German study proves: Screen Time is bad for you eyes - and it’s worse than you thought

[Sakkura]

This is not a scientific study.

[Pixel5]

which part of this is the even worse than thought?

this is mostly a bunch of statistics with very little actually verified results of what this will cause.

 

there are many could do this or is expected to result in this but they didnt even mention anything about testing methods or anything.

Thats not a scientific study, thats just a list of random statistics to show how much more we use deivces today without having actually tested what this means for us.

[DrMacintosh]

As far as I’m aware, the thing that does the most damage is the blue light and close range focusing that you do when using a digital device. 

 

The simple remedy for that is to get blue light filtering glasses and to look away for a while after a long period. 

[kuddlesworth9419]

6 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

They can be used without incurring harm by:

• reducing the amount of blue light shown at night although people with glasses which have blue light filters already do this.
• using a color accurate display which accurately portrays colors as you would see them in real life (e.g. Red looks like red and not like Pink)
• using a somewhat high-resolution display so your eyes don't squint every time you try to read something (So basically stay away from anything less than 1080p and less than 100 PPI displays, for a laptop or tablet display people should aim for around 200 PPI)
• taking a break every 30 minutes from a screen, standing up and moving around (ideally every 20 minutes but people look at screens too much for that to be practical)

I would also like to add just having good posture in a chair don't overextend your back either in a very straight posture or a very curved posture. Just a natural comfortable sitting position with a relaxed back is best. I would also like to add frequent exercise as in every other day push your body to it's limits. Do this any way you want but it has to be somewhat taxing on your body and mind. Sprinting, rowing, climbing, swimming or weight training it really doesn't matter but it does wanders to your body. Will prevent many health problems a lot of people get from generally being very idle. Frequent exercise increases blood flow around your body which helps your body to repair muscles and other problems like cuts or muscle cramps. Better blood flow means you won't have poor blood circulation anymore so you won't feel cold when not doing anything anymore, obviously your muscles will get stronger so doing every day tasks like lifting and walking long distances or up hills or stairs will be easy as piss. You won't feel tired or lethargic anymore and it helps a lot with depression. 

 

Personally I weight lift, mostly squats and dead lift but also overhead press. That works your entire body and it only takes 30 minutes every other day to do. I take it easy as I don't want to get big I just want to stay fit and healthy.

[I-r0k]

This is the most Ironic thing ever. We are staring at a screen while debating about why staring at a screen is bad for you. Society today....sigh.......

[Drak3]

This is about as much news as 'Quiting is bad for your employment.'

 

Most of us knew this already, perhaps not average joe, who ain't on the forum, but we know.

[Froody129]

I use f.lux at minimum blue all the time. It does wonders except that now after 2 minutes of looking at a screen without it (especially bad ones) my eyes feel like they're going to fall out. Strangely enough TVs are fine for me

[dizmo]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

As far as I can tell through my mediocre German, most of it is just a list of statistics; the real conclusion about health can be found on the source website but it seems to be common sense - straining your eyes can damage your eyesight, screens don't seem any worse in that regard than books, magazines, precision work and so on. The only difference is that a screen may be more enticing and push you into staring for longer. A good sitting posture at a reasonable distance from the screen and regular breaks should be enough to fend off most of these problems.

Haha yeah. The one with the neck angle and the weight over top was one of the most interesting to me. Is it implying that having your head at that angle is similar to having that amount of weight on the back of your head? Like it causes that kind of permanent neck and back injury?

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Is it implying that having your head at that angle is similar to having that amount of weight on the back of your head? Like it causes that kind of permanent neck and back injury?

Yes, although it's not that crazy - your neck is pretty strong and it's not a problem to lift 27kg with it for some time. In the long run it could cause RSI and maybe permanent damage, although I suspect you'd want to see a doctor long before that happens.

[dizmo]

16 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, although it's not that crazy - your neck is pretty strong and it's not a problem to lift 27kg with it for some time. In the long run it could cause RSI and maybe permanent damage, although I suspect you'd want to see a doctor long before that happens.

I think the issue is more the back becoming hunched later on in life. It's definitely not meant to have that kind of weight applied to it for extended periods of time.

Gotta avoid that nerd neck.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Who would have thought holding your neck in one position for several hours would be bad, it's like RSI was not a thing before screens.

It really annoys me of scientists who conduct studies that are pretty obvious and we already know, just not confirmed of the health risks. Surely something better to do. 

[alphaproject]

I believe it, but how is reading bad for your eyes? As in books? Never heard that one before.... ever.

[Syntaxvgm]

the particular problem with modern screens is blue light. All of my ips and really most non TN panels like AHVA  feel like the burn my eyes and my TN screens are like a night and day difference. 

I read at night on TN and often use flux or blue light glasses these days. 

[Zodiark1593]

27 minutes ago, alphaproject said:

I believe it, but how is reading bad for your eyes? As in books? Never heard that one before.... ever.

Blue light from fluorescent and LED lights?

[Arika]

2 hours ago, alphaproject said:

I believe it, but how is reading bad for your eyes? As in books? Never heard that one before.... ever.

Excessive reading by itself is not bad for your eyes, not anymore than just excessively looking at the same point for an extended period of time.

[Froody129]

4 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

the particular problem with modern screens is blue light. All of my ips and really most non TN panels like AHVA  feel like the burn my eyes and my TN screens are like a night and day difference. 

I read at night on TN and often use flux or blue light glasses these days. 

Odd, I find TNs to be worse almost. I manually turned down the blue pm my MG278Q and all my devices are as yellow as they can go. TN panels are often worse for me but my MG278Q and the super crappy ones I use do have a blue bias 

[Spotty]

Spoiler

Quote

Presse-Themenservice

Digitales Sehen: Fortschritt mit Risiken und Chancen

Presse-Themenservice | Digitales Sehen: Fortschritt mit Risiken und Chancen

Computer, Smartphone, Tablet, E-Reader … Was vor wenigen Jahrzehnten noch ins Reich der Science-Fiction gehörte, ist heute allgegenwärtig. Die nächsten digitalen Innovationen folgen im schnellen Takt. Beruf, Bildung und Privatleben lassen sich leichter und effektiver bewältigen. Doch zugleich gibt es neue Gefahren für die Gesundheit.

Bereits in der ersten Viertelstunde nach dem Aufwachen schauen fast 40 Prozent der Deutschen aufs Smartphone. Im öffentlichen Nahverkehr fühlt sich ein Buchleser wie ein digitaler Verweigerer. Doch spätestens am Arbeitsplatz schaltet auch er seinen Computer ein. Dem elektronischen Fortschritt kann sich kaum jemand entziehen.

Dabei steht eine der komplexesten Sinnesleistungen des Menschen vor einer gigantischen Herausforderung: das Sehen. Hatten die Augen Jahrmillionen Zeit, sich als hochleistungsfähige Sinnesorgane fürs Leben und Überleben zu perfektionieren, wirkt das Computerzeitalter wie ein Crashkurs auf sie: In Highspeed müssen sie mit neuen Aufgaben klarkommen.

Infografik: So viel Zeit verbringen die Deutschen täglich online | Quelle: Kuratorium Gutes Sehen e.V.

Das neue Sehen gefährdet Augen, Körper und Psyche

Arbeit und Bildung spielen sich mehr und mehr in Innenräumen ab. Die Aufmerksamkeit ist meistens stundenlang auf – zunehmend auch kleinere – Monitore gerichtet. Digitales Dauerfeuer belastet die Augen. Zusätzlich fehlt es an Tageslicht und Abwechslung. Der Blick in die Ferne kommt zu kurz. Damit nicht genug: Smartphones, Tablets oder Spielecomputer bestimmen die Freizeit. Nahsehen rund um die Uhr ist angesagt. Die Augen wehren sich mit Brennen, Rötungen, Tränen oder Trockenheit. Zudem sehen Experten weltweit die Kurzsichtigkeit auf dem Vormarsch; im Jahr 2050 könnte jeder Zweite betroffen sein. Daneben gibt es schlechte Haltungsnoten: Es schmerzen Nacken, Rücken, Schultern und Kopf. Nicht zuletzt kann es die Psyche treffen – mit Schlafproblemen, Konzentrationsstörungen oder Suchtverhalten.

Wer die Risiken kennt, kann seine Gesundheit aktiv schützen. Dazu gehört, die digitalen Geräte richtig einzusetzen und auf die Warnsignale seines Körpers zu reagieren. So führen die Vorzüge der Digitalisierung nicht zu Dauerschmerzen.

Infografik: Formen der Digitalisierung am Arbeitsplatz | Quelle: Kuratorium Gutes Sehen e.V.

Digitaler Alltag: Zahlen und Fakten

• 82 Prozent der Beschäftigten in Deutschland sind von der Digitalisierung am Arbeitsplatz betroffen.
• Neun von zehn Deutschen ab 14 Jahren nutzten 2017 das Internet – etwa ein Drittel mehr als noch zehn Jahre zuvor.
• 50,2 Millionen Menschen ab 14 Jahren sind hierzulande täglich online.
• Vier von fünf Deutschen ab 14 Jahren nutzen ein Smartphone.
• Drei Viertel der Gamer ab 14 Jahren spielen mobil auf Laptop oder Smartphone.
• Sieben von zehn VR-Anwendern nutzen die Möglichkeiten der virtuellen Realität für Computer- und Videospiele.
• Mehr als ein Drittel der Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen in Deutschland sind kurzsichtig.
• 40,8 Millionen erwachsene Deutsche – das sind zwei Drittel der Ü16-Jährigen – tragen immer oder gelegentlich eine Brille. Hinzu kommen 2,8 Millionen Kontaktlinsenträger.
• Eine Million mehr ständige Brillenträger als noch drei Jahre zuvor gab es 2017 in Deutschland. Das größte Plus verzeichneten die 20- bis 44-Jährigen, die besonders viel Zeit mit Computer, Tablet und Smartphone verbringen.
• 40 Prozent der gelegentlichen Brillenträger brauchen ihre Brille für das Sehen auf Bildschirme.

Digitale Aufrüstung

Büros und Arbeitszimmer in Deutschland waren im Jahr 2010 mit 26,5 Millionen PCs und anderen Computern ausgestattet. Für das Jahr 2020 werden 37,5 Millionen prognostiziert.

Bildungseinrichtungen sollen die Lernenden fit für die Zukunft machen. Dazu gehören digitale Kompetenzen mit digitaler Technik und digitalen Medien. Deutschland fehlt hier an jeder Stelle noch ein ganzes Stück zur Weltspitze. Deshalb sollen bis 2021 alle Schüler eine digitale Lernumgebung und einen Internetzugang haben.

Smartphones, schon jetzt Allrounder, werden weiter aufgerüstet. Augmented Reality (AR) und Virtual Reality (VR) sind Beispiele für neue Smartphone-Funktionen.

Virtual Reality (VR) und Augmented Reality (AR) besitzen gewaltiges Potenzial bei der Präsentation und dem Erleben von Marken und Produkten sowie im Dialog mit Kunden. Visualisierung, Trainings oder Kooperationen via Datenhelm (Head Mounted Display, HMD) machen Arbeitsprozesse effizienter. Im Jahr 2020 werden deutsche Firmen rund 840 Millionen Euro in solche technischen Lösungen investieren.

Infografik: Mobile Nutzung des Internets | Quelle: Kuratorium Gutes Sehen e.V.

Digitales Sehen – Belastung für den Menschen

Die Digitalisierung verändert nicht nur das Arbeits- und Freizeitverhalten, sie beeinflusst auch die Vorgänge im menschlichen Organismus. Und sie hinterlässt Spuren. So spricht die Fachwelt von Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS), Office Eye Syndrome, digitalem Sehstress. Viele Namen für die gleichen Beschwerden: vor allem Augenprobleme, aber auch Kopf-, Nacken- und Schulterschmerzen.

Betroffen sind Menschen, die länger auf Monitore und Displays schauen. Sieben von zehn Bildschirmnutzern sollen bereits CVS-Symptome aufweisen. Ebenso belasten 3D-Effekte, virtuelle und erweiterte Realitäten die Augen und den Körper. Es trifft Normalsichtige genauso wie Menschen mit Sehfehlern, Kinder ebenso wie Erwachsene.

Stress für die Augen durch Monitore

Bildschirme verordnen den Augen Monotonie: permanentes Nahsehen, starre Sicht auf eine kleine Fläche, wenig Augenbewegungen. Der Blick wechselt lediglich über kurze Distanzen, etwa zwischen Monitor und Tastatur. Dieses unnatürliche Verharren ist für die Augen extrem anstrengend.

Die Folgen:

• trockene, schmerzende, brennende, juckende, gerötete, entzündete, müde Augen,
• Probleme bei der Umstellung von Nah- auf Weitsicht,
• verschwommenes und schleierhaftes Sehen, 
• Doppelbilder, 
• Lichtempfindlichkeit,
• Probleme mit der Farbwahrnehmung.

Infografik: Besser mit Bildschirmbrille | Quelle: Kuratorium Gutes Sehen e.V.

Stress für den Körper durch digitale Technik

Kopfschmerzen, Verspannungen und Schmerzen in Nacken, Schultern, Rücken, Armen, Handgelenken und Fingern, auch Müdigkeit, Übelkeit, Schwindel – über diese Symptome klagen immer mehr Menschen. Ein Schuldiger für die Beschwerden ist längst ausgemacht: die intensive Nutzung digitaler Technik.

Gesund durch das digitale Leben

Für entspanntes digitales Sehen müssen die Augen gut funktionieren. Sehtests sollten daher in jedem Alter selbstverständlich sein. Spezielle Sehhilfen erleichtern den Blick auf Bildschirm, Smartphone und Co. Optimal gestaltete Computerarbeitsplätze beugen digitalem Sehstress vor.

Bildschirmbrillen

Vor allem Alterssichtigen, ausgestattet für den Alltag mit einer Allround-Gleitsichtbrille, bringen spezielle Bildschirmbrillen besonderen Sehkomfort in den mittleren und kurzen Entfernungen. Das ist der Sehabstand zum Monitor, der zwischen 50 und 100 Zentimetern liegt.

Brillen für Smartphone & Co.

Damit unter 40-Jährige, die noch nicht alterssichtig sind, entspannt auf digitale Endgeräte schauen können, gibt es für sie Brillengläser mit einer leichten Nahunterstützung (Low Addpower).

Optimierte Arbeitsplätze

Für rund 70 Prozent der Beschäftigten sind Computer, Laptops und Tablets immer oder häufig Teil des Berufsalltags. Zur digitalen Gesundheit gehört daher ein ergonomisch eingerichteter Computerarbeitsplatz.

---

Presse-Themenservice "Digitales Sehen"

PDF-Download

Download – Presse-Themenservice Digitales Sehen (PDF, 2,8 MB)

Inhaltsverzeichnis

 

• Digitale Sehwelten – Alltag, Gefahren, Trends
  • Digitaler Alltag: Zahlen und Fakten
  • Digitale Aufrüstung
• Digitales Sehen – Belastung für den Menschen
  • Monitor, 3D, VR, AR:
  • Das passiert mit den Augen
  • Moderne Technik, neue Handicaps:
  • Das passiert mit dem Körper
  • Digitaler Dauerbetrieb:
  • Das passiert mit der Psyche
• Gesund durch das digitale Leben
  • Regelmäßige Vorsorge
  • Passende Brillen
  • Optimierte Arbeitsplätze
  • Mehr Bewegung

Pressetexte

Download – Pressetexte Digitales Sehen: Fortschritt mit Risiken und Chancen (Word- und PDF-Dokumente)

Infografiken

Download – Infografiken Digitales Sehen: Fortschritt mit Risiken und Chancen (Print- und Web-Versionen)

 

Discovers screen time is bad for your eyes. Uses 1,100 word digital article to tell you.

 

Spoiler

 

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, Pangea2017 said:

where? do you have a link?

There is no study, it's a marketing press release. OP just wrote a fake headline, and the mods condone that kind of misinformation.

[Castdeath97]

12 hours ago, Sakkura said:

There is no study, it's a marketing press release. OP just wrote a fake headline, and the mods condone that kind of misinformation.

What are they marketing? Can't read German so I'm completely lost here. Is there any German speakers here that can explain to me an what is this? Most of the replies here are "We know this duh" which is annoying for anyone who wants to actually know what they are looking at.

[Amazonsucks]

On 6/30/2018 at 8:36 AM, Misanthrope said:

That's kind of the issue.

 

Don't get me wrong what you describe is good health advise. Yet we're more and more reliant on technology for everything in hour lives most people with an average office job can't get away from a screen long enough: Ask them not to use a tablet or watch TV on their free time would be kind of unreasonable so much of our culture, our social life, etc. Revolves around screens.

 

I'm afraid the only realistic solution is to improve screen tech to be more friendly to our eyes.

It used to be better for the eyes  WLED backlighting and stupid "energy efficient" CFL and LED bulbs kill your eyes. Which is why i stockpile incandescent bulbs and only use them for lighting my home.

 

Older TVs and monitors that used CCFL or RGB LED backlights had a better spectral power distribution not only for colour accuracy but for eye health as well. OLEDs, QLEDS and microLEDs are reversing the garbage backlight trend of the last decade.

 

On 6/30/2018 at 9:18 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

Blue light from fluorescent and LED lights?

Specifically a phenomenon known as rhodopsin mediated photo reversal. It is wavelength dependent(not intensity!) so even very low intensity bluish light can cause significantly more eye damage than bright sunlight.

 

On 7/1/2018 at 1:37 AM, Froody129 said:

Odd, I find TNs to be worse almost. I manually turned down the blue pm my MG278Q and all my devices are as yellow as they can go. TN panels are often worse for me but my MG278Q and the super crappy ones I use do have a blue bias 

It has nothing to do with the panel type. It has to do with the switch from CCFL and RGB LED backlights around 2010 to cheap garbage WLED(a blue LED with a Stokes shift phosphor) that makes screens blue now.

 

The highest end monitors(Dolby, Canon, Sony BVM) are OLED or RGB LED backlit to this day.

 

Also keep in mind that the CCT of mid day direct sunlight is ~5500K and the white point for most TV, phone and computers colour gamuts is D65 or 6500K.

 

Also keep in mind that very rarely do you get a properly calibrated D65 screen, with WLED screens being more like 7000-8000K, which is insanely blue.

 

For anyone interested in mitigating the eye damage without yellow glasses and generally improving eye health, they should avoid blue light(use incandescemt bulbs, have a warm coloured bias light in the room, use a low blue light mode like warm which monitors have always had in the OSD menu). You can also increase your macular pigment optical density by eating foods rich in the macular carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin. Some examples of food with a lot of those compounds are orange and red bell peppers, paprika, saffron, romaine lettuce, egg yolks. Like all carotenoids, they require fat for absorption since they are lipophillic.

[Zodiark1593]

6 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

 

Specifically a phenomenon known as rhodopsin mediated photo reversal. It is wavelength dependent(not intensity!) so even very low intensity bluish light can cause significantly more eye damage than bright sunlight.

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11157889/

 

According to the above source, the study was conducted using a 403nm LED light source. We can percieve down to about 390nm (which wensee as deep violet), of which I do have a light source for, and can attest that it is quite harsh on the eye. However, most displays use LEDs that are about 450nm.

 

It should also be noted that lighting sources such as CFL and Metal Halide   mercury-vapor produce large amounts of UV light. In a CFL bulb, much of this is converted to longer wavelength light through use of the phosphor coating.

[TacoSenpai]

On 6/30/2018 at 8:36 AM, Misanthrope said:

That's kind of the issue.

 

Don't get me wrong what you describe is good health advise. Yet we're more and more reliant on technology for everything in hour lives most people with an average office job can't get away from a screen long enough: Ask them not to use a tablet or watch TV on their free time would be kind of unreasonable so much of our culture, our social life, etc. Revolves around screens.

 

I'm afraid the only realistic solution is to improve screen tech to be more friendly to our eyes.

