Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
You are letting yourself get confused by amateur fabricated "science", or grasping at something that suits your agenda.
The comparisons regarding the fovea only apply to looking directly a strong concentrated source of light, such as looking directly at the candle itself very close up or into a larger strong light such as a lamp. What has been described would apply, for a device example, if looking into a phone or tablet's camera's/torch high intensity flash LED.
Nothing to do with low level light emitting or reflective displays because they have comparatively large plane surfaces relatively evenly and lowly lit and in the cases of E Ink and LCD also diffused.
But like drowning men there are some who will hear nothing that is contrary to their claims of danger and will continue to try to convince people by quackery and fabricated "science" in order to support their argument. Nothing will change their minds but hopefully threads lead by a claim such the OP has stated will encourage those of more rational thought to question scaremongering claims as to the safety of displays.
|
Agenda? What the heck? An agenda about e-reader lighting? Weird.
Like you couldn't tell I simply had a question directed to someone who knows more than I, by, for example, that it ended in a question mark?
Nowhere did I say that LCDs are bad for eye health. To the contrary, I'm the poster child for LCDs not harming eyes, having started using CRTs extensively at work in the '70s, and still don't wear glasses.
Maybe, just maybe, I was interested in what someone more knowledgeable considers best practices for reading. Many of us like to know best practices (e.g., the popularity of cooking and home repair TV shows), even if we personally never get around to actually live up to them.