E-readers 'damage sleep and health,' doctors warn

[Halk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30574260

The article, however is not talking about electronic readers it's talking about using a tablet instead of an electronic reader.

It's a very badly written article.

"The researchers said other e-readers such as the Nook and Kindle Fire produced similar wavelengths of light and would have the same impact."

Some Nooks do not produce similar wavelengths of light.

[meeera]

I pulled the full paper: they were reading on an iPad for four hours before bedtime, in otherwise very dim room light. I can't find mention background colour settings, which one might think could be rather important - but note that they had the iPads on full brightness! For FOUR HOURS. A previous similar study used iPads on full brightness for two hours. (Who on earth reads on their iPad indoors in the dark with the brightness turned up to full?) They note themselves in the study limitations that the print-book 'control' group were only exposed to reflected "very dim light".

The results were a sleep onset delay of around ten minutes, and 11 minutes less REM sleep.

[cromag]

Yep, doesn't apply to me.

[pagepack]

Originally Posted by Halk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30574260

The article, however is not talking about electronic readers it's talking about using a tablet instead of an electronic reader.

It's a very badly written article.

"The researchers said other e-readers such as the Nook and Kindle Fire produced similar wavelengths of light and would have the same impact."

Some Nooks do not produce similar wavelengths of light.

I've emailed the BBC saying this exact same thing, asking that they rewrite the article to make clear the differencing between e-ink displays and tablets.

Sloppy journalism.

[DiapDealer]

Tried to read the article on my Nexus 7, but kept falling asleep in the middle.

[HappyMartin]

I read somewhere once that more doctors recommend camel than any other cigarette. I'll file this study with that claim.

[hola!claude]

It would be interesting to know if the paperwhite damages the sleep as well.

[GeoffC]

Nothing to do with 'royalties' paid by Penguin Press ..

Specifically mentions Light-Emitting Readers, so that will include the Kindle Paperwhite, which has only an intensity setting, not a colour change option.

Not too sure this is actually saying anything 'new' !

[meeera]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Specifically mentions Light-Emitting Readers, so that will include the Kindle Paperwhite, which has only an intensity setting, not a colour change option.

They only tested a full-brightness iPad. The results cannot be generalised to the Paperwhite or to other frontlit e-ink devices.

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

I read somewhere once that more doctors recommend camel than any other cigarette. I'll file this study with that claim.

Yes, good clean smoke without all that interfence from a filter!

[mr ploppy]

Check the footnotes of the original "research": "Dr. Czeisler received royalties from McGraw Hill, Penguin Press/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt"

And the research data: 12 people over 5 days.

[jbjb]

This research seems almost comically flawed.

From the paper:

During LE-eBook reading sessions, the light-emitting device was set to maximum brightness and placed in a stand that held it at a fixed angle. This stand was placed on a table directly in front of the individual at a 30- to 45-cm distance from their eyes. Participants were allowed to turn pages on the LE-eBook, but were asked not to hold it while reading or make any adjustments to the settings. During the printed book reading sessions, participants were allowed to hold the book at any desired distance from their eyes.

Apart from the obvious silliness of using the iPad at full brightness, if you're trying to isolate the differences between e-readers and paperbooks, why add all the physical constraints on distance, positioning etc. for the e-reader case but not for the paper book.

You could equally well conduct a study comparing the the use of a well-adjusted e-reader while lying in bed with reading a paper book lit by a kilowatt spotlight while hanging by one arm from the ceiling, and conclude that e-readers are better.

/JB

[fjtorres]

Here's a more reasonable report on the actual effect--lighting intensity resetting the body's internal clock--from 4 years ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/....gadgets.ipad/

More than ever, consumer electronics -- particularly laptops, smartphones and Apple's new iPad -- are shining bright light into our eyes until just moments before we doze off.
Now there's growing concern that these glowing gadgets may actually fool our brains into thinking it's daytime. Exposure can disturb sleep patterns and exacerbate insomnia, some sleep researchers said in interviews.
"Potentially, yes, if you're using [the iPad or a laptop] close to bedtime ... that light can be sufficiently stimulating to the brain to make it more awake and delay your ability to sleep," said Phyllis Zee, a neuroscience professor at Northwestern University and director of the school's Center for Sleep & Circadian Biology.
"And I think more importantly, it could also be sufficient to affect your circadian rhythm. This is the clock in your brain that determines when you sleep and when you wake up."
Such concerns are not entirely new: One sleep researcher said Thomas Edison created these problems when he invented the light bulb.

Our body cycles of activity and rest are driven by the day-night cycle and we have been extending the "day" part for millenia. But it is only recently that we have achieved lighting that actually mimics sunlight to the body's internal clock. The result is essentially jet lag.

It is a well-known effect due to *lighting* not iPads, ereaders, or TVs.

You can get the same result if you read off print with a sun-spectrum lamp or just play Monopoly every night under standard light bulbs.

Tying it to gadgets is just disingenuous spin, especially in a study funded by old-school dead tree pulp purveyors.

Next!

[Demingy]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Check the footnotes of the original "research": "Dr. Czeisler received royalties from McGraw Hill, Penguin Press/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt"

And the research data: 12 people over 5 days.

I'd be curious to see the difference in study design if these publishers decided to create their own lit e-reader or tablet.

[FacebookVirus]

Reads like a print journalism hit piece.