Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Light is light.
The issue wouldn't be about LED light or polarized LCD light.
But it might be focal length.
Throughout most of history human vision was focused at a distance for most of the waking day. Craftmen might work at short or medium distances and clerics at short distances but the bulk of the population tended to see things afar.
Then books and craftmanship propagated and over thelast two centuries the use of glass, especially among the young, has propagated. Some is due to better diagnostics, better medicine, some is due to changed behavior, and assigning causality is far from certain.
The open question is how much is due to what.
|
That's all fair. I just take issue with the "
not enough data yet to say" crowd. There's
more than enough data (over more than enough time) on eyeballs, light, devices, and focal-length to "say." We don't need to wait decades more to determine whether or not "damage" is being done to eyes. The problem is that "saying it" (one way or the other) definitively/scientifically/medically is not something that's in either (commercial) side of the Damage Divide's best financial interest. Treating people's conditions and keeping more screens in front of more eyeballs puts a lot of food on a lot of tables.