That's one thing man.  One of the best things I did is even when I can't get away from my front desk is to just make an effort every hour to stand for 10 minutes bend the knees and rotate the neck.  That alone made a huge difference and I'm all for offices putting in Varidesks and standing desks.  Might not help the screen issue but certainly helps alot of the other stuff.

[Amazonsucks]

49 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11157889/

 

According to the above source, the study was conducted using a 403nm LED light source. We can percieve down to about 390nm (which wensee as deep violet), of which I do have a light source for, and can attest that it is quite harsh on the eye. However, most displays use LEDs that are about 450nm.

 

It should also be noted that lighting sources such as CFL and Metal Halide   mercury-vapor produce large amounts of UV light. In a CFL bulb, much of this is converted to longer wavelength light through use of the phosphor coating.

Except that damage to the retinal pigment epithelium caused by blue light with wavelengths shorter than about 450nm(and even longer will suppress melatonin secretion via the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, which leads to sleep disruption and low melatonin, which can lead to things like cancer) still happens due to the spectral power distribution of LEDs and CFLs with high CCTs(correlated colour temperature).

 

You may have googled the term rhodopsin mediated photo reversal and think thats all there is to it, but its not. Light with a spectral power distribution that has a strong blue(short wavelength) component without longer wavelengths causes damage through increased reactive oxygen species production in the retinal pigment epithelium, which happens to be the most metabolically active tissue in the human body btw. 
The other issue is that your eye can adapt to light intensity well, both physically and chemically.

 

However, since strong blue light sources do not exist anywhere in nature on Earth, we didn't evolve to deal with them. The spectral power distribution of sunlight at sea level on Earth has quite a bit of medium and long wavelength(green to red part of the visible spectrum) light in it. It doesn't cause the rhodopsin mediated photo reversal or increased reactive oxygen species(also known as free radical) production, that a light source with a strong blue component does(like a phone screen or cheap monitor with WLED backlight). Before you say that the sky is very blue, the overall CCT of daylight is 5500K which is very yellow.

 

And keep in mind, I am not talking to UV or near UV light. I am talking about perfectly visible blue light, like the kind produced by blue LEDs. UV light does damage the eye, but it damages the front of the eye since its readily absorbed by the tissue and causes occlusion of the lens(cataracts). Blue light passes through the lens and damages the irreplaceable(you can get fake lenses implanted in your eyes) retinal pigment epithelial cells that you actually see with. Look more into it(pun intended) and you'll get what I mean.

 

Also, single envelope CFL bulbs produce plenty of UV and also have terrible colour rendering.

[Sakkura]

12 hours ago, Castdeath97 said:

What are they marketing? Can't read German so I'm completely lost here. Is there any German speakers here that can explain to me an what is this? Most of the replies here are "We know this duh" which is annoying for anyone who wants to actually know what they are looking at.

Probably just their NGO, so they can get more revenue.

 

Unless they've got a backroom deal with a manufacturer of these glasses that are supposed to filter blue light.

2 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

Except that damage to the retinal pigment epithelium caused by blue light with wavelengths shorter than about 450nm(and even longer will suppress melatonin secretion via the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, which leads to sleep disruption and low melatonin, which can lead to things like cancer) still happens due to the spectral power distribution of LEDs and CFLs with high CCTs(correlated colour temperature).

 

You may have googled the term rhodopsin mediated photo reversal and think thats all there is to it, but its not. Light with a spectral power distribution that has a strong blue(short wavelength) component without longer wavelengths causes damage through increased reactive oxygen species production in the retinal pigment epithelium, which happens to be the most metabolically active tissue in the human body btw. 
The other issue is that your eye can adapt to light intensity well, both physically and chemically.

 

However, since strong blue light sources do not exist anywhere in nature on Earth, we didn't evolve to deal with them. The spectral power distribution of sunlight at sea level on Earth has quite a bit of medium and long wavelength(green to red part of the visible spectrum) light in it. It doesn't cause the rhodopsin mediated photo reversal or increased reactive oxygen species(also known as free radical) production, that a light source with a strong blue component does(like a phone screen or cheap monitor with WLED backlight). Before you say that the sky is very blue, the overall CCT of daylight is 5500K which is very yellow.

