Kids should be outside playing, not coding. Adults, too.
"If outside was so good why has man spent thousands of years perfecting inside?"
Sheldon Cooper
The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
31–40 of 45 posts
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are multiple startup ideas in that article.
Yes. Trying to fix myopia by getting children exposed to more sunlight is a bit of a "let them eat single-source organic asparagus" response: it makes would-be social reformers feel good, but it's not a realistic way to reliably give all children the (apparently) minimum three daily hours of 10,000 lux. Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible, and wouldn't be pleasant or e…
> Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible
Then something is very wrong.
- Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes. - Morning break: 20 minutes. - Lunch: 45-60 minutes. - Afternoon break: 20 minutes. - Walk home from school: 10 minutes.
That's around 2 hours already, and that's structured time at school. Add a sports lesson two or three times a week, and add one hour playing outside after school every day.
In England, break and lunch was outdoors unless it was actually raining. (Very light drizzle doesn't count.) Being inside wasn't allowed until I was 16-17, in 2002.
I read an article in an old New Scientist on this topic, and it said bright light wasn't sufficient -- it had to be combined with open spaces, which let the peripheral vision be in focus at the same time as the core vision.
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Trying to fix myopia by getting children exposed to more sunlight is a bit of a "let them eat single-source organic asparagus" response: it makes would-be social reformers feel good, but it's not a realistic way to reliably give all children the (apparently) minimum three daily hours of 10,000 lux. Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible, and wouldn't be pleasant or e…
> Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible Then something is very wrong. - Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes. - Morning break: 20 minutes. - Lunch: 45-60 minutes. - Afternoon break: 20 minutes. - Walk home from school: 10 minutes. That's around 2 hours already, and that's structured time at school. Add a sports lesson two or three times a week, and add one hour playing…
If you're suggesting that a typical school day in England delivers enough or nearly enough hours of strong-enough sunlight then that seems hard to square with the large increase in myopia right across the developed world, not just Asia (unless one rejects the strong-light hypothesis, of course). If strong light on its own isn't sufficient then of course adding artificial light to classrooms won't be sufficient; but in that case the Yangxi school experiment presumably won't be successful either.
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are multiple startup ideas in that article.
Yes. Trying to fix myopia by getting children exposed to more sunlight is a bit of a "let them eat single-source organic asparagus" response: it makes would-be social reformers feel good, but it's not a realistic way to reliably give all children the (apparently) minimum three daily hours of 10,000 lux. Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible, and wouldn't be pleasant or e…
All the reasons you gave for why it's not possible are situational. It is possible for kids to get three hours of sunlight, either at school or at home by playing outside.
(By the way, who refers to a minor child as "it" anyway?)
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coding is playing. Just kidding, of course. One thing I've noticed is that my kids have vastly more homework than I ever had, and homework now starts in kindergarten. There are only so many waking hours in the day.
Can kids do homework outside?
Perhaps. It would require providing a place to do it, and good weather. I live in a locale with a pretty hard winter.
And schools are increasingly moving schoolwork to the distraction box, er, the computer.
Less homework seems like a simpler solution.
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Trying to fix myopia by getting children exposed to more sunlight is a bit of a "let them eat single-source organic asparagus" response: it makes would-be social reformers feel good, but it's not a realistic way to reliably give all children the (apparently) minimum three daily hours of 10,000 lux. Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible, and wouldn't be pleasant or e…
> Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible Then something is very wrong. - Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes. - Morning break: 20 minutes. - Lunch: 45-60 minutes. - Afternoon break: 20 minutes. - Walk home from school: 10 minutes. That's around 2 hours already, and that's structured time at school. Add a sports lesson two or three times a week, and add one hour playing…
Recalling public middle school in Wisconsin:
>Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes
School starts at 7:40a; most days walking between 7:15a and 7:30a; for most of the year that walk is in the dark or the sun is very low and not very bright.
