Sorry, that did something funny.

http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v30/n2/full/eye2015261a.html

You can only get the abstract unless you pay, but it’s probably all you need. Don’t pay extra for protective coatings etc on your glasses.

buffy said:

Sorry, that did something funny.

http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v30/n2/full/eye2015261a.html

You can only get the abstract unless you pay, but it’s probably all you need. Don’t pay extra for protective coatings etc on your glasses.

phew

(Not that I had any inkling that others were concerned, nor that I should be. I’m glad they were, and that the result of their concern was to not be concerned.)

:)

Michael V said:

buffy said:

Sorry, that did something funny.

http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v30/n2/full/eye2015261a.html

You can only get the abstract unless you pay, but it’s probably all you need. Don’t pay extra for protective coatings etc on your glasses.

phew

(Not that I had any inkling that others were concerned, nor that I should be. I’m glad they were, and that the result of their concern was to not be concerned.)

:)

There is money to be made in coatings. But I’m not a cynic…

;)

buffy said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

Sorry, that did something funny.

http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v30/n2/full/eye2015261a.html

You can only get the abstract unless you pay, but it’s probably all you need. Don’t pay extra for protective coatings etc on your glasses.

phew

(Not that I had any inkling that others were concerned, nor that I should be. I’m glad they were, and that the result of their concern was to not be concerned.)

:)

There is money to be made in coatings. But I’m not a cynic…

;)

The customer is always right, apparently…

buffy said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

Sorry, that did something funny.

http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v30/n2/full/eye2015261a.html

You can only get the abstract unless you pay, but it’s probably all you need. Don’t pay extra for protective coatings etc on your glasses.

phew

(Not that I had any inkling that others were concerned, nor that I should be. I’m glad they were, and that the result of their concern was to not be concerned.)

:)

There is money to be made in coatings. But I’m not a cynic…

;)

I was thoroughly ripped off with extras for coatings and fancy frames last time I got some new glasses.

Short term thinking on their part. I won’t be going back there, and neither will any of my family.

Michael V said:

The customer is always right, apparently…

No they fucking are not.

Divine Angel said:

Michael V said:

The customer is always right, apparently…

No they fucking are not.

Gee whiz. I was only quoting the old adage, with an “apparently”, added to show where I stand.

Soap, mouth!

I’m sorry.

Divine Angel said:

I’m sorry.

don’t be sorry, be quiet!

Divine Angel said:

I’m sorry.

giggle

I FINALLY found a shop selling rose-coloured sunglasses today, a sporting goods store, they are unavailable from optometrists. But at $60 a pair (and ill-fitting) I’m not going to be buying them yet. I did check, and through the rose-coloured glasses for the first time in my life I can see “red” objects clearly, through the glasses the colour “red” jumps out from the background colours in the way that normal-sighted people often try to explain to me.

From abstract:

“The introduction of low energy lighting and the widespread use of computer and mobile technologies have changed the exposure of human eyes to light. Occasional claims that the light sources with emissions containing blue light may cause eye damage raise concerns in the media. The aim of the study was to determine if it was appropriate to issue advice on the public health concerns. A number of sources were assessed and the exposure conditions were compared with international exposure limits, and the exposure likely to be received from staring at a blue sky. None of the sources assessed approached the exposure limits, even for extended viewing times.”

The problem with “low-energy lighting and widespread use of computer and mobile technologies” has nothing to do with the “blue light hazard”. To explain in four points:

1. “Blue blocker” glasses are used solely by sportsmen, where they are particularly good for easing eyestrain in brightly-lit areas involving reflections off water and snow.

2. The problem with “low-energy lighting and widespread use of computer and mobile technologies” is the flicker. These technologies introduce a high-speed flicker into the lighting source which is supposedly undetectable but results in higher levels of brain metabolism when compared to the same images presented at the same light levels with a non-flickering display. A result is a difficulty looking away from these lights, and in some cases addiction.

3. The problem with blue as it relates to “low-energy lighting and widespread use of computer and mobile technologies” is that it can supposedly upset the circadian rhythm if viewed at night. Sop I have my colour balance on the computer screen set as yellow as settings will allow.

4. In open-air settings, blue van be a signpost for ultra-violet, which can be damaging. The wavelengths involved tend to be 300 to 370 nm, which are beyond the wavelength range of ALL low-energy lighting, even including those with an ultraviolet component such as bug-zappers and black-light party lights.

To summarise:

The article doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

I think you will find those researchers do actually know quite a bit about what they are talking about.

that’sn’t what ‘e said
it’s the article, what does it know,

Have just bought one of those LED lights for the back room. Gives me a choice of warm or cool lighting. It’s brighter than the quoted lumens would suggest (or my previous CFL was duller, or both).

I’m finding the light extremely distracting. Why?

mollwollfumble said:

Have just bought one of those LED lights for the back room. Gives me a choice of warm or cool lighting. It’s brighter than the quoted lumens would suggest (or my previous CFL was duller, or both).

I’m finding the light extremely distracting. Why?

probably because it’s more directional ?

the wavelength is narrower than other lighting and it can tend towards the blue end of the spectrum rather than the yellow end

there could be a problem with pulse width modulation , power can be fed into the led in pulses rather than a continuous analog fashion causing a strobing effect

maybe you should use more of them but use them do their light output falls on a surface first to help spread the light around the room

our eyes get tired when using conventional lighting techniques because of the difference in lighting levels around the room , reading a book in a dark room with the pages illuminated by a single light trained on the book will tire your eyes faster