The recommendations look very good, and don't particularly match the Yahoo article.
1. They recommend IEEE 1789 as a flicker standard for Europe, which is fantastic, as it covers lower levels of stroboscopic flicker that other standards have missed. (e.g., typical 120Hz flicker from direct-wire TLEDs)
2. They re-state the "acute" hazard from extremely bright LEDs, while urging some caution on "chronic exposure" to lower light levels. Suggest that some automotive lights could be a problem since they have high luminance. Urge more research on progression of macular degeneration and chronic exposure. The question about acute levels refers to a paper by Hunter . Nobody is saying that screens or residential lights pose a new problem.
3. Circadian recommendations are solid - more light during the day, and reduce light around 480nm at night. Pregnant women and children may have lower thresholds.
4. Say most ophthalmic lenses filtering blue light don't do very much, and specialized ones (you'd say very orange or red) are required for circadian effects.
This right here is the key for most people.
Thanks for f.lux, by the way, have been running it for years!
I don't know who thought the choice of blue was a good idea, because as a travel adapter, it would be plugged into the hotel room where the user would be sleeping. /facepalm
I ended up taping a piece of paper over the LED.
Always thought I was just a night person. After decades of late-night coding, f.lux educated me about blue light and allowed me to rejoin the living.
I haven't bothered to turn it on since it lives in the hallway, but at least the option is available.
If we had, then illuminating streets etc. with green LED's would save a lot of electricity for the same perceived brightness.
You can have a 10 watt UV light, but you can't have a 10 lumen UV light for example.
I have had years of success averting personal blue-light issues using what probably falls into the "specialized" lenses category: Uvex S1933X glasses. They came in a 3-pack on Amazon for around $25. The pairs are next to my bed, on my desk, and in my backpack. Inexpensive enough to where I won't loose sleep over breaking a pair. Good not just for device screens, but also for the annoying bright blue power buttons/indicators on just about every other peripheral.
The Annexes: https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/AP2014SA0253Ra-Anx.pdf
Would you be able to share images on what the real difference is with and without f.lux? And also the ophthalmic lenses? I just got some so i'm quite curious :)
I can't say I'm convinced that LEDs are a hazard. This study doesn't really say anything new. Cooler/brighter lights are more similar to daylight. Staring into the sun is bad for you, emulating sunlight at night keeps you up.
> ANSES recommended buying "warm white" LED lighting
This line shows LEDs aren't even really the hazard. It's akin to saying a substance was found that prevents cancer and the article saying that its sunscreen.
Nitpick: This is a report from a regulatory body. It is not a clinical study. Rather, I would expect that they have read a number of studies, and collated the results into this report.
Meaning, it is not meant to introduce new facts, it is meant to introduce a new recommendation and explain the basis for it.
There is more to it than color temperature, the frequencies emitted by LEDs can be vastly different even if the light appears the same color. Here’s an article from last year specifically about blue light and retinal damage: https://www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/08/11/how-bl...
I have a photo panel that needs two separate color LEDs to produce a balanced feeling color temp.
Where can I get these?
As a very coarse but easily available poor-mans spectrometer, I have been taking pictures of a greycard with my camera in raw-mode. Looking at the histogram balanced for a fixed color temperature, e.g. sunlight, for the r,g,b-channels gives very different results depending on different light sources. While you don't see a true spectrum, just the strength of the blue vs. the green and red channel usually is very revealing.
Also, if no diffraction grating is at hand, a random audio CD usually is up to the task :)
But using a color palette is a great idea. With some calibration work, this could give a rough spectral curve with a single picture. I need to investigate this :). One would require to get a palette, where the colors are generated not by rgb pigment mixing but by absorbing/reflecting distinct wavelengths. Of course, the MacBeth color targets would fufil that condition, now how to get a wavelength calibration from this? Have to read up on things...
Interestingly they are also now offering gels to correct the colour casts of LED lighting: https://emea.rosco.com/en/product/opti-flecs
There are samples swatches of their gels, which can be had by either asking a theatrical lighting supply company or on eBay.
When I was building up some high-CRI architectural fixtures, finding fully characterized LEDs wasn't much of an issue. At the consumer level it can be tough to get good details beyond color temperature.
Things like children with severe burns exposed to certain wavelengths of light - control would be one limb vs another limb, exposed one showed improved healing.
I believe the wavelength was I believe 660nm or 670nm.
Due to intensity, not due to spectrum.
It is relevant for figuring out strategies to avoid having blue light mess with your sleep. If it is an absolute level, then you either need to keep light sources low enough at night so that they can't have a blue component that is too high, or you need to find out the spectrum of the light and figure out the maximum level you can set the source to so that the blue won't be too high.
If it is just the relative amount compared to concurrent light, then as long as you use lights that have an acceptable spectrum you should be able set these as bright as you want without messing up your sleep.
If it is relative to something like the peak for the day, then there is a possibility that instead of turning down blue at night you could turn it up during the day to raise that peak to give you more blue leeway at night.
However, working with the idea that blue light is photo toxic, it is most likely better to reduce your blue light at night rather than increase it in the morning.
I wanted to do this experiment with dosing myself with blue light in the morning but I abandoned that after seeing research on photo toxicity
Perhaps establishing a morning habit of going and standing in front of an east facing window might be a worthy experiment?
How much is this increasing the risk of macular degeneration?
I think you're going to be OK. There is a very large, strong (stronger than any monitor) source of blue light that your eyes can handle at least 12 hours of exposure per day to
I think you are minimizing the issue. We wear sunglasses when it is bright (and should as it can be harmful to our eyes), we don't stare directly at the sun, we don't have it anywhere near as close to our faces, and we don't have the sunlight at night which adds another 2-4 hours of exposure to blue light.
There would appear to be more intense blue light in an LED than coming from the sun.
This page while not a particularly good primary source has some comparisons of the intensity of the blue light in LEDs vs sunlight.
"The use of blue light is becoming increasingly prominent in our society, and a large segment of the world population is now subjected to daily exposure (from a few minutes to several hours) of artificial light at an unusual time of the day (night). Because light has a cumulative effect and many different characteristics (e.g., wavelength, intensity, duration of the exposure, time of day), it is important to consider the spectral output of the light source to minimize the danger that may be associated with blue light exposure. Thus, LEDs with an emission peak of around 470–480 nm should be preferred to LEDs that have an emission peak below 450 nm. Although we are convinced that exposure to blue light from LEDs in the range 470–480 nm for a short to medium period (days to a few weeks) should not significantly increase the risk of development of ocular pathologies, this conclusion cannot be generalized to a long-term exposure (months to years). Finally, we believe that additional studies on the safety of long-term exposure to low levels of blue light are needed to determine the effects of blue light on the eye."
Basically, we shouldn't go out of our way to expose ourselves to excess blue light if we can help it. We don't know what it does entirely. Its not worth losing your mind over either but its not quite simple as 'the sun is blue. you'll be fine'
I was surprised at how intense LEDs are. When I got my eclipse viewing glasses  for viewing the 2017-08-21 eclipse I spent some time trying them out on every seemingly bright light source around my house and my office.
The only things that were easily visible through the eclipse glasses were a 3500 lumen 200 watt halogen bulb, and the white LEDs from an iPhone 6 plus flashlight app, a hand cranked emergency flashlight, and an LED head lamp.
A number of people in the office were complaining of visual fatigue and a hazing effecting especially after working 3+ hours, additionally multiple people had noted that colours seemed diluted or ‘dulled’.
The light spectrum seems to be missing parts of the visible light spectrum, to test this I acquired and installed high CRI lights and the area in inch I installed them lead to people satin to that they felt less sleep, more alert and more comfortable - of course these are all subjective results.
Subjective TLDR; LED lighting isn’t inherently bad IMO, but bad LED lighting is bad.
(I only know about this concept from Technology Connections's videos on high-pressure sodium lights.)
Taken from Philips A60 leaflet.
And the solutions for me was a software that gradually changes the color scheme of the operating system to be more red and less blue.
I'm using it since almost a year and it significantly helped with going to sleep earlier. I simply get sleepy at 22-23, even when doing stuff on a computer. Before installing the software I could sit for hours and notice it's already 02:00 and I'm not sleepy, just tired.
