|
Replies
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Edited: 3 years ago, bio_man
Hi ForumUser5373, welcome to the forum. The source to the excerpts is cited below  ... an experimental study about blue light-induced oxidative stress injury on rabbit retinas showed that the rabbit retinas after 24h of blue light irradiation had become disordered in the inner and outer segments of the photoreceptor cells when compared with the normal control group. The outer retinal nuclei were scattered in the edematous cells, and the photoreceptor cells were mildly disordered. The more disordered the cell arrangement, the lower the thickness of the outer nuclear layer Mitochondria are the main targets of blue light-associated oxygen free radicals. Under aerobic conditions, blue light stimulates the mechanism of retinal initiation and oxidation, induces a large number of free radicals, destroys messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) and proteins, causes necrosis of photoreceptor cells and pigment epithelial cells, and destroys the dynamic balance of the body's normal redox state. Under conditions of severe oxidative stress, the retina ganglion cells (RGCs) present a large number of mitochondria in the intraocular axons and photoreceptors. The macular carotenoids in the Henle layer of the inner layer of the photoreceptor absorb short wave blue light, which occurs between 400 and 480 nm, so that blue light-induced damage to the RGCs' mitochondria is substantial. Extensive receptor interacting protein (RIP)1/RIP3 activation was shown to induce RGC death, thus causing speculation that the RIP kinase inhibitor can be used as a neuroprotector to lessen blue light-induced cell necrosis My take: There's no doubt that constant exposure to blue-light causes damages to one's retina. If you need further assistance understanding this content, reply back...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Hi ForumUser5373, welcome to the forum. The source to the excerpts is cited below ... an experimental study about blue light-induced oxidative stress injury on rabbit retinas showed that the rabbit retinas after 24h of blue light irradiation had become disordered in the inner and outer segments of the photoreceptor cells when compared with the normal control group. The outer retinal nuclei were scattered in the edematous cells, and the photoreceptor cells were mildly disordered. The more disordered the cell arrangement, the lower the thickness of the outer nuclear layer Mitochondria are the main targets of blue light-associated oxygen free radicals. Under aerobic conditions, blue light stimulates the mechanism of retinal initiation and oxidation, induces a large number of free radicals, destroys messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) and proteins, causes necrosis of photoreceptor cells and pigment epithelial cells, and destroys the dynamic balance of the body's normal redox state. Under conditions of severe oxidative stress, the retina ganglion cells (RGCs) present a large number of mitochondria in the intraocular axons and photoreceptors. The macular carotenoids in the Henle layer of the inner layer of the photoreceptor absorb short wave blue light, which occurs between 400 and 480 nm, so that blue light-induced damage to the RGCs' mitochondria is substantial. Extensive receptor interacting protein (RIP)1/RIP3 activation was shown to induce RGC death, thus causing speculation that the RIP kinase inhibitor can be used as a neuroprotector to lessen blue light-induced cell necrosis My take: There's no doubt that constant exposure to blue-light causes damages to one's retina. If you need further assistance understanding this content, reply back... Thanks for the reply! It sounds like it definitely can be harmful. Is there any truth to the idea that it's not harmful when it comes from the sun, because there are also other wavelengths present, which stop the eyes getting damaged as much? As I've seen a few people say this as a reason why screens could be dangerous even though sunlight isn't. Also would any damage caused to the eyes by blue light, would it begin the process of macular degeneration, or would it just potential mean it would happen a bit earlier? As it's age related, so slow damage to the eye been happening all along, and any damage done by blue light will just move the damage on a bit, potentially mean you could get AMD a few years earlier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Thanks for the reply! It sounds like it definitely can be harmful. Is there any truth to the idea that it's not harmful when it comes from the sun, because there are also other wavelengths present, which stop the eyes getting damaged as much? The sun is even more dangerous! Many astronomers of the past went blind by mid-life for starring into the sun too long. But of course, any sensible human doesn't spend countless hours starring at the sun as much as we star at our phones. Also would any damage caused to the eyes by blue light, would it begin the process of macular degeneration, or would it just potential mean it would happen a