Tell me more ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Conventional wisdom and tips in magazines often state that you shouldn't buy cheap sunglasses because they don't protect well against UV rays.

There are two claims in one here, I am skeptical about:

  1. Do cheap sunglasses (with UV protection notice on them) really offer significantly worse protection? I am skeptical because UV coating or just some materials that do not pass UV light through aren't necessarily expensive.

  2. How harmful is the UV light that reaches the eyes? It is always suggested that the answer is 'very harmful', but that does not need to be the case. Reasons to be skeptical: people don't wear clear glasses with UV protection in the winter, so the significance here is the difference of amount of UV light being received with sunglasses on and off (due to wider open irises). Another point is, how long do you need to wear sunglasses on in the sun, for this difference to have real measurable impact on your eyes.

share|improve this question
I have no reference for this, but cheap sunglasses may be significantly worse than no sunglasses at all. (they make your eyes more "open" without blocking harmful rays) – Uwat Mar 7 '12 at 1:07
@Uwat, I knowledge that your eyes are more open. The question is, does this difference matter enough. – Boris Mar 7 '12 at 5:44
1  
Great, now I have a ZZ Top song in my head... :) – Brightblades Mar 7 '12 at 14:44
I've seen $10 sunglasses that claim to stop 100% of UVA and UVB light. There's nothing inherently expensive about creating glasses that stop UV rays. I think the question should be reworded to not include the word cheap, but rather refer to tinted glasses without UV protection. Here's a link to reputable retailer. mec.ca/AST/ShopMEC/Kids/Sunglasses/PRD~5028-045/… – Kibbee Jul 29 '12 at 20:26

2 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

In Australia, there is a mandatory standard for the labelling of sunglasses to help the consumer.

In 2003, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), a consumer watchdog issued a Regulation Impact Statement about the standard. Here is an historical copy, and here it is in its (more difficult to read) official location.

In the document, they discuss the risks of poor-quality sunglasses.

Some are irrelevant to your question:

  • "Coloured sunglasses can reduce the ability to see traffic light signals"
  • "Sunglasses that are too dark are unsafe for driving"
  • "Sunglasses should not be made of flammable materials"
  • "Sunglasses should be robust enough to minimise the risk of eye injury"

Some are related:

Solar ultraviolet light causes cataracts

Long term exposure to solar ultra violet radiation is a risk factor for cataracts, a very common eye disorder that results in loss of vision. The prevalence of significant cataracts is 25 per cent in people aged 65-74 and over 40 per cent in those aged more than 75 years.

Cataract surgery imposes a very significant annual cost on the community. Over 120 000 cataract operations are performed in Australia each year. Australia’s cataract surgery rate is 6 300 per million, which is higher than the USA and the UK. About 0.3 per cent of the population suffers from blindness due to cataracts.

[...]

Visible light poses little hazard to the eyes at the levels commonly encountered, although long term exposure to short wavelength (blue) light has been implicated in the development of age related macular degeneration. Sunglasses are principally used to reduce glare, which is caused by high levels of visible light or by light in inappropriate places.

Infra-red radiation has wavelengths longer than visible light, and poses little hazard to the eye, as the amount reaching the eye under normal conditions is low. Protection against infra-red radiation is mainly required by people working in industries in which they receive a high exposure, such as people working with molten metals.

Ultraviolet radiation has wavelengths shorter than visible light. Exposure to high levels of environmental ultraviolet radiation is common in Australia. In addition to the well known association between ultraviolet exposure and melanoma, chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation has been implicated in serious eye disorders including cataract, pterygium and age related macular degeneration. Acute exposure to intense ultraviolet radiation can produce photokeratoconjunctivitis (sometimes known as snow blindness).

It also talks about "Hazards associated with dimension and strength of frames" - i.e. that if the lenses are too small, the protection will be insufficient no matter what the filtering it performs.

Finally, it also discusses price, and shows expensive sunglasses may be poor, and cheap sunglasses may be fine.

Price is not an assurance of safety

Consumers cannot rely on price as an indicator of quality. Past enforcement experience shows that some very high priced sunglasses do not necessarily conform to the Australian Standard.

...

Price is not really an indication of compliance and it has been found that many cheaper priced sunglasses do comply with the standard.

share|improve this answer
This, however, does not really address the question: is wearing cheap sunglasses anyway worst that not wearing them at all? I don't think the debate is on whether wearing sunglasses reduces the risk of UV damage to the eye. – nico Jul 29 '12 at 8:24
Nico, I agree that it doesn't address the question of whether wearing cheap sunglasses is worse than wearing nothing. However, I disagree that that was the original question. If that is the intended claim, I would like to see a notable reference. – Oddthinking Jul 29 '12 at 16:17
however the title "Are cheap sunglasses bad for your eyes?" seems (to me) to imply that, maybe that should be rephrased then: "Are cheap sunglasses useful at all?" or something like that. Right now it seems the OP is asking whether they actually do harm you. – nico Jul 29 '12 at 16:23
(Going meta for a moment: This is why we need to insist on notability links - to be able to find out what the original claimant meant, rather than how it was summarised in the title.) – Oddthinking Jul 29 '12 at 17:19
@nico: I agree; the current title isn't entirely consistent with the two bolded questions in the body, which is what I mainly addressed. – Oddthinking Jul 29 '12 at 17:21
show 1 more comment
  1. This Health Canada page says, "For most people, an inexpensive pair of sunglasses will do the job" and "Look for a label that lists the type and amount of protection" (with details on how much protection to expect).

  2. It also says, "Sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation varies from one person to the next", and "Some scientists believe that routine exposure to blue light over many years may age the retina and increase the risk of blindness in some people over the age of sixty", and more.

share|improve this answer
1  
there might be a difference between 20$ inexpensive and 2$ inexpensive – Uwat Mar 7 '12 at 4:11
2  
There might, or may be not. Part of the question. Some materials just stop a lot of UV light. It might be that some $.50 plastic is stopping enough (or not). – Boris Mar 7 '12 at 5:46

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.