Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
GoodBytes

Blue light filter is actually bad for you, new study shows

Recommended Posts

Next month: Bluelight filter is good for your eyes

 

Seriously, I can't trust this type of research study anymore. 50% researchers say it is bad while 50% researchers says it is good. As matter of fact, I can't trust scientist anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What you can hear on the CRT that your mum can't is more likely to be the flyback transformer, it operates at 15Khz,  which for most people is very hard to hear after 50. 

 

 

https://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/

 

dial that into 15Khz and you'll recognize it straight away.

 

Also if you dial in 50Hz but it sounds too low try 100Hz, as usually that is the frequency we hear in appliances that run on DC but have crappy power supplies (like PSUs for backlight LEDS).

Hey I can hear that too on my tube and another sound that LCD TVs make, it's like a constant "shhh" and it's even there when the TV is off (plugged and standby)


I tend to reply with memes because I lack social skills and don't know how to express myself correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Fair enough, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I definitely agree that there can often be bad interpretations based on too little and that it's a problem.  It can be dismissal of those results, as you mentioned, or the opposite as mentioned above by curufinwe.  Basically my attitude towards this study at the moment is exactly what I said in my first post - I'm interested, and I think we should wait and see how this develops.  Maybe this will be debunked.  Maybe this is actually hitting on a truth everyone else has thus far missed.  I definitely don't have the expertise to judge how valid this is, and I know it, so for now I'm going to keep it in mind and avoid jumping to either extreme.

I agree with you, I'd like to see this studied further, but it does remind me of studies that go back and forth on foods, scientists say whole grain is bad for you then it's good for you, i'm not sure what to trust. Although if the blue light filters or glasses work I think people should keep using it, not sure if it's just a placebo but using a blue light filter on my desktop and phone does seem to help with eye strain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

I agree with you, I'd like to see this studied further, but it does remind me of studies that go back and forth on foods, scientists say whole grain is bad for you then it's good for you, i'm not sure what to trust. Although if the blue light filters or glasses work I think people should keep using it, not sure if it's just a placebo but using a blue light filter on my desktop and phone does seem to help with eye strain.

The thing is it’s not scientists saying it.  It’s marketers interpreting what scientists said to their advantage.  The trick is to find out what the scientists actually did say.  For instance: The latest study says “this stuff doesn’t work with mice”.  Not useless.  I’m not a mouse though.  The earlier studies are possibly worse.  


Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

I agree with you, I'd like to see this studied further, but it does remind me of studies that go back and forth on foods, scientists say whole grain is bad for you then it's good for you, i'm not sure what to trust. Although if the blue light filters or glasses work I think people should keep using it, not sure if it's just a placebo but using a blue light filter on my desktop and phone does seem to help with eye strain.

 

 

As far as I am concerned,  if the scientific consensus doesn't change then it's because we have either discovered all there is to discover (not sure I am at ease with that),  or the truth is beyond our means right now.  Either way any change in consensus just means they have discovered more now than they knew before.    And when it comes to food,  going with the best evidence we have is better than random judging if something is good/bad for you based on lack of confidence in science.  


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OlympicAssEater said:

Next month: Bluelight filter is good for your eyes

 

Seriously, I can't trust this type of research study anymore. 50% researchers say it is bad while 50% researchers says it is good. As matter of fact, I can't trust scientist anymore.

That is a really bad conclusion to take from this. No study is authoritative and the very statement "X is categorically good/bad for Y"... is almost certainly false. Truth is almost always more nuanced and complicated.

IE a crapload of people die from overdosing on H2O every year. Many others die from insufficient H2O. Many diseases are linked to potassium deficiency, and yet bulk potassium injections have often been used for death sentences in the US. 

 

If the bulk of studies show conflicting results WHILE additionally having similar quality methodologies (ideally same methods), then at least we can have reasonable certainty that the effect is small in either direction, within the scope of the studies.

 

That's why as a research scientist myself I was (and am) annoyed that @GoodBytes decided to go full "lets take this study way out of its actual conclusions so as to bring up sufficiently hyberbolic statements about it to serve my cynicism"

 

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As far as I am concerned,  if the scientific consensus doesn't change then it's because we have either discovered all there is to discover (not sure I am at ease with that),  or the truth is beyond our means right now.  Either way any change in consensus just means they have discovered more now than they knew before.    And when it comes to food,  going with the best evidence we have is better than random judging if something is good/bad for you based on lack of confidence in science.  

Also worth noting that scientists are people too, and there is a 'more true than I wish it was' saying by Max Planck that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." 

 

Basically humans suck at changing their minds once they believe something to be true, though that is also why trying to teach people not to think in terms of a the dogma of Falsification but rather in terms of a Bayesian evidence system for promoting new models is quite helpful. It implicitly reduces the tendencies of people to think in absolutist terms and thus makes it easier (while also giving a formal path) to accommodate new evidence if and when it arrives.

 

 

Final Side Note: It is mathematically provable that Bayes' Theory devolves into the dogma of falsification when and if the likelihood of negative results predicted from a model approaches 0. Just don't 'be born' with stupid priors.


