I've never seen such a bunch of hooey...

[Uilleann]

The "damage from the computer screen" is the worst part of the lie that needs to be once and for all killed dead. And that is what 99% of the inquiries come from. As for the AR style lenses [Prevencia, Recharge, et al] they do more than a tint, in that they all ADD large amounts of reflection in the blue/purple band. The very antithesis of what an AR lens is designed to do. So why bother? Not being arrogant here - genuinely why? If you want a tint, get a tint. Your AR stack quality will suffer greatly of course, but that's just the way of things with porous, tintable lens stock. Of course, a light tint negates the increased transmittance of AR anyway, so we're back to square one again regardless. Feel free to slap that devil's advocate label firmly on my forehead Doc. :)

[KrystleClear]

Just saw the CE course in 20/20 mag on Zeiss's Blue Guard. Notice how they always say "potentially harmful."

I wonder why UV protection isn't as valued as blue light protection? I see people driving around squinting because of bright sunlight all the time. I do not understand why so many people go without sunglasses. I have NEVER been asked during a sale if UV protection can be added to their lenses. I get asked about blue light protection fairly often by my younger customers.

[Uilleann]

The power of truly awful marketing devoid of any actual science whatsoever.

[Uncle Fester]

Don't touch my hair!!!

Does light outside the visible spectrum make us squint?

I'm trying to remember in my youth when I was Stay'in Alive on the disco floor in my canary yellow leisure suit and gold chin w/ a tiny spoon if it did.

[wmcdonald]

For the record I like Brent.


Here's what I do, when they ask:
"There's no damage that comes from your computer screen. You get more blue light exposure on a nice walk. And I have no idea about that circadian rhythm thing."
"I have blue light protection on my glasses and I like it. It's comfortable, like a light tint. We recommend anti-reflection lenses, anyway, and if it reflects more blue away, it can make some people feel more comfortable, and it costs only a little more than regular AR."

Most people don't get it at that point, but I feel I'm being "fair". In truth, a 10% tan tint with a standard AR does the same thing. And costs about the same.

Brent is one of the brightest young men in this industry. You should like him and continue to review the material on blue light. I agree with most here, but I also believe in Brent. He would not present information he does not believe to be true and accurate and we may be grasping at straws here on the term "damage"? Can the retina be negatively impacted by blue light? Studies are inconclusive but do point to needing further investigation, and I like most feel the computer screen is not a big issue, but I have talked with some excellent folks from the field who claim they get some relief with these lenses on the computer! Curt Duff.....if you still read this, chime in. Can other ocular tissue be affected? More research is needed, and from independent sources. Opticianry schools provide no real contribution to the literature, but Optometry's research output in many areas is improving every year! Lets see more data.

I am retired now, and do not get to see many of my lifelong colleagues here any longer at meetings. My health just won't allow me to travel like I did when a young man! But this board keeps me thinking, and no matter what your feelings about blue light...…whether you see it as marketing hogwash or the real deal, I am enjoying the conversation! Just let me encourage you to be as objective as possible to new things. I just had to state my strong support for a former student who I know personally to be a man of integrity. Thanks Brent for all you have accomplished. I know you have much more to go and I hope to be here to see it!

Best regards to all!
Warren

[NAICITPO]

This is DanLiv's post from 6 years ago, I think it makes the most sense to me.

We are in a clinically nebulous era about blue light where there is good evidence there is some reason for concern, but no good evidence about how much we should be concerned. Despite the heavy handed marketing every manufacturer is embracing I'm taking a conservative stepped approach to blue light control.

In my opinion the primary targets for UV protection are heavy digital device users (I mean heavy as in 8+ hour per day professionals, not check-your-snapchat-every-two-minutes teens) and children.

