Does Blue light from our devices affect how we observe at our telescope

[StarDuke82]

We have Smartphones, Laptops, LED lighting, LED Televisions our eyes are literally being bombarded with blue light constantly and most studies are showing that it is harmful to our health and our eyes. It disrupts our Sleep Patterns, it can burn our retinas if our screens are too bright, and some studies say it can even cause cataracts, eye cancer and macular degeneration. I know personally if I am on my phone all day or at my laptop and I try to use my scope I often can’t see anything through my eyepiece. Its worse if I spend a whole night observing and go out the next night without adequate sleep, on those occasions I can’t even focus on stars the night sky is a swirling mass of black static and my eyes sometimes go completely dark and I have to call it a night because well if you can’t see anything through your eyepiece then why be out. Perhaps this is a problem that only plagues me but I suspect that some others have the same issues especially with aging eyes or those that wear glasses, in any event it’s not good. Red light displays and Settings are a good solution as they are generally gentler on the eyes and don’t disturb night adapted eyes; but alot of devices simply turn the display red and do nothing for the brightness so be mindful.  There are also special blue light filter lenses for glasses that cut out the harmful glare and protect your eyes this is a fairly good alternative if you do EEA or other activities that have you at a device all for periods at time to protect your eyes. 

[saac]

Personally,I think the best thing to do is avoid any or as much light as practicably possible.  Even if using red light have it as dim as possible and only on for the minimum of time needed. 

Jim 

[bosun21]

I have my phones constantly on warm night mode 24 hours a day. I also have the warm setting up pretty high. I have grown to prefer this setting and only switch it off if I want to look at photographs closely. As regards night time observing, the less of any type of light the better.

Edited July 13, 2023 by bosun21

[Carbon Brush]

Yes an interesting thought.

It is well known there is an association with catarcts and UV. I once saw a TV programme about people who lived in a high mountain region (sorry I forget the who and where details). 
The important thing is they had a really high incidence of cataracts, blamed by the professionals on increased UV at altitude.

We all use 'white' lights now that are often derived from shhorter, ultra violet wavelengths.
There are basically two ways to make a white non-filament light.
The first is to build it from separate red/green/blue LED emitters and balance the colours.
The second is to shine UV at phosphors. The phosphors convert the short wavelength UV to longer wavelengths that we can see.
A technique used in fluorescent tubes and LEDs.
But how much UV (invisible but harmful) gets through?

Spectacles for screen users, cutting down UV, are available from many sources.
From branded stuff to the untested and uncertifed stuff from the landfill generating country to the east.

Looking forward to someone more knowledgeable tham me (which should be easy) contributing.

 

 

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

26 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

how much UV (invisible but harmful) gets through

As far as I know, no shortwave UV gets through because plastics and ordinary glass absorbs it. Longwave UV is not generally considered to be harmful, not energetic enough to break chemical bonds. PS You are a bit unfair on China, they only make the stuff because we consume, and we make the landfill when we chuck it away.

[Carbon Brush]

1 hour ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

You are a bit unfair on China, they only make the stuff because we consume, and we make the landfill when we chuck it away.

Sorry to drift off topic. Having seen various electrical equipment with FAKE mains fuses - HRC fuses that aren't. Then mains 'fuses' made from thin PCB tracks. Many other dangerous build practices that the man in the street doesn't know how to find, I don't trust them. Once I queried a mains cable they told me was correct and sent me the certificate to prove it. Actually they sent me an extract of the standard that proved they had used the wrong cable!
I was once asked to look at a Segway copy type of machine that was having battery problems. It was stuffed full of lithium cells - about 10 laptops worth. It had been air freighted from China without air transport approval on the battery pack.
Yes if we are daft enough to buy drill bits that struggle on stale cheese it is our fault. But often the fake materials and shoddy construction are not detected early enough. E scooters bursting into flames while charging for example?

Back on topic. Yes hopefully plastic will filter short UV.

