Didn't someone say white on computer screens is the most dangerous?
What is reality but a concept unique to each of us? Can anything be classed as real when our perceptions differ greatly on so many things? Just because we see something a particular way does not make it so.
sooooo wow look at all of that passive aggression. Getting back on topic -
The articles were a great read indeed. In the event you did not read them Ill sum it up for you - it might be a problem but we dunno.
My favorite quote -
"In clinical experience, we have not found color vision problems, we have not found problems under mesopic conditions, and while there may be some theoretical reasons why, and physical reasons associated with scotopic vision, practically speaking in a real world setting, I would rather do my best to protect against aging changes, macular degeneration, provide optimal retinal protection, and in my clinical experience, I've seen no downside whatsoever, and I hope I'm doing what's in my patients' best interest."
Danliv gets it.
Without causing further ego inflammation ill pose this questions to you
Can we be more precise in our exploration of the science behind this?
If not then we will have to wait another million years for the eye to evolve and naturally block out 400-420nm of blue light. I certainly don't think divine intervention will save us.
It is clear to me that The big AR manufacturers have done their best to hype their product. They do this with all of their products. Everyone needs to buy everything or else scary things will happen to tier eyes!
LOL remember the Nintendo 3D Gameboy? check out the side effects of that and now were turning to Augmented reality glasses, The google glass is making a comeback, and lets not forget the occulous rift and all of the new devices that will stick a phone 5mm from your eye and magnify the light source. What will we do then?
I have started to see macular and perimacular changes in mid-20 year olds who are the first group that exposed their eyes to very closely held blue emitters since their childhood. These are definite and ominously similar to the drusen patterns seen in macular degeneration. They do not appear to be drusen, but I've not seen this before. I'll post a retina pic or 2 tomorrow, as right now I'm bracing for the busiest day of my year due to a huge rush of VSP patients trying to use up this year's benefits.
The sky is falling! (because it's blue...usually...)
;)
2017 UPDATE
So I had a very interesting discussion with a Robert Marc, PhD here a few weeks back. A very interesting fellow, and generous with his time and knowledge, he is also an award winning retinal cell research scientist. As it turns out, he was intimately involved in research of the now infamous "scary blue light". In short, I told him what I did for a living, and asked if he was aware of the current glut of blue light lenses, coatings, tints, and other blue reduction techniques implemented by the various lens manufacturers.
He was.
I then asked him if he - based on all his studies, first hand knowledge of the data, and of course, given the wide selection of options available - had a suggestion for a favorite. Something that would be most effective in blocking the blue. Perhaps a brand or methodology that was clearly superior in terms of safety and honest protection of the human eye.
He laughed. Quite a lot.
Turns out, he stated - quite categorically, that NO damage to the human eye was genuinely possible from the levels of exposure that any electronic screen current or imagined could currently produce. It just wasn't possible, or even genuinely plausible. At all. Nada.
Which I had to admit was honestly surprising given that it was his own work which led to the lemming-fest to eliminate blue light from our daily lives. But there it is. From the researcher's mouth.
I won't argue things didn't get oversold on an unproven limb--I agree they did (and largely still are.) But "[not] possible" is a very strong claim!
A scientist in any field who says 'not possible' is knowingly setting himself up for quite a burden of proof. I don't think an unproven affirmative should be assumed--neither is proving 'impossible' a necessary threshold for science funding. Health care providers can safely write off the concern with far less. But I'm not to the point of believing some studies re: long-term & intensive exposure to electronics are categorically pointless because the very possibility is already logically absurd based on existing data. If that's true, I haven't heard about it.
I wonder if he'd have some contextual qualifiers to add if given the chance?
Last edited by Hayde; 04-25-2017 at 01:11 PM. Reason: clarifications
And now starts the long journey through the rabbit hole
this thread is almost 2 years old....
when can we put BLUE LIGHT to BED?????
funny.... my new cell phone has a screen setting to reduce blue light. It must be true.
I think one thing that needs to be done is to disentangle the two issues involving blue light that seem to have become commingled somehow. One is, does high energy blue light cause any actual damage to eyes? The other is, does artificial blue light cause or contribute to circadian disruption? The research seems to point to no regarding the former, while saying yes to the later. I have no trouble believing these conclusions. I think its possible there is a group of highly sensitive individuals that may be susceptible to actual damage to functional structures from high energy blue light, but, finding this group, and the extent of the risk, may be difficult, and obviously cannot be generalized to the population as a whole.
I'd be very interested to see any double blind, peer reviewed studies showing the link between red light exposure, and an increase in the sleep 'cues' in the human brain. That would be interesting indeed! In the mean time, when the researcher himself says the whole blue light thing is blown astronomically out of proportion, and that there was genuinely no measurable risk to our eyes at all - I'm inclined to listen.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/stayin...as-a-dark-side
Here is a pretty good one that at the end of the study reccomends long wavelength lights because they don't actively suppress melatonin - so maybe its not that the red long wavelength lights make me sleepy - but the other ones actively make me NOT sleepy.
Here is an actual list of some pretty interesting stuff, some of which was funded by the Navy for regulating the circadian rhythms of Submarine sailors.
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/ligh...tAlertness.asp
"Use dim red lights for night lights. Red light has the least power to shift circadian rhythm and suppress melatonin."
Have I told you today how much I hate poly?
I mean, we used to use red theater gel over all our computer monitors (while keeping them all turned down to literally one click above totally OFF!) at the planetarium. Never made me tired. Although 9 hours straight of Digistar II programming, interspersed with a full day of presenting shows, live lectures, and then LASER shows till 1 AM...well, one could get a little fatigued. But I still don't think it was the red filters.
for a European perspective check out p18 of this PDF . http://www.nationaleyecare.co.uk/doc.../VN_FEB_17.pdf
The intensity of the radiation from handheld devices is not thought to be a problem, in fact one of the larger UK multiples ( Boots) is being investigated by our regulatory body (GOC) for misleading advertising as optical assistants were filmed covertly advising users of digital devices that a blue filter would protect their eyes from damaging emissions.
there is some evidence that blue light in the 440 range has sufficient energy to cause retinal damage and prolonged exposure would be a risk factor, therefore blocking this wavelenghth would be beneficial. The sun and LED lighting have been cited as main sources, not digital devices.
IOLs are being offered now with a blue filter for these wavelengths.
To find out what,s happening in the UK optical market:
http://theOptom.com
I'm eagerly awaiting Crizal's new Hi-Blue-Violet transmission Anti-Myopia lenses.
I have to ask a clarifying question- So Robert Marc has his credentials and I'm not doubting his knowledge; but I would like to better understand his involvement. What I'm trying to differentiate is that he worked on the blue light research but did not attach his name to such research because he doesn't agree with the 'conclusion' that was agreed on by whoever else deemed blue light harmful? I didn't see anything to show involvement on his website- though he has plenty of other projects.
He keeps getting referenced as the person who CAN discredit the 'research' but it's hard to completely flip my view when there is one against an army. I wish I could of had the same experience to speak face to face because I know that would make an incomparable impact.
So far this is what I have determined from a variety of sources:
*blue light protection can help reduce eye strain / fatigue
*blue light effects sleep patterns
*blue light may possible perhaps try and cause retinal damage in super high dosage over an infinite time span??
As you can see, I'm still on the fence a little- mainly because I have NO WAY of testing the last theory myself.
...And to be perfectly honest I think the biggest factor will be time.
BTW thanks for being the messenger!
Have I told you today how much I hate poly?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks