Hmmm...at least you're honest! :)
Hmmm...at least you're honest! :)
Here's one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4734149/Originally Posted by drk
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
drk,
Just a few for your reading pleasure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21552190
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962066
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26017927
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22612707
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18815150
FYI, I previously mainly sold Sapphire, because of how smudge resistant it was, in my personal experience. I FEEL like it's a great lens. When my mom was diagnosed with mac d, I switched to Prevencia. We charge the same price for both. If it turns out all the research indicating that blue light is bad for you is wrong, I don't FEEL like I've done my patient's any disservice by recommending it.
It's one thing to purchase something "just because". It's another ENTIRELY to do so because you were pushing a given product based on extremely and purposefully misleading, fear-based, marketing based on HIGHLY suspicious conclusions, drawn by a a few "scientific" papers. See the difference?
Last edited by Uilleann; 08-20-2018 at 05:22 PM.
Yes, yes, the melatonin issue.
That's not what I'm talking about.
College students aren't getting a regular night's sleep anyhow, so all that is bogus, too.
Here's the bombshell from the first study you linked:
RESULTS:
Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition.
CONCLUSIONS:
Additional empirical data should be collected to test the effectiveness of different, brighter and larger screens on melatonin suppression.
Junk science, much? Are there opticians that are educated enough to know how to parse a study? I know of several...
...but many do not, and that's why these companies that are marketing this stuff are so evil. It's the big lie technique: repeat, repeat, repeat, then it's "true".
Last edited by drk; 08-20-2018 at 05:11 PM.
Conclusions
The use of blue light is becoming increasingly prominent in our society, and a large segment of the world population is now subjected to daily exposure (from a few minutes to several hours) of artificial light at an unusual time of the day (night). Because light has a cumulative effect and many different characteristics (e.g., wavelength, intensity, duration of the exposure, time of day), it is important to consider the spectral output of the light source to minimize the danger that may be associated with blue light exposure. Thus, LEDs with an emission peak of around 470–480 nm should be preferred to LEDs that have an emission peak below 450 nm. Although we are convinced that exposure to blue light from LEDs in the range 470–480 nm for a short to medium period (days to a few weeks) should not significantly increase the risk of development of ocular pathologies, this conclusion cannot be generalized to a long-term exposure (months to years). Finally, we believe that additional studies on the safety of long-term exposure to low levels of blue light are needed to determine the effects of blue light on the eye.
Groundbreaking!
Last edited by drk; 08-20-2018 at 05:09 PM.
It's good science in a vacuum, considering it owns up that it needs to be replicated and duplicated to get generalized/extrapolated results. But you're also not wrong in that one of these studies is good enough to get the marketing machinery up and running. Dr. So-and-So has said it, here's a study we're citing, everything is deadly and our products protect you!
Which is 100% why it's our job to inform patients of what they're getting and why. This "it isn't hurting anyone" nonsense has to stop, considering the science aspect cuts both ways -- we don't have any long-term data on possible health complications from long-term use of these lenses, either! For all we know, we are hurting patients by being "extra careful."
An excellent point. Pushing woefully incomplete (bordering on incompetent) science, as good, tested, repeatable, verifiable, absolutely confirmed science, isn't our role. Unless we are pushing yogic eye exercises and the like. Wasn't it this very sort of thing what got Ian sanctioned in Scotland? I'm all for study. And then more studies to test and either uphold, or destroy entirely the veracity of claims made by the initial study. But to date, there is literally NOTHING that exists in our world of handheld electronics, or computer screens that equates on ANY level to high energy laser beams blasting cultured cells in a Petri dish, or just good, old fashioned full spectrum sunlight.
Fear based marketing like that has absolutely no place in our industry. We should ALL be up in arms against it.
Obviously, I'm one of those opticians who don't know how to parse a study because I don't understand why you pointed out (by highlighting) that there was no significant difference between the CRT monitor and the dark control conditions. What am I missing here?
The study was done and any variance in the recorded melatonin levels was not enough to rule out statistical anomaly. Meaning that it was, in terms of the science of collecting data, the exact same level.
That being said, anecdotally, when I put on a night mode filter on my phone as I read before I go to bed I go to sleep much faster than if I use the dimmest setting that incorporates blue light. That is my own personal anecdote though not scientific evidence. I do not wear Blue blockers or HEV filtering AR, though one day I may try them.
I'm not going to poo-poo the melatonin issue because I don't really know anything about it. Could be true.