[Tiny Clanger]

20 hours ago, StarDuke82 said:

We have Smartphones, Laptops, LED lighting, LED Televisions our eyes are literally being bombarded with blue light constantly and most studies are showing that it is harmful to our health and our eyes. It disrupts our Sleep Patterns, it can burn our retinas if our screens are too bright, and some studies say it can even cause cataracts, eye cancer and macular degeneration.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/will-blue-light-from-electronic-devices-increase-my-risk-of-macular-degeneration-and-blindness-2019040816365

appears to be a credible source and a qualified author, and says

"Compared to the risk from aging, smoking, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and being overweight, exposure to typical levels of blue light from consumer electronics is negligible in terms of increased risk of macular degeneration or blindness. Furthermore, the current evidence does not support the use of blue light-blocking lenses to protect the health of the retina, and advertisers have even been fined for misleading claims about these types of lenses."

 

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

2 hours ago, Carbon Brush said:

Sorry to drift off topic

No problem, and I get the counterfeit rubbish angle, but who can resist the bargain gizmo at 1/10 the price you would expect pay! Before you think that's me BTW I am being as sarcastic as I can manage. Just for amusement sake I once bought a cable stripper from a pound shop, got home, picked some unchallenging cable, got my wife to watch the result. It had the mechanical strength of wet paper, we both fell about laughing - it was worth the pound for the jollity.

[StarDuke82]

16 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/will-blue-light-from-electronic-devices-increase-my-risk-of-macular-degeneration-and-blindness-2019040816365

appears to be a credible source and a qualified author, and says

"Compared to the risk from aging, smoking, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and being overweight, exposure to typical levels of blue light from consumer electronics is negligible in terms of increased risk of macular degeneration or blindness. Furthermore, the current evidence does not support the use of blue light-blocking lenses to protect the health of the retina, and advertisers have even been fined for misleading claims about these types of lenses."

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/blue-light-has-a-dark-side a later study that says from a year later counteracting some of their previous findings and showing that Blue light blocking lenses or goggles work for blocking light.  Of course just like polarized sunglasses there are fraudulent companies that make claims that their lenses block light and they don’t work because they don’t have the proper optical properties or coatings.  And though just an Article from Good Rx it’s from 2023 https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/eye/blue-light-bad-for-your-eyes and it states the findings are still inconclusive and contradictory on blue light from devices and LED’s being harmful meaning there’s Data that shows that it does and doesn’t, considering that it emits light in the same part of the spectrum and depending on the diodes or color of light you’re viewing I suspect it does. Of course then there’s also this exert from the European Book of Research and Pharmaceutical Medicine https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364994490_Effects_Of_Blue_Light_On_Human_Body that state that it is harmful and more research needs to be done 

Edited July 14, 2023 by StarDuke82

[Tiny Clanger]

5 hours ago, StarDuke82 said:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/blue-light-has-a-dark-side a later study that says from a year later counteracting some of their previous findings and showing that Blue light blocking lenses or goggles work for blocking light.

That doesn't mention eye damage at all, but sleep patterns.

5 hours ago, StarDuke82 said:

 And though just an Article from Good Rx it’s from 2023 https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/eye/blue-light-bad-for-your-eyes

"Thanks for visiting! GoodRx is not available outside of the United States", so I can't assess that site. I wondered why, then read the wikipedia page about it, which says "GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is an American healthcare company that operates a telemedicine platform and a free-to-use website and mobile app that track prescription drug prices in the United States and provide drug coupons for discounts on medications."

6 hours ago, StarDuke82 said:

Of course then there’s also this exert from the European Book of Research and Pharmaceutical Medicine https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364994490_Effects_Of_Blue_Light_On_Human_Body that state that it is harmful and more research needs to be done 

I read the whole of that, it's not very long, not at all technical, and I couldn't help but note the many mistakes in grammar and punctuation. That lack of rigour is worrying, suggesting as it does a less than adequate peer review system and editorial policy for what claims to be an academic publication. I've no knowledge of that particular publisher, but am aware that there are many dubious sites feeding off  academics need to publish in order to advance their careers. The competition for positions and funding requires they show they have published work. There's even a phrase for it in common use, 'publish or perish'.

