WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:30.000 position:50% align:top line:0 *This machine-generated transcript may have errors. If remediation or a manually-generated transcript is needed, please contact NLM Support at https://support.nlm.nih.gov.* 00:04.429 --> 00:07.400 this is a continuation and an extension of the paper 00:07.409 --> 00:08.590 that was given at, 00:08.600 --> 00:09.119 um, 00:09.130 --> 00:11.470 the U C meeting in Amherst last 00:11.479 --> 00:12.220 October. 00:12.960 --> 00:13.699 And, 00:13.710 --> 00:13.930 um, 00:14.210 --> 00:16.709 if you need uh certain points 00:16.719 --> 00:17.370 solicited, 00:17.459 --> 00:19.030 let me know because I'll, 00:19.040 --> 00:19.729 I'll explain them, 00:19.739 --> 00:22.569 but I'm gonna sort of skip over things because I think time is short for a lot of 00:22.579 --> 00:23.129 people here. 00:23.139 --> 00:23.930 And it is for me, 00:23.940 --> 00:24.329 I know, 00:25.420 --> 00:25.950 um, 00:26.700 --> 00:29.500 very few investigators have been willing to address the 00:29.510 --> 00:32.220 problem of microwave cataract genesis from a 00:32.229 --> 00:35.060 biochemical alteration standpoint. 00:35.759 --> 00:37.729 And this lack of appeal seems ne 00:37.740 --> 00:38.849 neglectful, 00:38.860 --> 00:41.810 especially after it has been reported that a drop in 00:41.819 --> 00:44.729 ascorbic acid levels in the lens of rabbits was 00:44.740 --> 00:47.330 the first identifiable reaction to microwave 00:47.340 --> 00:50.130 radiation and that this occurred before any 00:50.139 --> 00:52.150 visible signs of damage were present. 00:53.340 --> 00:55.740 Let us briefly review the literature dealing with 00:55.750 --> 00:58.430 investigations of uh scic acid in 00:58.439 --> 01:01.009 relation to microwave irradiation or the 01:01.020 --> 01:03.229 eye Marro and Kenna Sheer in 01:03.240 --> 01:06.069 1960 reported that reductions in ascorbic 01:06.080 --> 01:09.069 acid of approximately 20% occurred in the lens of 01:09.080 --> 01:11.589 the rabbit sometime between 16, 01:11.599 --> 01:14.010 6 and 18 hours close to radiation. 01:14.809 --> 01:17.720 They did not continue their study beyond this 18 hour 01:17.730 --> 01:18.419 period. 01:18.569 --> 01:21.360 Nor did they investigate any ties between the six and 01:21.370 --> 01:22.529 18 hours. 01:22.900 --> 01:25.620 They reported no decrease in the sic acid 18 01:25.629 --> 01:28.279 hours post to radiation in the aqueous humor 01:28.650 --> 01:31.180 and therefore ruled out the possibility that the 01:31.190 --> 01:33.819 reduction in the lens was due to a decrease in this 01:33.830 --> 01:34.319 fluid. 01:36.080 --> 01:38.800 Ken demonstrated decreases in ascorbic 01:38.809 --> 01:40.459 acid in a radiated rabid lens. 01:40.470 --> 01:42.169 It's cultured in vitro. 01:42.250 --> 01:42.849 However, 01:42.860 --> 01:45.419 she states that the controls also lost 01:45.430 --> 01:48.180 ascorbic acid but at a slower rate than the irradiated 01:48.190 --> 01:49.040 lens. 01:49.360 --> 01:52.360 Her results are ambiguous with large differences 01:52.370 --> 01:54.819 being exhibited for the same culture periods, 01:55.940 --> 01:58.870 white and reported that cultured rabbit 01:58.879 --> 02:01.639 lenses lost asorbic acid when exposed to microwave 02:01.650 --> 02:04.029 radiation and that this loss was due to thermal 02:04.040 --> 02:06.860 increases with gradually increasing power 02:06.870 --> 02:09.639 densities since portions of the lenses 02:09.649 --> 02:12.110 during a radiation were exposed to the air. 02:12.119 --> 02:14.639 one may question whether the decreases might have been 02:14.649 --> 02:17.500 due to a surface evaporation and some cell 02:17.509 --> 02:20.330 death occurred or the lenses lens capsule became a 02:20.339 --> 02:21.289 leaky membrane. 02:22.350 --> 02:25.320 Other investigators using labeled culture media 02:25.410 --> 02:28.399 have found no differences in the uptake of ascorbic acid 02:28.410 --> 02:31.339 between an exposed and control lens for periods up 02:31.350 --> 02:33.220 to 19 hours post to radiation. 02:35.070 --> 02:38.020 We recently reported results of a study of ascorbic 02:38.029 --> 02:40.990 acid values in the vitreous lens and INAs of 02:41.000 --> 02:41.410 rabbits. 02:41.419 --> 02:44.080 Uh rabbit eyes exposed to single and multiple 02:44.089 --> 02:46.539 repetitive uh multiple microwave 02:46.550 --> 02:48.570 radiations lens. 02:48.679 --> 02:51.550 Ascorbic acid levels appeared normal with the exception of 02:51.559 --> 02:54.550 about a 20% in decrease at one week 02:54.559 --> 02:57.199 post a radiation for an acute 02:57.210 --> 02:57.960 exposure. 02:58.770 --> 03:01.339 This drop was primarily coincident with the 03:01.350 --> 03:03.119 appearance of lens opacities. 03:04.240 --> 03:05.970 Do I control the slides? 03:09.240 --> 03:09.949 Do I just? 03:13.589 --> 03:14.029 All right. 03:15.039 --> 03:15.649 OK. 03:15.660 --> 03:16.490 Is that all right? 03:16.500 --> 03:16.800 Very good. 03:18.550 --> 03:21.539 This is a slide showing the 03:22.529 --> 03:25.220 effect of a acid in the lens 03:26.279 --> 03:27.860 at various times. 03:27.869 --> 03:30.619 Post to radi radiation sacrifices from five 03:30.630 --> 03:32.179 minutes to four weeks. 03:32.190 --> 03:34.940 It will be noticed that Kitta had found 03:34.949 --> 03:37.479 that at one at 18 hours 03:37.490 --> 03:39.679 approximately right in this point here 03:40.289 --> 03:42.320 that they had gotten a 20% drop. 03:42.330 --> 03:45.110 The drop appears in hours to be at 03:45.119 --> 03:46.660 one week post of radiation. 03:47.509 --> 03:47.759 Oh, 03:47.770 --> 03:48.360 I'm sorry, 03:49.509 --> 03:50.100 at one week, 03:50.110 --> 03:52.000 post radiation and then a 03:52.070 --> 03:54.970 two weeks and at four weeks appears to be 03:54.979 --> 03:56.100 within a normal range. 03:56.110 --> 03:56.520 Again, 03:56.750 --> 03:59.679 the dotted lines here are the multiple exposures 03:59.690 --> 03:59.910 in the, 04:00.630 --> 04:00.649 the, 04:00.789 --> 04:03.220 the solid line is the single exposure. 04:07.130 --> 04:09.899 This is uh that shows the results of 04:09.910 --> 04:10.800 the AAA, 04:13.990 --> 04:15.690 some of that looks in focus and some 04:17.190 --> 04:20.149 everything in include uh seems to be within a 04:20.160 --> 04:21.279 co control range. 04:21.290 --> 04:22.540 And so therefore, 04:22.549 --> 04:25.529 uh no effect seems to microwaves have no effect on the 04:25.540 --> 04:27.420 Vitria of cervic acid levels. 04:29.029 --> 04:30.019 In slide three. 04:30.029 --> 04:32.779 Here we have data accumulated on the 04:33.329 --> 04:35.390 uh the uh acres humor 04:36.119 --> 04:38.950 and these levels indicate that the escort was 04:38.959 --> 04:41.440 decreased in this fluid in an acutely 04:41.450 --> 04:42.399 exposed eye. 04:42.410 --> 04:45.299 And these levels do continue to decrease from 04:45.309 --> 04:48.230 five minutes after the insult until a low was reached at one week. 04:48.239 --> 04:49.279 Post radiation, 04:50.500 --> 04:51.989 that's from this period to this period. 04:53.049 --> 04:55.779 Recovery to normal values occurred by two weeks, 04:55.790 --> 04:58.609 post of radiation and were still within control limits four 04:58.619 --> 05:00.250 weeks after a radiation. 05:02.119 --> 05:04.920 These results on the lens are not in agreement with those 05:04.929 --> 05:07.640 reported by K Male and Kia. 05:07.649 --> 05:10.279 A comparative analysis of the data at 05:10.290 --> 05:12.970 18 hours poster radiation on the lens of score bait 05:12.980 --> 05:14.570 collected by Mooli. 05:14.579 --> 05:17.559 And that obtained by us showed that there is a significant difference 05:17.570 --> 05:20.510 at the 99% confidence level between the right 05:20.519 --> 05:23.459 irradiated I and the left control I for a 05:23.470 --> 05:25.359 score bait levels in their study. 05:25.369 --> 05:28.089 But this difference is not apparent for this post radio a 05:28.100 --> 05:29.220 radiation period. 05:29.230 --> 05:29.989 In our study, 05:31.859 --> 05:33.630 the irradiation facilities, 05:33.640 --> 05:34.450 equipment, 05:34.459 --> 05:36.720 exposure conditions and analysis 05:36.730 --> 05:39.450 mythology used in their study 05:39.459 --> 05:42.119 is the same as that used in this recently reported 05:42.130 --> 05:42.989 investigation. 05:43.619 --> 05:44.390 However, 05:44.399 --> 05:45.130 in their study, 05:45.140 --> 05:47.850 the facility for radiation and the Nucleation of the 05:47.859 --> 05:50.760 eye was located in a suburb while a 05:50.769 --> 05:53.350 laboratory for scic acid analysis was a downtown 05:53.359 --> 05:54.070 location. 05:55.100 --> 05:58.089 As a possible reason for the discrepancies. 05:58.100 --> 06:01.029 It was felt that the timing left between sacrifice of 06:01.040 --> 06:02.869 the animal and removal of the eye. 06:03.130 --> 06:05.970 Subsequent transportation of it to a cross town 06:05.980 --> 06:08.950 laboratory and analysis of the specimen could be 06:08.959 --> 06:11.630 of long duration compared to the entire operation of 06:11.640 --> 06:14.029 sacrifice to section sample preparation 06:14.220 --> 06:16.790 analysis steps being performed in sequence. 06:16.799 --> 06:19.320 And at the same laboratory for our 06:19.329 --> 06:21.760 study elapsed time from decease of the 06:21.769 --> 06:24.609 animal to completion of analysis of all I 06:24.619 --> 06:27.429 parts was 58 plus 58 plus 06:27.440 --> 06:30.119 or minus eight minutes for all 06:30.130 --> 06:31.709 76 animals in the study. 06:32.220 --> 06:35.140 One can assume that analysis time for both studies 06:35.149 --> 06:38.000 was the same but that transportation would delay 06:38.010 --> 06:40.809 the S ay studies for for the original study. 06:40.829 --> 06:43.720 More to test the delay hypothesis. 06:43.730 --> 06:46.600 Alo watts of a known standard ascorbic acid solution were 06:46.609 --> 06:49.410 taken at hour intervals over a period of five 06:49.420 --> 06:52.420 hours and tied in the same manner as an actual sample. 06:53.329 --> 06:56.079 The rate of decrease of dye used was 50 06:56.089 --> 06:58.709 units per hour or the equivalent of point oh 19 06:58.720 --> 07:01.160 mg of ascorbic acid per hour. 07:01.170 --> 07:04.049 Over the first three hours and 20 units of dye 07:04.059 --> 07:06.980 per hour or oh oh point oh oh seven mg of 07:06.989 --> 07:08.899 ascorbic acid after three hours. 07:09.410 --> 07:11.269 This means that after one hour, 07:11.279 --> 07:14.279 approximately 20% of the ascorbic acid for titration 07:14.290 --> 07:16.579 in this method has become unavailable. 07:18.309 --> 07:21.079 A statistical analysis of the 76 duplicate 07:21.089 --> 07:23.480 acids of lenticular mere material from 07:23.489 --> 07:26.399 irradiated and controlled eyes showed no significant 07:26.410 --> 07:29.329 difference with an average time between replicate analysis of 07:29.339 --> 07:30.359 2 to 3 minutes. 07:31.440 --> 07:34.279 When the second essay of lungs material is 07:34.290 --> 07:36.690 delayed by one hour for both 07:36.700 --> 07:38.470 control and irradiated eyes. 07:38.480 --> 07:41.209 There is still no significant difference in 07:41.220 --> 07:43.690 the uh significant difference due to the 07:43.700 --> 07:44.260 delay. 07:45.940 --> 07:48.869 This shows you the original analysis 07:48.880 --> 07:50.549 done at time zero, 07:50.640 --> 07:53.329 which I must say is 07:53.339 --> 07:55.149 about 58 minutes. 07:55.170 --> 07:57.670 The lens was the last part of the eye that we um 07:58.500 --> 08:01.109 uh analyzed 60 minutes. 