3 ms·

I can only find references to the opposite: that blocking blue light might -- emphasis on "might" -- be help prevent myopia, not that it causes myopia?

by saurik 1y ago

trod1234 1y ago
The foundational work was done by Fritz Hollwich, a German Opthalmologist in the 1970s. Supplementary work was done by John Nash Ott in the same time period when he had numerous issues with time-lapse displays with plants dying under artificial light. Together they show environmental light greatly impacts both plant kingdoms and animal kingdom species. Many studies since then have been done, though some are not translated to English. The high energy near N-UV (370nm and below) from common white LEDs may cause retinopothy. Individuals who received lasik treatments between 2000 and 2009 (iirc) had their lens replaced with a lens that blocked NIR/IR. Incidents of macular degeneration are higher in such groups, along with myopia. Prior to 1998 blue-light LEDs were not manufactured, and NIR light leakage weren't issues. There are demographic studies for countries that have high exposure to digital LED-based signage where light pollution is an issue. The incidence rates in school children in those regions are dramatic (~70% iirc); Japan was one such country that studied this. The unfortunate thing is a lot of this research isn't available to the general public because it is paywalled. Its also not an area that has received a lot of funding compared to other areas. The TL;DR is there's a biochemical switch in the eye that travels through to the brain which controls metabolic hormones and gene expression based upon the light you are exposed to, and it is turned on or off based on the levels of natural sunlight you are exposed to and the time of day. There are also a number of chemicals within the eye itself that act as light traps/charge signaling, as well as melatonin based specks which have biochemical reactions with UV, and reflect UV (to a lesser degree). That should get you started in finding references.
- saurik 1y ago
  I might be misreading what you are saying but it still sounds like exactly the opposite? (As in, that exposure to blue light is linked with myopia, not that blocking blue light is linked with myopia.) FWIW, I assume I am simply misunderstanding your use of "linked to" (which I thought is only ever used to establish a correlation, not an anti-correlation; like, "new study shows red meat linked to hear disease" would be awkward wording if one meant "prevents").
  - trod1234 1y ago
    You are misreading what was said. Its not either, or. There are two things mentioned in the context of light mediated pathways, thus two bounds, one from the lower frequency going down, and one on the upper frequency of the visual spectra going up. The papers from the author's mentioned, specifically Hollwich, showed that when the light pathways are blocked as happened in coma patients, and eye surgeries at the time, it showed up problematically (in outcomes) and in the biochemical tests they had done in those patients, and rapidly corrected once they were exposed to natural light. Incidentally, these studies lay a strong groundwork for a causal link with the underlying biochemistry and light in people, not just correlation. They controlled for this rigorously, comparing bloodwork for other surgeries, and similar in naturally blind people including those that lacked or didn't have normal photoreceptors. Overall it was consistent in support of light mediated pathways within the eye itself. The depressed biochemical activity in some cases was so severe over such a length of time that it led to physical deformation of the eye which is common in myopia/macular degeneration/retinopothy, which resolved itself upon sufficient exposure to natural light in most cases. There are two loops that are impacted dramatically by light which ramp up or slow down activity in the pituitary. Retinopothy is closely associated with spikes of high energy light waves in the Blue-Violet spectrum (phototoxicity). Macular degeneration, and Myopia with lack of Red-NIR-IR light. Hopefully that clarifies. The papers involved were groundbreaking, and hardly anyone outside of the field of Ophthalmology have heard of these people, there are a lot of people that seek to draw fallacy and discredit because lack of evidence. There is a vested industry that would be impacted as a health hazard (all LED displays). Very little research has been done on these pathways because there hasn't been funding, similar in scope to the same way flouride research in water was done, which took India doing a comprehensive national study to show it lowered IQ in children above a certain threshold in ppm; nonetheless the fact that these pathways do exist is not disputed. There is solid science to support it.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  I'm not convinced. You suggest a lot of information is paywalled or in another language. Canadian girlfriend much? > There are also a number of chemicals within the eye itself that act as light traps/charge signaling, as well as melatonin based specks which have biochemical reactions with UV, and reflect UV (to a lesser degree). Weak sauce. There are a number of chemicals within the skin itself that act as light traps; it doesn't mean NIR photons are dangerous to our bodies. > Together they show environmental light greatly impacts both plant kingdoms and animal kingdom species. Not even weak sauce. This has been known since at least 2,000 B.C.E. Your entire post is a nothing burger. And you haven't even mentioned the effect contrails have on macular degradation yet.
  - trod1234 1y ago
    Luckily I don't need to convince you. Unfortunately, not everything can be conveniently handed to someone for review when there has been a coordinated effort to either suppress or make unavailable. The papers exist, you can look them up, and read them. Some are in German. You didn't bother. In such cases, its rational and standard practice that statements aren't to be discounted until you actually read the material and verify one way or the other. Judgment is withheld until then. Something you fail to do here. I pointed to the people who did the most work which is sufficient, especially given the fact that claims were made that there are no resources out there on this. There are, they just aren't generally public. If you have access to Alumni resources; or are able to read another language, great you can read those papers and get the details. Hollwich is particularly famous for his work on both people and later in animals. The pathways mentioned exists, and were confirmed with proper controls in people. Your claim that this is a nothing burger is unfounded without rational basis, it amounts to "You didn't hand me everything on a plate so you must be wrong". This is not only a total fallacy, but the same kind of behavior observed in toddlers and people who are disadvantaged from their excessive level of entitlement. These characteristics naturally exclude people from being researchers and makes any viable discussion dubious at best, based on a lack of credibility from those people. Given your proclivity to contrails and other conspiracy, I think you may have forgotten to mention other biased beliefs other fantastical things that may be clouding your reasoning; or alternatively if you had meant that sarcastically you should have added /s at the end which is standard netiquette. Overall your response is based in ad hominem, and thus should be discarded by any discerning reader. Your statements are easily refuted. They certainly didn't have biochemical testing in 2000 BCE to prove this. The researchers mentioned did use testing to prove this pathway exists, rigorously. In my estimation of your response, you are the type of person that would believe the earth is flat. Good luck convincing those people of anything.

I can only find references to the opposite: that blocking blue light might -- emphasis on "might" -- be help prevent myopia, not that it causes myopia?

by saurik 1y ago

I can only find references to the opposite: that blocking blue light might -- emphasis on "might" -- be help prevent myopia, not that it causes myopia?

trod1234 1y ago

The foundational work was done by Fritz Hollwich, a German Opthalmologist in the 1970s. Supplementary work was done by John Nash Ott in the same time period when he had numerous issues with time-lapse displays with plants dying under artificial light. Together they show environmental light greatly impacts both plant kingdoms and animal kingdom species. Many studies since then have been done, though some are not translated to English. The high energy near N-UV (370nm and below) from common white LEDs may cause retinopothy. Individuals who received lasik treatments between 2000 and 2009 (iirc) had their lens replaced with a lens that blocked NIR/IR. Incidents of macular degeneration are higher in such groups, along with myopia. Prior to 1998 blue-light LEDs were not manufactured, and NIR light leakage weren't issues. There are demographic studies for countries that have high exposure to digital LED-based signage where light pollution is an issue. The incidence rates in school children in those regions are dramatic (~70% iirc); Japan was one such country that studied this. The unfortunate thing is a lot of this research isn't available to the general public because it is paywalled. Its also not an area that has received a lot of funding compared to other areas. The TL;DR is there's a biochemical switch in the eye that travels through to the brain which controls metabolic hormones and gene expression based upon the light you are exposed to, and it is turned on or off based on the levels of natural sunlight you are exposed to and the time of day. There are also a number of chemicals within the eye itself that act as light traps/charge signaling, as well as melatonin based specks which have biochemical reactions with UV, and reflect UV (to a lesser degree). That should get you started in finding references.

saurik 1y ago
I might be misreading what you are saying but it still sounds like exactly the opposite? (As in, that exposure to blue light is linked with myopia, not that blocking blue light is linked with myopia.) FWIW, I assume I am simply misunderstanding your use of "linked to" (which I thought is only ever used to establish a correlation, not an anti-correlation; like, "new study shows red meat linked to hear disease" would be awkward wording if one meant "prevents").
- trod1234 1y ago
  You are misreading what was said. Its not either, or. There are two things mentioned in the context of light mediated pathways, thus two bounds, one from the lower frequency going down, and one on the upper frequency of the visual spectra going up. The papers from the author's mentioned, specifically Hollwich, showed that when the light pathways are blocked as happened in coma patients, and eye surgeries at the time, it showed up problematically (in outcomes) and in the biochemical tests they had done in those patients, and rapidly corrected once they were exposed to natural light. Incidentally, these studies lay a strong groundwork for a causal link with the underlying biochemistry and light in people, not just correlation. They controlled for this rigorously, comparing bloodwork for other surgeries, and similar in naturally blind people including those that lacked or didn't have normal photoreceptors. Overall it was consistent in support of light mediated pathways within the eye itself. The depressed biochemical activity in some cases was so severe over such a length of time that it led to physical deformation of the eye which is common in myopia/macular degeneration/retinopothy, which resolved itself upon sufficient exposure to natural light in most cases. There are two loops that are impacted dramatically by light which ramp up or slow down activity in the pituitary. Retinopothy is closely associated with spikes of high energy light waves in the Blue-Violet spectrum (phototoxicity). Macular degeneration, and Myopia with lack of Red-NIR-IR light. Hopefully that clarifies. The papers involved were groundbreaking, and hardly anyone outside of the field of Ophthalmology have heard of these people, there are a lot of people that seek to draw fallacy and discredit because lack of evidence. There is a vested industry that would be impacted as a health hazard (all LED displays). Very little research has been done on these pathways because there hasn't been funding, similar in scope to the same way flouride research in water was done, which took India doing a comprehensive national study to show it lowered IQ in children above a certain threshold in ppm; nonetheless the fact that these pathways do exist is not disputed. There is solid science to support it.
IAmBroom 1y ago
I'm not convinced. You suggest a lot of information is paywalled or in another language. Canadian girlfriend much? > There are also a number of chemicals within the eye itself that act as light traps/charge signaling, as well as melatonin based specks which have biochemical reactions with UV, and reflect UV (to a lesser degree). Weak sauce. There are a number of chemicals within the skin itself that act as light traps; it doesn't mean NIR photons are dangerous to our bodies. > Together they show environmental light greatly impacts both plant kingdoms and animal kingdom species. Not even weak sauce. This has been known since at least 2,000 B.C.E. Your entire post is a nothing burger. And you haven't even mentioned the effect contrails have on macular degradation yet.
- trod1234 1y ago
  Luckily I don't need to convince you. Unfortunately, not everything can be conveniently handed to someone for review when there has been a coordinated effort to either suppress or make unavailable. The papers exist, you can look them up, and read them. Some are in German. You didn't bother. In such cases, its rational and standard practice that statements aren't to be discounted until you actually read the material and verify one way or the other. Judgment is withheld until then. Something you fail to do here. I pointed to the people who did the most work which is sufficient, especially given the fact that claims were made that there are no resources out there on this. There are, they just aren't generally public. If you have access to Alumni resources; or are able to read another language, great you can read those papers and get the details. Hollwich is particularly famous for his work on both people and later in animals. The pathways mentioned exists, and were confirmed with proper controls in people. Your claim that this is a nothing burger is unfounded without rational basis, it amounts to "You didn't hand me everything on a plate so you must be wrong". This is not only a total fallacy, but the same kind of behavior observed in toddlers and people who are disadvantaged from their excessive level of entitlement. These characteristics naturally exclude people from being researchers and makes any viable discussion dubious at best, based on a lack of credibility from those people. Given your proclivity to contrails and other conspiracy, I think you may have forgotten to mention other biased beliefs other fantastical things that may be clouding your reasoning; or alternatively if you had meant that sarcastically you should have added /s at the end which is standard netiquette. Overall your response is based in ad hominem, and thus should be discarded by any discerning reader. Your statements are easily refuted. They certainly didn't have biochemical testing in 2000 BCE to prove this. The researchers mentioned did use testing to prove this pathway exists, rigorously. In my estimation of your response, you are the type of person that would believe the earth is flat. Good luck convincing those people of anything.