bit earlier? As it's age related, so slow damage to the eye been happening all along, and any damage done by blue light will just move the damage on a bit, potentially mean you could get AMD a few years earlier? If you're predisposed to the condition through genetics, then prolonged exposure will cause premature degeneration. The rule of thumb is that all diseases typically have a heredity component, even though it's dubbed to be "age-related". Hope that makes sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Thanks for the reply! It sounds like it definitely can be harmful. Is there any truth to the idea that it's not harmful when it comes from the sun, because there are also other wavelengths present, which stop the eyes getting damaged as much? The sun is even more dangerous! Many astronomers of the past went blind by mid-life for starring into the sun too long. But of course, any sensible human doesn't spend countless hours starring at the sun as much as we star at our phones. Also would any damage caused to the eyes by blue light, would it begin the process of macular degeneration, or would it just potential mean it would happen a bit earlier? As it's age related, so slow damage to the eye been happening all along, and any damage done by blue light will just move the damage on a bit, potentially mean you could get AMD a few years earlier? If you're predisposed to the condition through genetics, then prolonged exposure will cause premature degeneration. The rule of thumb is that all diseases typically have a heredity component, even though it's dubbed to be "age-related". Hope that makes sense Would just general exposure to sunlight (I.e. Being outside but not looking at the sun, just around at stuff as you walk about) be more dangerous that staring at a screen? I suppose the actual intensity of Blue light would be higher, but if it's wavelength based I'm not sure. By premature degradation do you mean like if you would just get it a bit earlier than you already would? So say if genetically I was probably likely to get it at the age of 70, prolonged exposure might bring that forward to 65 or 60 or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Would just general exposure to sunlight (I.e. Being outside but not looking at the sun, just around at stuff as you walk about) be more dangerous that staring at a screen? To clarify, my comment above was for staring directly at the sun, so general exposure is fine. My conscience tells me that starring constantly at your phone with full brightness is terrible for you. By premature degradation do you mean like if you would just get it a bit earlier than you already would?
Correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Would just general exposure to sunlight (I.e. Being outside but not looking at the sun, just around at stuff as you walk about) be more dangerous that staring at a screen? To clarify, my comment above was for staring directly at the sun, so general exposure is fine. My conscience tells me that starring constantly at your phone with full brightness is terrible for you. By premature degradation do you mean like if you would just get it a bit earlier than you already would? Correct. What specifically makes you think looking a a screen would be worse than looking around outside? (Not doubting your take, you are clearly much more knowledgable than I am on this lol, just curious). Would using a screen in the dark be significantly worse than in a well lit room? Maybe because of the contrast between bright and dark, although if it's wavelength dependant idk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
What specifically makes you think looking a a screen would be worse than looking around outside? (Not doubting your take, you are clearly much more knowledgable than I am on this lol, just curious). Because when you stare at your screen, you significantly blink less, and the brightness of the screen weakens your iris sphincter muscle overtime. Your iris is constantly trying to adjust to the variations in color and brightness. It's not natural, and it's always recommend that when you watch videos in darkness, that the brightness is adjusted to the lowest level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
What specifically makes you think looking a a screen would be worse than looking around outside? (Not doubting your take, you are clearly much more knowledgable than I am on this lol, just curious). Because when you stare at your screen, you significantly blink less, and the brightness of the screen weakens your iris sphincter muscle overtime. Your iris is constantly trying to adjust to the variations in color and brightness. It's not natural, and it's always recommend that when you watch videos in darkness, that the brightness is adjusted to the lowest level. Would the iris adjustment and stuff mean it did more damage to the macular? Or would that be more harmful in terms of causing you to need glasses in the future?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Would the iris adjustment and stuff mean it did more damage to the macular? Or would that be more harmful in terms of causing you to need glasses in the future? Well, more so of you needing glasses later on, and not necessarily macular degeneration, but still. From the studies above, constant exposure to blue light causes cellular damage, but none of the studies can pinpoint if cellphone usage and how much of it will lead to the condition. Lab studies have only shown that blue light can cause cellular damage, either directly to retinal cells or to the supporting retinal pigment epithelial cells directly below the retina. When you're out in the sun, it's bright out, but that light isn't directly pointed in the direction of your iris; we also squint if it's too bright, lessening the effect of sunlight. So definitely cell phone usually for 1 hour straight isn't equivalent to being in the sun for 1 hour straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Edited: 3 years ago, ForumUser5373
Would the iris adjustment and stuff mean it did more damage to the macular? Or would that be more harmful in terms of causing you to need glasses in the future? Well, more so of you needing glasses later on, and not necessarily macular degeneration, but still. From the studies above, constant exposure to blue light causes cellular damage, but none of the studies can pinpoint if cellphone usage and how much of it will lead to the condition. Lab studies have only shown that blue light can cause cellular damage, either directly to retinal cells or to the supporting retinal pigment epithelial cells directly below the retina. When you're out in the sun, it's bright out, but that light isn't directly pointed in the direction of your iris; we also squint if it's too bright, lessening the effect of sunlight. So definitely cell phone usually for 1 hour straight isn't equivalent to being in the sun for 1 hour straight. When I'm out in the sun I find myself squinting more than when I look at a screen, so I think even "ambient" sunlight might be brighter. Do you think it would be significantly worse to look at a screen in the dark than in a well lit room? As that's what concerns me most. Everyone looks at a screen a lot in the day, but I have for a few years looked at my phone at a night for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Do you think it would be significantly worse to look at a screen in the dark than in a well lit room? As that's what concerns me most. Everyone looks at a screen a lot in the day, but I have for a few years looked at my phone at a night for a while. Just in general or in relation to macular degeneration? If in general, I'd saying starring at your phone in the dark is worse because it tires your eyes, leading you to premature sight loss. In terms of blue-light exposure, it'd be the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
Do you think it would be significantly worse to look at a screen in the dark than in a well lit room? As that's what concerns me most. Everyone looks at a screen a lot in the day, but I have for a few years looked at my phone at a night for a while. Just in general or in relation to macular degeneration? If in general, I'd saying starring at your phone in the dark is worse because it tires your eyes, leading you to premature sight loss. In terms of blue-light exposure, it'd be the same thing. One of the main things that I thought was weird about some of the info on this I have seen on other forums, was the thing about it being wavelength dependant not intensity dependant. The claim someone was making was basically two fold 1) The first part was that it is realted to the wavelength of the light not the intensity 2) The second part was that light that also contains other, longer wavelengths, in addition to the blue wavelengths, don't do damage (or at least as much damage) as they don't keep making the eyes reset or something. Is there any truth to this? They seemed to think there was but I can't really find any sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrote...
|
|
|
3 years ago
1) The first part was that it is realted to the wavelength of the light not the intensity It is wavelength dependent, I agree. The bigger the wavelength, our eyes won't pickup on it, think of infrared red, whose wavelength between 0.65 microns to 20 microns. Our eyes can't see infrared, so if we were in a room of infrared lighting, regardless of the intensity, it wouldn't impact our eyesight. 2) The second part was that light that also contains other, longer wavelengths, in addition to the blue wavelengths, don't do damage (or at least as much damage) as they don't keep making the eyes reset or something. Good point, because the experiments use light from a specific wavelength. When viewing our phones at night, it's not just blue light that's registering, it's every color. I've never been a prominent of cells phones cause light pollution to our eyes, but I've always been against focusing on a screen for a prolonger period of time due to the reasons I mentioned earlier. In addition, I don't see those claims going against anything that we've discussed thus far in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quick Reply
