8 ms·
Declining eyesight improved by looking at deep red light
- newsbinator 6y agoSounds harmless to try at home. Anybody know how to make a 670nm deep red light? Can an iPhone do it or would you want to buy an LED?
- Chris2048 6y agoI wouldn't try anything like this until proven. Staring at light doesn't sound harmless to me.
- the-dude 6y agoReminds me of Don't look into laser with remaining eye.
- daneel_w 6y agoI don't know why you assume you must stare directly into the light source for this to work, compared to for example diffusing the light to a comfortable level with a transparent screen, or pointing a strong light at your bedroom ceiling etc.
- Chris2048 6y agoWhy assume that someone attempting this themselves won't stare directly into the light source. Without specific advise, be cautious of the worse case this might cause.
- zmix 6y agoStill, we do it constantly: Any monitor/screen is just a "lightbulb", that we are staring into day to day.
- jlokier 6y agoAn iPhone will not produce 670nm narrow band light. Here are measured spectra for iPhone X and iPad Air 2 respectively: http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_41a.html http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_35.html As you can see, although there is some energy at 670nm, there is much more energy at shorter wavelengths (~620-630nm peak) from the screen's red emitter. You can't change the red emitter's spectrum (the rightmost peak in those charts), you can only change the relative height of the three peaks to change perceived colour. So you can't make a spectrum containing a single peak around 670nm.
- eatbitseveryday 6y agoJust a note, you are indenting your urls making HN use code formatting on them, thus rendering them not clickable. just paste the url itself without indent.
- jlokier 6y agoNoted, thanks. I think they look better in code formatting, but forgot about clickability.
- thdrdt 6y agoBe very careful with this. Light sources can emit all kind of peaks of light you might not notice. For example a LED might look red but can also emit some infrared.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoCould that be harmful to the eye?
- lm28469 6y agoYes, just like looking at an eclipse without the proper gear. Your eyes don't register the threat and stay wide open while getting blasted by harmful wavelengths
- daneel_w 6y agoWould that somehow be different, for 3 minutes, than being outside in sunlight for an hour? Are you maybe thinking of ultraviolet light?
- short_sells_poo 6y agoIt can be different yes. As far as I know, wavelengths that you don't perceive will not cause your pupils to contract in response to harmful intensity of light. While it can be very bright in the open sun, your eyes will compensate for this. A light source which emits harmful amount of IR and little to no visible light will probably not elicit this reaction and damage your eyes without you realizing until it's too late. Infrared lasers are particularly dangerous for this aspect.
- daneel_w 6y agoYes but the reason I pose my question is that the topic is red LEDs, not IR LEDs nor laser diodes, and there's nothing in this article suggesting that for some odd reason you must stare directly into the light source as opposed to looking at a diffusor. I insist that the "OP" is mostly being alarmist without thinking about all the 620-700 nm (and deeper infrared) exposure we perceive throughout every day.
- raxxorrax 6y agoDon't use a light source without some filter that ensures the spectrum is restricted if you really plan to expose your eyes. I would still recommend not doing that without medical oversight. Spectroscopes are expensive, so you probably don't have one lying around, but it is the only way to make sure you don't have peaks in non-visible light that can damage your eyes. edit: I don't know any light source that peaks at that wavelength, so you would probably use a broad spectrum alternative and a filter to achieve what you want.
- daneel_w 6y agoHave you considered taking a look at e.g. mouser.com, or a specialized LED retailer like led1.de, and just filtering specifically for 670nm LEDs?
- tzs 6y agoIn the "LED Bulbs and Modules" categories at Mouser, there are no 670 nm LEDs. In the "LED Indication - Discrete" category at Digi-Key, there are no 670 nm LEDs. (Digi-Key lets you filter on both peak and dominant wavelength. I assume peak is what we want here but it doesn't matter because there are no 670 nm dominant in those categories either). In the category "LED Emitters" Mouser does list 670 nm in the filter, but checking out a few of those it seems they all actually specify peak wavelength is 650-670 nm. I probably just missed it because I don't read German, but at led1.de I could not figure out how to filter on wavelength. Assuming one is just looking for some through hole LEDs to whip something up on a breadboard, it looks like the closest readily available inexpensive LEDs are 660 nm peak and 638 nm dominant at around $0.40. Typical example [1] which is $0.41 for one, $2.95 for 10. Since the article said 650-1000 nm, if we assume a peak of 700 nm works, then there are a lot of options, such as [2]. Dominant 635 nm. $0.29, 10 for $2.14. [1] https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/lite-on-inc/LTL-4263/160-1964-ND/3198540 https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/lite-on-inc/LTL-42... [2] https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kingbright/WP3A8HD/754-1218-ND/1747617 https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/kingbright/WP3A8HD...
- jonquark 6y agoThe closest I could easily find in the UK is this rather dubious looking website: https://www.funkylighting.com/deep-red-led-flashlight-torch-ghost-hunting-paranormal-investigationtool-uk-2128-p.asp https://www.funkylighting.com/deep-red-led-flashlight-torch-... Still, if it doesn't help my eyes it'll be useful for my paranormal investigations ;)
- raun1 6y agoBuy a deep red LED. Check out GembaRed, or talk to the owner, about where to buy.
- VectorLock 6y agoI wonder if he'd share where to buy LED that undercut his $160 small LED panels...
- Gys 6y agoDiscussed extensively: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23685915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23685915
- progfix 6y agoI am not sure if this is related, but I am heavily short sighted and facing the sun with closed eyes for a couple of minutes sharpens my eyes. I suspect it is just because I tend to spend too much time in dark rooms and in front of screens and being in the bright sun "fixes" that for a while.
- moron4hire 6y agoIt's forcing your pupils to constrict. Decreasing the aperture size on a lens increases the field of view. So, while your eye might not be able to accommodate at the correct distance given the current convergence point, there is more room for error. It's a fairly common method in photography, in cases where one might have difficulty getting a correct focus on a subject. It's not a "fix", but a compensation.
- wtallis 6y agoDepth of field is what expands with smaller apertures, not field of view. The former is the range of distances that are "in focus", and the latter is the angular width of the the scene.
- hellofunk 6y ago> Decreasing the aperture size on a lens increases the field of view. No, the aperture has no effect on the field of view. They are orthogonal features of how a lens works.
- PaulHoule 6y agoI think the commentator meant "depth of field"
- moron4hire 6y agoyes, didn't have my first coffee yet
- amelius 6y ago
- grbullock 6y agoTwenty-four participants of varying ages that found an effect on older people? This study reeks of p-hacking.
- HumblyTossed 6y agoNeat. Helps with blue light sensitivity. Ought to help with all those awful blue on black night modes out there. But won't help lens flexibility, so readers will still be needed.
- slowmovintarget 6y agoIs this advertising? Interesting findings, but it ends with "we're developing a product..."
- throw1234651234 6y agoProbably. There is a device that "fixes baldness" that just shines red light at your head.
- mikece 6y agoSounds like it should be trivial to build a website -- a future Show HN? -- to make the whole screen the correct color for a specific interval of time, fading in an out at the start/finish. The only thing the user might have to do it turn up the screen brightness first.
- the8472 6y agoComputer monitors do not work like that. They emit a mix of 3 fixed spectra. You cannot shift the red to an even longer wavelength. At least not without adding some physical filters on top that only let through the long tail (which is fairly inefficient). At that point you might as well buy specialized LEDs.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Havoc 6y agoAnd green supposedly reduces pain. And blue keeps you awake. The guys with their RGB computer gear where right after all...
- NullPrefix 6y agoI think you got the colors mixed up. Red adds speed. Blue adds cold.
- zadkey 6y agoGreen adds regeneration.
- cutemonster 6y agoRed adds bloodlust, extra strong and dangerous, and speed. That's why I use Redshift for Linux so the screen becomes more red. Nice to know it's good for the eyes too
- bdjfkrkrk 6y agoSome of the first animals were RGB. Not sure why this feature was lost, probably too tacky for early Earth: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/LightRefractsOf_comb-rows_of_ctenophore_Mertensia_ovum.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/LightRef... https://media.giphy.com/media/sbxNFGQ59hWMg/giphy.gif https://media.giphy.com/media/sbxNFGQ59hWMg/giphy.gif https://64.media.tumblr.com/afb8cb70c18bc8be2133410b46c3ca13/tumblr_miahtyTT941s3ggdno1_r1_400.gif https://64.media.tumblr.com/afb8cb70c18bc8be2133410b46c3ca13...
- gopalv 6y ago> green supposedly reduces pain There's a Jasper Fforde book[1] which treats green like an opiod (of course, the book is about a dalton style genetic dystopia - colour vision instead of race, but one with Ford in a Mao style "great leap forward"). The whole book treats colour as a powerful thing to manipulate bodies and minds. [1] 125-66-53 in - http://www.jasperfforde.com/grey/chroma.html http://www.jasperfforde.com/grey/chroma.html
- tzs 6y agoThere are several comments here pointing out that RGB devices such as phones and monitors usually cannot make a narrow band of light around 670 nm. But the article ties this to light absorption by mitochondria, which it says absorb [1] 650-1000 mm light. Two questions: 1. If you use a narrow band source of light, does it really need to be around 670 nm, or will anything in that 650-1000 range likely do? 2. Would it actually matter if there is also light outside this band? If it doesn't actually have to be narrow and only contain 650-1000 nm, then it might actually work with some RGB devices. There seems to be significant variation among RGB devices, though. jlokier linked to spectra for iPhone X [2] and iPad Pro 9.7/iPad Air 2 [3]. The iPhone X with Night Shift at maximum has a significant output about 650 nm. The iPads have very little above 650 nm. This suggests that RGB devices might work for this, but there is no easy way of knowing for a given RGB device unless you can get its spectrogram. From what I've been able to find, it looks like Philips Hue bulbs just miss, with their red falling off rapidly near 650 nm. Candles look really good for this [4], and I'd guess similar for fires. I wonder if this means that ancient people tended to keep better eyesight in old age then us, because every significant light source they had (sunlight, moonlight, firelight) had a lot of its energy above 650 nm? [1] OT, but why the heck does the "b" in "absorb" become a "p" in "absorption"? [2] http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_41a.html http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_41a.html [3] http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_35.html http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_35.html [4] http://dev.informationdisplay.org/IDArchive/2015/NovemberDecember/FrontlineTechnologyCandleLikeEmission.aspx http://dev.informationdisplay.org/IDArchive/2015/NovemberDec...
- the8472 6y ago> 2. Would it actually matter if there is also light outside this band? Your pupils will adjust to perceived intensity. So if the bulk of the light comes in at shorter wavelengths it'll contract and you'll get even less of the already small fraction in the range of interest. On the other side in the infrared it's more a question of safety. You don't want to overload your retina. So you want it visible but long wavelengths only, which boils down to a fairly narrow range. That's assuming it actually works. Single studies and all that.
- ohsonice 6y agoRe: absorb vs absorption. tl;dr: pronunciation https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59530/why-does-the-b-in-absorb-change-to-a-p-in-absorption https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59530/why-does-t...
- company454 6y agoIt is one of used methods of improving (or preventing from declining, depending how you look into this) eyesight for children in Ukrainian (and probably many other post-Soviet) clinics. I'm 30 now, I have been myopic since 6-7 years old. Every year from around 1998 to 2008 I went (well, was forced to go by my mother, she didn't like the idea of glasses) to clinic, where during 10-14 days I and other children did lots of exercises, which presumably had to improve my eyesight. Staring into a device, which emitted red light, was one of such exercises. It usually happened one time a day, a doctor collected all children (10-15) into a group, we went into dark room, where the doctor pointed a light beam from that device (it was semi-portable) into child's eyes. There were 3-4 sessions, 1-2 minutes each. We were also encouraged to look into the sun in the evening, when it is close to the horizon and is red (for a few minutes each day). The only problem with all those exercises is that they didn't really worked. I remember that during the first few years I at least was able to see some marginal improvements (like being able to see at the end of 2 week period 5-7 lines out of 10 instead of 4-5 on the standard chart). However, all subsequent years I (and most children there) just imitated the progress due to the pressure from doctors ("Don't you see that line? You saw it yesterday. Have you watched TV again?") and parents ("Darling, look more carefully, you probably will see at least some letters there."). I still remember the first 7 lines (+ the last line) of that table by heart, more than 10 years since I saw/used it the last time. Nothing worked: - neither exercises with lenses (you look though +lenses, then though -ones, than again though +ones and so on) - nor direct shots of vitamins and actovegin into your butt and under eyes (not as unpleasant experience as it sounds, they just enter a thin needle 1-2 cm below each of your eyes and administer a shot, it doesn't hurt all that much). - nor special eye treatment, where you hold small reservoirs with hot Riboflavin (vitamin B2) contacting your eyes for 30 minutes each day (there were electrodes there, with small current going through your eyes, probably to make the absorption better) - nor neck massage (What the hell neck massage has to do with eyesight? We were told, that it somehow improves blood circulation in the neck, and it is somehow better for blood circulation close to your eyes). The most pleasant exercise, by the way, you just seat for 5-7 minutes and a lady doctor does a massage. Doing that as a child, without parents (I was dropped of in the morning and taken out closer to 16.00-17.00), waiting in queues for all those exercises (sometimes - 30-60 minutes for each). It was as close to hell as I got under my childhood. The result - I got more or less the same -4 and -5 until I was 20 years old, just as other children, which just wore glasses. A few years after that I did laser correction, since that time I got 100% eyesight. So, I don't believe in that "treatment". If it does something - the effect is marginal and quickly disappears a few weeks later. Get good/convenient glasses or contact lenses, if you have enough money - wait until 20-22 years and do laser surgery. It will change your life just as it changed mine.
- jaggirs 6y agoDoes this have any similarly with staring at a fire?
- scabbycakes 6y agoOooh, good question! Anyone able to answer this?
- core-questions 6y agoCertainly a fire produces light in this wavelength, but also in many other wavelengths nearby, so since a narrow band seems to be the requirement for the eyesight improvement, it's probably not optimal.
- zoomablemind 6y ago> ...simple brief exposures to light wavelengths that recharge the energy system that has declined in the retina cells, rather like re-charging a battery. If retina cells' energy absorbing properties are so selective, then how such treatment is different from daily exposure to ambient or dusktime sunlight? Or this 'recharging' stops in presence of 'wrong' wavelengths in the spectrum?
- bdjfkrkrk 6y agoI think it's about intensity. It's well known that powerful light in the morning from the sun is good for you. But it needs to be above a certain intensity.
- cutemonster 6y agoI've tried to avoid strong sunshine -- UV safe glasses for example. Now I'm wondering if 5 minutes without sunglasses could be good? Any link to where you've read about this? Or search words?
- dorkwood 6y agoI currently have the morning sun blasting through my window every morning, and it feels like it's having the opposite effect: reduced sleep quality and a foggier brain.
- abruzzi 6y agoI need to check the wavelength of the safelight in my dark room, but I sometimes spend hours in deep red light, so I guess that could be good.
- bovermyer 6y agoSo I should hang deep red LED strips all over my home office, then. I finally have an excuse...
- chansiky 6y ago> "The technology is simple and very safe, using a deep red light of a specific wavelength, that is absorbed by mitochondria in the retina that supply energy for cellular function." Interesting, I would have never thought that we have cells that use light as energy. Also, is this deep red light found in sunlight as well? As in, does this treatment only work with light that is restricted to this wavelength, or does it work with any light that contains ample amounts of this wavelength? I know its been coming up here and there that we are just not getting enough sunlight in general with everyone studying indoors, working indoors, exercising indoors, etc. Just seeing if this is a broader issue of people not spending enough time in the great outdoors.
- warent 6y agoI recall reading about this topic recently actually. There does seem to be a connection, at least in children. https://www.livescience.com/52177-kids-outdoors-lowers-risk-nearsighted.html https://www.livescience.com/52177-kids-outdoors-lowers-risk-...
- sandworm101 6y agoThis is about light hitting the retina, not the eye overall. That outdoor light is brighter across the spectrum, triggering the iris to protect the retina from overexposure. So you may very well get more red light onto your retina from a red lamp on your gaming desk indoors than by going outside in bright white light.
- raun1 6y agoSunlight has tons of red and infrared light (red and near infrared have mostly the same effects on cells, the main difference being penetration distance). Light is ridiculously important for mitochondrial health, and that effect on mitochondria is one of the main reasons sunlight is so necessary for optimal health. Fun fact, 75% of potential ATP production only results from light exposure, with only 25% from food. We run on light more than we do food (necessary nutrients and minerals aside).
- omarchowdhury 6y ago
- emmelaich 6y agoRelated -- has anyone here tried http://www.glassesoff.com/ http://www.glassesoff.com/ and had some success? It trains the brain rather than affecting the eyes.
- throw1234651234 6y agoNo. Looks like it's only for nearsightedness anyway. I have practiced looking at a pencil end / hair follicle / other small object as close to my eye as possible and then looking at a distant object for years now. I have also read about the Bates method, palming, etc and have tried them on and off over the years. The close-far method seems to be the only reasonable "exercise" - though no one can tell me for sure whether there is muscles involved (or relaxing said muscles) in looking far away. Anyway, nothing has helped. I also don't see strong research on the topic however. As an example, doing a one-arm chinup is possible for most people. It can take up to half a decade of structured, regular training. Maybe fixing eyes is possible, but it requires 30+ mins a day, every day for years. Who knows. Edit: Also, the strongest studies are the ones comparing Chinese kids in China and Austarlia, where the latter spend more time outdoors and have reliably better eyesight. Not really relevant to adults, but can help when raising your kids.
- davidwitt415 6y agoOne of my covid projects is improving my nearsightedness, I'm 20/200+. I've been spending 20 minutes a day doing techniques called Eqyptian Black Dot and Egyptian Letter Gazing plus other techniques I got from a book called The Art of Cosmic Vision by Mantak Chia, a well known Taiji master. I've been doing it now for 7 weeks and have noticed significant improvement in my vision. I'm not going to be driving without glasses any time soon, however, I am increasingly able to function without glasses, which was my main goal. Your point about the outdoors is also made in the book. We are spending our time in near focus on screens and not using our far vision, as in nature. I now make sure to take time during the day to get outside and do distance gazing and expose my eyes to sunlight.
- throw1234651234 6y ago
- rubicks 6y agoThis seems relevant: http://jonls.dk/redshift/ http://jonls.dk/redshift/
- vangelis 6y agoWorks for mental acuity too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042018
- paulcarroty 6y agoMy ophthalmologist suggested to do similar exercises 10+ years ago, like seeing in 'lazer oculars'. So I guess this is not new practice.
- lazyeye 6y agoWould you get the same impact wearing red-tinted sunglasses in daylight?