Judy Canty just stopped by my office to show us Mitsui's new TheraBlue lens.
Jaw drop.
Mic drop.
Game-changer.
I'm still shaking my head that a lens this clear can demonstrably block HEV blue light that completely. If I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes I wouldn't believe it. It has no more visible tint than an unactivated Transitions-VI lens. You need to check this out.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
I will post a direct link when I get home tomorrow. In the mean time, please visit our website at www.luzerneoptical.com.
As promised: For more information on TheraBlue Lenses please click: TheraBlue Lenses
Do you have a spectral transmission plot for these lenses? (one that shows the transmission or absorbance by wavelength?) Thanks.
You asked for this information in the original thread about TheraBlue, and my answer remains the same. You will have to do your own research on this, perhaps with Mitsui.
I am aware that you are trying to bring your own product to market and I'm not going to assist with your research. Nothing personal, strictly business.
Ok then but I'm probably not the only one interested in the facts. If I had a spectrophotometer I'd run it and publish it. Maybe someone will.
My guess is there's another reason it hasn't been published. Someone might compare transmissions with that of standard mid and high index lenses.
I have one of the finest, ....................
I have one of the finest, but I would need a lens to measure. Who wants to volunteer ?
I'd be interested to see the white papers on which frequencies of visible light *specifically* are damaging to the eye, and it what *specific* amounts of exposure.
To date, all I've seen have been wildly varied studies that "some" vague frequency or frequencies *might* be harmful over time, at as-yet-to-be-determined "harmful" levels.
It's obviously great for the marketing bandwagon, and sells all sorts of new lenses of the week for a growing number of lens makers and their respective labs of course. But some agreement through the medical community about the details of what precisely, and how much could be considered "bad" would be much more helpful to doctors and dispensers alike.
You guys kill me. TTFN.
I'd do it if they gave me a sample. I'm not gonna pay $30 plus take the time to fill out a credit ap for a lab that's on the other side of the country. If you land a sample, I'll send you the a lens of the same material without any add-ons for comparison.Originally Posted by Chris Ryser
I **LOVE* this!!! Dead square on the money.
It used to be that anything under 400 nm was baaaaaaaaaaad for your eyes. Now, it's creeping up to 420, 430 nm.
I always wondered why, if 400 is Ok, why is 399 or 398 bad?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo!!! It is "high energy" light!!! Riiiight. Pull the other one. Humans and proto-humans have been around a long time, I think the oldest I read was about 3 million years. Life expectancy has increased since then, it's also moved from the desert to the plains and the edges of the Arctic. And all of a sudden, "blue light" is bad for you.
IMO, based on the work I do with filters to protect people from very hot glass (2300 F and higher), IR is far more of a hazard to the eye than the so-called "blue light hazard". To me, the "blue light hazard" is nothing more than another round of snake oil to push up the cost of a pair of spectacles to the patient.
Feel free to flame my comments, but remember I wear specialized eyewear that protects my eyes from heat energy.
here's a link for a bit of the science: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0071398
I do agree with you about IR dangers, but those are pretty much for people working around hot stuff (glass blowers, steel workers, etc.)
The blue thing is hot (excuse the expression) right now because blue is so intense and pervasive in the video world, including cell phones, tablets, game boys, etc.
I'm glad someone is looking out for the IR stuff, but I worry more about the blue end, which is much higher energy radiation than the IR end.
Plus, kids are getting big time blue radiation, but very little IR. Maybe those who sit around the campfire, staring at the flames, maybe those...
The human eye was created to see blue along with all the other colors. It is built into the software (wetware?) in the brain to see blue. Cutting it off because someone thinks it shouldn't be seen seems a bit...I don't know...arrogant? I'm betting that we don't see further than roughly 400 nm is because a) we don't need it as humans and b) it is starting to get "hazardous" to the eye.
There's a quote somewhere floating around in my brain about "gaud made us'ns the way we made us'ns and we should'na be messin' with his design"...or something like that.
Last edited by MikeAurelius; 08-20-2015 at 03:11 PM. Reason: tweak
Agreed, except that Essilor has shown pretty convincingly that there are certain deep blue/indigo/violet wavelengths that are lethal to rat retina cells, and rats are just like us, mammalians with a tendency to stay up late. Other researchers also make a pretty good case that lighter blue wavelengths (azure, sky blue, baby blue, cyan etc) may be beneficial esp. with circadian sleep cycles. The unnatural deep blue coming off those video displays is my idea of "messin" with the creation in a way that can be harmful and is probably preventable. I'm thinking He gave us brains for this kind of stuff, and expects us to use them.
First, remember that Big E only does things that put money into the pockets of its investors.
Next, remember that energy decreases by the square of the distance.
Put those together, and follow the money.
How can one wavelength of visible light be in any way "un-natural"? That just sounds beyond silly! Particularly given that human S cones are most sensitive to frequencies centered around 460nm, which happens to be very close or even the very frequencies so many of these filters are attenuating. Why? Where is the science showing actual human issues? What are the exact frequencies? What is the measured exposure level that causes change? What is the change?
We can easily measure X radiation exposure levels, and know what is safe and what is harmful, both in long and short terms. We can do the same for UV (in the A,B and C ranges) with extremely high repeatability. Why is this "new" form of "dangerous" light so impossible for scientists to define and pin down?
And of course, none of these lenses address the simple fact that the instant we step outside, we're instantly exposed to every frequency of blue light, on a scale orders of magnitude more than any LED screen on the planet. Seemingly rendering such "protective" lenses an utterly moot exercise. The ex-Oakley guys at Gunnar started the fad a decade or so back, and ever since, it's been all the lens guys could do to not fall all over each other rushing their "newer, better faster, sexier" products to the market fore.
Next you're going to tell me W.A.V.E. technology is smoke and mirrors!!!
W.A.V.E. technology is smoke and mirrors!!!
This works for me, although the science isn't there yet for blue-light hazards. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
https://fluxometer.com/rainbow/#!id=...02/6500K-iPad2
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
Curious, isn't there merit in pointing out a life time of exposure in this discussion? .... life expectancy has exceeded what evolution originally provided/designed for ... ... what does an extra 20, 30 years of exposure /absorption do?
Trip
I don't think it matters (my opinion). We are designed to see the colors down to an average of 400 nm, which begs the question: which is smarter? A for-profit corporation or evolution? I vote for evolution.
Last edited by MikeAurelius; 08-20-2015 at 06:13 PM. Reason: tweak
"blue light hazard" is nothing more than another round of snake oil
Ity used to be called long wave UV, between 350 and 400 nm in 1982 and everybody went and sold protection for it...............and for a valid reason.
With the new wave of AR coatings everybody on the manufacturing end wants to cover their back because the ARE does not provide that coverage no more. Even the blue reflection bit seems to be a bit fishy.
Chris, I'm not disputing the protection for under 400 nm, there's solid science behind that, not to mention that it's pretty much "built-in" to every lens sold these days. I do dispute moving the top end to 420-430 nm.
Another thought, Trip...there are negative outcomes certainly, AMD, cataracts, cancers, etc. Modern humans haven't had enough evolutionary time yet to sort that out, but if you look at folks with higher concentrations melanin in their bodies (not those taking pills LOL), with darker skin pigmentation, dark colored eyes, it's long been my opinion that these folks have a much greater genetic resistance to problematical UV-VIS-NIR exposure. I work with folks who every day are exposed to as much as 50-60 thousand lumens (bright sun on white sand ~30,000 lumens) multiple times a day for 20-30 minutes at a time. My observations are showing that those with lower levels of melanin (think northern european heritage) require an average of 2 welding shades darker than someone who has higher levels of melanin (mediterranean or african heritage).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks