I’m actually super zealous about this. I literally wash my glasses every time I will start watching tv, go to the movies or do anything with a screen generally. So I wash my glasses like minimum 3 times a day.
post
My theory is that people who often have dirty glasses have likely worn glasses for most of their lives, because neuroplasticity has kicked in and they don't notice the smudges until it gets exceptionally bad.
Honestly, mine just get dirty throughout the day, even if I don't touch them.
You don't realize how dirty the air is but glasses show it.
If I don't carry a cloth with me all the time they'll be gunked up by the end of the day.
I've had glasses with a scratch and learned how to hold my head and look at screens so it doesn't block anything
I highly recommend kimwipes for cleaning glasses. I keep a box handy in almost every room of the house.

- Never scratched the lens or anti-glare coating over the many years I've used them
- Cheap to buy in bulk
- Don't stink of alcohol or leave streaks
- There has never been a smudge that I couldn't clear with enough work
- Useful to clean other optics in the house (binoculars, phone camera lens, etc)
Microfiber cloth is reusable and just as good
The picture looks like the box isn’t sealable. Do the wipes not dry out after a few days?
These wipes are dry. They're basically a blend between tissue and lens paper that is used for damn near everything in the lab (microscope lens, cuvettes, runny noses, etc.).
The wipes have no moisture to them. They're made of some kind of paper that doesn't damage the anti-glare coating on glass, but which still has a slightly rough surface to remove grease and dirt.
I just recently at the age of 43 got my first pair of glasses and I try to be super careful to not get them dirty and I still have to wipe the lenses 10 times a day lol
Wash, dont wipe. You'll scratch your lenses. Your glasses aren't afraid of a little soap and water.
Those suuuuuuuuck
A good, soft, and most importantly CLEAN cotton or microfiber cloth with some isopropyl is what I use. Rinse any dirt or debris in the sink, then iso on the cloth and clean/dry. It's not the cloth that scratches lenses, it's the dirt and harder bits of dust that rub on the lens using the cloth.
Yeah. Soap and water then a lens cloth with the lens cleaning solution. Those single use towelette things are so rough and dry - they just smear finger prints.
Even better than soap and water is using cleaning fluid for glasses
I've just been using the little cloth specifically for glasses. I don't really have a choice when I'm not at home lol
I clean mine pretty often and never stopped my entire life. It's the eyebrow hair streaks, not finger prints.
That's weird actually, do people pick up their glasses by the lenses (wtf)?
I wash my glasses (soap and water) every time I shower, and I keep microfiber clothes in my bathroom, kitchen, living room, my desk, and in my truck.
No, I don’t have a problem.
I knew people would end up buying 4K sets that aren’t any bigger to watch 1080p sources that were already good enough.
since I don't need glasses for anything under 1.2m (4ft), i watch videos on a desk chair and 4k monitor, ditched the living room setup years ago
y'all mfers need lasik.
ICL > Lasik
Not in a million years will that ever be true given the complications of ICL. ICL is much MUCH more invasive, and has a chance to trigger cataracts to develop.
ICL is reversible, and it's on the surface layer of the eye, which can fully heal itself.
Way less invasive than burning off a part of your inner eye permanently.
Also, Lasik is the one with the higher chance of cataracts, because it's actually damaging the inner eye.
Meanwhile the lens in the ICL naturally gives a tiny bit of extra UV protection.
ICL is scarier to get, I'll say that though. A knife on the eye is definitely much more terrifying than a quick laser zap, but the downsides of Lasik are not worth it - the dryer eyes, worse halos, etc.
Worst part with Lasik is since it's permanent, if you get it at a younger age (45 or under really), you'll still need glasses if your vision gets worse.
With an ICL, you can swap to a stronger lens that's adjusted as needed.
Lasik is the one with the higher chance of cataracts, because it's actually damaging the inner eye.
