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

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

It's not the brightness, it's the color. Somewhere about 420 nanometers (can't remember exactly) disrupts your sleep's melatonin cycle. You can sleep, but an important part of it is lost.

So the solution would be to put a 420nm colored filter over the screen and all is good.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

So the solution would be to put a 420nm colored filter over the screen and all is good.

That's right. Some night shift workers are using glasses that do that.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

That's right. Some night shift workers are using glasses that do that.

Interesting, have to check that out - working nights myself. Even though I don't have a problem sleeping during the day.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Interesting, have to check that out - working nights myself. Even though I don't have a problem sleeping during the day.

It's not the sleep, it's the melatonin.-)

[leebase]

Originally Posted by meeera

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

Or even compared to how real people use ther iPads.

[ShellShock]

Originally Posted by leebase

Or even compared to how real people use ther iPads.

Quite. I used to read pbooks in bed, then changed to a front lit Kobo, now I use an IPad mini, set to night mode (white text on black) and dimmed to about 20%. With any of them, I soon drift off to sleep. Absolutely no problems sleeping for me.

[JSWolf]

Make me one of the test participants reading on an iPad and I'll tell them how it's really done, not how they have it setup to do it.

[bminata]

Ipads, in FULL BRIGHTNESS, in a DARK ROOM, for 4 HOURS??? All this proves is that some "researchers" are imbeciles in disguise.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by bminata

Ipads, in FULL BRIGHTNESS, in a DARK ROOM, for 4 HOURS??? All this proves is that some "researchers" are imbeciles in disguise.

First you have to show that there is an affect. That's what the current research shows. Then you can spend more time finding out what the thresholds are (not easy to do). For people who aren't researchers, let me explain something: you rarely get to the final result in one step.

Even though the research isn't complete, this information is still good to know. If you happen to have trouble falling asleep after reading on a tablet or laptop, then you have some idea why that might be so, and what you can do about it. Just because some people can fall asleep after using a dimmer device, and they assume that it hasn't affected their sleep, it doesn't make the research results rubbish.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rkomar

For people who aren't researchers, let me explain something: you rarely get to the final result in one step.

Then why do they so routinely publish "final result"-type findings after only one step? Why, in fact, publish ANY "findings" whatsoever if the research is incomplete? Why the definitive; "'DOES' damage" blah, blah blah? Why not something like; "preliminary findings suggest that <blah> CAN damage health/sleep?

They brought this on themselves. You can't have it both ways. Either the research is incomplete--in which no "findings" should be released (or at the very least, worded in such a way that clearly states that the findings are indeed preliminary)--or the research is complete and the findings should be formally presented. No ... the only "only the first step" defense doesn't wash.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No ... the only "only the first step" defense doesn't wash.

You got this all wrong. In this research they eliminated iPads from the list of sensible reading devices at night. Apple should sue them for lost sales from the iBook store due to this research. The game has only begun. Maybe next year there will be a new kind of night-reader out that comes with a wind-up music box to lull you to sleep faster once it detects you are laying down and want to go to sleep.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You got this all wrong. In this research they eliminated iPads from the list of sensible reading devices at night. Apple should sue them for lost sales from the iBook store due to this research. The game has only begun. Maybe next year there will be a new kind of night-reader out that comes with a wind-up music box to lull you to sleep faster once it detects you are laying down and want to go to sleep.

Will the music box be front- or back-lit?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by rkomar

First you have to show that there is an affect. That's what the current research shows. Then you can spend more time finding out what the thresholds are (not easy to do). For people who aren't researchers, let me explain something: you rarely get to the final result in one step.

Even though the research isn't complete, this information is still good to know. If you happen to have trouble falling asleep after reading on a tablet or laptop, then you have some idea why that might be so, and what you can do about it. Just because some people can fall asleep after using a dimmer device, and they assume that it hasn't affected their sleep, it doesn't make the research results rubbish.

What you write is true, but if you bring a multiplicity of other, stronger effects into play, you may not be observing what you think.

I doubt that I could endure 4 minutes looking at, much less trying to read on, and ipad at 100% in a dark room.

[JSWolf]

But nobody I know of would read in bed for 4 hours with an iPad on FULL brightness. That's just too bright. So that really is wrong. It should have been night mode or realistic settings and then the data would have been more accurate instead of plain wrong.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Then why do they so routinely publish "final result"-type findings after only one step? Why, in fact, publish ANY "findings" whatsoever if the research is incomplete? Why the definitive; "'DOES' damage" blah, blah blah? Why not something like; "preliminary findings suggest that <blah> CAN damage health/sleep?

They brought this on themselves. You can't have it both ways. Either the research is incomplete--in which no "findings" should be released (or at the very least, worded in such a way that clearly states that the findings are indeed preliminary)--or the research is complete and the findings should be formally presented. No ... the only "only the first step" defense doesn't wash.

All research is incomplete. Always has been and probably always will be.

This particular study has a number of strong faults and makes a probably mistaken or unwarranted conclusion, but it is not that bad. The news media are overstating far more than the scientists. Since you fell asleep reading the report, maybe you should give it another go and criticize what was actually written. There are plenty of low hanging fruit there.

There is nothing wrong with (correctly designed) incremental studies and (properly derived) incremental results. And they absolutely need to be published. The news media really do need to try to stop sensationally leaping to outrageous conclusions.