Drill down a bit further, look at the references, and they cite for eye damage research on rats, mice and goldfish. Not humans, and all in laboratory conditions on small samples of animals with extremely high intensity light.

I followed another of their references, "O'Hagan JB, Khazova M, Price LL. Low-energy light bulbs, computers, tablets and the blue light hazard." which you can read at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26768920/ , the abstract says

"Occasional claims that the light sources with emissions containing blue light may cause eye damage raise concerns in the media. The aim of the study was to determine if it was appropriate to issue advice on the public health concerns. A number of sources were assessed and the exposure conditions were compared with international exposure limits, and the exposure likely to be received from staring at a blue sky. None of the sources assessed approached the exposure limits, even for extended viewing times. "

I'm not getting at you, it's just that there's a lot of background research to be done before it's possible to have a reasonable level of confidence in an scientific article or journal, Unless it is one with an excellent reputation. It's important to know how the system works, approach it with suitable scientific scepticism, and spend time investigating sources, authors, commercial links etc. before you accept an article as a genuinely good source, because science departments, authors, and academics are all under the same societal pressures as everyone else, and scientists are just as human.

It does appear that the temporary effects of strong light on human circadian rhythms are generally accepted as true, with a clear causation from melatonin suppression, but that's an entirely different topic, and is not evidence of possible physical eye damage.

[StarDuke82]

3 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

That doesn't mention eye damage at all, but sleep patterns.

"Thanks for visiting! GoodRx is not available outside of the United States", so I can't assess that site. I wondered why, then read the wikipedia page about it, which says "GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is an American healthcare company that operates a telemedicine platform and a free-to-use website and mobile app that track prescription drug prices in the United States and provide drug coupons for discounts on medications."

I read the whole of that, it's not very long, not at all technical, and I couldn't help but note the many mistakes in grammar and punctuation. That lack of rigour is worrying, suggesting as it does a less than adequate peer review system and editorial policy for what claims to be an academic publication. I've no knowledge of that particular publisher, but am aware that there are many dubious sites feeding off  academics need to publish in order to advance their careers. The competition for positions and funding requires they show they have published work. There's even a phrase for it in common use, 'publish or perish'.

Drill down a bit further, look at the references, and they cite for eye damage research on rats, mice and goldfish. Not humans, and all in laboratory conditions on small samples of animals with extremely high intensity light.

I followed another of their references, "O'Hagan JB, Khazova M, Price LL. Low-energy light bulbs, computers, tablets and the blue light hazard." which you can read at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26768920/ , the abstract says

"Occasional claims that the light sources with emissions containing blue light may cause eye damage raise concerns in the media. The aim of the study was to determine if it was appropriate to issue advice on the public health concerns. A number of sources were assessed and the exposure conditions were compared with international exposure limits, and the exposure likely to be received from staring at a blue sky. None of the sources assessed approached the exposure limits, even for extended viewing times. "

I'm not getting at you, it's just that there's a lot of background research to be done before it's possible to have a reasonable level of confidence in an scientific article or journal, Unless it is one with an excellent reputation. It's important to know how the system works, approach it with suitable scientific scepticism, and spend time investigating sources, authors, commercial links etc. before you accept an article as a genuinely good source, because science departments, authors, and academics are all under the same societal pressures as everyone else, and scientists are just as human.

It does appear that the temporary effects of strong light on human circadian rhythms are generally accepted as true, with a clear causation from melatonin suppression, but that's an entirely different topic, and is not evidence of possible physical eye damage.