LINK-> Kurald Galain:  The Night Eternal 

Top 5820k, 980ti SLI Build in the World*

CPU: i7-5820k // GPU: SLI MSI 980ti Gaming 6G // Cooling: Full Custom WC //  Mobo: ASUS X99 Sabertooth // Ram: 32GB Crucial Ballistic Sport // Boot SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB

Mass SSD: Crucial M500 960GB  // PSU: EVGA Supernova 850G2 // Case: Fractal Design Define S Windowed // OS: Windows 10 // Mouse: Razer Naga Chroma // Keyboard: Corsair k70 Cherry MX Reds

Headset: Senn RS185 // Monitor: ASUS PG348Q // Devices: Galaxy S9+ - XPS 13 (9343 UHD+) - Samsung Note Tab 7.0 - Lenovo Y580

 

LINK-> Ainulindale: Music of the Ainur 

Prosumer DYI FreeNAS

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  // Cooling: Noctua L9x65 //  Mobo: AsRock E3C224D2I // Ram: 16GB Kingston ECC DDR3-1333

HDDs: 4x HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB  // PSU: EVGA 650GQ // Case: Fractal Design Node 304 // OS: FreeNAS

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I have found that blue light filters fixed the huge eye strain issues I was having and it was a huge difference and I would find it hard to believe that a placebo could make the pain in my eye go away. 

Placebo can absolutely cause pain to go away.

Hell, pain is probably one of the most common and well studied nocebo effects. Tell a patience that a pill will cause pain, and they will most likely report that they did. Tell a patience that a pill will relieve pain, and they probably will report that it did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Placebo can absolutely cause pain to go away.

Hell, pain is probably one of the most common and well studied nocebo effects. Tell a patience that a pill will cause pain, and they will most likely report that they did. Tell a patience that a pill will relieve pain, and they probably will report that it did.

I liked the test they did on Mind Field.  They hooked volunteers up to a harmless machine that did nothing but shine a light on them but warned them it would be painful and before long, some were having such a hard time withstanding it they had to stop early.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's OK, it gives Apple an opportunity for another "brand new innovative feature" on their next round of products, a red light filter! 🤣


Desktop: i7-5960X 4.4GHz, Noctua NH-D14, ASUS Rampage V, 32GB, GTX1070, 2TB NVMe SSD, 2x16TB HDD RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Thermaltake Overseer RX1, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB NVMe SSD RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

Dell XPS 2 in 1 2019, 32GB, 1TB, 4K / GPD Win 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, blue light filters are a meme. I used them on all my devices for 9 months. I haven’t noticed any difference. In fact, I had a harder time looking at the screen while they were active. Then I played around with the settings and I noticed that dimming the screen according to the room lighting is the only thing that helps, and it’s much better if you don’t use color filters. Phones and some laptops can already do this automatically.

 

I tried a monochromatic mode. It’s actually a lot more straining to look at something without colors because my brain needs to work more to figure out what’s what. Similar can be said by filtering any color. It’s not natural for us to blind ourselves on purpose.

 

If you have trouble falling asleep "because of computer screens" then your brain is overstimulated and you’re too addicted to staring at your entertainment devices. Color filtering won’t help. Stop being an addict, take a walk or ride a bike, do some sport, meet your friends, go fishing and daydream, have sex, just do something that doesn’t involve grabbing your phone or PC every 10 seconds and everything will be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After using filter till midnight, when I turn it off I can instantly feel the strain on my eyes, call it placebo if you will. 

Also, maybe not all of them are the same. Some on Android place a crappy overlay on screen which makes everything worse. The effect I talked about was using F.lux with low intensity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Placebo can absolutely cause pain to go away.

Hell, pain is probably one of the most common and well studied nocebo effects. Tell a patience that a pill will cause pain, and they will most likely report that they did. Tell a patience that a pill will relieve pain, and they probably will report that it did.

It doubt it would work on the type of pain that I was experiencing to the extent that the pain went away. I have dealt with placebo causing pain but have yet to experience the opposite. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn’t it also be possible to train your own brain to make blue filters a pavlovian response to get tired? 
 

Or would our instinctual response trump that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coolaid said:

Wouldn’t it also be possible to train your own brain to make blue filters a pavlovian response to get tired? 
 

Or would our instinctual response trump that?

Nothing trumps slavering puppers.  They’re soo cute!


Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coolaid said:

Wouldn’t it also be possible to train your own brain to make blue filters a pavlovian response to get tired? 
 

Or would our instinctual response trump that?

Yes.


