f.lux author here. I'm pasting parts of the 458 page PDF into Google Translate.
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 [2012]. 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.
I had a travel plug adapter (for conversion between US/UK/EU-style) that had a bright blue LED on it to indicate power.
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
When I changed ISPs I also changed my modem, which is in the closet in our master bedroom. It's brighter than a disco so I bought some light dimmer stickers. It's still too bright so once I remember where I put them, I'm going to add another layer. It's ridiculous. The only upside is that they are green instead of blue, thankfully.
I just installed f.lux. It is almost midnight here. As soon as it installed and my screen tuned almost yellow I can immediately feel the strain on my eyes disappear and replaced with a coolness. This is incredible software. I will probably use this the rest of my life.Thank you!
>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.
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.
Do you have by any chance a proper spectrometer? After all you developed f.lux?
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 :)
Thank you ! f.lux is a blessing, i use it since a few years and if it happens to use a computer on the evening without it I feel assaulted with agressive blue light.
> The report distinguished between acute exposure of high-intensity LED light, and "chronic exposure" to lower intensity sources.
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.
Warm white refers to some particular average. But how do you find led’s that don’t hide a spike of blue light in that average? Most places where I run into led-lights don’t advertise the spectral distribution.
What's interesting is that a Phd biology researcher I know had been researching LED lighting and wound healing.
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.
One thing I never see mentioned when it comes to blue light and its effect on circadian rhythms is whether it is the absolute level of blue light that matters, or the relative amount compared to other concurrent light, or the relative amount compared to some earlier time such as the peak blue level over the last day.
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.
LED lighting panels in our office is so bad it looks as if there is a constant haze or fog in the office.
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.
It sounds like your LED lighting might have a poor colour rendering index? It's a measure of how accurately colours can be perceived under particular light. The best — well, the reference — light source is the sun.
(I only know about this concept from Technology Connections's videos on high-pressure sodium lights.)
Most (but not all) white LEDs have a specific property: the LED itself is creating pure blue light. To create the appeareance of white light, a part of the blue light is then converted to wavelengths in the green-red region via a phosphor coating. But, especially in cheaper configurations, it still leaves a pronounced blue emission line shaping the spectrum like this:
0
0 00000
0 00000000000
0000000000000000
With some coatings, the blue line completely vanishes, creating a light distribution close to an incandescent lamp, but others have a very pronounced line. In the light (sorry) of the report, it sounds reasonable to require a certain minimum "spectrum quality" for lightbulbs beyond a certain power output.
Regardless of the ultimate veracity of this (health guidance is …), there's still a benefit. So many shops have switched to selling "LED lighting," without distinguishing the quality. So there is a lot of harsh lighting being sold, that lasts a long time, which is a shame because colour temperature really does have a big effect. I was subjected to this in a lighting shop, where I was requesting fixtures that took a standard bulb, so I could plug in my own LED bulbs with controllable colour temperature, but the salesperson just couldn't see how that was better than their integrated LED systems.
I don't know about the damage to eyes, but I can confirm problem with not getting "sleepy feeling" while using a computer late at night.
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.
Anecdotal, but I love "daylight" white (which often looks quite blue to people at first). I spent a year of home office working with fantastic bright 6500K LED lighting, plus great big monitors calibrated.
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.
The article specifically calls out LED filament bulbs, but those bulbs aren't designed to actually output blue light to the user, they output the light that the phosphor coating on top should output, which is usually yellowish at 2800K. Are they talking specifically about LED bulbs and displays that still use separate RGB LEDs?
Warm white LEDs still have about 30% of the blue light emission that cool white LEDs have. I really think the article is talking about cool white primarily though.
AFAIK that’s always the case - a “white” LED is simply a blue diode + phosphor. They can still output a lot more blue light than an incandescent lamp, even when the resulting color temperature appears to be the same.
Interesting that the color of the light appears to be the issue here. When researching LED bulbs I read a ton of complaints about the flickering causing people headaches. It's hasn't caused me any issues though.
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.
After buying LEDs by diode type online, instead of just whatever generic shit they sell at the hardware store for light fixtures, it really became apparent how trash most hardware store lights were. Not to mention many of the replacement LED socket lights are flickering from the mains frequency. The efficiency in random socket versions are crap compared to the high efficiency diodes you can buy if you look in the right places, often the store versions are around 60-100 lumens per watt, when you can get closer to 180-200 lumens per watt.
AFAIK, most of the actually 'blue' headlights are not street legal. A Product of cheap aftermarket "HID Kits" or cheap XENON bulbs. Also, at least in Texas, basically any modification to your OEM headlights is verboten.
Blue Spectrum light could be a big factor towards many health problems in the upper northern hemisphere (And probably lower southern), depression, macular retinopathy, migranes, tinnitus, affected autonomic function, CTE, post concussion syndrome - all affected by blue light, winter sun, white/blue LEDS, Car headlamps.
I hate the bright white-blue headlights. They stand out so much, it's annoying to see them. Luckily I have a pair of Polaroid yellow night clipons. They do excellent work in the car in the evening, and many times during daytime as well.
> "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...
I've been working on designing my lighting system for home. I find these reports annoying: without specifics, it's really just FUD. I am looking at datasheets for various LEDs, comparing CRIs and spectral distributions and I know already that my lights are going to be as "warm white" as possible (e.g. close to 2700K with a mix of higher-K added only during daytime) with the blue peak being as small as possible.
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.
Its the blue light, when I worked with "hard" blue LEDs (~460nm), I had to wear special glasses or I could literally feel my retinas melting.
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.
How “intense and powerful” are we talking? Does this mean that 30mins daily exposure to an LED-based [10000lm] light-therapy lamp is a bad idea (compared to a non-LED-based light-therapy lamp)?
Unrelated, because IR is on the other side of the visible spectrum from blue light, but I'm convinced some day we'll find that IR is damaging to the eye. Every time I see those creepy glowing green eyes coming from the baby's room on friends' and relatives' baby monitors, I just shudder. I can't see blasting an infant with invisible light for no good reason.
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.
[+] [-] herf|6 years ago|reply
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 [2012]. 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.
[+] [-] thinkling|6 years ago|reply
This right here is the key for most people.
Thanks for f.lux, by the way, have been running it for years!
[+] [-] eecsninja|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hnick|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sarego|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisfinne|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] equalunique|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] homarp|6 years ago|reply
The Annexes: https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/AP2014SA0253Ra-Anx.pdf
[+] [-] sigi45|6 years ago|reply
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 :)
[+] [-] blencdr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcdoodle|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vbuwivbiu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoctorOW|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Jolter|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] CuriousSkeptic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m463|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|6 years ago|reply
Due to intensity, not due to spectrum.
[+] [-] tzs|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mrmondo|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] timcederman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|6 years ago|reply
(I only know about this concept from Technology Connections's videos on high-pressure sodium lights.)
[+] [-] _ph_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mopsi|6 years ago|reply
https://i.imgur.com/rQaopcS.png
Taken from Philips A60 leaflet.
[+] [-] seanalltogether|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidy123|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajuc|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] blunte|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] seanalltogether|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Itsdijital|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricardobeat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samsolomon|6 years ago|reply
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.
https://productdork.com/t/led-lightbulb-recommendations/272/...
[+] [-] Tempest1981|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AngryData|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6DM|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] workingpatrick|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Causality1|6 years ago|reply
>Teenagers' lenses aren't fully crystallized so blue light is more prone to disrupt their sleep patterns
[+] [-] benbojangles|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CuriousSkeptic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hollander|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rohan1024|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gppk|6 years ago|reply
> "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...
[+] [-] jwr|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Itsdijital|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 9HZZRfNlpR|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fouronnes3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derefr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lolc|6 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography
[+] [-] anonuser123456|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UI_at_80x24|6 years ago|reply
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.