Can 3-D Television or Movies Make You Sick?

Three-D technology capitalizes on taking advantage of the brain's ability to fuse two images together. The glasses that you wear when watching 3-D are helping your brain interpret two flat images as one object with depth. A bunch of 3-D movies are making their mark in Hollywood.

1. Martin Scorsese plans to direct a 3-D movie
2. Nintendo - 3-D game console, the 3DS
3. 3-D television models
4. ESPN - 3-D sports network

There are some dangers, doctors say, for eyes unaccustomed to watching 3-D for hours. there are mild symptoms like disorientation and seizures.

Samsung 3D LED TV comes with health warnings cautioning that certain flashing images/lights could induce seizure or stroke and that motion sickness, disorientating, eye strain and decreased postural stability may result.

The percentage of people to worry about effects is small. Commonly, people may become dizzy after watching 3-D TV or films.

3-D causes the eyes to move in unnatural ways. 3-D presents two slightly different perspectives of the same scene. Three-D glasses have a polarized filter that separates the two images, each to be seen by a different eye. In the brain the images are fused creating the illusion of depth, says Steven Nusinowtz, associate professor of ophthalmology at the Jules Stein Eye Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Your eyes slightly cross toward each other when you see something come toward you in the real world. The lenses change in order to keep the object in focus as it moves, process called accommodation. With the images on the screen, your eyes try to align the two, but not accommodate because the image is moving toward you. The disconnect will make you feel sick.

Some people can not see in 3-D, like people whose eyes aren't perfectly aligned, or have a weak eye muscle a condition where the eyes point in different directions. People with a lazy eye may also miss out on the depth perception.

Nusinowitz says that 80% of people won't have problems.

No one knows for sure the long-term effects of 3-D television.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/23/3d.vision.brain/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I do think that people can get sick from watching three-D movies. I know that after I watch something in 3-D I am a little dizzy once the movie is over and I stand up. I think that 3-D is a cool effect and it is interesting to know that our eyes help us perceive depth in the real world and the glass help us in the movies, but seeing something in 3-D, I think, is a really treat. If it becomes a common house hold thing then not many people will go out to see movies in 3-D. I think that if someone watches a lot of 3-D their eyes will get too used to the polarized glasses and have troubles seeing in the real world. They don't know the long-term effects so I think that going out and buying all this 3-D technology people should just wait to see what the long-term effects could be. We don't know if it could be something that changes your life drastically or something that is very small and minor. I do think that we need to do more research on 3-D before we all get carried away and someone comes up with 3-D computers.

Several airlines vow not to charge for carry-on bags

Several major airlines promised not to charge passengers for carry-on bags, Announced Senator Charles Schumer on Sunday. Schumer said that he contacted officials at United Airlines, Delta Airlines, US Airways, JetBlue, and American Airlines, and secured commitments from all. Two weeks ago, Spirit Airlines was the first in the U.S. to propose charging $45 to store luggage in overhead bins.

On Wednesday, Schumer introduced a bill that amends the tax code to eliminate a loophole that allows airlines to avoid taxes on certain fees. This came after two other senators put a bill that would change how the Federal Aviation Administration regulates carry-on fees. Spirit argues that the fee is a strategy to make boarding faster and easier. Spirit's chief executive, Ben Baidanza, said that this is a free market and consumers can make their own choices and that Spirit is about giving people options to choose what they want to pay for.

Senator Robert Menendez countered that air carriers are crossing a line that will end by pricing middle-class families so they won't be able to fly. He also states that airlines can set their prices and families should be able to bring a change of clothes with them.

As a result the bill's co-authors called on the U.S. Treasury Department to close a loophole that gives airlines preferential tax treatment for fees on services that are not deemed "reasonably necessary."

BAG(Block Airlines' Gratuitous) Fees Act would require carry-ons be considered essential. The Free of Fees for Carry-On Act reauthorized funding for the Federal Aviation Administration.

The goal is to ensure that passengers aren't penalized for bringing medication, food and laptops on planes.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/18/carry.on.fees/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

I think that having to pay to bring a carry-on bag on board is really unnecessary. I think that everyone should be able to bring a change of clothes and other things that they may need on an airplane and not be charged for it. Also, with Spirit charging for carry-on bags, I think that Spirit will be losing a lot of customers. I have only been on a plane once and from what I saw many people brought on a carry-on. With knowing this, I have a feeling that those people will not fly with Spirit and others may feel the same way and no longer fly on Spirit planes.
I am glad that some Senators are listening to the people and are taking action in keeping carry-ons free. I hope that other airlines will see that if they also charge for carry-ons they will lose business. Also, an effect from charging for carry-ons, many people will choose not to fly and people won't take as many trips or business trips. I hope that the bills work well and Spirit does well with their business.

Earthquake hits southern Spain; damage said unlikely

On Monday near Granada, Spain, a strong earthquake struck. The depth made damage unlikely. The earthquake struck at 12:08 a.m. with a magnitude of 6.2. The center of the earthquake was 15 miles southeast of Granada and 230 miles south of Madrid, Spain's capital. There wasn't immediate report of injuries or damage. The quakes depth was recorded at 400 miles, meaning little damage. "The deeper the quake, the less damage because the earth absorbs the energy." says geophysicist Susan Potter.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/11/spain.earthquake/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

I am glad that there was little damage done to Spain. It would be very sad if we had to go through everything, all over again, that happened to Haiti. I hope that all the people are doing well and are okay. Thankfully there were no immediate reports of injuries. I think that the people of Spain should be happy that the strong earthquake had a 400 mile depth so the earth could absorb most of the energy of the quake. I also think that the people are probably happy that they don't have to go through what Haiti went through and are still bouncing back from. I am glad that we aren't having a repeat of the earthquake in Haiti.