LED Light Can Damage Eyes, Health Authority Warns (yahoo.com) 174
The "blue light" in LED lighting can damage the eye's retina and disturb natural sleep rhythms, France's government-run health watchdog said this week. From a report: New findings confirm earlier concerns that "exposure to an intense and powerful [LED] light is 'photo-toxic' and can lead to irreversible loss of retinal cells and diminished sharpness of vision," the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) warned in a statement. The agency recommended in a 400-page report that the maximum limit for acute exposure be revised, even if such levels are rarely met in home or work environments.
The report distinguished between acute exposure of high-intensity LED light, and "chronic exposure" to lower intensity sources. While less dangerous, even chronic exposure can "accelerate the ageing of retinal tissue, contributing to a decline in visual acuity and certain degenerative diseases such as age-related macular degeneration," the agency concluded. Long-lasting, energy efficient and inexpensive, light-emitting diode (LED) technology has gobbled up half of the general lighting market in a decade, and will top 60 percent by the end of next year, according to industry projections.
The report distinguished between acute exposure of high-intensity LED light, and "chronic exposure" to lower intensity sources. While less dangerous, even chronic exposure can "accelerate the ageing of retinal tissue, contributing to a decline in visual acuity and certain degenerative diseases such as age-related macular degeneration," the agency concluded. Long-lasting, energy efficient and inexpensive, light-emitting diode (LED) technology has gobbled up half of the general lighting market in a decade, and will top 60 percent by the end of next year, according to industry projections.
Is this news? (Score:2)
They are basically saying "shining high intensity lights into your eyes is bad". Well no shit.
Re:Is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Add this to the "no shit, sherlock" pile:
ANSES also said that manufacturers should "limit the luminous intensity of vehicle headlights," some of which are too bright.
I drive a lot and at first I thought it was "just" my eyes going as I got older, but the friggin arms race is ridiculous "Oh I can't see the road because the oncoming lights are too bright... I know... I'll get brighter lights!" Sofa king wii todd ed.
Re: (Score:2)
The arms race eventually reaches its natural conclusion when everyone starts wearing sunglasses for night driving with their high beams on.
Re: Is this news? (Score:2)
And here comes the Blues Brothers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Janky automatic high beams are also to blame. Some newer cars have a system where the high beams can cut out automatically when there is another car nearby, but they don't work very well and often end up blinding the other driver.
Re: (Score:2)
They've fixed that in newer vehicles; they auto-dim perfectly fine. The problem I have is not that my auto-dimmers don't work (they are better than me, they never forget to dim in the face of oncoming traffic, or when I'm passed), but that the low beams are too bright. The low beams on both of my cars appear to be aimed properly, but the odd person still flashes their brights at me, indicating that my low beams are so bright that they think I have them on high.
LED Lighting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tallow is an animal product, you monster!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, if you say something macho within 5 seconds, the cancer can't see you.
American Opthalmology Academy begs to differ (Score:4, Interesting)
No, Blue Light From Your Smartphone is Not Blinding You:
https://www.aao.org/eye-health... [aao.org]
Should You Be Worried About Blue Light:
https://www.aao.org/eye-health... [aao.org]
apples and tomatos (Score:5, Informative)
That AOA referenced study was based on Toledo U affects of blue light on retinol, not live eyeballs, so that's why the AOA doctor could correclty say there was no reason based on study to say "phone was blinding you"
This French study is saying a different thing, one thing it is stating is that high intensity sources such as LED lighting (not screens) did cause damage to living eyes.
But it also said chronic exposure to low intensity sources like monitors and phones didn't cause damage but disturbed body rhythms, caused eyestrain, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Lasers and the Sun might cause eye fatigue too. Let's see. Hmmm, nope my eye isn't tired. Can't see a damn thing but definitely no fatigue.
Its not the porn causing you to go blind (Score:5, Insightful)
Its the porn you’re watching on your led tablet screen that is causing you to go blind.
Re: Its not the porn causing you to go blind (Score:2)
Avatar, the Porn Edition. Now there is an idea for James Cameron
Why single out LED light? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would a laser or filtered incandescent or fluorescent source of the same wavelength not have the same effect?
Re: (Score:2)
Our ancestors were outdoors a LOT more. The ambient light and monitor intensity in your office are both far, far less intense than the sun. On the other hand, our monitors are emissive rather than reflective (like a printed page), so they have to be brighter than the ambient light. It occurs to me that you go from not looking at your screen to looking at it, thus getting extra light on your retinas until your pupils adjust, many more times than you go from inside your cave to outside in
Re: (Score:2)
Our ancestors were outdoors a LOT more.