At the end of a year of far too many hours worked (staring into screens), I was having strange vision problems and periods where my eyes actually felt pressurized and uncomfortable in their sockets.
When my insane project was over and I took some time off, my eye problems went away.
It's a shame if 6500K light is harmful, because I find it so energizing and refreshing compared to eye-burning yellow light.
This article said in passing that they cast doubts as to the efficacy of blue blocking glasses, but I don't see why proper filters on glasses wouldn't be effective.
If you're curious about the flicker, it's visible by filming an LED bulb at 1/8 speed. I posted some videos here a while back.
* price (RUB, divide it by 65 to get USD);
* power in watts;
* luminous flux in lumen;
* efficiency (lumen / watt);
* power of an equivalent incandescent lamp;
* color temperature, K;
* light cone angle in degrees;
* flicker coefficient;
* supports switches with indicator lights;
* overall rating (from 1 through 5, with 1 being lowest);
* warranty in months;
* can you still find it for sale?
I heard before that we perceive slightly yellow light as white (because of the sun) and these 'blue' lights are really pure white but our perception shifts it.
>Teenagers' lenses aren't fully crystallized so blue light is more prone to disrupt their sleep patterns
Whatever blue light our LEDs produce indoors in winter is a fraction of that produced by the sun.
> "exposure to an intense and powerful [LED] light is 'photo-toxic' and can lead to irreversible loss of retinal cells and diminished sharpness of vision,"
This is the reason we have light and laser safety standards to ensure that people aren't being exposed to dangerous levels of light...
Incidentally, I actually DO want to add blue at times, because at my latitude days are short and dark during winter time and daylight temperature lighting seems to be beneficial during daytime hours.
How do I make use of "information" in this article? Do I reject LEDs altogether? Do I look to minimize certain frequencies? If so, which ones specifically? Do I avoid exceeding certain intensity? (then give me at threshold for Lux at eye position) Or do I avoid exceeding certain energy radiated within a specific band?
It's frustrating, because apart from the FUD, there is little to go on.
Just stick with warm white and you'll be good. Warm white still emits a fair amount of blue light, but its approximately around 1/3 that of cool or daylight white LEDs.
Remember that natural sunlight is many orders of magnitude stronger than any 5000K LED and unlike LEDs has tons of UV as well. You could likely offset any damage and then some just by wearing sunglasses anytime you are out in the sun.
I believe humans have evolved to accept certain damage as natural and it just repairs itself.
When I expose myself to moderate amounts of light, my body reacts making my skin darker, which protects my skin against light.
Think for example gravity, that is exerting acceleration that damages our bodies, so our body has to react making bones and muscles. If we go to space and do not apply damage, the human becomes weaker, as it atrophies.
If we make a person to breathe in a total clean environment(filtered air), the immune system atrophies, then if you make the person breath normal air, you can kill her.
Of course we also know that too much is very bad, because it exceeds the limits of the human body to repair and something breaks down.
Common sense is key. If you go to the mountain or the sea in summer in Spain, Italy, Greece, Morroco, New Zealand... you should be extremely careful. This exposure in thousands of times more than indoors(or countries like UK) and UV light skyrockets.
The 'quality' of light that is supplied from a DC power source is superior to that from a rectified AC source.
Cheap rectifiers are the scourge and cancer of this lighting tech. While not discounting the affect of the blue light + phosphor even 'cheap' LED's provide a better light output when DC driven.
Note: I can see/sense LED flicker (florescent tubes [or ballasts] nearing their end-of-life, and CFL's too.) So I am very sensitive to it. I also LOVE super-bright high kelvin 'cool/cold' 6500K+ lights in my home. My wife complains that it's like being in an operating room.
I wonder how much of the blue-light dislike/distrust is based on a biological leaning towards a preference to carbon-rich fire/flame orange-hue's.
i.e. a campfire or candle vs incandescent light vs halogen vs florescent vs LEDs on a scale of like to hate.
I love colour-changing bulbs for this. 5000K+ during the day, ~2800K at night.
Good artwork/video/photo lighting with LEDs is very expensive and bought from specialized shops or the manufacturer, but it's the closest I've found to true sunlight.
If you'd like recommendations I like the Yugi strips.