Talk:Floater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Floater article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Unassessed	rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Comments 2 Excellent work 3 re: everyone has floaters 4 lieing supine 5 Translating the German remarks 6 erm.. 7 Temptation? 8 Laser floater treatments 9 Transparent floaters - evidence 10 Nine Inch Nails lyrics, "Down In It" 11 flashers 12 Information 13 mastrubation 14 Naming 15 Image 16 Centrum 17 Front Page?

[edit] Comments

This article is now completed.--Dieter Simon 00:14 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

---

AFAIK, everybody has floaters, it's just those who are shortsighted who can actually perceive them. I'm about 3 diopters in both eyes, and I've seen floaters as far back as I can remember. -- Tarquin 10:36 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Jesus! I've always had these too, but I've always assumed that it was just dust and stuff floating on the surface of my cornea. Mintguy 10:47 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

But I'm not shortsighted Crusadeonilliteracy

I'm not shortsighted in any respect, and I get them.--Burbster 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had the flashes and the "clouds" too, when in fact I did have a detached retina, back in 1979, all caused by a then generally-used anti-malaria treatment, a practice long since discarded. All ok now, though. Still got the floaters.--Dieter Simon 23:05 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Why don't you put your facts into the article, Tarquin? And anything else about this, you might be sharing with us that might help? --Dieter Simon 12:43 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

An unproven theory is that floaters are caused by an unhealthy diet. The way to rid oneself of the floaters is to eat more fresh foods. Drink 24-32 ozs. of fresh squeezed orange juice for breakfast every day. The oranges must be sweet, not sour and the juice must be fresh squeezed. Buy organic oranges from your neighboorhood health food store.

For lunch or dinner, make a large organic salad. Make your own dressing using expeller pressed extra virgin organic olive oil. The best oil will be a bit cloudy. Never use white vinegar, use balsamic vinegar, or some fresh lemon juice. Add fresh organic tomatoes, avocado, real cured olives.

Avoid anything fried, and most oils. Use only coconut oil for cooking. You can find it at asian markets or buy it online. The only other oil you should use is olive oil.

This diet will not only clear the floaters out of the eyes, it will also clear out the fat from the body, and help the body to regain it's youthful appearance and stamina.

See "Raw Food Diet" for additional benefits and information.

---

Isn´t "floater" also a business term?

Seconded, mintguy. I've always assumed they were dust or hair, since they change position or vanish when I blink. I'm shortsighted by about 3 diopters and I've been getting them as long as I can remember. Perhaps the dust is a seperate and similar phenomenon only detected by shortsighted people?

___________________________________________

[edit] Excellent work

Excellent job done, Dpb, is there any more to be said about floaters? I, who started the article, appreciate the perfection you brought to it. Dieter Simon 21:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks! Dpbsmith (talk) 23:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: everyone has floaters

I'm not myopic (shortsighted), and I've had easily perceptible floaters all my life.

Of course. Nothing I've read about floaters suggests any connection to myopia. The optical difference wouldn't matter in any case; floaters are not focussed by the lens, but are shadows cast by light coming through the lens, so the refractive error of the lens wouldn't have any effect. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lieing supine

Dpbsmith, the argumentation that floaters are especially visible when lying supine may be flawed. As the image on the retina is inverted, the observation that floaters appear to sink means that they physically move upwards in the eye. Hence, the argument doesn't support the claim that the supine position concentrates floaters near the fovea. Ceinturion 21:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translating the German remarks

The following summary added by 217.255.95.36 in German after s/he had reverted the link added by 217.162.94.87 in translation is:
"Your esoteric rubbish is unwelcome, especially so in an encyclopaedia. No doubt you thought that the link would have higher chances of survival (in an English Wikipedia?). {My bracketed completion}. Dieter Simon 23:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] erm..

Aren't they the cells visible when looking at certain colors such as light blue or purple?

I always thought mine looked like cells. ---T0ny 04:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a completely different phenomenon. You're referring to the visualization of the red blood cells in the capillaries, which is much more visible when viewed against a blue background. They are tiny, they move quickly, they move steadily, they usually appear as bright dots, they seem to be in focus, and with a little attention you can see that many of them follow each other tracing out the same path (the path being the blood vessels). They can become more or less visible depending on circulatory conditions. They never look like threads or big blobs.

The things which usually get the name "floaters" are big, move very slowly if at all--they float or drift. They exhibit a wide variation in appearance but often look like threads or blobs as well as small dots, and they often appear wholly or partly out of focus. They tend to stay in one general part of the field of view for minutes at a time, then drift away in an irregular way. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Duh. I yam stoopid. We have an article about it and it's linked from this one. You are referring to the Blue field entoptic phenomenon. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temptation?

Talking about temptation doesn't make sense. Also what's with shifting the gaze? People can change what portion of their visual field they are paying attention to without actually moving their eyes. Then there's the whole "brain not tuning them out" thing. To the best of my knowledge, the brain is fully capable of tuning out movement, though this varies based on the brain in question and the type of movement. Besides, if the brain really couldn't tune them out, one would think they'd cause more trouble than they do.Hackwrench 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laser floater treatments

The two external links "Laser Floater Treatment in Virginia" and "Laser Floater Treatment in Florida" are nothing but advertisements for commercial sites who - although they are dressed up as giving information about the actual laser treatments offered - nevertheless are presenting a POV attitude which does not belong into an encyclopedia. I very much recommend removing these links for that reason. Dieter Simon 00:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transparent floaters - evidence

I see my contribution on transparent floaters that defocus a section of image without darkening it has been marked as needing citation.

I cannot currently cite any reference for this, having looked in vain so far, but I can say from personal experience, and that of my mother who spent years being misunderstood or ignored by opthalmologist, that they exist and that the evidence points to no other explanation. I have seen references to this problem on internet groups, by people similarly annoyed that their opthalmologist, unable to see any floaters, deny that they have them, while they complain of whole columns of text defocussing with no other reason identified. Not sure these constitute authoritative citations though.

I ask therefore that this section be left, for others to consider and possibly investigate. It seems to me that some things justify being reported as self-evident even if they have not been authoritively written up. Reason and personal experience leads to the obvious conclusion that transparent floaters are the cause of the problem, unless of course anyone has a better explanation to suggest here? The fact that the gelatinous body is known to break up in older people, and that such breakup is not going to create dried blood or other dark material, but rather clumps of potentially differing refractive index, like mini floating lenses, suggests that such a problem might be expected to exist, and that such floaters might well be invisible to the opthalmologist. --Lindosland 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. CameoAppearance 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I am removing the following section, as it reflects one person's experience of vitreous syneresis and many assertions are speculative:

"There is, however, another common form of floater, often denied by opthalmologists, perhaps because they are too young to have experienced it first-hand. This seems to be the result of relatively transparent blobs of gelatinous body breaking free and drifting in the liquid part of the vitreous humour. Quite unlike the black spots and threads commonly observed by younger people, their main effect can be to suddenly defocus the image, and if they drift close to the lens they can badly defocus a whole column of print, or the view across a road, without apparently darkening it (perhaps because of differing refractive indices). They are easily distinguished from other causes of blurring by the fact that flicking the eyes to one side and back temporarily restores normal vision. It can be annoying for people with such floaters to be told that 'floaters are not a problem', though once understood they are easier to live with.^{[citation needed]}"

- AED 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nine Inch Nails lyrics, "Down In It"

User:HisSpaceResearch recently added this:

The Nine Inch Nails song "Down in It" from the album Pretty Hate Machine has a lyric which may well allude to floaters

The passage being referred to is probably this:

kinda like a cloud i was up way up in the sky
and i was feeling some feelings you wouldn't believe
sometimes i don't believe them myself
and i decided i was never coming down
just then a tiny little dot caught my eye
it was just about too small to see
but i watched it way too long
it was pulling me down

What do people think? Is this evocative enough of floaters that it should be included in the Quotations section? I personally don't have strong feelings either way. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There isn't any evidence that the dot is a floater rather than some external feature or flaw the speaker is describing, especially given the fantastic context. --Natebw 12:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is a very wrong intepretation of those lyrics - the dot is clearly something (more likely someone) on the ground. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, the song appears to be about clinical depression such as that associated with bipolar disorder. It's certainly not about floaters. -- The Anome 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Just because he's famous Trent Reznor doesnt suffer from floaters? I call it a possibility, especially because they can cause depression, which is a common element in NIN writing.

[edit] flashers

I was surprised to find that wikipedia doesn't have an entry for "flashers" or "flasher" of the opthalmic meaning.

I'd suggest that this article be retitled to something like "floaters and flashers." Or, create some other pointer for "flasher[s]".

I don't know if the term "flasher" is common outside the US.

--peter

[edit] Information

Information on possible floater therapies and cures is very needed in this article. A lot of good information is circulating at the curezone.com discussion board. Many say they have cured their floater problems entirely. Please understand this is likely not simply pseudo-science. But yes, it seems some things work for some people, don't for others. All of this are things that should be explored in this respected article. Thank you. Anonymous, 4 April 2006

[edit] mastrubation

my friend tells me too much masturbation causes floaters. googling masturbation+floaters shows up some interesting results

• It doesn't. Your friend is either misinformed or messing with your head. This is probably a modern version of the old urban legend that it causes blindness. And, by the way, it doesn't cause hair to grow in the palm of the hand, either. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

It's common for medical articles on Wikipedia to use the nomina medica (='official medical name') as the article title. E.g. "Myopia" and not "Near-sightedness". That being said, shouldn't the title be "Myodesopsia"? MrTroy 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's common, but if so it's wrong, as the Wikipedia Naming convention is always to use the most common name, not the most correct, most technical, most professional, etc. As it says, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Those guidelines should not be taken too literally. Following the rules, we might change "VHS" to "videotape" as well, because the latter is used more often. Wikipedia is for supplying correct information, so why would we prefer the scientifically unapproved name 'floater' over the correct name 'myodesopsia'? MrTroy 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of the naming conventions, which I just explained. And because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. is for a general audience. Feel free to strain the interpretation as much as you like, but don't call me a literalist. The spirit of the naming convention is "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." How would naming it "myodesopsia" serve the purpose of optimizing the name "for a general audience over specialists?" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Floaters look much more transparent to me, more like this:


Acdx^talk 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Acdx, I think that's a lot better impression of how floaters look. Whoever made that other image apparently didn't know how to create transparency. I've taken the liberty and put your image in the article. MrTroy 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You can simulate floaters. Just get a large, white, flat bottomed bowl (a casserole dish or something), and fill it with water. Shake some lint from the dryer on the top of the water (you can even just give it a dusting by beating the lint like a carpet), add a hair or two for good measure, and presto. The shadows on the bottom of the bowl look almost exactly like floaters (and I think its the same principle, in effect). Then take a picture of it.

I tried it but I don't know how to work my camera well enough at the moment (couldn't figure out the manual focus), and then it ran out of batteries :P. I'll try again another time, but if someone beats me to it, be my guest. 24.57.157.81 01:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centrum

it seems that Centrum will casue eye floaters, i am not familar with wiki so admin please chech this link.

http://p198.ezboard.com/ffloatertalkfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=72.topic&start=1&stop=20

That would fall under 'own research' which can't be included in articles under Wikipedia policy. That is, unless you find a renowned scientific magazine to publish the story. MrTroy 08:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Front Page?

I was wondering how I could nominate this article for the front page. This article helped me because I got one of these and didn’t know what it was I thought I had scratched my eye or something. I've talked to people only after I read this article to find out that a lot of other people have them. This article also saved me a trip to the school councilor after I misread the HPPD article and thought that floaters were a hallucination or something from the one time I did ecstasy over a year ago. So I think this should be front page article so it can save ignorant people like me from embarrassing situations and it’s a really well structured article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lesty (talk • contribs) 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

LOL, I had the same misconception worrying about my past escapades , and that article sent me to the eye doctor !! 216.234.58.18 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)