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

[Bombastinator]

Meh.  My dad used to do that one.  I could read an abstract when I was 16.  Google makes it a lot easier but it could be done in the 80’s.  A lot of words need to be looked up and it’s slow.  Notes need to be taken.  Not so much with now with google.  I used to read his papers because it made me feel closer to him.  Kinda stupid, but it’s somewhat reasonable for a child of a researcher.  Or so I like to pretend.  I had a harder time with the stuff written by my English professor step brother about 19th century rock collecting.  That was actually more rugged stuff.  I like research papers.  They’re clear.

[Beskamir]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am,  The sciences are not just basic principals applied in a yes/no manor, there are literally hundreds of conditions that effect every facet of research.  trying to qualify every aspect of a study and maintain some sort of relevance or outcome is not easy, and the less educated people have less information to properly appraise the value and data presented.  This is the chief reason the peer review process is carried out by equally qualified and experienced scientists and not anyone else.  It is also why you will hear a great number of scientist refuse to say anything beyond the most rudimentary on studies they are not educated in.  

 

 

We've all heard stories, that is the problem,  the only thing most people hear are stories.    How many times in threads like this does it get raised that most studies are wrong?  Lots, people throw it around like they know what they are talking about.  But it's not true in the way people think it is true.   Just like in this thread, we have people trying to dismiss the study because they think they know something the researchers don't, which is a pretty big assumption to make.

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/05/10/most-scientific-studies-are-wrong-but-that-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/?fbclid=IwAR0boB-aY64xqFFsRhunVxX07osbd1L0TwPymmImyUPVAStLuHchHkdhXRQ

 

 

 

 

You can't deal with it casually.  In order to understand how research is carried out you need the relevant education and experience on the subject.  I know this annoys a lot of people because it suddenly brick walls their opinions as less valuable than a decent scientific study, as is reality.  But that's most sciences in a nutshell.  People don't know how to rebuild an engine without learning how to, we can't fly a plane without learning.  Music is the same, very few people can pick up an instrument and play like Mozart without training and years of practice.  Another analogy is CPU design, who on these forums could walk into Intel and problem solve a design issue with a new CPU?  none of us could and science is not really that different.  There is a lot in each study that needs to be addressed by people who understand that science, they are the ones who will pick the flaws, a really good article will preemptively address such concerns with citations to articles that other studies that contradict it and qualify why.

 

See point number three in this post:

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/08/03/10-steps-for-evaluating-scientific-papers/

 

And point seven highlights the need for proper education in order to be able to properly analyze the relevance and accuracy of the data:

 

 

This means each paper published requires several hours of cross examination by suitably qualified people in order to refute it or accept it as reasonable. 

 

 

 

Ugh, I didn't want to appeal to authority but it seems I have no choice when you're saying I'm not qualified to critic scientific studies. Right now I'm 2 courses away from finishing up my double major in computer science and psychology and have taken courses where I've criticed/reviewed scientific literature, conducted experiments on lab rats, wrote lab reports and term papers that required I read, understand, and critic research papers much like this one. Am I as qualified as a masters/PhD student or PI? Nope. Am I more qualified than the average Joe taken off the street? I would hope so since otherwise I've wasted 5 years of my life and a load of money.

 

As for where I heard the story of wrongly using colors that rats can't see in your experiment that was something one of my neuroscience profs saw his fellow graduate students doing in the lab he worked in as a graduate student. Those oversights happen when you assume that a non human animal is an accurate model of a human when in reality that is not the case.

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 hours ago, Beskamir said:

Allow me to introduce you to this chart:

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.

Not going to say that vision among the two isn't radically different.... in fact, I previously mentioned the rarity of the primate mammalian trichromacy, but... with that said, the rod response curves look damn near identical between the two species, so that differentiation does not appear to exist. The green vs red/green cones are also not that dramatically different, but the primary (and not insignificant) issue is how blue-shifted (as in higher frequency response) rat "blue" cones are relative to humans.

 

It still has *some* value because supposedly the type of light that actually triggers the hormonal response that is proposed to cause the sleep issues is the very short wave length edge of blue light where the rat sensitivity still exists, but in general human "blue" cones are dramatically red-shifted. 

 

Yes the study would be better in humans. Human control is also harder because you have to make sure of a lot more factors not to mention making sure none of them are preconditioned by their environment/culture (aka reading elsewhere) to believe the ultra-blue light is harmful. Human trials are also way more expensive and time consuming.

 

It is the obvious next step though regardless, and yes don't take this study as authoritative in any regard. Or any study in that regard.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Beskamir said:

Ugh, I didn't want to appeal to authority but it seems I have no choice when you're saying I'm not qualified to critic scientific studies. Right now I'm 2 courses away from finishing up my double major in computer science and psychology and have taken courses where I've criticed/reviewed scientific literature, conducted experiments on lab rats, wrote lab reports and term papers that required I read, understand, and critic research papers much like this one. Am I as qualified as a masters/PhD student or PI? Nope. Am I more qualified than the average Joe taken off the street? I would hope so since otherwise I've wasted 5 years of my life and a load of money.

 

As for where I heard the story of wrongly using colors that rats can't see in your experiment that was something one of my neuroscience profs saw his fellow graduate students doing in the lab he worked in as a graduate student. Those oversights happen when you assume that a non human animal is an accurate model of a human when in reality that is not the case.

Well done for you.  You still can't dismiss a study on such loose grounds.  Go tell the researchers at the university of Manchester what they did wrong.

If you are half the scientist you claim to be you will understand why posts on internet forums don't mean shit and why disputing the merits of a study based only on reading the media release is as futile as climbing a cliff with no arms legs and loose dentures.

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Speaking of logical next step. Someone linked earlier in this discussion this open source paper recently published which finds similarish findings specifically in humans.

 

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)31501-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219315015%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

 

Quote

Here, in human participants, we examined whether the short-wavelength-sensitive (S) cones contribute to the neuroendocrine response to light by using stimuli which differed exclusively in the amount of S cone excitation by almost two orders of magnitude (ratio 1:83), but not in the excitation of long-wavelength-sensitive (L) and medium-wavelength-sensitive (M) cones, rods, and melanopsin. We specifically examined the S cones since the previously published action spectra for melatonin suppression [1,2] pointed to a possible role of S cones in addition to melanopsin. We find no evidence for a role of S cones in the acute alerting and melatonin-supressing response to evening light exposure.

Note this paper does NOT say blue light is or isnt harmful. All it says is that the S (blue) cones does not appear to be involved in the response system. Melanopsin could still be more differentially active to bluer light, though iirc there have also been different studies showing that that doesn't quite seem to be so simple.

 

In general, the overall assessments seem to be that limiting total background luminosity is more useful/relevant than trying to worry specifically about any one subset of visible light.

[Curufinwe_wins]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Well done for you.  You still can't dismiss a study on such loose grounds.  Go tell the researchers at the university of Manchester what they did wrong.

If you are half the scientist you claim to be you will understand why posts on internet forums don't mean shit and why disputing the merits of a study based only on reading the media release is as futile as climbing a cliff with no arms legs and loose dentures.

 

Unless that media release is a full report like Arstechnica often likes to do. Man it makes me very happy every time I see them do a REAL article on science papers. Not that they can't still make mistakes, but its very obvious that they actually try to be informed and read the paper itself lol.

 

Random example:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/photovoltaic-enzymes/

[Beskamir]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Well done for you.  You still can't dismiss a study on such loose grounds.  Go tell the researchers at the university of Manchester what they did wrong.

If you are half the scientist you claim to be you will understand why posts on internet forums don't mean shit and why disputing the merits of a study based only on reading the media release is as futile as climbing a cliff with no arms legs and loose dentures.

 

I wanted to read the paper but the article didn't link to it and my laziness won out. Although the lack of human participants is at least imo a large enough blunder that the results should be questioned. I mean it's possible that their conclusion is correct despite being based on shoddy science but I'd rather be skeptical of it than blindly accepting it. Especially when there's a potential source of error that can be spotted after just glancing at their methods section. Besides, skepticism is always encouraged in science since it's the only way for scientific research to be self correcting. We need other researchers to run variations (like what's posted 2 posts above) of this experiment to either disprove this paper's conclusions or disprove the existing idea that blue light filters are helpful.

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 minutes ago, Beskamir said:

I wanted to read the paper but the article didn't link to it and my laziness won out. Although the lack of human participants is at least imo a large enough blunder that the results should be questioned. I mean it's possible that their conclusion is correct despite being based on shoddy science but I'd rather be skeptical of it than blindly accepting it. Especially when there's a potential source of error that can be spotted after just glancing at their methods section. Besides, skepticism is always encouraged in science since it's the only way for scientific research to be self correcting. We need other researchers to run variations of this experiment to either disprove this paper's conclusions or disprove the existing idea that blue light filters are helpful.

See above for a paper published in the last week addressing your specific concern.

 

And again, neither paper talked ANYTHING about blue light filters. All they investigated was the role of S cones in the endocrine response to light. Other non-cone/rod response pathways still exist.

[mr moose]

Just now, Beskamir said:

I wanted to read the paper but the article didn't link to it and my laziness won out. Although the lack of human participants is at least imo a large enough blunder that the results should be questioned. I mean it's possible that their conclusion is correct despite being based on shoddy science but I'd rather be skeptical of it than blindly accepting it. Especially when there's a potential source of error that can be spotted after just glancing at their methods section. Besides, skepticism is always encouraged in science since it's the only way for scientific research to be self correcting.

How do you know it's shoddy or that the numbers are too small/way off if you haven't read the actually publication or seen how they carried out the tests?

 

Just now, Beskamir said:

We need other researchers to run variations of this experiment to either disprove this paper's conclusions or disprove the existing idea that blue light filters are helpful.

We actually need that before we comment on how shoddy the research is.

[Bombastinator]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How do you know it's shoddy or that the numbers are too small/way off if you haven't read the actually publication or seen how they carried out the tests?

 

We actually need that before we comment on how shoddy the research is.

I don’t think anyone has claimed the research is or is not shoddy, unless they have, just the conclusions drawn from it by the article.  This by definition can’t be a critique of the research because it isn’t even available.  It can be a critique of science writing.  It’s pretty easy to tell that this can’t by itself tell whether or not humans are affected a particular way because it didn’t use humans.  There would need to be a whole bunch of different tests done.  Apparently some of them have been done.  The article doesn’t reference them though.  It implies that this test was definitive by itself in questioning earlier research.  It can’t be.  Not by itself.  For the reasons mentioned.  
 

It also doesn’t mean even the science writer is necessarily wrong about about the conclusion that previous blue light research is wrong.  Just that the statement that this is conclusive by itself is.

 

 As an example the human test mentioned uses BF.  There is good reason currently to question the quality of BF.  It’s a famously unrigorous number.  Does that mean the human test should be dismissed?  No. Or at least not by me. It does mean that the particular section of the data where BF was applied might want to be examined closely by someone qualified though.  BF might even work in that particular instance.  This would be a point where my opinion loses value due to my lack of training. I personally suspect it’s adequate.  It’s a pretty sharp curve.  That means nothing though.  In this instance I don’t know from curve.  I have no ability to say if that particular thing lacks value or not.  I can read it.  I just have no standing to render an opinion.  All I can do is go “hmm that’s cool”

 

the article renders an opinion that because of points the article actually mentions it can not possibly have.

 

The science may not be bad.  Others who were qualified to critique it didn’t apparently think so.

 

The science isn’t the question though.  The article is.

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t think anyone has claimed the research is or is not shoddy, unless they have, just the conclusions drawn from it by the article.  