But that's not how these lenses are marketed, right?
Well, that's what ajonesgirl was talking about when you asked "Which studies?"
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Correct. None of the mass marketed blue light "protection" lenses are aimed at circadian rhythm. In fact most of them tout letting in the "good blue light".
If we wore lenses that blocked 460-490nm during our regular awake hours we would be drowsy and sleepy all day.
Drk, you STILL didn't answer my question. You made a point of highlighting that there was no statistically significant difference between the CRT terminal (that emits very little blue light) and the CRT viewed through orange lenses. What difference does that make? The study showed a clear decrease in melatonin production from the blue light goggles compared to the other two. I don't understand what point your trying to make. Will you please clarify?
I think the point is we already knew that Blue light exposure in mass amounts such as in the blue light goggles affects circadian rythym via melatonin as well as other ways. This is one of the reasons why people that work overnight shift find it hard to sleep regularly.
The point I believe Dr. K was trying to make is that the important part, the part that has any bearing to the realities of our daily digital life, the part about exposure to Computer monitors versus a dark room was found to be statistically insignificant in its findings.
It is the equivalent of saying because a hot oven will burn your hand you should wear oven mitts when drinking hot cocoa.
I may be wrong and excuse me if I am, but that is what I think Dr. K was trying to say.
The unfortunate reality in terms of all lens marketing from all companies is 1% (the study or white papers) factual, the other 99% is pure BS.
I really wish large corporations were taken to task on the crap they invent (terminology speaking) and would adapt standardized language based on actual science aka the spin factor.
I'm really upset that my 3D aberration filter isn't available in 4D.
"The point I believe Dr. K was trying to make is that the important part, the part that has any bearing to the realities of our daily digital life, the part about exposure to Computer monitors versus a dark room was found to be statistically insignificant in its findings."
Tallboy, you do understand that the computer monitor they used was not today's monitor that emits blue light, right? They used a CRT (cathode ray terminal) that does NOT emit blue light.
Last edited by ajonesgirl; 08-22-2018 at 01:28 PM.
The amount of blue light emitted by LED monitors and devices are minuscule. 10 hrs VS 15 minutes of sun. This is pure marketing to sell HEV products.
But, there is a bigger concern. LED lighting is now commonplace. Work, home, places of business and entertainment. This affects us all. Hiwever, we do need independent research to quantify this.
DES (digital eye strain) coatings are great for comfort. But don’t push them as HEV. Instead, recommend them for comfort. They work.
Sun products should be the primary option. DES, a secondary option. Clear HEV lenses are great for mitigating today’s LED headlamps for night driving. These should be recommendations, based on your lifestyle questions.
Until definitive conclusions are made, ignore the marketing materials. Use your training and common sense, instead.
We offer several HEV options, but do not push them based on AMD, instead, we offer them upon request, or by uncovering needs via lifestyle questions. It’s just smart business.
Remember as well, that "LED lights" is a wildly generic term. And the shift has been away from cooler "daylight" color casts, back towards a much warmer "incandescent" cast. Our office is almost completely LED now, and they are warmer than the (also very warm) little halogen bulbs in the dispensary.
It seems the much greater "health scare" should bee CVS, DES, reduced blink rates, potential accelerated myopia progression, and headaches/strain from extended accommodation at near. But none of that sells expensive "new" lens technology the way using buzz words and BS marketing does to scare the public into draining their bank accounts for snake oil.
It's extremely embarrassing for us as an industry that we've allowed this one to propagate as far as it has.
Here's how you evaluate a study:
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
Self-luminous electronic devices emit optical radiation at short wavelengths, close to the peak sensitivity of melatonin suppression. Melatonin suppression resulting from exposure to light at night has been linked to increased risk for diseases. The impact of luminous cathode ray tube (CRT) computer monitors on melatonin suppression was investigated.
Comment: CRT = computer monitor.
DESIGN:
Twenty-one participants
Comment: That's a small sample size, but whatever.
experienced three test conditions: 1) computer monitor only,
Comment: This is the control group. That is, whatever is found is compared to this group of seven people.
2) computer monitor viewed through goggles providing 40 lux of short-wavelength (blue; peak λ ≈ 470 nm) light at the cornea from light emitting diodes (LEDs),
Comment: This group received pure blue light, only. They are an "experimental group". (It's unclear to me whether they wore goggle with a blue light diode built in, which seems to be the case, or they filtered all computer light except the blue light. I'm thinking the former.)
and 3) computer monitor viewed through orange-tinted safety glasses (optical radiation <525 nm ≈ 0).
Comment: This is another experimental group, the group that gets all colors EXCEPT blue light.
The blue-light goggles were used as a "true-positive" experimental condition to demonstrate protocol effectiveness; the same light treatment had been shown in a previous study to suppress nocturnal melatonin.
Comment: This just re-iterated what I said above. They expected melatonin suppression in this case. They measure it. It represents "what blue light does to melatonin". It just re-proves that "blue light suppresses melatonin, and we were able to produce that in this group, so we theoretically could produce melatonin suppression in the experimental groups".
It isn't stated in the abstract, but the ones that get the "full blue goggle" experience is supposed to prove that it is, indeed, the blue light, and not any other extraneous factor that suppresses melatonin. They expect it to be as big of a result as the computer-without-goggle group.
The orange-tinted glasses served as a "dark" control condition because the short-wavelength radiation necessary for nocturnal melatonin suppression was eliminated.
Comment: So these people get total block of blue light. It represents "what happens when people look at computer screens with no blue light at all".
Saliva samples were collected from subjects at 23:00, before starting computer tasks, and again at midnight and 01:00 while performing computer tasks under all three experimental conditions.
RESULTS:
Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control
Comment: So they're saying: the ones that got blue light only had a melatonin reduction, compared to those that got absolutely no blue light.
[Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared] ...to the computer monitor only conditions.
Comment: So, the pure blue group had the melatonin suppression, but the full computer light people did NOT have melatonin suppression.
In fact:
Although not statistically significant, Comment: Meaning: ignore the difference between the below groups, because it's probably statistical noise
the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition.Comment: In other words, looking at the computer screen alone without goggles was no different than looking at the computer screen with blue blockers.
CONCLUSIONS:
Additional empirical data should be collected to test the effectiveness of different, brighter and larger screens on melatonin suppression.
Comment: In other words, we didn't achieve jack-squat with this study.
But a more honest appraisal of the study would say:
1. Don't look at pure blue light. It messes with melatonin.
2. Looking at a computer screen is not like looking at a pure blue light.
3. Ergo, for the purposes of your stated concern, as long as your patients aren't wearing blue-pass filtered goggles or have blue diodes taped to their frames, they don't need any fancy coatings on their glasses. it actually DISPROVES what you're saying about protecting people from melatonin screwiness from computer screens. (Note, this was published in 2011, so I don't think screens have changed since then.)
P.S. I highlighted the study in blue font to keep you awake tonight so you could study this post.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! (I do have to stay "spicy". Sorry.)
Last edited by drk; 08-22-2018 at 03:45 PM.
But seriously, folks, if that experiment suggested anything at all, it suggested to me that FULL SPECTRUM lighting from a light source like a computer seems to offset the effect of the embedded blue content of that full spectrum light.
In other words, as long as we don't turn our computer screens to the horrible Windows "blue screen of death", we should be OK, regarding melatonin.
For cripes sake, if we were concerned that much, I do believe we can adjust the color temperature of our monitors to be more red-ended, anyway. Do the "night shift" on your screen at work.
OR BUY EXPENSIVE BLUE-REFLECTING AR COATINGS THAT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU GOT CHEAP AR FROM ZENNI OPTICAL! (Or Costcult Optical.) (<--spicy, spicy)
http://www.byte-notes.com/difference...D-LED-Monitors
I stand corrected. I think we're LCD not CRT, now.
So, I guess the study is even more irrelevant.
I don't think, Jones, to your point, that the CRT was NOT emanating blue. It wasn't necessarily one of those old green-on-black DOS screens or whatever (unless you read the entire study and it says otherwise). It was probably just a old TV-like monitor running in 2011 whatever program IN COLOR that we do in 2018,
Last edited by drk; 08-22-2018 at 04:01 PM.
I smell what the DOC is cookin!
Finally, we believe that additional studies ...........................
There were the days in the early 1980's when we discovered that blue light produced the impression of fuzzy lighting on a clear day in the sunshine, and you could correct this by tinting sunglass lenses with a "Blue Blocker" dye, and have done so forever.
As a boater you could differentiate between a green or red boy against the sunlight, or skiing in the high alps, and see the bumps in the snow and many other reasons. That was just pure and clear physics.
If anybody could prove that blue light suppresses your appetite to a near zero level, you could sell the glasses to
just anybody who is in need of weight reduction.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks