The current warms the filament while also producing light. A typical dimmer reduces the current, which generates a little less light, but does not stop the incandescent from working. The LED bulbs are working differently, they don't produce heat while consuming energy, only light. I am using only leds in my house, because they are much safer in my opinion, plus they consume less energy. With this smart bulb which I got from amazon, https://www.amazon.com/smart-light-bulb-bulbs-color/dp/B0922Q43LY/I can change the color however I want, and not worry about the light's warmth.

I also prefer night driving get-vidmateapp.com
get-mobdroapk.com

@herf said in Would it be possible to add a colder temperature during the day? slope game:

Hi - from a color perspective, on our PC build at least - you can do "use wider slider ranges" and get more "blue" than normal during the day.

I should mention that the way we do this is by removing green and red, and so while there is more blue in a relative sense, it is hard to increase it overall. So this might not work as well as seeing more actual blue skies. But you are welcome to try.

I'll be following !

This study is widely discredited - here is one followup so you can see the difference between ocular (eye) exposure and extraocular (behind the knee):

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-pdf/83/9/3369/9231826/jcem3369.pdf

There are indeed visual opsins in the skin, but many of them do not have access to a chromophore, so they don't activate to a neural pathway like those in the eye. There are some potential links with subcutaneous fat in recent experiments, but only in albino mice, and there is no consensus on it yet.

Thanks, herf,

Your reply somewhat supports what I was suspecting -- that what I actually need might be more like the 'Inverse' of the Ease of Use and Accessibility filters.

I will go and look at the resources that you've pointed to.

Thanks,

We have had this in the past, but we have turned it off in recent versions. Curious what you would like to see here?

Our reasoning is that people tend to experience a circadian delay from weekend sleep (likely from sleeping in and not seeing light in the morning), but we didn't necessarily want to make Mondays even worse by pushing them later using a screen. So we have tried to keep things on a more consistent schedule.

We also have a custom version (not public) that has 7 day of week scheduling and things like this but it's more for people who do rotating shift work, not people who want to wake up at the same time on Friday and Monday.

Working late nights at the computer can cause severe disease. It disrupts the circadian rhythm, so an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

We think there's no replacement for daylight, or high levels of ambient light. The screen can only do so much. So if you can spend an hour near a window or outdoors that is a good idea.

I would worry the most about creating contrast between day and night - turn off overhead/bright lights before bed and try to find more light during the day. Then adjust your screen so it isn't the brightest thing you're looking at before bed.

Just this week, there is a new publication that says in humans that the s-cone is able to suppress more melatonin than a similar source with less "blue":

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jpi.12719

But this isn't the whole point: my point in writing that post was to say that "blue" in this context is not what everyone thinks. The first thing is that MOST of the signal from the eye to the brain is from the melanopsin photopigment (which sees blue/cyan). The mouse paper (Mouland) then uses "blue/yellow" to refer to the cone color "blue" sensation in addition to melanopsin. They are basically saying, if we use the same amount of cyan and add blue or yellow, then what happens?

Thus most people can think (and I would encourage them to think), it's probably still 80% melanopsin doing the work in a lot of conditions, and for shorter durations, the only information we have in humans is: more blue is more stimulating, or it has a small effect.

As for EMF I think non-ionizing radiation interactions with leukemia+cancer (from powerlines, wi-fi, cell phones etc) is probably unproven, mainly because most of the studies are association studies. This means to me that light/sound/etc. could be correlated with those exposures, and the early work on childhood leukemia did not take a nuanced view of light exposure and other factors into account. So if you have a powerline near your bedroom window, you likely have a street lamp also. We should skeptically ask if the light exposure or the EMF is having a bigger effect:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet

However, here is a recent study about holding a cellphone next to your head, which I wonder about: https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/27/cellphone-study-explainer/

@WhiteOleander said in "Blue light thing" debunked:

So, bottom line - true, blue light might not be an issue for some people.

Age-related macular degeneration could potentially be an issue for everyone given a bright enough monitor and enough decades of using it!

Not a single mention of blue light and age-related macular degeneration - this is what people should be most worried about in my opinion.

My current computer monitor has a rather large 32" display, with a light output of 400 NITS.

When looking at an all-white page, such as the Google homepage or a Word document, you can really feel the intensity of the light hitting you (and you can feel your eyes relax when f.lux kicks in and throttles the blue light). If I wake up and try to check your email on my computer when my room is still dark and my eyes haven't adjusted to light, it takes me 30-60 seconds to be able to open them normally - the monitor is so bright that it feels like I'm trying to look at the sun!

My point is that modern monitors can be very large and very bright - and a lot of that light is blue. When they do studies, the subjects probably aren't looking at $700, 32" monitors capable of outputting 400 NITS, with a mostly white background for 8 hours per day (which is what I'm exposed to if I don't run f.lux).

So what?

There are conflicting reports about whether or not blue light from electronic devices can accelerate age-related macular degeneration. Google "blue light age related macular degeneration" and you'll notice there isn't a consensus. Some studies say it's fine - others say there are already early signs that it could be wearing out our retinas by bombarding them with years (or decades) of high energy blue light.

Sure, blue light is natural... but we didn't go around staring up at the sky for 8 hours a day for 50 years. Modern technology has made this sort of exposure happen to a much greater extent than it ever would naturally!

Different studies have reached different conclusions but I suspect, as computer monitors with increasingly bright displays (i.e. more NITS) become ever more common, decades of using them may eventually lead to a problems that show up in more studies. We're basically guinea pigs.

https://www.macular.org/ultra-violet-and-blue-light

What's my advice?

As a 36-year-old guy who works with computers on a daily basis, and with probably 50 more years of using a computer ahead of me, I take my eye health very seriously and look out for potential problems on the horizon while I can still easily nip them in the bud.

The fact that people are having conversations now about the possible link between age-related macular degeneration and years of using bright screens is the reason why I use f.lux! I don't care about circadian rhythms (I sleep just fine) or dry eyes (I consciously blink more when using a computer). But AMD is something else entirely. It creeps up on you and it makes sense to me that looking at a dazzling bright monitor for 8-12 hours every day could "wear out" our retinas over time.

Several studies have already linked blue light from monitors with AMD and that's more than enough for me! Sure, I have f.lux set to disable itself whenever I'm watching movies or using Photoshop or other colour-intensive work so I can enjoy my monitor's full color range when it's not going to be displaying a solid wall of white light... but when it comes to general web browsing and reading screens of black-on-white text, I give my eyes a break and let f.lux wash out most of that high-energy blue light.

Go easy on the blue light from bright monitors and take care of your retinas, people!

spam removed

So yup. I've seen this. Though there were many rebuttals, it's interesting. I would like to add that looking a UV light isn't good. It hurts your eyes light snow blindness does. I would assume that this small protection against myopia came from a higher melanopic response (possibly also S-cone, though unsure). There was another paper that found that myopic people had more Long cones vs short cones. There was another that found that myopic people had higher melatonin all day round pointing to a weaker circadian rhythm. I would like to point out that the solution isn't to bring in philips go lites everywhere, as saturating the melanopic response, without attending to the other cones (in my experience) results in a stupor where nothing is done. Ditto for red lights. Not sure where the sweet spot is, but I would assume that a white light, that is triggers melanopic response, but only slightly more than the others would be the optimal light. This is all theory however.

If your using windows 10 then try using night mode.

I have such a problem too
https://19216801.win/ https://routerlogin.cloud/ https://192168101.red/