Wady wzroku u dzieci
Chcesz, aby twoje dziecko lubiło czytać, pisać, liczyć i świetnie uczyło się w szkole. Może mu w tym przeszkadzać wada wzroku. Trzeba ją leczyć. Malcowi jest teraz bardzo potrzebne sokole oko.
Przedszkolak nie powie ci, że niewyraźnie widzi. Nie powie, bo przecież nie wie, jak widzieć powinien.
Będzie jednak robić wszystko, żeby wzrok nie sprawiał mu kłopotów. Oglądając bajkę, usiądzie tuż przy telewizorze, powie, że nie lubi układania puzzli, będzie się krzywić na zabawy typu: znajdź 10 szczegółów, którymi różnią się te dwa obrazki. Przyczyną takiego zachowania może być wada wzroku.
Często jednak bardzo trudno ją zauważyć. Oko dziecka potrafi bowiem dostosować się do warunków, jakie ma (to tzw. zdolność akomodacji). Malec może więc dobrze widzieć, pomimo że obiektywnie wada wzroku już jest. Tyle tylko, że jego oczy bardzo się przy tym męczą (stąd np. częste bóle głowy albo spore kłopoty z koncentracją). Dlatego warto sprawdzić dziecku wzrok u okulisty chociaż raz w wieku przedszkolnym, a już na pewno zanim pójdzie do szkoły. Nieleczona wada wzroku może spowodować szkolne problemy: kłopoty z czytaniem, pisaniem, nadpobudliwość. Można temu zapobiec!
To najczęstsza wada wzroku u dzieci. Zwykle malec już rodzi się z niewielką nadwzrocznością (około +2, +3 dioptrie), która potem z czasem maleje. Niestety, nie u wszystkich dzieci. Powodem dalekowzroczności jest to, że gałka oczna jest zbyt krótka lub rogówka zbyt płaska. Ostry obraz powstaje za siatkówką.
- Co się dzieje:
dalekowzroczne dziecko bardzo dobrze widzi obiekty od niego oddalone, natomiast bardziej niewyraźnie te rzeczy, które znajdują się blisko niego.
- Jak możesz rozpoznać:
malca męczy układanie puzzli, nie lubi układanek, obrazków z wieloma szczegółami, nie interesuje się literkami, w przedszkolu ma kłopoty z czytaniem i pisaniem. Często może się skarżyć na bóle głowy.
- Jak leczyć:
jeśli nadwzroczność jest niewielka i dotyczy dwojga oczu, dziecko nie musi nosić okularów (wada może się sama wyrównać). Lekarz zwykle jednak zaleca kontrole co rok, żeby regularnie sprawdzać, czy wada się nie powiększa. Jeśli jest duża, konieczne jest noszenie okularów lub soczewek (plusowych).
Zazwyczaj pojawia się dopiero u malców w wieku 7–8 lat, a potem 12–13 lat, kiedy dziecko w szkole coraz więcej pracuje swoim wzrokiem. Przy krótkowzroczności gałka oczna jest zbyt długa lub rogówka zbyt wypukła i za mocno załamuje światło. Przez to ostry obraz powstaje nie na siatkówce (jak być powinno) tylko przed nią.
- Co się dzieje:
dziecko widzi wyraźnie przedmioty, które znajdują się blisko, za to słabo te, które są dalej.
- Jak możesz rozpoznać:
malec ewidentnie mruży oczy, chcąc zobaczyć coś, co znajduje się daleko, często siada blisko telewizora.
- Jak leczyć:
konieczna jest wizyta u okulisty. Jeśli potwierdzi on wadę, zaleci maluchowi noszenie okularów lub soczewek kontaktowych (minusowych).
kcliuD I loved your blog post.Really thank you! Great.
yNADii Muchos Gracias for your blog article. Will read on...
4U5Ff0 Say, you got a nice post.Thanks Again.
HvOSVu Muchos Gracias for your article post.Really looking forward to read more.
Miriam - Hi Jeff!I'm one of the bridesmaids :) these are bueatiful!! You have some serious talent. Thank you for being patient with the bridal party and for capturing Rose and Pete so well. Love the colors and candid shots! I will definitely refer you to my friends! God Bless!Miriam
The Markets are responsible for drnivig up costs. Medicare consistently keeps prices lower than private health insurers. In fact, private Medicare Advantage plans cost on average 7% more than the government's Medicare.The private plans can't compete with a public plan and still make their zillions of dollars. That's what has them concerned, or rather I should say that's what has their CEO's concerned. They're worried they may have to take a pay cut if they're forced to align their prices along the lines of Medicare in order to compete.
.I believe that my most imonrtapt work is to deal with my own fears and consistently validate for myself that any fear that I have is connected to the assholes being able to control me and trigger my anxiety by threatening my life ..threatening me with death ..whether it's a result of radiation poisoning or the shutdown of gov't (what a riot THAT IS!!!!) OR NOT HAVING A JOB OR LOSING ALL MY MONEY OR BEING THROWN IN JAIL FOR WHAT i SAY OR THINK OR COMING TO GET ME FOR DOING/BEING BAD . It goes on and on I learned a long, long time ago that as long as I deal with the issues I have about death ..my own or others' I will be just fine. And I am sure that you KNOW THIS secret to survival especially in our current state.So .I spend many hours every month over time every time the next world crisis comes up to send us all into our holes of denial (addiction ..rage .consuming becoming immobilized whatever the holes might be) just slowly calmly peacefully sorting through my internal triggers that have to do with my fear of death. I do that work asll the time in one way or another. It is terribly effective and very comforting and provides me with so much desperately needed perspective. I recommend it as a wonderful survival/coping mechanism ..and the magic in it is that when I do this work with myself .I very quickly and efficiently move beyond survival I move into a Buddhist-like state that GIVES me energy and gives me strength and gives me hope and faith and most imonrtaptly POWER. And then I carry on fairly happily until the next life-threatening crisis . It works and it's wonderful.However what people have to know is that dealing with their issues around Death is one of the most demanding difficult things they will do in their lives .especially if they have children. (I myself made a conscious decision in my early 20 s to NOT have children I'm 65 now and have NEVER REGRETTED my decision. In thinking about it besides getting caught by pregnancy and the biological imperative the only REAL REASON humans HAVE children IS THAT IT'S A WAY WE HAVE OF DEALING WITH OUR ISSUES AROUND DEATH ..that's funny huh?) All of the humans running around trying to raise families and live according to the overwhelming rules of brainwashing (to which you referred several times in your writing ) will never be able to cope with the coming collapse. The DEATH of the family unit as we live it and understand it will never stand up to the ultimate THREATS the rich will employ supported by brutalizing Martial Law and Police Action. The horrendous FEAR will break every already weakened citizen. Unless we all stare DEATH RIGHT IN THE FACE and just go for it!The last thing I want to say to you about my thoughts is that I KNOW the underlying motivation and addictive needs of the RICH for money and power is ONLY their way of trying to cope with THEIR fears of death. And if you look at the level of dysfunction sickness and cruelty rampant in these people and in their lives you can get a clear idea of HOW MUCH FEAR THEY HAVE ABOUT DEATH AND HOW THEY HAVE TO PROJECT ALL OF IT ON OUTSIDE ENEMIES AND human beings who do not have the priviledge andpurchased safety that THEY (THE RICH) HAVE. IRONICALLY THEY TRULY do believe that they will beat death .the silly, pathetic buggers! Best of Luck to them All!Sue thank you for inspiring me to publicly share my own thoughts beliefs .as you did yours. The Best to you and your Husband. I hope you don't feel I am presumptuous in telling you that I totally relate to your soul and spirit.Carry on and keep doing all you can to keep that land of yours! It will save your lives ..if that's what you want!Ardelle
So that's the case? Quite a rveealtion that is.
I don't think the police did ayinhntg wrong here. At least they didn't Taser him.I have my own rule I like to apply to others (often drivers): it's OK to be wrong and it's even OK to be an asshole. But it's not OK to be wrong and then be an asshole about it.
is that it is not really as small as what pete oanliirgly played, and CERTAINLY not nearly as heavy..and it IS a combination of "luxilon" and gut. pete's was pure gut, generally LESS bouncy and pliant and therefore gave a player far less "time" to "feel" the ball and then control it..and being so heavy really required a very strong hand and wrist to generate power. in the season 2004 , or perhaps it was 2005 , top players were asked by a reporter - "would you be willing to RETURN to the raquet of pete sampras or even wood...IF OTHERS joined you? this was during the short season between the FO and Wimbledon when people were playing the rotterdam, queens, halleand Roger's answer I recall reading long ago (although i can't remember now which european news that was) - "NO...because i don't want to lose my edge". Roddick answered :"you wouldn't see me a mile near that". it reminded me of agassi's OWN remark in the early 90's when the SAME question was asked of him and others and pete: "would you be willing to return to WOOD? IF others joined you?" agassi then, answered: "No...it tried pete's but it's just TOO difficult"...PEte when asked in the nineties :"if others joined ?...yeah, sure. no problem". in wimbledon 2004, or 05 -- the year when Davenport "retired" (the first time before her comeback) it was also the year that the long-time senior supervisor of matches retired. i don't recall his name. but in keeping with his year's retiring after such a long career: he was asked about the tennis. on RACKETS - he said this (i think i read it on a BBC article -- after he was interviewed after he supervised his LAST match...a davenport match)...., as nearly as I can recall his words: "ROGER has all the shots...WHEREAS pete sampras grew up with wood. what people don;t udnerstand is only pete's old raquet was truly closer to the wood..try these shots TODAY with pete's raquet and you'd break your wrist..i have all these raquets in my collection...the reason pete had a more conventional grip is because of that". --the thing is -- even during their exhibitions - roger was already using , supposedly -- the "pete raquet"...and yet some have said that it's really a "paint job" with specifications made for roger only that CERTAINLY is NOT like pete's. and never would have even been available during pete's time. you recall perhaps that a few years back - when roger was selling the "roger raquet" - sold as "wilson 90" a la pete's old one - the article that examined it ALSO said: "THE TRUE SPECIFICATIONS of Roger's Raquet itself, is a jealously guarded secret". my question has always BEEN....having read from people that have bought the old version of pete and that of roger's claimed "pete's raquet" that have said there is a difference, particularly in the "give" and in the weight: WOULD roger have HIT the ball as HARD and with PRECISION with a far smaller sweet spot as he DOES -- if the raquet TRULY is the exact specification as pete had? one reason , everyone knows, that pete's raquet strings often broke..was not just because he strung them extremely TIGHT - but also because of how hard he hit..however - when pete HIT with the NEW raquets - still as close to what he had , supposedly - or something like ROGER's own which won roger many titles pete quipped :"gee it's almost like cheating..you could really do things we never were able to do as much before"......and he is NOT the only one of players that had played careers using the wood, the hybrids and of course something similar to pete's own .