08:01.119 --> 08:01.839 After that, 08:02.029 --> 08:04.570 this is really no significant difference with 08:04.579 --> 08:06.049 seven degrees of freedom. 08:06.339 --> 08:07.929 And uh at that level, 08:09.190 --> 08:11.589 one must therefore assume that the elapsed 08:11.600 --> 08:14.600 time due to transportation of samples was not a 08:14.609 --> 08:17.000 causative factor in obtaining differing results. 08:18.369 --> 08:19.200 Gluta thion. 08:19.230 --> 08:22.149 Another reducing substance is found in high concentration in the 08:22.160 --> 08:22.940 lens of the eye. 08:22.950 --> 08:25.739 This substance shows early decreased levels in ionizing 08:25.750 --> 08:27.500 radiation produced cataracts. 08:27.739 --> 08:30.440 It also reacts with the dye used in the titration 08:30.450 --> 08:32.039 method for ascorbic acid. 08:32.239 --> 08:32.760 However, 08:32.770 --> 08:35.260 its rate of reaction is much slower than for ascorbic 08:35.270 --> 08:37.799 acid to test whether it was acting as an 08:37.809 --> 08:39.419 interference in our titration. 08:39.619 --> 08:42.280 We add an amount of it normally present in the lens to a 08:42.289 --> 08:45.270 standard known solution of a sate differences 08:45.280 --> 08:48.250 in tita were not observed in solutions containing it from those 08:48.260 --> 08:49.690 with no gluth present 08:51.859 --> 08:54.700 in the course of our assay of a score in the in 08:54.710 --> 08:56.469 the eyes part in the eye parts, 08:56.479 --> 08:59.359 we weigh the lens immediately after a Nucleation and 08:59.369 --> 09:02.210 just prior to homogenization in a protein 09:02.229 --> 09:03.400 precipitant solution. 09:04.270 --> 09:07.119 This offered us the opportunity to observe the relationship 09:07.130 --> 09:09.570 between the weight ratio of the irradiated and 09:09.580 --> 09:12.539 unirradiated lens to the severity of the damage 09:12.549 --> 09:14.559 produced by the radiation observed, 09:14.570 --> 09:17.549 observed just prior to sacrifice of 09:17.559 --> 09:20.359 the animal and removal of the eye for analysis. 09:20.919 --> 09:23.739 It also enabled us to determine 09:23.750 --> 09:26.320 weight ratios at times after exposure. 09:26.330 --> 09:29.239 But before any vis visible damage would be apparent by 09:29.250 --> 09:32.229 slit lamp examination such as at five minutes 09:32.239 --> 09:34.929 and a half hour and 12 hours and 18 hours post to 09:34.940 --> 09:35.650 radiation. 09:35.780 --> 09:38.500 Those eyes had no react observable 09:38.510 --> 09:39.289 reaction to them. 09:40.049 --> 09:42.700 This comparison was performed for those animals 09:42.710 --> 09:45.640 exposed to both a single acute dose and a repetitive sub 09:45.880 --> 09:47.219 subthreshold dose. 09:49.150 --> 09:49.700 Minimal, 09:49.710 --> 09:52.369 moderate and maximum response are categorized by Doctor 09:52.380 --> 09:52.739 Copter. 09:52.750 --> 09:53.960 In his previous studies, 09:54.840 --> 09:57.650 minimal responses included small vesicles or Granules 09:57.659 --> 09:59.030 along and near the post suture. 09:59.039 --> 10:00.400 Cortical banding, 10:00.679 --> 10:03.429 moderate responses responses showed 10:03.440 --> 10:03.729 um 10:06.640 --> 10:09.469 these uh small circumscribed opacities 10:09.500 --> 10:11.809 occurring at the ends of the post suture. 10:11.820 --> 10:12.619 This happens to be, 10:12.630 --> 10:14.289 it looks like a vesicle right up in here. 10:15.119 --> 10:17.809 The maximum type of response 10:17.820 --> 10:20.489 was and the whole involvement of the whole posterior 10:21.229 --> 10:21.859 castle. 10:25.630 --> 10:28.489 A comparison of the weight ratio of the controls to mean 10:28.500 --> 10:31.409 ratios of the various degrees of un observable 10:31.419 --> 10:34.369 and observable damage shows that at 95% 10:34.380 --> 10:35.340 confidence level, 10:35.349 --> 10:38.130 there is no significant difference in the ratios for 10:38.140 --> 10:40.419 all categories for both single and multiple 10:40.429 --> 10:41.229 exposures. 10:42.340 --> 10:45.169 A T value of 1.76 10:45.640 --> 10:48.270 with 18 degrees of freedom was obtained when the greatest 10:48.280 --> 10:50.989 differences are compared that between the 10:51.000 --> 10:53.750 single maximal response and the controls. 10:53.760 --> 10:54.909 And I'm talking about this, 10:54.919 --> 10:57.409 which is the most obvious as compared to 10:57.419 --> 10:57.969 this. 10:57.979 --> 11:00.780 And there is no significant difference between those 11:00.799 --> 11:03.309 and there is no significant difference in any of these. 11:03.320 --> 11:06.309 So the weight of the lens or the severity of the damage has 11:06.320 --> 11:08.150 nothing to do with the weight of the lens. 11:09.719 --> 11:12.510 Morale and Kitta had raised the question in their 11:12.520 --> 11:15.369 study as to whether an increase in temperature was the 11:15.380 --> 11:18.239 cause of the observed drop in ascorbic acid in the 11:18.250 --> 11:18.750 lens. 11:18.760 --> 11:21.159 The scor acid is quite unstable and is 11:21.169 --> 11:24.159 destroyed by heat in an alkaline solution. 11:24.679 --> 11:26.969 The P H of the aqueous humor is about 11:26.979 --> 11:29.039 7.57 to 11:29.049 --> 11:30.559 7.6. 11:31.010 --> 11:33.929 They checked the lens asorbic at a half hour and six 11:33.940 --> 11:36.809 hours after a radiation and found no drop in ascorbic 11:36.820 --> 11:39.669 acid and therefore ruled out heat 11:39.679 --> 11:41.090 as a cause of the reduction. 11:41.760 --> 11:44.750 They also tested the levels of score bait in the A in 11:44.760 --> 11:47.760 the aqueous at 18 hours close to radiation 11:47.770 --> 11:49.580 and found no change had occurred, 11:49.590 --> 11:52.119 ruling out the possibility that a score bait was 11:52.130 --> 11:54.840 unavailable to the lens and therefore resulted in the 11:54.849 --> 11:57.739 lenticular decreases in 11:57.750 --> 11:58.729 our experiments. 11:58.739 --> 12:01.179 The acre had risen an average of 12:01.190 --> 12:03.799 10.1 degrees C at the end of an acute 12:03.809 --> 12:04.469 exposure. 12:05.489 --> 12:07.650 As stated pre previously, 12:07.669 --> 12:10.530 we found reduced levels of sate at five minutes 12:10.539 --> 12:13.239 post to radiation and these levels continued to 12:13.250 --> 12:16.030 decrease up until one week to 12:16.039 --> 12:18.919 check whether the heat alone was directly responsible for the 12:18.929 --> 12:20.719 drop observed in this fluid. 12:21.150 --> 12:23.440 The eyes of rabbits were heated without the use of 12:23.450 --> 12:25.989 microwaves and acid levels determined 12:26.320 --> 12:28.500 the procedure was as follows. 12:28.760 --> 12:31.760 An aqua of aqueous was removed from the left control 12:31.770 --> 12:32.340 eye of an a, 12:32.349 --> 12:34.940 an aet size rabbit and analyzed for aic 12:35.380 --> 12:35.900 acid. 12:36.809 --> 12:39.590 The ears of the rabbit were immersed in a hot water 12:39.599 --> 12:41.900 bath at 50 degrees for 40 minutes. 12:42.090 --> 12:45.039 Thereby heating the aqueous of the eye via the 12:45.049 --> 12:47.059 circuitry system of the animal. 12:48.770 --> 12:50.090 At the end of the heating period, 12:50.099 --> 12:52.979 an aqua of aqueous fluid was removed from the right eye and 12:52.989 --> 12:55.799 analyzed for a acid as an 12:55.809 --> 12:57.099 additional test, 12:57.109 --> 13:00.099 the action of the heat on the a as 13:00.109 --> 13:02.969 as an additional test of the a the action of the heat 13:02.979 --> 13:05.690 on the aqueous aquas of this fluid were 13:05.700 --> 13:08.530 removed from both eyes of an anesthetized animal. 13:08.539 --> 13:11.450 One aqua was heated to 55 degrees and both 13:11.640 --> 13:13.530 aquas were analyzed for moving. 13:18.369 --> 13:21.250 There is essentially uh 13:21.479 --> 13:23.039 these are the in vivo heating. 13:23.049 --> 13:23.710 And by that, 13:23.719 --> 13:25.510 I mean that the ears were heated 13:26.619 --> 13:29.369 from the left eye, 13:29.659 --> 13:32.140 the aqua was removed prior to heating 13:32.830 --> 13:34.239 from the right eye. 13:34.309 --> 13:36.869 It was removed after heating and analyzed. 13:36.880 --> 13:39.239 And there is essentially no difference 13:40.500 --> 13:43.159 in here except the possibility of a slight increase 13:43.169 --> 13:44.460 actually with the heated eye. 13:45.549 --> 13:48.000 This was in vitro heating and this is when the 13:48.010 --> 13:48.909 both the, 13:48.919 --> 13:51.409 both the ques was removed from both eyes 13:51.419 --> 13:52.760 and analyzed. 13:52.770 --> 13:55.039 And there's essentially no difference there at all. 13:56.820 --> 13:58.169 These are the controls. 13:58.179 --> 14:01.169 It just as comparison here on the uh ratios on the control. 14:08.030 --> 14:10.880 These results tend to negate the theory that heat 14:10.890 --> 14:13.750 causes reduced levels of ate in the acres 14:13.840 --> 14:15.809 with resultant lens decreases. 14:16.630 --> 14:17.260 However, 14:17.270 --> 14:20.070 the results do strengthen and lend support to the theory that 14:20.080 --> 14:22.789 counteracter genesis is a secondary 14:22.799 --> 14:25.739 reaction and that a primary and initiating action 14:25.750 --> 14:28.270 for microwave damage is not a direct effect on the 14:28.280 --> 14:31.270 lens of the eye or the fluids that bathe 14:31.280 --> 14:31.510 it, 14:31.799 --> 14:34.799 but a absorption of energy at some other sensitive 14:34.809 --> 14:37.460 site which later is reflected as a damaged 14:37.469 --> 14:38.159 lens. 14:39.400 --> 14:42.150 This theory might possibly be tested 14:42.159 --> 14:44.739 if it were possible that uh 14:45.479 --> 14:47.549 the lens itself could be 14:47.559 --> 14:49.450 directly uh 14:50.179 --> 14:53.010 irradiated without peripheral tissue 14:53.020 --> 14:54.109 being irradiated. 14:55.770 --> 14:57.099 Future studies in this, 14:57.109 --> 14:59.669 we hope to perhaps investigate the 14:59.679 --> 15:01.770 role of the ciliary body or ciliary 15:02.000 --> 15:04.989 epithelium in reducing its COVID appearing in the 15:05.309 --> 15:05.580 aqueous. 15:06.429 --> 15:09.289 And that uh this is perhaps the best way to do 15:09.299 --> 15:11.739 this is with radioactive tracer techniques. 15:12.580 --> 15:15.289 Uh Another investigative area is the role that 15:15.299 --> 15:18.140 ascorbic acid plays in cataract genesis. 15:18.330 --> 15:21.109 And this might be demonstrated by using 15:21.419 --> 15:23.469 uh by studies using the guinea pig, 15:23.479 --> 15:26.390 which does not synthesize the ascorbic acid except through 15:26.400 --> 15:27.549 dietary means. 15:28.960 --> 15:29.729 And I don't know, 15:29.739 --> 15:31.590 but I just sort of thought of this at the end. 15:31.599 --> 15:34.130 Uh I'm I'm not sure whether anybody has ever produced 15:34.140 --> 15:34.929 cataracts in, 15:34.940 --> 15:36.159 in rat lenses, 15:36.739 --> 15:39.609 but uh it's an interesting observation 15:39.619 --> 15:42.289 that there is absolutely no ascorbic acid 15:42.630 --> 15:45.419 in the aqueous of a rat lens and the three 15:45.429 --> 15:48.289 mg per percent in uh in the 15:48.500 --> 15:48.909 aqueous. 15:50.780 --> 15:53.109 Um I would appreciate 15:53.119 --> 15:54.530 if Doctor Ravis, 15:54.869 --> 15:55.619 if he's here, 15:55.630 --> 15:58.500 his studies have closely coincided with what 15:58.510 --> 16:00.969 we've been doing and I think that he came to somewhat some, 16:00.979 --> 16:03.919 the same conclusion that possibly the sill 16:04.080 --> 16:06.090 body or Elli is the 16:06.280 --> 16:08.349 site that should be looked at. 16:08.359 --> 16:10.289 I appreciate if he'd like to comment on it. 16:12.159 --> 16:12.929 Is he here? 16:15.770 --> 16:16.340 I guess so.