I don’t feel like you’re getting at me the whole reason I started this thread was to open a discussion about this topic and get varying opinions and views. Also I agree with you on some points but you have to agree that when you look at a screen for even few minutes and turn away or blink it leaves a afterimage burnt into your eyes for a brief moment. I know personally I can’t look at a phone screen, LED or or even walk outside on a beautiful sunny day and look at the blue sky with my eyes burning and seeing after images of the light source (shape of the device or light bulb) or swirling static in a blue sky. Anything that does that is damaging your eyes whether you want to believe it or not and you can easily check the light from LEDs with a Spectroscope and headlights, streetlights and most of the lights I have tested with them with my own spectrometer I use to measure the efficiency of filters I order and various other things like identifying leaks in lines but I digress, if you look them through a spectroscope a lot of peak closely to the UV spectrum and trail off into it, this particular light peaked around 436nm and probably dropped in the 250nm range in the UV spectrum and even spikes up in the red as if going into an infrared signature both of which are unfortunately missing (I need to upgrade my software on my Spectrometer)  but you can clearly see what I am talking about.  Sorry for the run on sentences When I get to writing I sometimes forget to put punctuation just keep going it’s a bad habit I need to get out of. 😂

Edited July 14, 2023 by StarDuke82
Apologies for my run on sentences and paragraphs

[Tiny Clanger]

18 minutes ago, StarDuke82 said:

 but you have to agree that when you look at a screen for even few minutes and turn away or blink it leaves a afterimage burnt into your eyes for a brief moment. I know personally I can’t look at a phone screen, LED or or even walk outside on a beautiful sunny day and look at the blue sky with my eyes burning and seeing after images of the light source (shape of the device or light bulb) or swirling static in a blue sky. Anything that does that is damaging your eyes whether you want to believe it or not

After images are an entirely different thing, a temporary and poorly understood quirk of our colour vision, nothing at all to do with blue light or physical damage to our eyes. There seem to be differences between the sudden after image caused by a brief photo flashgun  , which is bright and the negative after image which forms from longer less bright light. No one ever sued a photographic manufacturer because a flash unit damaged their eyes, even if fools like me occasionally stood in front of a studio flash and pressed the test button without remembering to look away from the reflector. A half minute or so and our sight restores itself to normal because this isn't physical damage, but something in the neural system which, in effect, seems to stop registering the light (and colour ) being flooded with, so you see a negative after image which subtracts that shape and colour, leaving you seeing, for a few moments, the shape in the opposite colour. Do an online search, there are various possible explanations I'm aware of,  but I'm no neurologist so best someone who is does the explaining for you.

I used to include it as a fun optical illusion when teaching 8 year olds about light and how our eyes work. Draw a shape on some white paper, something simple like a square or triangle maybe 4cm or so across . Colour it in a strong darkish colour, green or red work well, blue may be less good for this trick. I used to use pieces of coloured sticky paper stuck on card. Now rest your elbows on the table, and hold your head in your hands for at least 2 minutes. You hold your head as still as possible, and stare at the shape on the paper. When the time is up, quickly look up at a plain white wall and see your shape, in the opposite colour . It works less well with a blue shape because the after image will be yellow and therefore paler and harder to see.

One cheeky little guy took this trick home, had his little brother stare at a red drawing of a ghost while listening to a spooky tale about a green ghost which haunted their house, then pointed at the wall and said , "Quick, look there it is !"

Belief doesn't come into it, and I do not have to agree, because science does not work like that. I'll leave any further explanations to someone else, I think I've done my bit.

 

 

[Steve Ward]

The simple answer is ... when participating in astronomical observation leave your electronic "devices" , be they laptops , tablets or the ubiquitous 'smartphone' indoors well away from the observation point , i.e. the telescope.

And try not staring at the phone all day long if you're worried about it affecting your eyes .... !

[StarDuke82]

1 hour ago, Tiny Clanger said:

After images are an entirely different thing, a temporary and poorly understood quirk of our colour vision, nothing at all to do with blue light or physical damage to our eyes. There seem to be differences between the sudden after image caused by a brief photo flashgun  , which is bright and the negative after image which forms from longer less bright light. No one ever sued a photographic manufacturer because a flash unit damaged their eyes, even if fools like me occasionally stood in front of a studio flash and pressed the test button without remembering to look away from the reflector. A half minute or so and our sight restores itself to normal because this isn't physical damage, but something in the neural system which, in effect, seems to stop registering the light (and colour ) being flooded with, so you see a negative after image which subtracts that shape and colour, leaving you seeing, for a few moments, the shape in the opposite colour. Do an online search, there are various possible explanations I'm aware of,  but I'm no neurologist so best someone who is does the explaining for you.

I used to include it as a fun optical illusion when teaching 8 year olds about light and how our eyes work. Draw a shape on some white paper, something simple like a square or triangle maybe 4cm or so across . Colour it in a strong darkish colour, green or red work well, blue may be less good for this trick. I used to use pieces of coloured sticky paper stuck on card. Now rest your elbows on the table, and hold your head in your hands for at least 2 minutes. You hold your head as still as possible, and stare at the shape on the paper. When the time is up, quickly look up at a plain white wall and see your shape, in the opposite colour . It works less well with a blue shape because the after image will be yellow and therefore paler and harder to see.

One cheeky little guy took this trick home, had his little brother stare at a red drawing of a ghost while listening to a spooky tale about a green ghost which haunted their house, then pointed at the wall and said , "Quick, look there it is !"

Belief doesn't come into it, and I do not have to agree, because science does not work like that. I'll leave any further explanations to someone else, I think I've done my bit.

 

 

I guess you’ve never read up on Flash Blindness it’s rare but it can happen and be caused by photography, nuclear explosions, landing lights, lasers, UV lights ect… I’m not trying to argue with you but I also know that is an actual issue, if I didn’t have concerns or have problems with my own eyesight occasionally I wouldn’t have even thought about bringing it up. 
 

I hate it when I have nights that I have to step away from my scope because I just can’t see anything because the view through my scope looks pixelated. Then there’s nights when either my pupils are so strained they constrict to where I can’t see or it’s hitting a blind spot on my retina I can’t figure out which; but if anyone else has experienced something like this I would think there’s some kind of connection and the only thing I can think of is I have LED’s everywhere and I constantly use a Device. Going on that I did some research and decided to make a post to start a discussion. I didn’t think I was going to have to give a dissertation and cite sources just a friendly discussion but you made it interesting. 

[StarDuke82]

18 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

The simple answer is ... when participating in astronomical observation leave your electronic "devices" , be they laptops , tablets or the ubiquitous 'smartphone' indoors well away from the observation point , i.e. the telescope.

And try not staring at the phone all day long if you're worried about it affecting your eyes .... !

True but it’s kind of hard when you’re using a Device to control your telescope and setup, and then process images if you do photography.  I keep mine on low brightness most of the time and set all my indoor lights on timers to go red at night it’s one of the safest and least harsh colors on your eyes and preserve your night adapted eyesight if you have to go inside for anything.

[Steve Ward]

29 minutes ago, StarDuke82 said:

True but it’s kind of hard when you’re using a Device to control your telescope and setup, and then process images if you do photography.  I keep mine on low brightness most of the time and set all my indoor lights on timers to go red at night it’s one of the safest and least harsh colors on your eyes and preserve your night adapted eyesight if you have to go inside for anything.

You weren't talking about photography , you were complaining about your eyesight whilst at the eyepiece.

Your best bet woud be to visit a healthcare professional regarding your eyes instead of speculating on an astronomy forum on something that would appear to be a medical issue.

[StarDuke82]

3 hours ago, Steve Ward said:

You weren't talking about photography , you were complaining about your eyesight whilst at the eyepiece.

Your best bet woud be to visit a healthcare professional regarding your eyes instead of speculating on an astronomy forum on something that would appear to be a medical issue.

The two are interrelated and a lot of new scopes are controlled via devices. Besides that I go to an Optometrist every year and other than being near sighted with an astigmatism and having 42 years on my odometer my vision is fine. As for Speculation, I don’t think it’s Speculation when I post links to research and recent articles about the subject, even Harvard changed some of their ideas on Blue light and its well known the effects of devices and LED and Fluorescent lighting causing eye strain, blurred vision, headaches and sleep deprivation supported by several studies from over the last few years from several reputable researchers. I was just trying to start a conversation about the subject. Even my more extreme claims in my opening statement haven’t been disproven because the data is contradictory, diseases like heart disease, diabetes and obesity may be more of a concern but I for one consider my vision very important and would like to know if there is a risk even if it’s just minimal.