English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-06-11 06:36:36 · 8 answers · asked by Maldives 3 in Science & Mathematics Medicine

8 answers

It would lessen the amount of light that enters the eye. The lens must be completely clear, and blood vessels are opaque.

2006-06-11 06:43:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

1

2016-09-14 22:59:23 · answer #2 · answered by Kelsie 3 · 0 0

If it had then the lens wouldn't be transparent and you wouldn't be able to see through it.
The lens is a biconvex transparent body. It is made up of a fibrous, jelly-like material. It has to remain transparent so that the light passing through the pupil will pass through the lens and fall on the retina. As an embryo, there is a hyaloid artery which profuses the developing lens but around 29-32 weeks, it regresses. Because lens has no blood supply, the aqueous humor performs the blood’s job of carrying nutrients to those structures.

2006-06-11 06:51:11 · answer #3 · answered by katbg 3 · 0 0

Actually the lens is not completely clear. The lens is biconvex in shape, like () and going right down the middle, vertically, is a very dense area. As to why it contains no blood vessels, I'm not sure. I know the Choroid layer is the only layer to contain blood vessels.

2006-06-13 08:20:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because its the lens. The job of the lens is to refract light so that light rays all converge on a certain point on the retina, thereby forming a clear images. Blood vessels, would I suppose, inhibit the proper passage of light and would alter the focal lenght of the lens, thus, preventing its efficeny. The lens takes up oxygen directly form its surroundings.

2006-06-11 06:45:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Do you know for a fact that the lens of the eye has no blood vessels. I don't know anything about the anatomy of the human eye lens, but common sense tells me that everything in your body is nourished by the life giving blood, which also provide oxygen needed to body parts, or they will die.To assume that the lens does NOT need blood to nourish it, implies that it is a non-living part of our body. How can this be?

2006-06-11 06:44:01 · answer #6 · answered by WC 7 · 0 0

like everyone else said the lens needs to be transparent and so does not have blood supply.
during develoment in the embryo the lens is supplied by the hyaloid artey which atrophies later during dev. so during and after birth the lens has no blood supply. it recieves nutrition from the aqueous and vitreous humor(which are two types of fluids in the eye ball) inspite of not having a blood supply the lens keeps on growing for life and also retains old cells and in this respect it is unique from other organs. at birth its weight is about 65mg and by 80yrs of age it is found to be about 258 mg.
there are other tissues in the body which are avascular(not supplied by blood): they are:
1. menisci in the knee
2. cornea

2006-06-11 09:22:27 · answer #7 · answered by Nir 1 · 0 0

Because it's an epithelium (ectodermic embrionary origin), as dermis, and epitheliums have no blood vessels.

2006-06-11 09:08:07 · answer #8 · answered by Oona 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers