4 ms·

It made very little sense that something we should've been well-adapted to is... dangerous. Even if blue light is not natural at night, why would I want to bloc

It made very little sense that something we should've been well-adapted to is... dangerous. Even if blue light is not natural at night, why would I want to block it during the day?! I have to spend an enormous effort to let LensCrafters know that I am NOT interested in their gimmicky blue light filter lenses! In fact, bright blue light is essential for good sight and is speculated to be the reason so many kids are shortsighted nowadays!

copperx 5y ago
To be clear, UV and blue light ABSENCE might be the case why so many kids are shortsighted.
kortex 5y ago
What about UV and oxygen? We are well-adapted to those, but over time they degrade our bodies. The gimmicky glasses barely stop any blue light at all. The effect of bright blue light on preventing myopia settles down once you reach adulthood. There's no evidence it helps after that, your corneas have already set.
- nikolay 5y ago
  So, we should cut off oxygen, because like everything, it has a beneficial range? I don't mind wearing blue-light-blocking eyeglasses at night, but to wear them all day long is plain stupid. Also, there's the phenomenon called hormesis, which recently shows benefits in the right amounts of even X-ray radiation. So, just like with UV, you should get enough of UV, but not above the upper limit, and should not fall below the lower one either. Same applies to everything including water - too much of it is toxic.
  - kortex 5y ago
    > Same applies to everything including water - too much of it is toxic. Yes, that was my whole point. Obviously you can't really reduce oxygen exposure (you can increase it, which is deleterious in high doses), but reduced intake of antioxidants, namely things like methionine and certain vitamins, absolutely does lead to faster degradation of the body. Note: there isn't conclusive evidence more antioxidants is better, just that deficits are definitely bad.
    - nikolay 5y ago
      Yeah, antioxidants actually erase the benefits of exercise... which benefits could be speculated to be a results of the controlled oxidative stress.
- nikolay 5y ago
  The same principle of hormesis applies to organic arsenic and many others natural to our diet toxins. Some of the phytochemicals are toxins and anti-nutrients the plans use to fend off herbivores, but could be beneficial to us in the right amounts during the rate state. Our retina has receptors for blue light, which get triggered even when your eyelids are shut. So, do you think blue light is not interesting to our body? Don't you think without bright light your eyesight can develop properly? This is not much different than the hygiene hypothesis - something could be beneficial in the way that we're programmed to expect it, and when we don't get it, our primed defenses actually hurt us. With time, we will adapt to be fine without blue light during the day, without UV, but so far, it seems that we need it for proper development!

copperx 5y ago

To be clear, UV and blue light ABSENCE might be the case why so many kids are shortsighted.

kortex 5y ago

What about UV and oxygen? We are well-adapted to those, but over time they degrade our bodies. The gimmicky glasses barely stop any blue light at all. The effect of bright blue light on preventing myopia settles down once you reach adulthood. There's no evidence it helps after that, your corneas have already set.

nikolay 5y ago
So, we should cut off oxygen, because like everything, it has a beneficial range? I don't mind wearing blue-light-blocking eyeglasses at night, but to wear them all day long is plain stupid. Also, there's the phenomenon called hormesis, which recently shows benefits in the right amounts of even X-ray radiation. So, just like with UV, you should get enough of UV, but not above the upper limit, and should not fall below the lower one either. Same applies to everything including water - too much of it is toxic.
- kortex 5y ago
  > Same applies to everything including water - too much of it is toxic. Yes, that was my whole point. Obviously you can't really reduce oxygen exposure (you can increase it, which is deleterious in high doses), but reduced intake of antioxidants, namely things like methionine and certain vitamins, absolutely does lead to faster degradation of the body. Note: there isn't conclusive evidence more antioxidants is better, just that deficits are definitely bad.
  - nikolay 5y ago
    Yeah, antioxidants actually erase the benefits of exercise... which benefits could be speculated to be a results of the controlled oxidative stress.
nikolay 5y ago
The same principle of hormesis applies to organic arsenic and many others natural to our diet toxins. Some of the phytochemicals are toxins and anti-nutrients the plans use to fend off herbivores, but could be beneficial to us in the right amounts during the rate state. Our retina has receptors for blue light, which get triggered even when your eyelids are shut. So, do you think blue light is not interesting to our body? Don't you think without bright light your eyesight can develop properly? This is not much different than the hygiene hypothesis - something could be beneficial in the way that we're programmed to expect it, and when we don't get it, our primed defenses actually hurt us. With time, we will adapt to be fine without blue light during the day, without UV, but so far, it seems that we need it for proper development!