Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: My LASIK story (Score 1) 535

by QuantumPion (#47525733) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

I had been considering getting LASIK for years but kept putting it off out of fear of damaging my sight, or the idea that technology would improve in the future and make the outcomes better/less risky. About two years ago though I started getting terrible headaches due to Temporomandibular joint dysfunction, caused by my glasses. Basically, the feel of my glasses on my face was causing me to contract my facial muscles so much that it was giving me severe headaches and sometimes even a jaw so sore I could not open my mouth. I tried contacts several times over the years but none of the brands worked for me - they were too dry, too irritating, and I was unable to focus on computer screens with them for some reason (necessitating needing contacts + reading glasses!).

So finally in spring 2013 I finally got the nerve (and HSA funds saved up) to get LASIK done. I went to a highly reputable doctor, whom has performed more procedures than anyone else in the country (including several famous actors and athletes). They told me going in that no surgery is perfect and to have realistic expectations. I was an excellent candidate, I had nice thick corneas and moderate myopia and astigmatism. The only problems were my eyes were a little on the dry side and my pupils dilate greater than the treated area. I went ahead with the surgery anyway, once I had the nerve to go through with it I was extremely excited and eager to have it done and be able to enjoy the rest of my youth without needing glasses.

My results came out very good, but not perfect. A friend of mine whom had LASIK just before myself was disappointed because they under corrected her. Knowing this, I asked the doc to not under correct, I wanted the full correction. I ended up getting about 20/15 in both eyes, so I was very happy. I had bad halos and starbursts, which made me somewhat worried. However, those aberrations very gradually went away. It was so gradual that I hardly even noticed that I could no longer see them - but it took over a year. I do have drier eyes even now, so I need to use eye drops once a day or every other day. But they are not irritated or uncomfortable, they just get kind of sticky over a couple days which makes my vision less sharp. The only other downside was my nightvision is kind of...weird. When my pupil dilates greater than the treated area, I see hard to describe aberrations - mainly in point light sources in a dark area that end up having a sort of blur or ghost around them.

Over all, I'm very happy with my results and glad I took the plunge. I don't even remember what it was like to have glasses any more and I love no longer being reliant on them. Especially now since the Oculus Rift is coming out very soon!

Comment: Re:Astronomy, and general poor night-time results. (Score 2) 535

by QuantumPion (#47525531) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

This is the one main gripe I have about the outcome of my surgery. I went in to it knowing that I was susceptible to worse night vision, due to having pupils that dilate larger than the corrected area. At night time, seeing bright objects in an otherwise dark area causes a weird sort of blur or ghost that is hard to describe. It makes visual astronomy more difficult. However despite that negative side effect, my night time vision is still better than it was with glasses - just not 100% perfect. The benefits outweigh the costs and I'm happy with the results overall.

Comment: Re:Cecil Kelley (Score 1) 299

by QuantumPion (#47376589) Attached to: Site of 1976 "Atomic Man" Accident To Be Cleaned

The people who got the highest dose at Hiroshima and Nagasaki also suffered from the other effects of the bomb, like heat and blast, and there wasn't emough left of them to measure

The bombs were detonated at some altitude above the ground so no one could have been close enough to receive that much direct radiation anyway.

Comment: Re:Cecil Kelley (Score 2) 299

by QuantumPion (#47376561) Attached to: Site of 1976 "Atomic Man" Accident To Be Cleaned

"As far as I am aware the highest radiation dose anyone has received was Cecil Kelley..."

Not to be too snarky, but I believe that some former folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would beg to differ.

No. To get that kind of radiation dose from a nuclear explosion you would have to be much closer than the altitude the bombs were detonated at. So close that you would be instantly vaporized by the thermal radiation.

Comment: Cecil Kelley (Score 5, Informative) 299

by QuantumPion (#47375057) Attached to: Site of 1976 "Atomic Man" Accident To Be Cleaned

As far as I am aware the highest radiation dose anyone has received was Cecil Kelley, whom was exposed to a criticality accident at a plutonium processing plant. When the tank stirrer turned on, the geometry of the plutonium solution became critical, exposing him to ~12,000 rem. He died 36 hours later.

See Page 16 for a description of the accident here: http://ncsp.llnl.gov/basic_ref/la-13638.pdf

Or the wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Kelley_criticality_accident

Comment: Glad Canton lost out of spite (Score 2) 932

by QuantumPion (#47214799) Attached to: House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary

I'm glad Cantor lost, just out of spite. He ran the meanist, ugliest, lyingest, dirty campaign I've ever seen. Running attack ads left and right which were outright lying, just because he could because Bratt didn't have the money to run opposing ads. Cantor was known for not appearing at town halls, snubbing the VCDL and other local conservative groups, and generally treating his own constituents and elections as a nuisance - like a ruling class elite. Apparently, on the day of the election, Cantor was in Washington bragging about how he out-spend Bratt 50-1 in order to crush him to prevent future primary contestants.

Comment: Re:Not a battery (Score 1) 363

by QuantumPion (#47172793) Attached to: Group Demonstrates 3,000 Km Electric Car Battery

Ok, not sure what the fucking hell beta did to my comment between editing and submitting, but here it goes again:

This isn't really a "battery" any more so than gasoline is. Technically, you could recover the waste products from gasoline combustion, and using various chemical processes + energy turn it back into gasoline. But that doesn't mean your gas tank is a battery. Same goes for this thing. It is basically an engine burning aluminum. Traveling 3000 km in a car that gets 50 mpg requires about 100 kg of gasoline, so this has about the same energy density.

Comment: Not a battery (Score 1) 363

by QuantumPion (#47172753) Attached to: Group Demonstrates 3,000 Km Electric Car Battery

This isn't really a "battery" any more so than gasoline is. Technically, you could recover the waste products from gasoline combustion, and using various chemical processes + energy turn it back into gasoline. But that doesn't mean your gas tank is a battery. Same goes for this thing. It is basically an engine burning aluminum. Traveling 3000 km in a car that gets 50 mpg requires of gasoline, so this has about the same energy density.

In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.

Working...