Talk:Biological effects of high-energy visible light

all those blue Wikipedia links ....

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)

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)

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)

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)

So essentially all light will result in our retinas exploding? 72.70.128.178 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

White Light Has Blue in it

So.. I don't understand. White light has blue in it, how are we going to avoid blue light? I think this is bad science, and a lie. 50.47.131.149 (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to be careful how we define blue here. Yes, white light requires some form of blue. But it could be cyan. Better white light sources (like fluorescent lights used in office buildings) include cyan and red components. If you didn't care about CRI, you could make white from cyan and red alone -- which has no 400-450nm blue in it. So be careful how you define blue, when you say "white light has blue in it".

Consider light sources like fluorescent bulbs or white LEDs. Instead of emitting light in a broad, black-body like spectrum, they have significant emission peaks. For instance white LEDs are often made by coating a blue LED (emission peak in high energy visible specturem, around 450 to 470nm) with a yellow phosphor. The combination of the blue peak and the yellow give a white appearance. But it may have a more concentrated emissions in that peak than an incandescent source would with the same effective color and light output.

Cool White Fluorescent bulbs may have emission peaks at even shorter wave lengths. (e.g., 400, 435, 550) Zodon (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that a narrow-peaked emission spectrum is more hazardous than a broad spectrum with the same integrated flux (even if convolved with the relevant action spectrum)? It may be a naive misconception that a higher spectral intensity may lead to similarly higher damage caused by this light in the same way as spatially concentrated light (e.g. behind a lens) does. In case of mercury-based lamps this would only be the case if our retina would also work with mercury as a major agent for photo reception (which would imply a very narrow/spiked response spectrum of the retina). But this isn't the case. Therefore, I strongly suppose that only the integrated intensity (times a wavelength-dependent action factor) matters. In this case, the blue mercury spike of cool-white fluorescent indoor lighting of about 1000 lux would be equivalent to only one per cent of the noon Sun (about 100,000 lux).

Yes, the melanopsin receptors require the 480nm component. That's where LEDs fail. I have updated the "effects of blue light technology" article.

In other words: Is there any proper reason to worry about blue-light hazard from home lighting (even if one preferres cool-white light) at Central European (or U.S.) latitudes?--SiriusB (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I second SiriusB's above question. --92.37.72.150 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

LCD monitors brightness around 300cd/m2, I'm stare into it over 8 hours per day.Monitors used to be CCFL backlit mainly in the market, nowdays LED backlit gradually take the place. CCFL got UV and Mercury problem,LED got high intensity blue light in it's spectrum and more noticeable flicker.They all got high intial brightness and low flicker frequency due low brightness.I need purchase a monitor recently. CCFL vanish more quickly in my country for energy saving issue. I'm freak out. --月夜长灯 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Does UV emitted from CCFL backlit can cause more damage than LED backlit blue light?if so,they all create white light through phosphor,LED backlit definitely safer,it does not leakage UV at all --月夜长灯 (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Car Headlamps

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)

chromatic aberration

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)

Requested move 29 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There does not appear to be sufficient clarity about the proper name of this article to support a move at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 01:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

High-energy visible light → Blue light hazard – I propose a rename of this article to Blue Light Hazard or something similar (the name of the main section of this article). I can't find much reliable evidence that high-energy visible light is a widespread and accepted term for blue light (I can find no sources with a precise definition), it is used as a general term in some scientific publications I have come across but rarely as a specific term worthy of its own article (or as the initialism HEV) Two of the three sources in the lead refer to blue light rather than high energy visible light. I would argue the current title is therefore not recognisable, natural or precise Beevil (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – there is plenty of evidence for the widespread use of the current term in opthamology and related fields. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – 79 results for that particular search does not, to me, indicate widespread use. More than one of the results refers to "high-energy visible light such as blue light" (emphasis mine). There is more evidence for blue light hazard alone as an accepted term. Beevil (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What about the other side of the Argument ....

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)

Blue light and circadian rhythm

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)

Big Edit and move?

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)

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)

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)

• In any case, the primary research needs to be trimmed as it fails WP:MEDRS. Curran919 why are you trying to war this stuff back in? Bon courage (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Actual biological efects

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)

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)

Dermatology

PMID:35917260 looks like a potentially useful source. Has anybody got access to it? Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The pubmed abstract clearly shows the summary of the findings, which is in agreement with the open access review that I posted. Unless you have a paywalled source that disagrees, you've no reason to doubt WP:RS/AC and revert. Feel free to replace it when you find a more reliable secondary source. Curran919 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Prefer to follow WP:NOABSTRACT, remembering there is no deadline. Also you are edit-warring poor-quality stuff (Philips adverts?) when the WP:ONUS is on you. Bon courage (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You can remove the phillips stuff if you want. I wouldn't revert that. I wouldn't consider that WP:BMI though. You could have just removed that, but even in your first removal of text from #derm, you left that in! Don't use that as a strawman.

Again, I never said to WP:NOABSTRACT the pubmed. I said to cite the openaccess and you don't have a single secondary source that refutes it, just WP:OR and magical thinking that the body of the paywalled pubmed article may disagree with their own abstract.

Onus IS on me. I satisfied it. You are being a troll.

Here's your pubmed article excerpt. You put it in. I'll be damned if I am putting an ounce more effort in something you will certainly revert.

https://imgur.com/a/fP4H3O3

And how do you put a revert war comment on my talk page when you have way more reverts on this article? Are you that confused? Curran919 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The trouble with that journal is it's WP:MDPI. (Add: There are quite a few decent quality sources on this: I have added one such. There is also the Kluwer one above if somebody could get access.) Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making this easy on me with your WP:3RR and clear WP:TE following this conversation. The pubmed systematic review that YOU found gave evidence level A for blue light on acne, as I showed in that excerpt. Instead, when that doesn't suit your skeptical agenda, you dig up older reviews, a move that you have specifically reverted before on other pages. Curran919 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but this attempted WP:BATTLE is tedious and everything you accuse me of is false. I am not interested in copyright-violating images; see WP:COPYLINK. If there are good sources simply summarize them and expand the article - it needn;t be complicated. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage, did you look up the individual journal? MDPI is a mixed bag, which means that some of their journals are acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think MDPI is acceptable for anything non-mundane, and especially when reputable (/MEDLINE-indexed) journals are available. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 says 'MDPI is very much hit-and-miss. MDPI on Beall's original list in 2014, but was removed in 2015. The updated list says "Some of their journals have a very poor peer-review; some are fine."' If "some are fine", then we should presumably accept those, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about MDPI's Life, which is where this happened. That incident was one of the reasons they got on Beall's list in the first place. MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about MDPI's Life, which was apparently a mess more than a decade ago, and whose current metrics are in the middle quintile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

But not for dermatology ... Bon courage (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because the MDPI brand is discredited and toxic. Some stuff in the WP:DAILYMAIL is fine, but we don't cite it at all. If however a MDPI journal passed the normal benchmarks (reasonable impact, well-reputed, MEDLINE-indexed) then a non-exceptional claim would be acceptable. This journal isn't that. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you look up the impact factor or other metrics?

I'm not concerned about the publisher's "brand". (Elsevier gets called toxic as well, and much worse.) WP:CITEWATCH says to evaluate these journals individually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I checked MEDLINE status and after than there were enough red flags flying not to pursue further. The ire directed at Elsevier is generally for reasons other than quality (though it has some poor journals). Bon courage (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

MDPI just had a couple of decently high impact factors stripped by Web of Science due to their focus on low quality 'special issues' from unqualified guest editors. 100 of their journals published 17,000 special issues in 2022. Some were publishing as many as 4 a day. The article we're discussing appeared in a special issue. None of this will be reflected in metrics, since they don't screen for endless special issues citing each other. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"Supplements" are sometimes paid advertising as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)