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

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. 


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
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.


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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .


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
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.


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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


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
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.


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

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


×