

Back-lit e-readers 'damage sleep and health,' doctors warn - leephillips
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30574260

======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8787218](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8787218)

------
aw3c2
From the paper itself (highlight mine):

> During LE-eBook reading sessions, the light-emitting device was set to
> _maximum brightness_ and placed in a stand that held it at a fixed angle.
> This stand was placed on a table directly in front of the individual at a
> 30- to 45-cm distance from their eyes. Participants were allowed to turn
> pages on the LE-eBook, but were asked not to hold it while reading or make
> any adjustments to the settings. During the _printed book reading_ sessions,
> participants were _allowed to hold the book at any desired distance_ from
> their eyes.

Is this anything new anyways? Shining bright blueish light into people's eyes
before bedtime has got to be a well researched topic already. This feels like
media-tailored hype while a simple "yes, back-lit ebook readers use this kind
of light so those existing findings apply" would have sufficed.

~~~
mgiannopoulos
Bad science combined with terrible reporting from the BBC where "light
emitting e-book readers" become in the headline "e-books"...

------
scrabble
"They found it took longer to nod off with a back-lit e-reader, which led to
poorer quality sleep and being more tired the next morning."

So going to sleep later means you get less sleep and are more tired the next
day. This is not a shocking revelation. I'd also be curious what they think
about frontlit eReaders as opposed to backlit.

~~~
Cakez0r
You stripped the context from the quote... They're not comparing going
straight to sleep vs using an before bed e-reader.

"A team from Harvard Medical School compared reading paper books and light-
emitting e-readers before sleep."

~~~
falcolas
A bit more important context, by "light-emitting e-readers", they really mean
iPads positioned at a fixed distance with a fixed brightness.

Feels like a rigged experiment to me, frankly. "I hypothesize that reading on
an e-reader has a negative impact on your sleep, let's design a study which
shows exactly that."

------
oalders
On my laptop, I've been using f.lux [0] to prevent the bright monitor lighting
from keeping me too alert late into the night. It took me a while to get
accustomed to the hues, but I really like the way the light softens as the
evening progresses.

[0] [https://justgetflux.com/](https://justgetflux.com/)

~~~
nsxwolf
I love f.lux. It would be nice if you could run it on iOS without
jailbreaking.

~~~
kordless
This is one of those comments we'll look back on in 30 years and say "what the
hell were we thinking letting a company control our devices like that?".

~~~
minikites
Do you miss the days where you had to manually adjust the choke while driving
and decoke the engine every few thousand miles? I think we're going to look
back on computers of the 90s and 2000s with a similar quaintness. More people
care about a bullshit-free computing experience than an abstract concept of
"freedom".

~~~
ay1n
I think it's not a true comparison - freedom to modify your hardware doesn't
have to imply that it's a hassle to use such hardware.

In other words: does "bullshit-free computing experience" (or let's just say
usability) have to exclude freedom (i.e. your options to freely modify
hardware/software you own/use)? I'm thinking about that for some time and I
think that (as most of the things) it's not a objective thing but dependend on
the philosophy of the producer/maker. And I'm sure that there are people who
want to produce well designed things (be that a phone or an app) that can be
modified by users/owners (here comes the topic of ownership in the light of
digital world, but that's another thing).

~~~
minikites
Is there a better way to prevent malware than a pretty basic review process
(iOS/Mac App Store) and data sandboxing?

And to continue the car analogy, lots of car modifications are illegal for
safety and public health (smog) reasons. I think computers are headed in the
same direction in the next 40-50 years. The children of tomorrow will think
it's absolutely bananas that we used to run unsigned code, because malware
behaves much like pollution.

~~~
ay1n
I think sandboxing is a quite good solution, but it doesn't mean that you
can't have a root access. Consider jails in FreeBSD, where you can isolate a
single process but at the same time you have a control over whole system.

Your car analogy can provide insight into the consequences of a single
insecure system in the network, but at the same time it's not valid when you
consider that you can (should) control your systems and network if it has to
fit your needs.

------
gingerlime
The key here is "Light Emitting" rather than eBooks. So the title is more than
a bit misleading since it's mostly tablets that emit direct light. The
experiment specifically used an iPad in comparison with a paper book. Seems
odd to generalize it to all eBooks.

This article[0] seems to have a more accurate title.

[0]
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141222131348.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141222131348.htm)

~~~
Rainymood
>So the title is more than a bit misleading

I already made a comment here some dutch news thing that picked up on this and
debunked it. It's weird to see it on HN this late and this upvoted.

Technically it's not misleading.

Why not? Let's grab Wikipedia's definition: "An e-reader is a mobile
electronic device that is designed primarily for the purpose of reading
digital e-books and periodicals." e.g. there is being made NO distinction
between e-ink displays and normal LED displays (iPad, tablets, screens and the
sort).

It's kind of misleading because people usually think of e-readers as e-ink
display type of e-readers. But this is only a small subset of the 'actual'
e-readers.

Conclusion? Don't stare at a light emitting screen (iPad, TV, PC) before you
go to bed. Read from an e-ink display or a book.

I, personally, am still waiting for the day that 60 Hz e-ink PC monitors will
be available.

~~~
falcolas
I think it's fair to say that an iPad was _not_ "designed primarily for the
purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals."

Ironically, its size and backlight make it very poor for that purpose, but its
ubiquity makes it easier for the iPad to fill the role of the e-reader in
addition to its multitude of other roles.

------
richardwigley
From Doc linked from the page: "Dr. Czeisler received royalties from McGraw
Hill, Penguin Press/Houghton" [1]

It's shaming of the BBC not to have dealt with the findings more critically,
rather than regurgitation of the press release. The characterization of iPads
as e-readers in the context of the royalties looks suspicious.

[1]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/12/18/1418490112](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/12/18/1418490112)

~~~
nyc640
He's the fourth author and receiving royalties from publishers for use of his
intellectual property (at some unspecified point in the past) probably isn't
uncommon for a leading researcher in a field, particularly one that is
employed by Harvard Medical School.

I'm not saying the paper is necessarily without its faults because of who he
is (again, noting that he is only the fourth author of the paper), but
implying that the paper was somehow funded by the publishing industry seems
misleading at best.

------
ekianjo
> Our bodies are kept in tune with the rhythm of day and night by an internal
> body clock, which uses light to tell the time.

That body clock has been completely destroyed the day we started to use lamps
and night and even more since we use Electricity. It's fine to say it's bad
for your health, but seriously, being exposed to bright light until late at
night is nothing new at all. And so far the Human race still endures.

~~~
minikites
Homo sapiens - ~250,000 - 400,000 years old

Electricity for lighting - ~120 years old

It's pretty new.

~~~
ekianjo
I'd rather submit to you it's BECAUSE Homo sapiens mastered Fire AND Light
that we have become a dominating specie. So, it may have damaged our health in
the process, but it has been massively beneficial for our survival as a whole.

~~~
minikites
So why aren't fireflies our lords and masters?

~~~
ekianjo
Because fireflies do not master Fire.

------
k-mcgrady
E-book readers _with a backlight_ 'damage sleep and health'.

~~~
nathanaldensr
Headline is definitely a bit click-baity. "Hmm, how can we write a story about
how bright lights mess up your body clock, but not make it as boring or
mundane? I know, we'll say _e-books_ are the culprit!"

~~~
Cakez0r
You know you're reading a quality article when one of the subheadings is
literally just (quotation marks and all) 'Concern'

------
leephillips
Dozens of comments here assume that there is an important difference between
reflected light that enters the eye and light shining "directly" into the eye.
It's obvious that spectrum, intensity, flicker, and other properties of the
light can have an effect on us, but what difference could it possibly make,
aside from these factors, whether the light is reflected or "direct"? Why is
there an essential difference, everything else being equal, between backlit
and frontlit readers?

~~~
dragonwriter
Reflection off anything but a perfect mirror has a significant effect on
spectrum, intensity, flicker, and other properties of light. So, given the
limited set of available artificial light sources suitable for inclusion in an
e-reader (which limit the starting set of options for those properties before
considering reflection), _even if_ there is no essential difference in the
abstract between reflected and directly-emitted light in terms of the human
effect, the effect of those properties likely creates an important difference
between _practical_ reflected and direct lighting in e-book reader devices.

The comments that assert (not "assume") that there is an important difference
between reflected and direct light _in portable e-book readers_ largely
_expressly_ note that the difference they are discussing is in that context,
and neither assert nor assume a fundamental difference in reflected or emitted
light _in general_. If you could make a back-lit reader that simulated a
front-lit reader in all relevant features of the light reaching the eyes, it
is obvious (tautological, even) that there would be no difference in the
effect that light had -- but in real-world devices, "everything else" _isn 't_
equal between front-lit and back-lit devices, and the issue here is the
effects of real-world devices, not hypothetical devices that exist only in
thought experiments.

------
jaydub
I'm not changing my habits from a study based on 12 people.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Hasn't this already be researched quite a lot with Laptops and PC's? I thought
it was common knowledge now that the light emitted from those devices would
effect your sleep. A sample size of 12 isn't good but I'm sure there are much
more comprehensive studies that have already been done on this. I think
they're the reason apps like Flux exist.[1]

[1] [https://justgetflux.com/](https://justgetflux.com/)

------
dschiptsov
Meme-science. What about those laptops people staring at for 8 hours/day and
those 50" back-lit TVs running 16h/day? Do they contribute to a "health-
damage"? To what extend? How do they factor out "stress" from being a subject
in a "study" from "stress" of being exposed to deadly back-lit?

"Methodology" aside. Let me guess - the "study" has been sponsored by
affiliates of e-ink display producers/sellers?

------
oskarth
It's a shame [https://justgetflux.com/](https://justgetflux.com/) isn't
available in the App store. As far as I know you have to jailbreak to install
it (so it's not a technical limitation per se).

Can anyone think of a good reason why Apple doesn't ship with f.lux like
software by default? It's pretty much a necessity for using a computer device
at night.

~~~
minikites
Because all it does it makes your colors screwy, it doesn't actually help
anything?

------
Raphmedia
"They spent five days reading from a paperback and five days from an iPad."

... and proceed to show a kindle in the pictures.

Of course, the iPad has a screen so it's going to damage your sleep. The
refresh rate + bright blue light is bad for you. Why did they need to make a
study for that? That's know.

What I am wondering is a backlight e-ink display. No refresh rate, and a dim
backlight. Now, that's a study that is worth it.

------
ranci
Can people at least stop saying that f.lux does nothing? I have used it for
like a year now and it has profoundly improved the length of time I can look
at my computer screen. Also once I started using it I didnt have the slight
double vision you get from staring at bright blue light for long periods. The
study may be shit, but f.lux is effective.

------
frik
I still keep around a few _halogen_ and _incandescent light bulbs_ for the
evening.

They emit a better light (color temperature) than fluorescent & LED lamps (and
contain no hazardous waste).
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature)

------
buss
I asked a friend of mine and Kindle engineer for an amber-hued backlit kindle
about six months ago. He thought it was a good idea, so maybe we'll get one in
another year or so.

------
mswift42
I've got a Kobo Aura HD, and notice no difference in sleep quality compared to
reading a normal book with a light on. YMMV, of course.

------
loco5niner
Misleading. Reading from an iPad is not the same as reading from an e-ink
device.

------
wlesieutre
Misleading title, it's reading ebooks on a tablet that's a problem, just like
doing anything else at night on a tablet or laptop. Reading ebooks on an ebook
reader with an eink screen is fine.

~~~
k-mcgrady
The new Kindles (Paperwhite, Voyage) are backlit. If that trend spreads to
other e-readers it won't just be a tablet problem. I guess this is a good
argument to keep the old style Kindles around.

~~~
RedSocks112
Paperwhites are not backlit.

"Paperwhite guides light toward the surface of the display with its built-in
front light—unlike back-lit tablets that shine in your eyes—so you can read
comfortably without eyestrain."

Source: [http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Paperwhite-
Ereader/dp/B00AWH595...](http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Paperwhite-
Ereader/dp/B00AWH595M)

Illustration:
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/26/technology/lig...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/26/technology/light-
reading.html)

~~~
k-mcgrady
Interesting, thanks for the info. The article specifically calls out 'original
Kindles' as being ok which led me to believe the Paperwhite could be an issue
- however that might have been referencing the Fire.