LINK-> Kurald Galain:  The Night Eternal 

Top 5820k, 980ti SLI Build in the World*

CPU: i7-5820k // GPU: SLI MSI 980ti Gaming 6G // Cooling: Full Custom WC //  Mobo: ASUS X99 Sabertooth // Ram: 32GB Crucial Ballistic Sport // Boot SSD: Samsung 850 EVO 500GB

Mass SSD: Crucial M500 960GB  // PSU: EVGA Supernova 850G2 // Case: Fractal Design Define S Windowed // OS: Windows 10 // Mouse: Razer Naga Chroma // Keyboard: Corsair k70 Cherry MX Reds

Headset: Senn RS185 // Monitor: ASUS PG348Q // Devices: Galaxy S9+ - XPS 13 (9343 UHD+) - Samsung Note Tab 7.0 - Lenovo Y580

 

LINK-> Ainulindale: Music of the Ainur 

Prosumer DYI FreeNAS

CPU: Xeon E3-1231v3  // Cooling: Noctua L9x65 //  Mobo: AsRock E3C224D2I // Ram: 16GB Kingston ECC DDR3-1333

HDDs: 4x HGST Deskstar NAS 3TB  // PSU: EVGA 650GQ // Case: Fractal Design Node 304 // OS: FreeNAS

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually had more eye strain going from an LED backlit LCD (because to me they seemed more blue), that I went back to using a CCFL backlit monitor that was new old stock (it's STILL amazingly bright and not worn out), because the picture seemed more neutral and better.  I don't use a bluelight filter on the CCFL screen, but I DID when I used the LED backlit display.


CPU: 2x Intel Xeon X5482 @ 3.63GHz RAM: 8x Kingston 4GB FB-DDR2 ECC 32GB Total

GPU: Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti 4GB Sound: Creative SoundBlaster Zx OS: Windows 10/Linux

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Coolaid said:

Wouldn’t it also be possible to train your own brain to make blue filters a pavlovian response to get tired? 
 

Or would our instinctual response trump that?

If people can have a physical reaction to food because they were told it was not organic, then you can condition people to believe anything and have genuine reactions to it.

 

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Sometimes I miss contractions like n't on the end of words like wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't.    Please don't be a dick,  make allowances when reading my posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 8:06 PM, GoodBytes said:

The research, which was carried out on mice, used specially designed lighting that allowed the team to adjust colour without changing brightness.

Allow me to introduce you to this chart:

spacer.png

As you can see mouse vision is rather different from human vision even just with regards to which wavelengths get detected nevermind the fact that they only have 2 cones while we've got 3. Plus our rods don't activate to red light so you can use a red flashlight without ruining your night vision. The same would not be true for a mouse. This is also why labs sometimes use red lights to allow researchers to see without waking up animals.

 

This kind of experiment really should have been ran in humans. Besides as far as I can tell (at least at a glance) this doesn't seem like something that'd require permanent damage to or euthanization of the test subjects so there's really no reason why they couldn't have adapted it to human participants.

 

In short, this research looks like a clear lack of understanding that animals don't view the world in the same way we do and what we find about their responses to various wavelengths may not be true for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Beskamir said:

Allow me to introduce you to this chart:

spacer.png

As you can see mouse vision is rather different from human vision even just with regards to which wavelengths get detected nevermind the fact that they only have 2 cones while we've got 3. Plus our rods don't activate to red light so you can use a red flashlight without ruining your night vision. The same would not be true for a mouse. This is also why labs sometimes use red lights to allow researchers to see without waking up animals.

 

This kind of experiment really should have been ran in humans. Besides as far as I can tell (at least at a glance) this doesn't seem like something that'd require permanent damage to or euthanization of the test subjects so there's really no reason why they couldn't have adapted it to human participants.

 

In short, this research looks like a clear lack of understanding that animals don't view the world in the same way we do and what we find about their responses to various wavelengths may not be true for us.

There are problems with human testing.  There are pesky rules about keeping them in cages and stuff.  Goes back to the Nuremberg trials.  They try it in mice, they try it on something still not human (used to be monkeys but not so much anymore) then they try it on people.


Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bombastinator said:

There are problems with human testing.  There are pesky rules about keeping them in cages and stuff.  Goes back to the Nuremberg trials.  They try it in mice, they try it on something still not human (used to be monkeys but not so much anymore) then they try it on people.

This experiment didn't necessitate keeping people in cages. If you can ethically study the effects of sleep deprivation on performance, you should be able to ethically study whether blue light filters matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beskamir said:

This experiment didn't necessitate keeping people in cages. If you can ethically study the effects of sleep deprivation on performance, you should be able to ethically study whether blue light filters matter.

If you can do it you can do it.  I have nothing against the concept of the study.  I just am not sure that the conclusions drawn are valid to the degree they are being interpreted.  It’s possible a mouse study had to be done as a step to the next study.


Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 7:20 PM, Caroline said:

Hey I can hear that too on my tube and another sound that LCD TVs make, it's like a constant "shhh" and it's even there when the TV is off (plugged and standby)

I've always been able to hear the flyback transformer in CRT's, which is why that big ol late model toshiba CRT I have stays unplugged when I'm not trying to play games on it.

 

Funny enough I started getting LESS migraine headaches when CRTs were phased out. However you know what makes high pitch whines? Computer fans and hard drive motors. Coil whine is also readily audible, but generally has more of a random-noise kind of sound where as the motor whines have a constant pitch to them which is like having tinnitus at that frequency. When the computer is turned off suddenly everything sounds super-quiet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×