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

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's the stupidity of the test using an iPad at FULL brightness for 4 hours. That's just stupid.

The brightness has already been addressed in the thread -- a lot of people are what you call stupid, and some are apparently stupider, since they hold their device closer to their eyes than was done in the study.

But the 4 hours part may not been addressed before. From the study:

. . . the average teenager in the United States spends 7.5 h per day engaged in recreational media plus time spent on homework—which both occur in the late afternoon/evening, including the hour before bedtime (36), and which both involve exposure to light-emitting screens . . . the 4-h exposure interval used in this study is likely in the range of screen time exposure experienced by millions of Americans each evening.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Mainly because there IS a conspiracy. It's not grand, by any means, but there IS a strong desire by the status quo to prove either the inferiority and/or the danger of ereading and in ebooks in general.

First of all, the author who is most often quoted in the press, Charles Czeisler, is an Apple consultant. Is Apple part of this conspiracy? Perhaps you will say yes, citing the anti-trust case. But it's not plausible that Apple is anti-device.

Second, the plotters did a piss-poor job of organizing this alleged conspiracy against eReading, given that the study authors found the exact same spectral peak wavelength for eInk and dead-tree paper.

Third, it will be easy for Apple and competitors to address the concern, since at least one freeware author has already paved the way:

https://justgetflux.com/ios.html


P.S. What about the Paperwhite and similar? Are they more like a tablet, or paper/eInk? Now, that's not addressed in the study. I'm thinking the Paperwhite, and Kobo Glo, would be similar, in this respect, to conventional eInk, because the light waves getting to the reader's eyes are reflected back from an eInk display. But I could be wrong.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Barty

Honestly it's not unreasonable to think having light shone in your face before bed isn't good for your sleep.

Why?

Sometimes I'll take a nap with the bedside light full on, and my radio on its sound machine setting generating the sound of the oceanside. I just close my eyes, pretend that the light is the sun warm on my face, listen to the sound of the waves, and voila, I'm napping on a beach.

My only determinate for sleeping is how tired I am. The location, light and noise levels are immaterial.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Did you just ask why research being used to suggest real world implications might want to use real world conditions?

No, I did not.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

No, I did not.

You didn't ask why they would try to replicate real world conditions in an experiment?

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You didn't ask why they would try to replicate real world conditions in an experiment?

No, @arjaybe just said that replicating real world conditions "would be an untenable restriction to impose on experimenters"...which is an even bigger laugher.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You didn't ask why they would try to replicate real world conditions in an experiment?

I did say, "I don't think they were trying to replicate real world conditions. Why should they?" I'd still like to know that. I said, "I did not." to your question because if its assumptions about the researchers motives.

So, why should research replicate real world situations? Would that be all research, or only research involving ereaders?

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by GoSharks

No, @arjaybe just said that replicating real world conditions "would be an untenable restriction to impose on experimenters"...which is an even bigger laugher.

What's funny about it? Take your time.-)

[Lin2412]

I don't see how e-readers have been known as the ultimate eye nemesis. lol
The purpose of having the capability to adjust the brightness or having filter settings/applications on your phone is precisely for the ease of our eyes.
Also if it's the sleeping pattern people are worried about, can't we just add a filter to cancel the blue light?

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

What's funny about it? Take your time.-)

Takes no time... your statement was a non sequitur. I find most non sequiters to be humorous. Therefore I found your statement humorous. QED.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Next candidate my tablets (both with lcd, yay) - switched reading app to fbreader (calibre integration, automatic sync, customizeable colors). Changed settings around for night-mode with black background and dark red (no blue, no green, just pure red) text. Screen dimmed down a lot - and it is beautiful to read in bed. Feels even nicer to my eyes than the PW dimmed down as much as it goes. Added benefit of the red is the night vision not being destroyed and it is as far away from blue as possible. Even on my phone now for on the go I am leaving the night mode of fbreader on with red text.

Something like this?



With brightness set very low, this looks very good at night.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

So, why should research replicate real world situations? Would that be all research, or only research involving ereaders?

Not all research. Pure research, of course, should be exempt. But surely, any research which generates "real world" hypotheses and/or implications should at least flirt with real world conditions, no? What's the point otherwise? Reading is a real-world activity, done by real-world people on real-world devices after all.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not all research. Pure research, of course, should be exempt. But surely, any research which generates "real world" hypotheses and/or implications should at least flirt with real world conditions, no? What's the point otherwise? Reading is a real-world activity, done by real-world people on real-world devices after all.

I agree with you, and now that they've established a baseline they can do more experiments to refine the results. The alternative is to design one experiment that answers all questions at once.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by GoSharks

Takes no time... your statement was a non sequitur. I find most non sequiters to be humorous. Therefore I found your statement humorous. QED.

You have the advantage of me. Please explain the non-sequitur.

BTW, your syllogism is illogical.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Lin2412

I don't see how e-readers have been known as the ultimate eye nemesis. lol
The purpose of having the capability to adjust the brightness or having filter settings/applications on your phone is precisely for the ease of our eyes.
Also if it's the sleeping pattern people are worried about, can't we just add a filter to cancel the blue light?

It's just the latest scapegoat there. I can remember when I was told as a child not to sit too close to the TV because I'd hurt my eyes (because of the brightness of the screen).

[Lin2412]

Here's another article that still talks about the research from Dr Charles Czeisler.

A YouGov survey carried out earlier this year found 78 per cent of Britons are exposed to sleep-disruptive blue light from computer, mobile phone and tablet devices before going to bed.

Among 18 to 24-year-olds included in the 2149 adults questioned, this figure rose to an astonishing 91 per cent.