>Morning break: 20 minutes
Never got one of those
>Lunch: 45-60 minutes
Try 20.
>Afternoon break: 20 minutes
Never got one of those
>Walk home from school: 10 minutes.
Figure one extra-curricular with a duration of 1 hour. For most of the year, the walk home for me was 4:00p-4:15p which was entirely dark.
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Trying to fix myopia by getting children exposed to more sunlight is a bit of a "let them eat single-source organic asparagus" response: it makes would-be social reformers feel good, but it's not a realistic way to reliably give all children the (apparently) minimum three daily hours of 10,000 lux. Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible, and wouldn't be pleasant or e…
All the reasons you gave for why it's not possible are situational. It is possible for kids to get three hours of sunlight, either at school or at home by playing outside. (By the way, who refers to a minor child as "it" anyway?)
It's perfectly possible for many families. But for others it is not so safe and easy, while many others probably just won't do it even if you exhort them to.
(The answer is 'someone who can't edit his comment after the timeout'. But I suppose it can be my daily blow struck for social justice.)
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible Then something is very wrong. - Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes. - Morning break: 20 minutes. - Lunch: 45-60 minutes. - Afternoon break: 20 minutes. - Walk home from school: 10 minutes. That's around 2 hours already, and that's structured time at school. Add a sports lesson two or three times a week, and add one hour playing…
Recalling public middle school in Wisconsin: >Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes School starts at 7:40a; most days walking between 7:15a and 7:30a; for most of the year that walk is in the dark or the sun is very low and not very bright. >Morning break: 20 minutes Never got one of those >Lunch: 45-60 minutes Try 20. >Afternoon break: 20 minutes Never got one of those >Walk home from school: 10 minutes. Figure one…
That's a very long day! And unfortunate with the timezone. Here (London), even in December at least morning is in daylight, and hometime is at dusk (well before twilight).
The school next door to my workplace has this schedule (from their website), for 5-11 year olds:
8:45 - children start to arrive 8:55 - children go inside 10:20-10:35 - morning break 12:00-13:10 - lunch 15:15 - hometime! 15:45 - still lots of children playing, parents chatting 16:00 - most have gone by this point, though on a nice sunny day they can easily still be playing and chatting at 17:30.
The nearest school for 12-16 year olds with info on their website do 8:30-15:00, but only have 45 minutes for lunch. My own school had an hour for lunch, but finished at 15:30. These schools don't have an afternoon break.
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible Then something is very wrong. - Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes. - Morning break: 20 minutes. - Lunch: 45-60 minutes. - Afternoon break: 20 minutes. - Walk home from school: 10 minutes. That's around 2 hours already, and that's structured time at school. Add a sports lesson two or three times a week, and add one hour playing…
Recalling public middle school in Wisconsin: >Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes School starts at 7:40a; most days walking between 7:15a and 7:30a; for most of the year that walk is in the dark or the sun is very low and not very bright. >Morning break: 20 minutes Never got one of those >Lunch: 45-60 minutes Try 20. >Afternoon break: 20 minutes Never got one of those >Walk home from school: 10 minutes. Figure one…
[deleted]
Re: The Puzzling Rise in Nearsighted Children
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Getting all children outside for three hours every day is not realistically possible Then something is very wrong. - Walk (or cycle) to school: 10 minutes. - Morning break: 20 minutes. - Lunch: 45-60 minutes. - Afternoon break: 20 minutes. - Walk home from school: 10 minutes. That's around 2 hours already, and that's structured time at school. Add a sports lesson two or three times a week, and add one hour playing…
If you're suggesting that a typical school day in England delivers enough or nearly enough hours of strong-enough sunlight then that seems hard to square with the large increase in myopia right across the developed world, not just Asia (unless one rejects the strong-light hypothesis, of course). If strong light on its own isn't sufficient then of course adding artificial light to classrooms won't be sufficient; but i…
I'm not going quite that far, but I am suggesting it is realistically possible.