Talk:Biological effects of high-energy visible light

message: 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)
replies: text: The article says only to people with retinal decease, for example if you need to wear special sunglasses then yeah is dangerous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.145.174 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only people with retinal decease? I don't think so. The article says: "HEV light has been implicated as a cause of age-related macular degeneration". Also see the referenced sources. --79.216.236.137 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The main problem are not the blue links (~ 3% of the total screen) but rather the white background! --79.216.236.137 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So essentially all light will result in our retinas exploding? 72.70.128.178 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to make the same comment about the wiki links. But once I saw some1 else post it, it wasn't as funny as I thought it'd be... but news on the television sure has a lot of blue. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  all those blue Wikipedia links .... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Car Headlamps 

message: 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)
thread_title:  chromatic aberration 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815023605/https://www.iesna.org/shop/ to https://www.iesna.org/shop/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about the other side of the Argument .... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blue light and circadian rhythm 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reverted as this seemed like a huge backward step, using a lot of unreliable non-WP:MEDRS sources to make biomedical claims, and treating "blue-light hazard" like it's some kind of consensus term/phenomenon. (Add: Actually, considering it further I've re-reverted as the newer version seems a less-bad basis for moving forward). Bon courage (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you think that my version with sources you might deem to come from lower-quality journals, is in fact less-bad than the previous version that had citations for archived commercial optometry blogs that were plagiarized from wikipedia in what is definitely the dumbest example of circular reporting I've ever seen. The article was in a very sorry state; there were several instances of clear bias and self promotion. Now its in a less-sorry state, I guess. Actually, after going through the literature for this, I am slightly less skeptical on blue light hazard that I was. The skepticism of the effect is not as strong as I suspected, but rather focuses on the overhype of lenses. Hopefully my edit will get others interested in further improvements and is worthy of not being reverted. Curran919 (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Edit and move? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have any sources for the "scientific consensus" which clear the appropriate bar of WP:RS/AC? I would oppose use of unreliable sources (primary research) for bioscience. Bon courage (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual biological efects