The contents of the Effects of blue light technology page were merged into Biological effects of high-energy visible light on 19 June 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So ... does this mean that frequent users of Wikipedia are more likely to suffer macular degeneration in old age? John Riemann Soong ( talk) 09:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
So.. I don't understand. White light has blue in it, how are we going to avoid blue light? I think this is bad science, and a lie. 50.47.131.149 ( talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I Suspected the same a fair time back, ever since i saw a UV led i installed in a computer gave burns to a plant i had sitting in front of it, so ever since considered it a safty hazard. I see the spectrum of Blue leds to be a peak with minimal output of higher and lower wavelength on either side. I didnt suspect the blue peak but the curve. My suspicions were proved correct when i opened some certain laptops, the lens on the SMDs were quite degraded (applying heat did further but i dont think it got that hot in there).
A greater worry of mine are these new HID* and other very "white" lights on the front of cars. part of me wonders if i need to wear sunglasses at night! I know the glass and the plastic attenuates UVa and b but there is probably still risk, an experiment would be to see if it degrades inks... *there are idiots breaking rules, HIDs are especailly dangerous because thats an arc and UV filters are not provided in kits. Charlieb000 ( talk) 05:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
When I first heard about the danger from blue light in the 1980's, it was explained to me as partly due to chromatic aberration. The retina is constructed in a non-obvious way: the photo receptors are furthest from the lens. The eye adjusts to focus the light on this layer of rods and cones. But to reach them the light must pass through the receptor cell bodies. Because blue light is refracted more strongly than longer wavelengths, the blue components are more intense in the cell body. So the blue light is not only more actinic, but also more focused on this vulnerable part of the retina. The basic idea is simple optics: blue bends more. I do not see that concept in this article. I do not know that the idea has been discredited or deemed insignificant. I do not have a reference to offer though. -- AJim ( talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There does not appear to be sufficient clarity about the proper name of this article to support a move at this time. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Brad v 01:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
High-energy visible light → Blue light hazard – I propose a rename of this article to Blue Light Hazard or something similar (the name of the main section of this article). I can't find much reliable evidence that high-energy visible light is a widespread and accepted term for blue light (I can find no sources with a precise definition), it is used as a general term in some scientific publications I have come across but rarely as a specific term worthy of its own article (or as the initialism HEV) Two of the three sources in the lead refer to blue light rather than high energy visible light. I would argue the current title is therefore not recognisable, natural or precise Beevil ( talk) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 11:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High-energy visible light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The American Academy of Ophthalmology has several articles warning against rushing to judgement over the harmful affects of blue light. Once source even states that prevention in absence of evidence could have unintended consequences. The article states "The bottom line, Dr. Khurana says, is that taking preventive measures against blue light even though there is no evidence of damage could be more harmful than the blue light itself. “It’s premature to take preventative action against blue light—there could be unintended consequences,” he says.
Some studies suggest that not enough exposure to sunlight in children could affect the growth and development of their vision. Not getting enough sun could also increase the risk of myopia (nearsightedness) in teens and young adults, a recent study suggests." The references here are as recent as August of 2018 whereas other references are far older than this. In light of this recent perspective should there not at least be some kind of reference to these more recent disputatoins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 ( talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No mentions of blue light shifting the circadian rhythm? Yet the Phase_response_curve#Light is well established. -- Signimu ( talk) 20:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This article had gotten quite out of hand after years of organic growth with no hand trying to keep a coherent article. I just put a big edit in to try and resolve a lot of the outstanding problems. However, I think some moves would also be warranted. The current title is very weak and over technical. This is not the state of the art in literature, and blue-light hazard may indeed be it, especially recently, contrary to the 2016 discussion. Obviously, blue light hazard does not incorporate the circadian rhythm stuff, but I think that could just be put in the circadian rhythm article, and the strain/glare stuff can be left as a footnote here. Alternatively, I'd also consider moving the article to "blue blocking lenses" and making blue-light hazard secondary. I think that would help better organize the article. Not making a move request since there are a few options here. Curran919 ( talk) 21:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm in the wrong, just hear me out. Given that the article is named "biological effects", seems necessary to literally specify experiments or scientific consensus that describe the possible biochemical mechanisms that explain both the damage and benefits. I saw that in previous editions examples of this type were erased. I'd like for the active editors to state their opinion on why should this examples be omitted. The Previous One ( talk) 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
PMID:35917260 looks like a potentially useful source. Has anybody got access to it? Bon courage ( talk) 13:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The contents of the Effects of blue light technology page were merged into Biological effects of high-energy visible light on 19 June 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So ... does this mean that frequent users of Wikipedia are more likely to suffer macular degeneration in old age? John Riemann Soong ( talk) 09:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
So.. I don't understand. White light has blue in it, how are we going to avoid blue light? I think this is bad science, and a lie. 50.47.131.149 ( talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I Suspected the same a fair time back, ever since i saw a UV led i installed in a computer gave burns to a plant i had sitting in front of it, so ever since considered it a safty hazard. I see the spectrum of Blue leds to be a peak with minimal output of higher and lower wavelength on either side. I didnt suspect the blue peak but the curve. My suspicions were proved correct when i opened some certain laptops, the lens on the SMDs were quite degraded (applying heat did further but i dont think it got that hot in there).
A greater worry of mine are these new HID* and other very "white" lights on the front of cars. part of me wonders if i need to wear sunglasses at night! I know the glass and the plastic attenuates UVa and b but there is probably still risk, an experiment would be to see if it degrades inks... *there are idiots breaking rules, HIDs are especailly dangerous because thats an arc and UV filters are not provided in kits. Charlieb000 ( talk) 05:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
When I first heard about the danger from blue light in the 1980's, it was explained to me as partly due to chromatic aberration. The retina is constructed in a non-obvious way: the photo receptors are furthest from the lens. The eye adjusts to focus the light on this layer of rods and cones. But to reach them the light must pass through the receptor cell bodies. Because blue light is refracted more strongly than longer wavelengths, the blue components are more intense in the cell body. So the blue light is not only more actinic, but also more focused on this vulnerable part of the retina. The basic idea is simple optics: blue bends more. I do not see that concept in this article. I do not know that the idea has been discredited or deemed insignificant. I do not have a reference to offer though. -- AJim ( talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There does not appear to be sufficient clarity about the proper name of this article to support a move at this time. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Brad v 01:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
High-energy visible light → Blue light hazard – I propose a rename of this article to Blue Light Hazard or something similar (the name of the main section of this article). I can't find much reliable evidence that high-energy visible light is a widespread and accepted term for blue light (I can find no sources with a precise definition), it is used as a general term in some scientific publications I have come across but rarely as a specific term worthy of its own article (or as the initialism HEV) Two of the three sources in the lead refer to blue light rather than high energy visible light. I would argue the current title is therefore not recognisable, natural or precise Beevil ( talk) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 11:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High-energy visible light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The American Academy of Ophthalmology has several articles warning against rushing to judgement over the harmful affects of blue light. Once source even states that prevention in absence of evidence could have unintended consequences. The article states "The bottom line, Dr. Khurana says, is that taking preventive measures against blue light even though there is no evidence of damage could be more harmful than the blue light itself. “It’s premature to take preventative action against blue light—there could be unintended consequences,” he says.
Some studies suggest that not enough exposure to sunlight in children could affect the growth and development of their vision. Not getting enough sun could also increase the risk of myopia (nearsightedness) in teens and young adults, a recent study suggests." The references here are as recent as August of 2018 whereas other references are far older than this. In light of this recent perspective should there not at least be some kind of reference to these more recent disputatoins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 ( talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No mentions of blue light shifting the circadian rhythm? Yet the Phase_response_curve#Light is well established. -- Signimu ( talk) 20:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This article had gotten quite out of hand after years of organic growth with no hand trying to keep a coherent article. I just put a big edit in to try and resolve a lot of the outstanding problems. However, I think some moves would also be warranted. The current title is very weak and over technical. This is not the state of the art in literature, and blue-light hazard may indeed be it, especially recently, contrary to the 2016 discussion. Obviously, blue light hazard does not incorporate the circadian rhythm stuff, but I think that could just be put in the circadian rhythm article, and the strain/glare stuff can be left as a footnote here. Alternatively, I'd also consider moving the article to "blue blocking lenses" and making blue-light hazard secondary. I think that would help better organize the article. Not making a move request since there are a few options here. Curran919 ( talk) 21:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm in the wrong, just hear me out. Given that the article is named "biological effects", seems necessary to literally specify experiments or scientific consensus that describe the possible biochemical mechanisms that explain both the damage and benefits. I saw that in previous editions examples of this type were erased. I'd like for the active editors to state their opinion on why should this examples be omitted. The Previous One ( talk) 19:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
PMID:35917260 looks like a potentially useful source. Has anybody got access to it? Bon courage ( talk) 13:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)