Thank you for publishing the very nice article titled "Local physician leads national trials in new vision implant."
As vision correction surgery is a very technical subject, it is understandable that there were a few errors in the report. I feel that it is important that I correct these.
There were 10 clinical sites that participated in the national clinical trials on the new vision correction procedure called the IntacsTM.
I was a co-investigator at one of these sites, so I in fact did not "lead" the trials. After reviewing the data from the trials, the Ophthalmic Devices Advisory Panel unanimously recommended that the Food and Drug Administration approve the IntacsTM to correct lower levels of nearsightedness.
The FDA nearly always follows the Panel's recommendations but has, as yet, not officially approved the procedure.
I did not perform the IntacsTM procedure on Nicole Gould to correct her nearsightedness, but another effective procedure, called LASIK.
In fact, Nicole was too nearsighted to be a candidate for the IntacsTM. She did, however, improve from 20/1600 vision to better than 20/20 in both eyes after the laser procedure. She described the procedure as "quick and simple."
The IntacsTM are a new and exciting procedure. They can correct lower levels of nearsight-edness (up to 3 diopters) but do not treat cataracts.
At this time, they are not officially FDA approved, but we are expecting this approval sometime in April. I invite you to look for a more detailed and technical article on the IntacsTM which I will write in an upcoming edition of the Town Crier.
Scott W. Hyver, M.D.Aris Vision Institute
Mad at MV, but still against speed bumps
In June 1998, when you ran a story or series on speeders in Los Altos, I wrote that I was all for tougher enforcement and also: "The city should not even consider Berkeley Barriers or speed bumps.
Theoretically every neighborhood would deserve them, including my street, Almond Avenue, which is a straight-through route for many drivers, both local and from other cities. Or how about San Antonio Road? Would you barrier either of them to stop speed? Where would you draw the line?"
Well, now I'm thinking in a somewhat different retaliatory mode, for our neighbors in Mountain view are protecting themselves against intruding speeders.
In some well-traveled spots in residential areas, nuisance barriers have shown up - speed bumps and little circular traffic obstructions.
While these deterrents are perhaps a logical protection for those neighborhoods, I'm jealously thinking, "Why don't they put those on my street?"
Almond Avenue, except for the two schools and fire station, is entirely residential, yet I'm sure Mountain View drivers do some of their best speeding through here. Don't we deserve the same protection their city affords them?
I do not speed through their town, but childish as this seems, every time I go to Minton's or downtown Mountain View, I find myself resenting these exclusionary barriers and puckishly wish we'd impose the same pox on them when they drive by our place.
And isn't Mountain View the same bunch who thumbed their noses at us some years ago by clandestinely directing their residents to use already-overloaded cardboard recycling bins? And what about their unfriendly policies at the only dump convenient to us?
I guess I don't really want speed bumps. They aren't very neighborly, and they inconvenience everyone, including the innocent. But I wish we could get even with Mountain View!
Marv EmerlingLos Altos
Suggestions for motion lights
I would like to address the movement to quell nighttime fear by installing a motion detector-light system on the house or garage. I fully support the position that proper lighting is a deterrent to crime, and people have a duty to protect their property. This is not in conflict with what I would like to suggest.
Many motion detectors are part of a flood-light package. Too many people mount the thing, put in the biggest flood lights (or worse, spot lights) they can find, and go inside to enjoy the safety.
Nothing happens until darkness falls, when a small animal happens by on the other side of the street, and the darn thing turns itself on. The lights, that are probably also melting the paint on the side of the house, are aimed directly at the street, and at the neighbors' houses directly across the street.
Moreover, the timing has been set at the max, which means that whenever anything walks down the street, there will be no sleeping by the neighbors in the bedrooms across the street. rooms across the street.
A similar fate awaits the tired professional, attempting to walk off the day's frustrations in the cool of the evening. Suddenly, without warning, this person is illuminated in interrogation style beams coming from across the street. Gone is the tranquility of the evening, as the person is forced to scramble out of the tortuous glare. Instead of relaxation, these "motion lights" produce an opposite effect that sometimes takes several blocks of peace and calmness to negate.
My purpose in writing to you, if it is not obvious by now, is to ask you to please publish this letter so that folks who install motion lights will do three things: 1) aim the flood/bug lights at their own property; 2) adjust the sensitivity so that a paper blowing down the street won't turn them on, and 3), adjust the timer so that the lights are only on long enough to deter an immediate accident.
R.C. Elliot
Los Altos