View Single Post
Old 01-06-2015, 10:34 PM   #8
SteveEisenberg
Grand Sorcerer
SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,435
Karma: 43514536
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
Nobody would read in a full dark room at full brightness.
The same light level was used for tablet reading and paper book reading. Because the sleep medicine docs, in their journal article, used the word "dim" to describe the room lighting, those who wish to disbelieve have an out. But the actual described ambient florescent lighting wasn't what the average person would call dark, or even dim. If it was, the experimental subjects would have refused to read the paper books.

I think a fairer (although hardly devastating) criticism is that the authors were engaging in spin when describing the ambient lighting as dim, perhaps to discourage focus on the role of the cool-white fluorescent lights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy4katz View Post
What report are you referring to? I would be interested in reading it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...90112.full.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...01418490SI.pdf
SteveEisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote