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

[dave4shmups]

What about displays like the one on the Kindle Paperwhite?  I would love to get one of these as it would save me a lot of space, since I don't really have a lot of room left for more physical books.  And the screen doesn't look anywhere near as bright as the one on my iPad Air 2.

[Bombastinator]

5 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. 

 

 

Well we haven’t seen one study at all merely a report about it that has its own agenda.  It would be impossible to say even for someone qualified to determine such whether the first one is or not.  As to the second one I have no opinion.  That was the point I’m trying to make. I could recognize one part as a possible arguable flaw, but as to whether it actually is or not is not a determination I can make.  This is the point I was trying to make mentioning it.  I’m not familiar enough with the subject.  I personally doubt it is.  That looks to me like a pretty hard spike they were using BF on.  The issue here is truth vs falsehood.  

 

On the concept of “flawed”
Is the second paper a unit of perfect truth?  No. Of course not.  Science by definition can not detect truth. It deals exclusively with finding falsehood.  Philosophy and theosophy are about that.  They do a not very good job quite often.  Science was invented by Roman Catholic theosophists to help check themselves.  Literally.  It’s why the jesuits were formed.  That’s why “generally accepted theory” is the closest science ever gets.  It can be used to make a bunch of findings around and across something, and if enough of them are made a shape of absence of falsehood can form.  This is quite useful.  If truth is the stencil science can be the spray paint.  Flicking a single dot of paint at a stencil doesn’t do much.  It’s only when a gigantic amount of dots are thrown that anything might be even vaguely inferred about the stencil, and one still might not get everything if the dots are say all in the same place.  The power of science is that while the stencil is invisible, if humans are careful we can sometimes see the spray paint.  Even that is hard, and it doesn’t tell us everything.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

I still don't agree it's that far off from the regular person on the street. It just needs proper explaining.

Given the fact that even doctors (typically with a higher than average IQ) who are better educated than most and certainly better educated in medicine have trouble reading research papers, it would be very hard to conclude that the average person just needs a primer in the language.   The reason science gets a bad name in research and publication is not just because there are bad studies being published in shit journals, but because over confident people think they can read the abstract and formulate an understanding of the topic.

 

9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

 

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.

That's why I keep referring to it as a media release rather than an article,  it was posted by the university about it's own research.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Given the fact that even doctors who are higher than average IQ, better educated than most and certainly better educated in medicine have trouble reading research papers, it would be very hard to conclude that the average person just needs a primer in the language.   The reason science gets a bad name in research and publication is not just because there are bad studies being publishes in shit journals, but because over confident people think they can read the abstract and formulate an understanding of the topic.

 

That's why I keep referring to it as a media release rather than an article,  it was posted by the university about it's own research.

English is maddengly vague.  Most of the others are worse though. Aramaic is supposed to be crazy.  It barely even has numbers.