 

And keep in mind, I am not talking to UV or near UV light. I am talking about perfectly visible blue light, like the kind produced by blue LEDs. UV light does damage the eye, but it damages the front of the eye since its readily absorbed by the tissue and causes occlusion of the lens(cataracts). Blue light passes through the lens and damages the irreplaceable(you can get fake lenses implanted in your eyes) retinal pigment epithelial cells that you actually see with. Look more into it(pun intended) and you'll get what I mean.

 

Also, single envelope CFL bulbs produce plenty of UV and also have terrible colour rendering.

There is little scientific evidence that blue light damages the eye. It can mess with the circadian rhythm though, which can have its own slew of negative effects.

 

As for the color temperature of daylight, that's irrelevant to the color temperature of the blue sky, as the blue sky is not the only light source. The blue sky typically has a color temperature of over 9000K. So yeah, the blue sky should be bad if blue light is bad.

 

https://uab.edu/news/youcanuse/item/7258-debunking-digital-eyestrain-and-blue-light-myths

 

Quote

There is some early laboratory research using animal models that suggests excessive blue light exposure can damage some sensitive cell layers of the retina. There is no clinical evidence at the present time that links blue light exposure from digital devices to any pathology or disease of the eye.

 

“Some advertisements from lens manufacturers are misleading consumers to believe that blue light from digital devices will cause serious harm to their eyes,” Gordon said. “Products created to block out blue light minimize eyestrain when using computers and digital devices, but have not been tested or shown to prevent any type of eye disease.”

 

Macular degeneration and other eye diseases in relation to blue light is the great unknown. The main risk factors for these eye diseases are age, genetic factors, UV light, smoking and poor nutrition more than digital device use.

 

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/should-you-be-worried-about-blue-light

 

Quote

The bottom line, Dr. Khurana says, is that taking preventive measures against blue light even though there is no evidence of damage could be more harmful than the blue light itself. “It’s premature to take preventative action against blue light—there could be unintended consequences,” he says.

 

[Amazonsucks]

Wow thats actually pretty hilarious. Little scientific evidence? First, there is plenty of evidence that blue light is damaging to the human eye.

 

Secondly, if you actually bothered to read what i said, youd notice that its the spectral power distribution of the light entering the eye, and even with a perfectly clear blue sky that is about 5500K at sea level through Earths atmosphere. I also said that sunlight doesnt cause these issues, although too much sunlight and therefore UV exposure can cause cataracts.

 

You can debunk the debunkers pretty easily without even going into any complex biochemistry like rhodopsin mediated photo reversal. Just ask them why doctors have been using blue LEDs on skin infections for years now. Hint: its  got to do with the same ROS that kill your retinal pigment epithelial cells. And thats what does damage in addition to rhodopsin mediated photo reversal; the strong blue SPD light sources cause increased reactive oxygen species production in the retina, which is also well established in medical literature and not "currently under research" or some other nonsense.

 

And actually blue light is essential to overall health precisely because our intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells stop melatonin secretion and make us feel awake when there is blue light in the spectrum. If you notice, the SPD of sunlight changes from very red in the morning, to a yellowish white 5500K in the day, then back to red at sunset. We evolved to be diurnal and our circadian rythm is entrained by the blue light component of sunlight.

 

However, strongly blue light sources dont exist in nature on Earth, and sunlight does not approach the blue peak in SPD of high CCT LEDs. So what that guy is saying is only half true: you dont need to avoid sunlight, but you do need to avoid artificial light sources with a strongly blue SPD. But i already said sunlight was good.

 

The unintended consequence to completely avoiding blue light all the time(such as purposely avoiding daylight) would actually be "non 24", which is also well documented in medical literature.

 

And if youd like to purposely damage your eyes with blue light, cumulatively especially, you could take a colour acuity test now, then expose yourself to blue lights for a while, take the test again and get the results for yourself. Alternately, if your colour acuity is shot already like many adults these days you could increase your macular pigment optical density dietarily and see how much it improves from month to month. I did the latter myself beginning four years ago. Made a huge difference.