I believe anyone or any age who uses digital devices for prolonged periods of time can benefit from "digital eyewear", essentially mild plus rxs (I use finished +0.25 to +0.75 for emmetropes and for Rxs typically Anti-Fatigue/Relax at +0.50 over DV). I was fitting such eyewear before the blue light frenzy, so now all I do is include the blue light protection gratis (slightly more expensive to me, but not much), offer an explanation of the potential harmful effects of blue light, and inform my customers that my they are protected at no charge. Worst case scenario in 10 years this all turns out to be bunk, but it cost them nothing anyway. More likely scenario in 10 years at least some of the evidence is thoroughly substantiated, and my customers have already been protected all that time.

Children are becoming de facto heavy digital device users, especially at school. Plus their eyes have not accumulated the natural blue light filtering pigment. They are significantly exposed and have increased susceptibility. I offer it to parents at no additional charge. Most opt for it, a few don't just because of the reflectance.

Judging the exact harm blue light causes in various scenarios is necessary for doing a cost-benefit analysis for your customers. I won't ignore the potential harm of blue light, but I'm not 100% certain of how much of a concern it should be. Since I don't have the info to accurately calculate the benefit, and cost to my customer is just guesswork on my part, the cost-benefit to the customer is simply based on their trust in me. I won't risk that trust so I give it to them gratis. When the cost is zero, the value is infinite.

I think this is my approach too @DanLiv. We sell Prevencia/Recharge EX3/techshield blue for the same price as we sell other D level AR coatings Sapphire etc, so if people want blue light protection we aren't charging them more for it. I just had someone today who wanted to try it out and then decided after trying it that he liked Sapphire better, he felt like there was too much reflections on prevencia.

[KrystleClear]

DanLiv makes good points. I hadn't thought of it that way, and maybe this is something that a lot of other opticals do - since I have had a few patients tell me they thought all lenses came included with blue blocker as an industry standard. I might consider doing the same if our lab cost for adding a blue blocker wasn't so salty.

[finefocus]

Like with most things, there is a question of degree. If I jump into the air, the earth pushes down as I go up, and when I land the earth comes up to meet me in proportion to our respective masses. Is HEV harmful? Sure, because all EM is harmful in some way to some degree. Sunshine which produces vitamin D also gives you melanoma. Kale can be toxic if you eat enough, so dying of cancer isn't the issue any more. Frat boys die when they drink too much water. The blue end of the spectrum is more easily scattered, so some kind of attenuation can be an aid to comfort, if not quite the health issue of the ages. Is the question of blue filtration/attenuation one-sided? Of course not, in the optical world most questions have more than 1 answer, usually more than 2. I don't know if there is a strong cumulative effect from exposure to 450-500 nm radiation, but I'm betting that none of us will live long enough to experience it.

[optical24/7]

For the record I like Brent.

Deservedly so….

Brent is one of the brightest young men in this industry. You should like him and continue to review the material on blue light. I agree with most here, but I also believe in Brent. He would not present information he does not believe to be true and accurate and we may be grasping at straws here on the term….

Agree whole heartedly! You can shoot the message (in this case) but don’t shoot the messenger. Brent is extremely a man of integrity. I have every confidence his presentation was exactly as his research showed.

[Kwill212]

I don't know if there is a strong cumulative effect from exposure to 450-500 nm radiation, but I'm betting that none of us will live long enough to experience it.

But humans have always been exposed to "bad blue light" (I think you meant 400-450) from being outside. Vision Ease states that 15 minutes spent outside in full sun is equivilent to 10 HOURS of expose from an iPhone at 12". The additional blue light received from electronic devices is a drop in the ocean compared to what one receives from being outside. Couple that with the fact that these lenses are only blocking 10-20% of the "bad blue light" and we are really getting down to a very inconsequential amount of added exposure from electronic devices.

I think most people have given up or at least quieted down on the Health and Safety front of blue light from electronic devises front, other than the plano online sellers that just make up whatever they want. All the big boys are too smart to make actual unsubstantiated medical claims for fear of fines or lawsuits.

