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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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!
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.
@TwoCables This reply is being written long after your thread was posted, but contains an important health-check heads up for you.
I'm glad you had improvement of the symptoms you described, including frequent heavy night-time urination. But did you know that frequent heavy night-time urination is also a very common symptom of the serious disease diabetes?
Untreated diabetes can cause major problems, including organ failure, if left untreated over a period of years. Diagnosis is simple, you just tell your doctor about your symptoms and say you'd like to be checked for diabetes. You will receive a referral for a urine and blood test.
Whether or not the preservative TBHQ was in fact a contributor to your problems, we don't know. Single subject 'experiments' like yours do nothing to eliminate the placebo effect, and merely skipping your high non-complex-carbohydrate snack before bed may have alone helped lower your blood sugar levels (cf diabetes again!), thereby increasing your chance of better sleep, irrelevant of TBHQ content.
And even should TBHQ be a (resolved) issue, it doesn't mean you don't have diabetes as well.
I looked at the so called "factsheet" about sleep disturbance & insomnia webpage you linked, and see that it's scientific basic is very, very dubious. It quotes apparently reputable sources, but only a handful of them, and only few pages of each at most, certainly not enough to prove that most of the voluminous list of food additives listed on the webpage affect sleep in any way. The anecdotal evidence listed (none of that is even for TBHQ) is not scientific and proves nothing. The word 'fed' in the website address gives the misleading impression that it's some sort of government website. It isn't.
So please get a medical check-up promptly, if you haven't already (from a GP, since they are all trained in scientific medicine, not some self-appointed New Age 'expert). Be sure to tell the doctor about the frequent heavy night-time urination, whether or not it still occurs.