Nope. Lasik is surface level. Also Lasik can be adjusted over the years if need be. This is some qanon-rank misinformation from you. Also I don't have a horse in this game - I have family with both, and I have perfect, 20/15, never adjusted eyesight without a need for glasses. I understand the benefits and risks of both, and ICL is more intrusive, has more complications, is more expensive. There is no way, without some implicit bias, that you can reasonably call ICL "better" overall.
LASIK:
LASIK permanently changes the shape of the cornea, the clear covering of the front of the eye, using an excimer laser. A mechanical microkeratome (a blade device) or a laser keratome (femtosecond laser) is used to cut a flap in the cornea. A hinge is left at one end of this flap. The flap is folded back revealing the corneal stroma, the middle section of the cornea. Pulses from a computer-controlled laser (excimer laser) vaporize a portion of the stroma and the flap is replaced.[2]
Performing the laser ablation in the deeper corneal stroma provides for more rapid visual recovery and less pain than the earlier technique, photorefractive keratectomy.
[• Undercorrections. If the laser removes too little tissue from your eye, you won't get the clearer vision results you were hoping for. Undercorrections are more common for people who are nearsighted. You may need another LASIK procedure within a year to remove more tissue.
• Overcorrections. It's also possible that the laser will remove too much tissue from your eye. Overcorrections may be more difficult to fix than undercorrections.](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/lasik-eye-surgery/about/pac-20384774)
(Linked texts cover additional risks, just highlighting the ones proving LASIK works by permanently damaging tissue)
versus ICL:
[After dilating and numbing your eyes, your surgeon will make a very small incision at the base of your cornea. They’ll fold and insert the implantable lens into the cut and then adjust it behind your iris and in front of your lens. You probably won’t need stitches because the incision is so small and will heal on its own.
• If you needed to have the surgery reversed, you could. There’s no structural damage to your eye. ](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/25050-implantable-collamer-lens-icl-surgery) And unlike LASIK:
• You’re at less risk for dry eye.
• You may have really good night vision.
Sorry, y'all have been bamboozled then, and you're the one spreading qanon level misinformation. The only real thing you've said is that ICL is more expensive, which is true. Which calls into question the integrity of the rest of your anecdotal claims as well.
Way less invasive than burning off a part of your inner eye permanently.
Your own source material betrays you.
https://www.centralfloridaretina.com/wp-content/uploads/eye-anatomy-infographic-1.jpg
The cornea is not YOUR INNER EYE
Ok, my mistake, I made one error, about which part LASIK permanently burns off and damages.
My bad.
The main point still stands tho.
That fact, obliterates all of your "points".
The cataracts comment, for example - because the laser doesn't affect that part of the eye. Doctors office will tell you that ICL has a larger chance of cataracts than Lasik.
My points were quotes from mayoclinic and Cleveland clinic.
Yours are still anecdotal
Mine were from https://www.discovervision.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-icl-vs-lasik/
I merely didn't cite them as a source. But I did double check them as I was making my initial claims, so that I made sure I wasn't mis-remembering anything I recalled from the doctors appointments that I took my family to.
So I looked further into it, and saw that the information you have on your claim is technically true, but very outdated.
An ICL has an estimated averaged 10.5% chance of causing cataracts - if it's the old types of lens.
The newer ones, that come with small macroholes in them, drops that chance to an average of 1.2% chance.
And the newest type still, made with micropores as well as the macroholes, is currently at 0.5% chance - although it's too new for exact long term data, and the percentage is so low it's within margin of error.
The reason cataracts had a chance of forming in the old type of lenses was
•because the lenses were much bigger •the lack of holes messed with fluid circulation •bigger lenses increased the odds of the surgeon messing up the placement
In all cases however, ICL leaves no permanent damage to the eye, unlike LASIK, and has fewer side effects in general. It's also, importantly, reversible, so even in the case of cataracts, or anything else like worsened vision, you can have the lens removed and replaced. With LASIK, the damage means the change is permanent, and improving eyesight afterwards is much more limited.
This information I found from research papers I had to use sci-hub to read, which I can't link, but I can go through my search history to give you the DOIs if you want.
Btw, all this was a bit moot because I also found out that LASIK can also increase the odds of cataracts as well.

all 48 comments