True, but back then the life expectancy was not much above 30 years (33 years in the Paleolithic down to 26 in the Bronze and Iron ages [wikipedia.org]) so cumulative damage to eyesight from the sun was probably much less of an issue.
That being said I personally no longer believe medical claims like this until I have seen the results repeated multiple, independent times. Medical researchers concentrate far too much on correlation with only lip service paid to causation. This frequently leads to claims which are later p
Re: (Score:3)
"Life expectancy" is generally the average life expectancy, not the maximum life expectancy.
For example, right in your Wikipedia article, it says people in the Paleolithic era who lived to the age of 15 were expected to live an additional 39 years, for a total of 54 years. What skews the numbers down is that only 60% of people lived to be 15. So most adults lived to their 40's or 50's, not too far off from what we see today.
Hell, the average lifespan of medieval Islamic scholars was 59-84 years!
So in short,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Life expectancy is almost always the mean, unless otherwise stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I've gone nuts before my coffee kicks in, symmetry is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the mean to coincide with the median.
In real life, even processes commonly modelled by the normal distribution have one extreme tail (but not both) clipped at some limiting physical value (such as the lower quantity zero), which then remains formally symmetrical only in the region of concern, by squinting a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless live expectation is calculated by the mean of the age of people dying. No idea in what country you live that they use the meaningless median. Oh, I used to many Ms ... sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but back then the life expectancy was not much above 30 years ... If you survived the first 10 years, you basically lived as long as we do .... no difference, not for Bronze age, not for Stone age.
That is the statistical life expectance as you had a high chance to die during childhood, e.g. due to measles.
Ramses got 96, Ceasar was 45 when he was murdered
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Have you ever stared into a laser beam?
Re: Why single out LED light? (Score:2)
Yeah. I once took a great photo of a laser device but in the process, well
Blue light? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet another article that makes the bold claim that the blue light in our modern LEDs is harmful, but then only cites studies that say something to the effect of:
1) It's bad to stare at bright lights (of any color)
2) It's bad to stare at lights (of any color) for too long
3) Staring at lights (regardless of color) at bedtime can disrupt your circadian rhythm
4) Children and adolescents are particularly susceptible to any of the above
I have yet to see the study that will allow itself to be pinned down on the claim that blue light is empirically more harmful than any other hue of light. That said, I've seen plenty of references suggesting that blue light is getting a bad rap because it's associated with the electronics and other devices that are—through their misuse and overuse—causing the problems that people are talking about.
As an aside, I wasn't paying much attention and agreed to a blue-blocking filter on my last set of prescription glasses. I ended up having to return them. Everything looked wrong: grass was yellower, skies were duskier, and whites were creamier. It made me think I needed to water the lawn more, that sunset was arriving sooner than I realized, and that my paper supply had discolored with age. I know some people love those filters, but I don't understand the appeal at all.
Human Vision problem (Score:2)
Humans see very little blue light in our vision system; we have to compensate but also there has to be more blue light for it to equal the other two colors as far as absolute intensity. It would seem to me that we'd need more blue light to balance out with the other colors despite a natural compensation that must exist given the huge ratio between blue and green/red detection.
Really bright IR or UV will mess up your eyes quickly because you won't even know to look away until it starts to really hurt. Sunl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well I have N24 sleep–wake disorder so let me Google that for you from my warm cache.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Human vision is very poor in blue [gamesx.com]. F
Re: (Score:2)
Human vision is very poor in blue.
For fuck sake: No, No, No and again No!
We are humans: we see red, green, blue and the other colours of the "spectrum".
What the fuck is wrong with YOU and this thread in general? We don't see good beyond violet, especially when we start reaching ultra violet.
We see blue just fine as we see red or green. The colour we actually see the worst is _red_ or why do you think submarines and other crafts use red light?
From the visual spectrum blue is second best colour to see ... af
Re: (Score:2)
You were viewing the world through rose tinted glasses.
If you wore them long enough, you'd stop noticing. The brain is very good at white balancing.
So too much of a good thing is bad? (Score:2)
Who would have thought that... Thank you Captain Obvious for your blinding insight.
How could we be so blind? High intensity light can harm your eyes? And you have been looking into the light box and using the laser pointer again so you'd know...
Re: (Score:2)
How could we be so blind?
Simple: it's because we have LED lighting. QED.
Long Lasting? What Rainbow Did You Live Under? (Score:2)
There are at least 2 major cities that are sharpening their axes to go after a certain Chinese company that sold them "long life" LED streetlights.
And I know of at least 5 others that are going from LED traffic lights back to regular ones because the new ones were burning out in a handful of months.
Don't buy crap (Score:2)
I personally was living under the "don't buy cheap chinese crap" rainbow.
Until now, it has worked out successfully.
A cheap Chinese company that offers LED streetlights at a tiny fraction of the price that normal brands (who offer 10-years warranty) charge?
What were you expecting ?!?
It's a miracle that the same no-name company still exists to be sued in the first place.
Uh... wow. Exaggerate much? (Score:2)
Yes, the impact of blue light on sleep patterns is well researched and heavily publicized, but contrary to this article's hype, there is no actual indication that blue photons are generally more harmful to the retina than the same intensity of photons at any other visible frequency, to the extent that the eyes are naturally more sensitive to some frequencies of light than others in the first place.
There may be some evidence that higher visible frequencies may affect lens development in children, as
Computer Monitors (Score:3)
What about this computer monitor that I stare at all day long.
I know it is LED backlit or something similar.
But I should be fine, right?
I turned off all blue in the color pallet just in case.
Should I wear a welders helmet?
Re: (Score:2)
You could use a welders helmet, it is a lot cheaper than a space helmet with a gold filter.
Or you could set your monitor to monochrome green. Probably easier.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'm having trouble reading what you wrote...maybe it's my LED monitor!
Day of the Triffids (Score:2)
LED light is so pervasive today that if there anything to this, we would all be feeling our way around everywhere by now. But I call merde des taureaux on this report, because no actual pattern of visual decay would escape the diamond eyes of our own FDA.
It was a good idea for a while (Score:3)
LEDs hurt (Score:2)
I bought several hundred incandescent bulbs for this reason and have a good energy-efficiency program: I turn off the lights when I leave the room.
It's sad most people think LEDs are good enough and research to improve incandescent efficiency seems to have been abandoned.
Re: (Score:2)
It hurts to stare at because it's bright.
As for your energy efficiency your single incandescent bulb consumes as much power as approx half my houses entire lighting system (based on a 60w bulb). In my office I have 3 x 6500k LED downlights and it feels like I'm sitting outside the colour and the brightness is that nice. The idea of going back to that horrible yellow colour gives me shudders.
Re: (Score:2)
6500k light can look good... but ONLY if it's comparable in brightness to daylight, and has a high CRI (including the extended part, esp. R9).
Dim 6500k light feels "creepy", the same way the dim light that makes its way into a dark cave at high noon feels creepy.
Dim 1800k-2200k light feels "intimate", because it's like the light from a campfire or candles.
Personally, I miss the light we used to have from a 1990s halogen torchiere. Yeah, they were furnaces & fire hazards, and a pair of 500w lights would
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad most people think LEDs are good enough and research to improve incandescent efficiency seems to have been abandoned.
LMFAO that's the funniest thing I read today.
It is sorta true, even.
But I don't think you're really going to have much luck improving the efficiency of radiant cooling. The laws of physics aren't really that easy to vary. You can certainly increase the lifespan of the filament through research. But the electrical efficiency is not going to improve. You're creating enough heat to dump out a certain number of photons. If you want more photons and less heat, you need a different type of technology.
High-efficiency incandescent (Score:2)
If you place the filament inside a bulb that is coated to reflect infrared back towards the filament and transmit visible light, you could improve the efficiency quite a bit. But it's hard to make a coating that does that and survives high temperatures.
If you coat the filament with an opaque material that is reflective for infrared and absoprtive for visible light, all thermal radiation would be visible. Again, hard to find such a material that works at high temperature. But this is how gas mantles work.
No
Re: (Score:2)
This has little to do with the laws of physics as such and everything to do with the "laws" of atomic chemistry (more properly termed theoretical regularities). Considered in the right light, your second sentence almost directly contradicts your first sentence.
If we could substantially increase the lifespan of the filament at a much higher temperature we could shift way more of the e
The Sun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why aren't we picking on the Sun?
"We" are. Thousands die every year from cancers induced by overexposure to the sun.
It's been aging our photo receptors since square one. We should either put blue light filter on the Sun or just ban it outright. It's far too bright and contains far too much blue for our frail photo receptors.
Most people know better than to look at the sun. Then again some need reminding. It's so dark outside during an eclipse how could that possibly be bad for you?
We should either put blue light filter on the Sun or just ban it outright. It's far too bright and contains far too much blue for our frail photo receptors.
The sun is a broadband emitter roughly from RF to X-ray. There are much more damaging higher frequencies (UV) in sunlight compared with blue visible light.
Part of the problem with much of the commentary there exists no substantive linkage between harmful constituent
watch your typical car dash cam video (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most smartphones these days have a slow-motion camera setting -- try that on the most stable, flicker-free LED light you can find. It's disturbing.
So use RGB and turn down the blue (Score:2)
Use RGB LEDs, turn down the blue. Problem solved. RGB LEDs are trivial to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
> Use RGB LEDs, turn down the blue. Problem solved. RGB LEDs are trivial to implement.
OK, here's an exam question: your friend is wearing a yellow t-shirt and holding a photo of a yellow balloon, standing next to a yellow Lamborghini. All three are inside a large room with walls & ceiling that are painted white, and illuminated with a combination of monochromatic red, green, and blue light so that the walls appear to be a neutral, pure white.
a) What color does your friend's T-shirt appear to be?
b) Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Your brain will adjust to the color being off. You only even notice it consciously for a little while, then you get used to it. So who cares? Besides, the so-called "white" LEDs have emission spectrum peaks and valleys, so they already do that.
Dumb Question for EE types (Score:2)
That way, things like LEDs, and potentially computers and TVs could get the DC that they actually need..
I keep telling you this (Score:2)
Nearly a decade ago when I first started developing and selling LED growing lights, I put blue light warnings on all of my equipment. The fact that it HURTS your eyes the moment you turn it on is a clue that you shouldn't be exposing yourself to it in great quantities or for prolonged periods of time. We use blue light to kill Drosophila melanogaster in growing houses across the world. That should give you a clue how dangerous it truly is.
Blue light will fuck you up in ways you cannot imagine.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't relish the idea of trying to read a 400 page report to find what they deem safe levels of exposure are.
It depends how quick a reader you are. You might get lucky and get to the end and not be blind.
Re: Wish the above summary included safe levels. (Score:2)
Most people here go blind because they get distracted by other sorts of material long before they reach the end of an article
Re:Wish the above summary included safe levels. (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't mention safe levels because 'safe levels' is pretty much anything you'd find in a home or office setting, and that's not scary. About the level of high-intensity headlamps for automobiles is where you start to get into unsafe territory.
This is the light bulb equivalent of "strawberries cause cancer". Yes, if you ate 1,000+ pounds of strawberries a day, you would ingest enough of a cancer-causing compound to increase your risk of cancer by a statistically significant amount.
Likewise, if you stare at high-intensity LED lights for extended periods of time, it can damage your eyes.
Imagine my shock.
Re:Wish the above summary included safe levels. (Score:5, Interesting)
But they're also saying chronic exposure to low levels is a problem. If that's true, then "safe levels" might be much lower
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True - however they might care about the difference between typical broad-spectrum blue lighting, and the extreme narrow-band lighting typical of LED sources. The exact molecular physics of how the eye responds to the two could well be different, even if the neurologically perceived color is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the possibility that even if the photoreceptors react identically, the rest of the cell may not. After all, our retinas are "backwards" - requiring light to pass through the living retina before it reaches the photoreceptors beneath it.
Re: (Score:2)
>They're conflating multiple issues even while stating their studies separated them.
Are they? I haven't read the study, but the summary sounded like they were distinguishing between acute permanent damage from acute exposure, and accelerated aging from chronic exposure.
> Still, the damage one might get from a TV, computer, or other LED lighting has to be compared to... you know... the damage one might get from the SKY outdoors on a sunny day.
The thing about chronic exposure problems is that they accu
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say that's a cause for concern, considering how many people around here drive with those types of headlights and have them poorly adjusted. Not uncommon for me to see my own shadow above me when someone pulls up behind. Yes, you can flip up the rear-view mirror, but that doesn't fix the side mirrors, nor oncoming traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
> Likewise, if you stare at high-intensity LED lights for extended periods of time, it can damage your eyes.
I sure with that my job did not require me to stare into a LED light for eight hours per day. Perhaps I work in an esoteric field. I develop software.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, if you stare at high-intensity LED lights for extended periods of time, it can damage your eyes. Imagine my shock.
Yes, but isn't this exactly what we are all doing right now as you read this... chronic exposure is a realistic concern, the same as the effect of low but constant noise levels on hearing loss.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason safe levels aren't mentioned is because the article is probably bullshit.
Well, at least partially.
The effects of blue light on sleep patterns is well researched and heavily publicized, and this part of the article is relatively accurate. It is the first I have ever heard of blue light affecting lens development in children, however... I cannot speak for the veracity of this particular claim.
However, to the best of my understanding, blue photons from bright white LED's are no more dangerou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point, which was apparently not clear, is that blue photons are *NOT* generally irreparably harmful to the retina... intensely bright light of any frequency is harmful, and blue is certainly not any more harmful than an equivalent intensity of photons at any other frequency.... arguably, blue photons may even be less harmful to the cones in our eyes because our eyes are less sensitive to blue photons on the first place .
Absolutely not, this belief sensitivity matters WRT prospect for damage is demonstrably false.
TFA disagrees with premise every quanta of every frequency of visible light is equally harmful. You can believe what you will about whether it is true or not. Quite irrelevant WRT my remarks which explicitly stipulated it to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
I explicitly acknowledged that the part about blue light being harmful to sleep patterns was correct.
What is not correct is that, outside of any differences that may be caused by invisible radiation, intense bright light LED's does any more (or less) irreparable harm to the retina than an equivalent amount of white light from an entirely natural source.
But the article doesn't even blame any particular invisible radiation for any damage to the retina... it lands the blame for retinal damage squarely on
Re:Should have stayed old school (Score:5, Insightful)
LED lighting sucks, its awful and has terrible lighting spectrum for people. Yeah its probably OK where you don't read or do eye specific tasks. Background and security lighting probably OK. But I went back to incandescence light bulbs because their easier on the eyes.
Not....
Look, *some* LED light bulbs, usually the cheap ones, have issues with color temperature and flicker, especially when on dimmers, but I've found that they are more than suitable and comfortable for illumination if you buy good ones and not the "Throw them off the slow boat from China" cheap no-brand-name garbage. Pay attention the color temperature, be carful to use "works with dimers" bulbs when appropriate, and stay away from the bargain basement bulbs when it's lighting someplace important and you will be fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Look, *some* LED light bulbs, usually the cheap ones, have issues with color temperature and flicker, especially when on dimmers
I have yet to find an AC-powered LED bulb that doesn't flicker at 60Hz to some degree even with no dimmer in the equation. Film it with a slow-motion camera sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to find an AC-powered LED bulb that doesn't flicker at 60Hz to some degree even with no dimmer in the equation. Film it with a slow-motion camera sometime.
You can also see the flicker when looking at a fan illuminated by the LED. The LED's flicker creates a clear pattern that makes the fan look like the blades are slowly turning forward or backward. This can happen naturally, but it's far more distinct with the LED, and two people will agree exactly on how the blades appear to move, since the effect is not an artifact of the human eye.
Re: (Score:2)
I use those 2600K non dimable retrofit filament LED bulbs from OSRAM (German brand) in my house which were released only a couple of years ago. I have used other led lights all of which had problems with flickering. In these however I do not see those issues. Of course not all of these filament LED products are of the same quality. Some of them still produce a terrible flicker due to cheap electronics.
A 60Hz flicker (cheapest rectifier p
Condenser (Score:3)
I have yet to find an AC-powered LED bulb that doesn't flicker at 60Hz to some degree
LED are fundamentally DC devices, AC-induced flicker isn't a necessity (unlike, say with CFL), it's just a result of shitty electrical design (not putting good enough condensers to damped the ripple after the rectifiying/pump-up stage). Like everybody else on this thread has said, stop buying cheap chinese crap of Amazon/eBay/Aliexpress.
Speaking of big brand name, I've had luck with most Philips I've bought and some (but not all) OSRAM.
With the new "looks like an incandescend filament [wikipedia.org]" type of LED, even the
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to find an AC-powered LED bulb that doesn't flicker at 60Hz to some degree even with no dimmer in the equation. Film it with a slow-motion camera sometime.
I have reasonably priced LED bulbs from Ikea, I have a high speed camera (RX100 IV @ 960fps), there is no flicker visible on footage.
Re: (Score:2)
Score yet another win for Ikea. Which ones did you get? They have a ton.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the ones that look like regular frosted incandescent bulbs, warm white, think they were 60W equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
I managed to find a few. They weren’t cheap. So I bought a few more of the same brand with another watt which turned out to be horrible.
Then I found a online store but is a local Danish store, they post CRI along with flicking measurement.
Finding quality LED bulbs isn’t easy. I used the recording trick as well with when I was looking at bulbs on display in the hardware store and they all failed.
I have some 12v halogen that I replaced with LEDs that had a proper CRI and replaced the transformers
Re: (Score:3)
LEDs most certainly can be "partially on", by regulating the current through them rather than operating at a fixed current (and thus fixed voltage). There are ICs that do that, e.g. the On Semiconductor CAT4016, though that is used for indicator LEDs rather than high-power illumination.
LEDs don't even have a specific "fully on" current. They are specified by their manufacturers with a maximum continuous current, but that isn't "fully on". The specifications also give a maximum pulsed current at some particu
Re: (Score:3)
I paid about $9 each for low profile LED bulbs from Satco, and they're great. Work perfect with dimmers. Consistent color temp.
And the cheap ones die fast, these are a couple years old and I'm still using 100% of them, so not sure how long they last, but I probably save money in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
I have come to like the steely look of LED lighting in the outdoor environment, and have never had a problem using LED light in the home - and I have sensitive eyes. When I do encounter incandescent today, it looks weird and orangey by comparison. Fluorescents give everything that dead-fish appearance.
The writer of that report needs to adjust his white balance slider.
Re: (Score:2)
I have come to like the steely look of LED lighting in the outdoor environment,........ When I do encounter incandescent today, it looks weird and orangey by comparison.
For outdoors I think the bright white is better. Street lighting and outdoor venues seem better to me with a clean/hard white illumination.
As for indoors, yeah, I notice the same thing- incandescents seem to make everything kind orange and a little fuzzy or indistinct. But at the same time, a bright white color is hard on my eyes for reading.
I'm thinking of mixing the two to see if I can get a happy medium. Unfortunately, a lot of my fixtures have only one socket for a bulb so I'm kind of stuck.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not buy warmer LEDs? There are a ton of options at this point. Hell, there are even sweet looking oldschool filament LED bulbs now: https://www.lightings.lighting... [www.lightings.lighting]
Bulb temperature options are at the top. I got mine from Amazon.
Re: Should have stayed old school (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The writer of that report needs to adjust his white balance slider.
The report doesn't focus mainly on the appearance, attractiveness, cheapness or convenience of LEDs. It alleges that they cause subtle, slow-acting, accumulative damage to the retina over years - possibly many years in the case of low levels of exposure.
I wonder how old most of the commenters here are. If you're in your 20s or 30s, you may not have had time yet to notice any effect. And even when it does become impossible to overlook, there are many other potential causes - if you don't just ascribe it to "
Re: (Score:2)
There's no link to the actual report, but from what the article says the report has concluded that there is evidence that staring at very bright blue LEDs can be bad for you. Shocker.
Apparently the report also suggests that there might be effects from chronic exposure to lower levels, but, unlike the other claim, the article doesn't mention if there's actually any evidence for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember the screen you are looking at right now is LED. It is either OLED/AMOLED, so directly LEDs for each subpixel, or it is a LCD scree with LED back lighting. If these issues are as they claim, literally every computer user in the world would be fucked.
Chronic injury causes long-term problems (Score:2, Interesting)
LED backlights haven't been around long enough to cause much trouble yet, so let me fix that for you:
>...literally every computer user in the world is going to be fucked.
Wikipedia says the first LED backlit TV came out in 2004, the first laptop in 2005, monitors were probably around the same time frame. So 14 years, with a not-inconsiderable price premium early on. Call it maybe 10 years since they became really common in the market, and I wouldn't necessarily bet that they're the majority of in-use sc
Re: (Score:3)
Just remember the screen you are looking at right now is LED.
It is either OLED/AMOLED, so directly LEDs for each subpixel, or it is a LCD scree with LED back lighting. If these issues are as they claim, literally every computer user in the world would be fucked.
What matters is the constituents of the output spectrum not the technology. LED lighting that has been filtered, uses remote phosphors or is not based on crummy white LEDs don't have this problem.
The issue is you turn on a cheap white LED bulb with a certain apparent temperature and brightness there is a massive blue spike in the spectrum while other forms of lighting including slightly more expensive LED lighting has less than half the blue for the same apparent temperature and brightness.
Re: (Score:2)
Why has this AC been modded down to -1 when all he has done is to agree with the article, and add his own experience?
Meanwhile bobbied has been modded up to 5 for saying, essentially, "Nothing to worry about here, folks! Carry on using your nice cheap convenient LEDs".
Consider that sometimes the bearers of bad news might be right - to some extent at least. Or do you think that the French government's 400-page report contains no actual evidence?