasses(3D as it is being used now) is not new. As several of us have said in this thread it has been used in theaters, museums,theme parks, plantariums etc with children for many years. It has been used in aviation simulation and industrial design for many years as well. Where is the evidence of harm, where ?

I find it interesting that hundreds of thousands or more likely millions have used this technology now and this is something that you just don't want to acknowledge for some reason, preferring instead to say because it hasn't been studied to your satisfaction that it should be assumed to be unsafe.

What would be to your satisfaction in this case ?

Yes, just a quick google search shows how many industries use this technology in design not to mention research.

How many children have watched 3D using this technology in the last five years. Where are the cries of harm ?

art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 10:52 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Yes, just a quick google search shows how many industries use this technology in design not to mention research.

How many children have watched 3D using this technology in the last five years. Where are the cries of harm ?

art

There have been a number of 3D DVDs available in the Anaglyph 3D format which IMO causes more eye strain than HD S3D does.

http://www.3dmovielist.com/3ddvds.html

So where are the cries of harm?
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 10:52 AM
Member
 
MarqueeMarc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Western PA
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

I guess I'm just not able to get through. That's OK. I think for the most part there are enough who "get it" that unintended effects (if any) will be minimized and hopefully reversible at that.

Here's another way to think about it: Fluoride in your water at the current levels has been shown to be safe and even beneficial. Would you be OK with a 10-fold increase in the levels without further study? Afterall, it's been harmless so far, right?

Well ,you need to answer why you feel that there is reasonable concern of harm, anywere, despite the technology's use for years before you can start using the dose analogies with any credibility.

Your position is not adding to your credibility since an excess of anything can be harmful therefore more use of 3D must be therefore.

Where is the evidence of harm in all the years of 3D ?

Marc
MarqueeMarc is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 10:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

There have been a number of 3D DVDs available in the Anaglyph 3D format which IMO causes more eye strain than HD S3D does.

http://www.3dmovielist.com/3ddvds.html

So where are the cries of harm?

Yes ,and my children have at least half of those titles. I wonder how many hours kids got on these all over the world ?

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So now we're assuming the effects would be easily identifiable enough so that a passive approach i.e. "as long as no one complains or there's not a publicly raised concern" then it must be OK? So as long as side effects can be minimized i.e. headache, nausea then it must be OK?

That's just as potentially flawed as assuming it's OK because it's been historically harmless at lower exposures.

3D tv exposure is almost certainly not inert, i.e. it does produce a physiologic effect. If it isn't inert, then it most likely has a dose-response attribute.
cpcat is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 11:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
hphase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This "My ideas are right and yours are wrong because I say so" is simplistic and illogical, but the proponents are relatively harmless blowhards that only affect their own immediate circles of "influence." Thankfully, they are not titans of industry.

They, like these problems, will not go away.
hphase is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 11:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

So now we're assuming the effects would be easily identifiable enough so that a passive approach i.e. "as long as no one complains or there's not a publicly raised concern" then it must be OK? So as long as side effects can be minimized i.e. headache, nausea then it must be OK?

That's just as potentially flawed as assuming it's OK because it's been historically harmless at lower exposures.

3D tv exposure is almost certainly not inert, i.e. it does produce a physiologic effect. If it isn't inert, then it most likely has a dose-response attribute.

This is illogical fear mongering,essentially the entire post.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 12:06 PM
Member
 
MarqueeMarc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Western PA
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

This "My ideas are right and yours are wrong because I say so" is simplistic and illogical, but the proponents are relatively harmless blowhards that only affect their own immediate circles of "influence." Thankfully, they are not titans of industry.

They, like these problems, will not go away.

All I can say is thank goodness the "everything must be proven 100% safe before you are allowed to use it" set isn't dominant in,science, industry or life in general or we would still be sitting around a fire grunting,no wait ,we wouldn't be allowed to use the fire.
MarqueeMarc is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 01:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It's interesting how the same sort of responses from the majority seem to keep cycling over and over in this thread.

It's also interesting how hundreds of thousands of dollars are being allocated to research these issues simply to dispel "fear mongering". Someone should call the big companies involved and let them know they could save alot of money by just taking the word of those here in this thread.

Oh wait, I bet the "don't worry about it my 3Dtv must be OK" camp might sing a different tune if it was actually required of them to bear direct personal responsibility. Or...maybe not.
cpcat is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 01:22 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

It's interesting how the same sort of responses from the majority seem to keep cycling over and over in this thread.

Because a few in the minority ,such as yourself ,continue to pretend that 3D is new and that there is no human experience to draw on therefore we must be irrationally fearful all of the dire consequences possible. You remind me of the film Reefer Madness.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 03:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarqueeMarc View Post

Well ,you need to answer why you feel that there is reasonable concern of harm, anywere, despite the technology's use for years before you can start using the dose analogies with any credibility.

Your position is not adding to your credibility since an excess of anything can be harmful therefore more use of 3D must be therefore.

Where is the evidence of harm in all the years of 3D ?

Marc

There is no evidence of harm. AFAIK there isn't any evidence of harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water either. However, fluoride at greater levels could certainly do harm. Funny, you didn't answer my question but rather avoided it. I suppose you are saying that an exposure like 3D tv isn't possibly analogous to an exposure like fluoride.

How about something like eye-patching? Peek-a-boo certainly isn't harmful. Eye-patching for say 6 or maybe even 12 weeks can be therapeutic for amblyopia. Would you patch a child's eye for 5 or 6 months and "not worry about it"? Or would you patch a normal non-amblyopic child for even say two or three weeks and be confident there would be zero effects?
cpcat is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 06:52 PM
Member
 
MarqueeMarc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Western PA
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcat View Post

There is no evidence of harm. AFAIK there isn't any evidence of harmful effects of fluoride in drinking water either. However, fluoride at greater levels could certainly do harm. Funny, you didn't answer my question but rather avoided it. I suppose you are saying that an exposure like 3D tv isn't possibly analogous to an exposure like fluoride.

Excess fluoride is harmful but this was known before it was used as a supplement since it occurs naturally in the aquafers in many places, another poor analogy.

The issue is you are the one side stepping since you simply can't let go of the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on regarding harm from 3D. Where's the beef man ? With all the years of it's use we aren't getting indications of issues but you act as though the reverse is true.

You have nothing but to regurgitate that some x number of hours, at some point ,will cause problems ,you could literally say this about anything and show the same lack of evidence as you have here. What do you have....,nothing. It's been out there for many years as as has been said but yet you continue without anything but your opinion and not even an informed one at that it seems.

The evidence from many years of use of 3D is it is safe, what evidence do you have indicating otherwise except to just keep repeating that it must be harmful because fluoride is harmful or it must be harmful because the sun is harmful ?


Marc
MarqueeMarc is offline  
Old 03-08-2010, 07:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cpcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vidalia, GA
Posts: 6,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You again avoided the question (regarding eye patching this time). If your response continues to be "I'm right and you are wrong" without any willingness to enter into further discussion then I guess there's no point.

The reality is that just about any exposure taken to excess can be harmful. You even admitted this. Yet, "that can't possibly happen with 3D tv" seems to be the major argument you and some are using. That doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that your unwillingness to consider the possibility (and thus possibly prevent unintended harm) arises from a desire to advance the tech that overrides concerns for safety. Even some other, although less vocal, members here have indicated they recognize the need for a measure of caution with young children. That in fact is my major thrust as well.

We aren't talking about finding a cure for cancer. Taking risk (however small) in the spirit of "science" or "progress" doesn't apply. 3D tv in this context of discussion has entertainment value only.
cpcat is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off