"Blue light thing" debunked
I wanted to reply to this, but it was suggested since it is an old topic I start a new one. I believe the link to the post will be put here, so one can refer to it.
This is my first time here, so not sure how things 'work'.
Just a couple of points:
One study does not "debunk" any theory, nor even weaken it, depending on the strength of the study. It is always good to question everything, particularly issues related to our health, so I am not discouraging that, just making dramatic conclusions without enough evidence to do so.
The study is also looking at mice. And while animal models are helpful - they still aren't the same as humans, and especially with more complex issues like sleep, I would never draw sweeping conclusions based on only animal studies (or study in this case).
A huge issue with the study (and a lot of the "blue light" - studies and information, is that it ignores what is the most important issue for humans. We've always been exposed to "blue light", in fact, we need it, in fact full spectrum lights have been used to treat depression successfully for a long time. The problem for humans is that we are getting greatly increased exposure (and at night) from EMF emitting devices - i.e the computers, tablets, cell phones. SO - while the blue light may be negative, the EMF exposure is likely causing more disruption of our biological systems. And - exposure to EMF during sleep, when our body is trying to repair and restore is especially destructive.
Of course, there are individual differences in sensitivities to radiation of all kinds (i.e light, EMFs (microwave radiation from Wifi, cell phones, wireless devices, etc.), even regular old electricity. Some people are very sensitive and have negative health effects. Some don't notice much. However - exposure on a massive scale to EMFs - now being ramped up with 5G, has not been experienced before by humans. It has only been about 20 years since the early Gs (maybe longer - I apologize), and if you look at the highly suppressed research. It is affecting everyone to some degree - whether you feel it or night.
So, bottom line - true, blue light might not be an issue for some people. I think the problem is more complicated than the light, Can't hurt to block out the blue at night, but shouldn't be used as a false sense of security in that it is okay to be on the phone or computer all night, because the EMFs are probably affecting you more. Of course the best rule (hard, but best) - is keep all the EMF out of the bedroom - computer, phone, tablet.
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.
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!