It has been years since the blue light craze started. I would think by now they could produce some peer reviewed clear evidence supporting the use of these lenses. Instead they (the big lens makers) have just blasted out marketing and forced others to disprove their marketing. What an unscientific sham. If the claim is that these lenses do something, state the specific claims and show the evidence. Until then it's nonsense. If they cared about ocular health and blue light they would be spending their blue light marketing dollars on getting people to wear sunglasses outside. The first few years of blue light lenses were only marketed at current glasses wearers. As if emmetropes were somehow immune to the dangers of the bad blue light. That should tell you all you need to know right there.

[drk]

I didn't know that, about tintable "stock" being worse for AR coatings. Huh. Even CR39?

As to decreased transmittance from the tint offsetting increased transmission from the AR, yes, that's right, but sometimes we just care about anti-reflection disability glare, right? That's why we do backside AR on sunnies, right?

[drk]

But humans have always been exposed to "bad blue light" (I think you meant 400-450) from being outside. Vision Ease states that 15 minutes spent outside in full sun is equivilent to 10 HOURS of expose from an iPhone at 12". The additional blue light received from electronic devices is a drop in the ocean compared to what one receives from being outside. Couple that with the fact that these lenses are only blocking 10-20% of the "bad blue light" and we are really getting down to a very inconsequential amount of added exposure from electronic devices.

I think most people have given up or at least quieted down on the Health and Safety front of blue light from electronic devises front, other than the plano online sellers that just make up whatever they want. All the big boys are too smart to make actual unsubstantiated medical claims for fear of fines or lawsuits.

It has been years since the blue light craze started. I would think by now they could produce some peer reviewed clear evidence supporting the use of these lenses. Instead they (the big lens makers) have just blasted out marketing and forced others to disprove their marketing. What an unscientific sham. If the claim is that these lenses do something, state the specific claims and show the evidence. Until then it's nonsense. If they cared about ocular health and blue light they would be spending their blue light marketing dollars on getting people to wear sunglasses outside. The first few years of blue light lenses were only marketed at current glasses wearers. As if emmetropes were somehow immune to the dangers of the bad blue light. That should tell you all you need to know right there.

^^^This and this and this

[CME4SPECS]

Would a blue blocking lens also filter UV @ 400nm? I put a Prevencia lens over a transitions lens and hit it with a UV light and the transitions lens reacted to the UV light.
How does one test a lens to see if it deflecting blue light?

[Uilleann]

There may indeed be bright individuals in the industry, and they may also be either willingly or required to toe the company marketing department line about "dangerous" light. All without any actual science to back it up. When we have peer reviewed, in vivo studies that can in any repeatable manner, show consistent damage to human retinal cells and can rationally quantify bandwidth and radiation intensity over time to any form of retinopathy, I'll take them a bit more seriously. Until then, blasting cultured rat cells in petri dishes with high powered LASER energy is hardly a scientific basis on which to assert broad claims of "danger" for the public, and then rush to market "solution" lenses. But hey! It's all ok if you make lots of bucks, right?

It seems almost anyone can be bought for the promise of an easy dollar. Yes, even in our industry. I've attended many many many "master" optician CE courses over the years, as have many here. And sadly, the designation is no guarantee of the quality of material presented, as I know others have experienced as well. In the end, if researchers are going to move forward with the study of "dangerous light" let them get on with it already. Regardless however I don't expect we will see any great reduction in the blue light fad/craze anytime in the immediate future. More's the pity.

[NAICITPO]

I guess I don't understand why it bothers you guys so much. I tell customers what I believe the truth to be, that the sun is the single greatest source of blue light our eyes will get. That if they are not wearing sunglasses when they are outside but wear blue light lenses indoors its like wearing a seatbelt when you are in your neighborhood but not wearing a seatbelt when you are on the freeway. But I am not going to try and dissuade them from their belief if they think it helps. I have too many other things to do in my day. It's similar to when I hear a customer tell me Luxottica owns the eyewear market as they buy a pair of Nike glasses with their VSP insurance. I don't have the time in my day to explain how there are several monopolies, they saw 60-Minutes, they know what they are talking about!