Here:

 

2 hours ago, Beskamir said:

I wanted to read the paper but the article didn't link to it and my laziness won out. Although the lack of human participants is at least imo a large enough blunder that the results should be questioned. I mean it's possible that their conclusion is correct despite being based on shoddy science but I'd rather be skeptical of it than blindly accepting it. Especially when there's a potential source of error that can be spotted after just glancing at their methods section. Besides, skepticism is always encouraged in science since it's the only way for scientific research to be self correcting. We need other researchers to run variations (like what's posted 2 posts above) of this experiment to either disprove this paper's conclusions or disprove the existing idea that blue light filters are helpful.

 

Quote

 

This by definition can’t be a critique of the research because it isn’t even available.  It can be a critique of science writing.  It’s pretty easy to tell that this can’t by itself tell whether or not humans are affected a particular way because it didn’t use humans.  There would need to be a whole bunch of different tests done.  Apparently some of them have been done.  The article doesn’t reference them though.  It implies that this test was definitive by itself in questioning earlier research.  It can’t be.  Not by itself.  For the reasons mentioned.  
 

It also doesn’t mean even the science writer is necessarily wrong about about the conclusion that previous blue light research is wrong.  Just that the statement that this is conclusive by itself is.

 

 As an example the human test mentioned uses BF.  There is good reason currently to question the quality of BF.  It’s a famously unrigorous number.  Does that mean the human test should be dismissed?  No. Or at least not by me. It does mean that the particular section of the data where BF was applied might want to be examined closely by someone qualified though.  BF might even work in that particular instance.  This would be a point where my opinion loses value due to my lack of training. I personally suspect it’s adequate.  It’s a pretty sharp curve.  That means nothing though.  In this instance I don’t know from curve.  I have no ability to say if that particular thing lacks value or not.  I can read it.  I just have no standing to render an opinion.  All I can do is go “hmm that’s cool”

 

the article renders an opinion that because of points the article actually mentions it can not possibly have.

 

The science may not be bad.  Others who were qualified to critique it didn’t apparently think so.

 

The science isn’t the question though.  The article is.

 

The problem here is no one can say "it is easy to tell".  As I have said before we can't claim one way or another about this study, most of us on this forum have next to zero qualification or experience to do so.  Trying to insinuate that rodent trials are flawed when no one here even knows how they were conducted or why let alone what factors were considered in the process is ignorance at best and delusional over confidence on the subject at worst.    For all we know the media release is accurate and the science is good (as @Curufinwe_wins has indicated may be the case).     Not having access to the actual published article doesn't suddenly make accusations of ignorance on part of the researchers valid.   Not having the access to the actual article let alone the education required to understand it means nothing more than none of us can decide one way or the other how legitimate it is.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Here:

 

 

 

The problem here is no one can say "it is easy to tell".  As I have said before we can't claim one way or another about this study, most of us on this forum have next to zero qualification or experience to do so.  Trying to insinuate that rodent trials are flawed when no one here even knows how they were conducted or why let alone what factors were considered in the process is ignorance at best and delusional over confidence on the subject at worst.    For all we know the media release is accurate and the science is good (as @Curufinwe_wins has indicated may be the case).     Not having access to the actual published article doesn't suddenly make accusations of ignorance on part of the researchers valid.   Not having the access to the actual article let alone the education required to understand it means nothing more than none of us can decide one way or the other how legitimate it is.

 

 

 

 

 

There seems to be some assumption of meaning here.

“I said easy to tell by itself”. The article says that this is the definitive thing. by itself.  That is what is impossible. The itself.
 

 I did not say that they are automatically flawed.    Though I’ll take it.  Arguably all models are flawed.  It’s an inherent problem with models.  It does not mean they aren’t useful.  Mouse models are frequently useful.  This is the problem with the article.  The statement that the test, whatever it was, said more than it could conceivably say.

I am not disputing the goodness or non goodness of the science, though as you have pointed out that apparently has been done.

 

The article interpreted meaning from a single test that it could not have because of the nature of part of the test it did describe.  Might it have that meaning when laid in conjunction with other tests?  Sure.  It might.  But not by itself.  The big problem is the title of the post quoting the article.  This is where the telephone effect really takes off. “May” turned into “does”.

the article writer wanted to trumpet the status of the institution they worked for so the test took on more import than was appropriate.  The poster wanted to make a different point and inflated again though in a different direction, and now there is BS.  The thing the test did was smaller than what was claimed, and then that error got conflated into a claim that something has happened at a particular point when it didn’t.  Could this test along with a bunch of other things eventually point to blue light not doing to people what is supposed? Sure.  But not by itself.  Even the article says that hasn’t happened yet.  It doesn’t even say by itself that the original blue light research claims needs to be re-examined. it might in conjunction with other research.  But yet again, not by itself.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The problem here is no one can say "it is easy to tell".  As I have said before we can't claim one way or another about this study, most of us on this forum have next to zero qualification or experience to do so.  Trying to insinuate that rodent trials are flawed when no one here even knows how they were conducted or why let alone what factors were considered in the process is ignorance at best and delusional over confidence on the subject at worst.    For all we know the media release is accurate and the science is good (as @Curufinwe_wins has indicated may be the case).     Not having access to the actual published article doesn't suddenly make accusations of ignorance on part of the researchers valid.   Not having the access to the actual article let alone the education required to understand it means nothing more than none of us can decide one way or the other how legitimate it is.

Put it this way... from the details I've read, and the knowledge base I have (which is... well expert in my field, and professionally/obsessively curious everywhere else... this is part of the everything else, btw) it isn't OBVIOUSLY WRONG in any way... which believe it or not, is actually a fairly high standard.

 

The media release is a pretty standard fare non-scientist writing which doesn't really address or understand the actual claims the authors seem to be supporting with their research. The paper itself doesn't seem to conflict in a specific known way with other current leading research in the field either (which contrary to mainstream portrayal is not in obvious strong support for specific visible light sub-frequency filtering), so it doesn't fail some rudimentary 'smell' test.

 

17 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

snip

The human paper is pretty specific in its claims and seems to do a fairly good job of substantiating them. It doesn't actually appear that a large body of prior work exists to counter the evidence that the paper suggests, rather that previous work in Melanopsin led some members of the community (and mainstream) to assume that the S cone interaction was likely.

 

 

As always... no paper is authoritative. Merely indicative.

 

EDIT: I also share your frustration with non-science writers making things seem more definitive than they are. and I have personally and repeatedly called out the OP for their spin on the article's already too definitive stance. And that's made worse to me because the OP's reputation is known to me and I hold them in generally high regard.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

 

 

The paper is pretty specific in its claims and seems to do a fairly good job of substantiating them. It doesn't actually appear that a large body of prior work exists to counter the evidence that the paper suggests, rather that previous work in Melanopsin lead some members of the community (and mainstream) to assume that the S cone interaction was likely.

 

 

As always... no paper is authoritative. Merely indicative.

Kinda wish I knew what exactly you were talking about with that snip.  That is a tendency in this forum I don’t like particularly and one I haven’t seen elsewhere.  It make the “the” quite vague.  There are two papers discussed.  One an available one about a test on humans and the other the subject of a science article the particulars of which are not.

 

The term S cone seems to imply the first.  My best guess is you are talking only about that section.

I was attempting an illustrative example using available material.  It could have been any paper about anything.  It’s merely what happened to be there.  I was attempting to illustrate the point that reading a paper doesn’t necessarily give one the ability to decide its merits.  Merely to know what it said.

 

I do want to split hairs about the “always” thing and the definition of authoritative, but it’s not really worth doing.  Inductiveness can vary wildly though, and can be subjective.

 

Part of it I guess is I didn’t start reading papers looking for inductiveness.  I read them because of who wrote them to try and know what they were thinking about.  I haven’t read one of my dads papers about cellular entomology in many years.  It’s embarrassing to be caught crying in a science library.

[TechyBen]

7 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I really want to know what those adjustments were, because yeah, it's impossible for me to think the researchers didn't account for obvious things like mice eyes being different, or the fact they're nocturnal and we are not, but I can't think of how you would deal with such a thing off hand.

Or a cable being longer at one end of a machine to the other? If so, I have some FTL neutrinos to sell you. XD

[Curufinwe_wins]

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Kinda wish I knew what exactly you were talking about with that snip.  That is a tendency in this forum I don’t like particularly and one I haven’t seen elsewhere.  It make the “the” quite vague.  There are two papers discussed.  One an available one about a test on humans and the other the subject of a science article the particulars of which are not.

 

The term S cone seems to imply the first.  My best guess is you are talking only about that section.

I was attempting an illustrative example using available material.  It could have been any paper about anything.  It’s merely what happened to be there.  I was attempting to illustrate the point that reading a paper doesn’t necessarily give one the ability to decide its merits.  Merely to know what it said.

 

I do want to split hairs about the “always” thing and the definition of authoritative, but it’s not really worth doing.  Inductiveness can vary wildly though, and can be subjective.

 

Part of it I guess is I didn’t start reading papers looking for inductiveness.  I read them because of who wrote them to try and know what they were thinking about.  I haven’t read one of my dads papers about cellular entomology in many years.  It’s embarrassing to be caught crying in a science library.

Heh, if you really want. Substitute authoritative with definitive. Either way, evidence of support (or lack) not falsification. Indicative is trying to say that studies are (if for no other reason than their controls and specificity) limited and not universal in their 'truths'.

 

S cone just means blue cone. Sorry, its from the papers, and earlier in my comments in this thread I made specific my use of blue instead, but the technical term habit came up eventually.

 

I gave an edit a number of hours ago saying the human paper. My appologies if it didnt come through on the loaded version you saw. I noticed I wasn't clear and so edited it. Feel free to read the post now with the edits to see if that was more clear.

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

  As I have said before we can't claim one way or another about this study, most of us on this forum have next to zero qualification or experience to do so. 

PS. Anyone saying you cannot do something due to qualifications is a red flag to me. If they say "you cannot do it until you've done the math/physics/test" by all means that is fair. But qualifications are just plain and simply, the math/physics/tests. You don't need bits of paper saying you have qualifications, as a proof of truthfulness or correctness. You do need the ability to understand your limits... and not go "oh, but this *obviously* is free energy", no, qualifications or not, you have to do the math and the tests.

 

Likewise, with this test, qualifications or not, if it works or not for some people, it works or not.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

There seems to be some assumption of meaning here.

“I said easy to tell by itself”. The article says that this is the definitive thing. by itself.  That is what is impossible. The itself.
 

 I did not say that they are automatically flawed.  

Maybe,   but you did try to dismiss the validity of the article by assuming it had to have human subjects in order to be legitimate in it's claims (which we don't fully know because we haven't read nor have the education to understand the actual research).

 

Also the person I was quoting and talking to very much did dismiss the research using various assumptions that can't be applied.

 

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

 Though I’ll take it.  Arguably all models are flawed.  It’s an inherent problem with models.  It does not mean they aren’t useful.  Mouse models are frequently useful.  This is the problem with the article.  The statement that the test, whatever it was, said more than it could conceivably say.

I am not disputing the goodness or non goodness of the science, though as you have pointed out that apparently has been done.

 

The article interpreted meaning from a single test that it could not have because of the nature of part of the test it did describe.  Might it have that meaning when laid in conjunction with other tests?  Sure.  It might.  But not by itself.  The big problem is the title of the post quoting the article.  This is where the telephone effect really takes off. “May” turned into “does”.

the article writer wanted to trumpet the status of the institution they worked for so the test took on more import than was appropriate.  The poster wanted to make a different point and inflated again though in a different direction, and now there is BS.  The thing the test did was smaller than what was claimed, and then that error got conflated into a claim that something has happened at a particular point when it didn’t.  Could this test along with a bunch of other things eventually point to blue light not doing to people what is supposed? Sure.  But not by itself.  Even the article says that hasn’t happened yet.  It doesn’t even say by itself that the original blue light research claims needs to be re-examined. it might in conjunction with other research.  But yet again, not by itself.

How do you know any of this? how can you know any of this?  you haven't read the actual article. 

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

PS. Anyone saying you cannot do something due to qualifications is a red flag to me. If they say "you cannot do it until you've done the math/physics/test" by all means that is fair. But qualifications are just plain and simply, the math/physics/tests. You don't need bits of paper saying you have qualifications, as a proof of truthfulness or correctness. You do need the ability to understand your limits... and not go "oh, but this *obviously* is free energy", no, qualifications or not, you have to do the math and the tests.

 

Likewise, with this test, qualifications or not, if it works or not for some people, it works or not.

Qualification in the context I am using means a suitable education and experience in the field, not a defined certificate or accreditation from an educational facility. 

 

You don't need a piece of paper saying you earnt a degree in biology and physiology to read this paper and start making sense of it,  you need years of experience in that field and an actual education in how the scientific method is applied and read.  See my earlier link for a really good explanation of what it takes to properly critique a research/study publication. 

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

PS. Anyone saying you cannot do something due to qualifications is a red flag to me. If they say "you cannot do it until you've done the math/physics/test" by all means that is fair. But qualifications are just plain and simply, the math/physics/tests. You don't need bits of paper saying you have qualifications, as a proof of truthfulness or correctness. You do need the ability to understand your limits... and not go "oh, but this *obviously* is free energy", no, qualifications or not, you have to do the math and the tests.

 

Likewise, with this test, qualifications or not, if it works or not for some people, it works or not.

True, but it increases the chances of a major screwup.  Mao Tse Tung was a super genius.  He could speak 6 languages before he left what should have been high school.  He never went to high school though.  Or grade school.  He helped invent chinese communism.  It went poorly.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

True, but it increases the chances of a major screwup.  Mao Tse Tung was a super genius.  He could speak 6 languages before he left what should have been high school.  He never went to high school though.  Or grade school.  He helped invent chinese communism.  It went poorly.

I'm not surprised it went poorly, wisdom and intelligence are not linked.  We see intelligent people voicing very dumb opinions all the time on social issues .

[Bombastinator]

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Maybe,   but you did try to dismiss the validity of the article by assuming it had to have human subjects in order to be legitimate in it's claims (which we don't fully know because we haven't read nor have the education to understand the actual research).

 

Also the person I was quoting and talking to very much did dismiss the research using various assumptions that can't be applied.

 

How do you know any of this? how can you know any of this?  you haven't read the actual article. 

Re: legitimacy

it would need it for the article to be.  It only mentioned mice.  A possibly fair point though.

 

re: other person

fair.

 

re:how do I know

the model thing?  That’s how models work.  Or magic tricks.  They can be useful from a particular angle.

 

what the test said?
Perhaps I am making assumptions.  Mice were apparently used.  
I assumed everything was therefore mouse based.  In retrospect it’s still seems fairly reasonable.

Two different test subject types makes things messy.  I suppose a human could have been used to “calibrate” the mice though.  Those adjustments had to come from somewhere.  I got no idea.  That bit is in the research and all we got is the article to surmise from.

 

i read the article.  It’s not the same as the research. That bit I’ve never seen. The article was apparently written by some person talking about the research.  The subtext was the university of Manchester was doing important science and the example was a description of the research.  “Article” is perhaps a vague term.  There’s too many layers to this one. There’s the research at the bottom, and the claim made in the post headline at the top.  Unless all this commentary on the post is at the top.  Things are swimming a bit.  My cat is telling me I need to go to bed by sitting on my arm.  It’s a bad sign generally.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: legitimacy

it would need it for the article to be.  It only mentioned mice.  A possibly fair point though.

 

re: other person

fair.

 

re:how do I know

the model thing?  That’s how models work.  Or magic tricks.  They can be useful from a particular angle.

 

what the test said?
Perhaps I am making assumptions.  Mice were apparently used.  
I assumed everything was therefore mouse based.  In retrospect it’s still seems fairly reasonable.

Two different test subject types makes things messy.  I suppose a human could have been used to “calibrate” the mice though.  Those adjustments had to come from somewhere.  I got no idea.  That bit is in the research and all we got is the article to surmise from.

 

i read the article.  It’s not the same as the research. That bit I’ve never seen. The article was apparently written by some person talking about the research.  The subtext was the university of Manchester was doing important science and the example was a description of the research.  “Article” is perhaps a vague term.  There’s too many layers to this one. There’s the research at the bottom, and the claim made in the post headline at the top.  Unless all this commentary on the post is at the top.  Things are swimming a bit.  My cat is telling me I need to go to bed by sitting on my arm.  It’s a bad sign generally.

Honestly. It doesn't matter. Both studies are flawed (blue light is bad for you, and blue light doesn't do anything) .

It is just none-sense, we see blue light everywhere, the sky is blue, and even at night, you have blue light as the sky still outputs blue light, we see the moon and stars (assuming you are away from light pollution) to see the start you have blue light) which, thanks to the sky, deliver cold white light everywhere. It doesn't hurt your eyes nor does it "wake you up". What does and what this studies concludes, and that is that light intensity is what plays with your sleep pattern not blue light, and that is easily proven by yourself. One day, come home tired, on a day that is dark outside (like in winter time at 4 or 6pm) depending on where you are in the world), and then force yourself to go to a big box store right after. Once there, you'll magically have more energy, possibly a lot more energy that you had. Why, because everything is so well lit.

 

This study points that screens are too bright. Either they don't dims low enough for the environment one might be in (at night, room light off, for example), or the user doesn't know how to adjust the screen brightness, or the user doesn't know how, or simply does not  adjust, out of cheer laziness due to the difficulty navigating some on screen menus. 

 

 

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Qualification in the context I am using means a suitable education and experience in the field, not a defined certificate or accreditation from an educational facility. 

 

You don't need a piece of paper saying you earnt a degree in biology and physiology to read this paper and start making sense of it,  you need years of experience in that field and an actual education in how the scientific method is applied and read.  See my earlier link for a really good explanation of what it takes to properly critique a research/study publication. 

I still don't agree it's that far off from the regular person on the street. It just needs proper explaining. That's often the hard part, and papers have jargon/specialist language. But once someone gets past that, any fact/information should be relatively easy to understand or just plain memorize (if like QM it's not "understood" fully).

 

But I do understand what you mean as to critiquing it.

[edit]

PS, on a funny note, I've probably had some of my light sensitivity messed up at times. Dropping asleep in seconds with full lights on (funny waking up in the middle of the night like "huh, I left the lights on") and taking hours to fall asleep in the dark.

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Honestly. It doesn't matter. Both studies are flawed (blue light is bad for you, and blue light doesn't do anything) .

It is just none-sense, we see blue light everywhere, the sky is blue, and even at night, you have blue light as the sky still outputs blue light, we see the moon and stars (assuming you are away from light pollution) to see the start you have blue light) which, thanks to the sky, deliver cold white light everywhere. It doesn't hurt your eyes nor does it "wake you up". What does and what this studies concludes, and that is that light intensity is what plays with your sleep pattern not blue light, and that is easily proven by yourself. One day, come home tired, on a day that is dark outside (like in winter time at 4 or 6pm) depending on where you are in the world), and then force yourself to go to a big box store right after. Once there, you'll magically have more energy, possibly a lot more energy that you had. Why, because everything is so well lit.

 

This study points that screens are too bright. Either they don't dims low enough for the environment one might be in (at night, room light off, for example), or the user doesn't know how to adjust the screen brightness, or the user doesn't know how, or simply does not  adjust, out of cheer laziness due to the difficulty navigating some on screen menus. 

 

 

Your confidence levels in that which is expressed both here and in the OP is far far more than is warranted. and I say that as someone who thinks broad strokes the basic principles are sensible and very likely to be true.