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

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It is well known and was already scientifically proven that exposure to blue light has this effect and that the iPad has blue light to improve the brightness. This test was specifically designed to induce the results. If the goal was to be a first step using an extreme use case then they should have used a 150 Watt full spectrum reading lamp for the paper book scenario.

In recent years, some display designers began to strive for accurate color reproduction. I thought Apple was among them.

I am concerned that "research" like this, and the resulting hype, will result in it being difficult to get devices with accurate color being the default setting, or even available.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by meeera

Huh? Of course they didn't. Try reading for four hours on full brightness on default black-on-white, then try reading for 30-60 minutes on dim brightness with a sepia background or in night mode.

I think DuckieTigger means in their claims, not in actual fact.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think you'll find you're wrong. I suspect most people drastically dim their backlit screens for reading in darkness. Many even download apps for their phones/tablets that allow them to dim the screen even further than the built-in settings allow.

And in case you didn't notice, most people ARE questioning the methodology after reading the study.

Not me of course. I don't need to read it to know it's horsepoop.

I don't think most people know how to turn down the brightness or think about doing it.

Seriously.

I've set up tablets and phones for several friends and a year later I found they have not changed a single thing. They might have downloaded an app they really need and that's it. The lock screen, the wall papers, the icons and their locations, have stayed exactly the same. I don't know if they don't know how to change it or they just don't care.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

The report extrapolated the results from a scientific study of an extreme configuration of a single model of tablet to apply to not only all immediately pre-sleep reading via that model but all pre-sleep reading with any "light emitting" reading device. That makes the anecdotal, unscientific assumption that that model is representative of all "light emitting" reading devices.

A completely unwarranted conclusion IMHO.

The BBC leapt from that to: "E-books 'damage sleep and health,' doctors warn"

So, it is not only "light emitting" reading devices that are bad for pre-sleep reading, but electronic books themselves. I would call that egregious overstating.

The study specified light emitting devices. The researchers didn't write the headline, and the person who wrote the article probably didn't either. Don't make the mistake of damning them for the actions of a headline-writer.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

What have they actually measured, since other factors have been brought into play?
(For one, discomfort level.)

They measured that it took on average ten minutes longer to fall asleep, and that the melatonin cycle was disrupted, and so on. I don't need to list them because we've all read about it. Quibbles about "discomfort level" and brightness and so on can be dealt with in future studies.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Barty

I don't think most people know how to turn down the brightness or think about doing it.

Plus sales of the iPad mini, which people hold closer to their eyes than the iPad devices used in the study, and thus likely would have given even stronger findings, are exceeding full-sized iPad sales:

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/28/...pple-expected/

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It doesn't say anything that wasn't known beforehand . . .

So, all studies replicating prior findings get to be dismissed?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's all about bringing in the grant money.

So every scientific study since the grant system began (1950's?) can be dismissed?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Kinda like the way cyclamates were "demonstrated" to be unsafe for rat consumption:

No, because the cyclamate dose given the rats was, I believe, dozens of times higher than what people would get. Here the experiment involves people, not rats, and, while the dose might have been on the high side, there's also an argument that it was on the low side (given that the mini is held closer).

Also, those results weren't replicated, resulting in a new scientific consensus (which is why cyclamate sweetners are now legal in most countries).

I realize that there is such a thing as scientific fraud:

http://retractionwatch.com/

However, you don't discover it with the near-group-hate process going on in this thread.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

The study specified light emitting devices. The researchers didn't write the headline, and the person who wrote the article probably didn't either. Don't make the mistake of damning them for the actions of a headline-writer.

Yes but you can damn them for their own headlines.

The use of light-emitting electronic devices for reading, communication, and entertainment has greatly increased recently. We found that the use of these devices before bedtime prolongs the time it takes to fall asleep, delays the circadian clock, suppresses levels of the sleep-promoting hormone melatonin, reduces the amount and delays the timing of REM sleep, and reduces alertness the following morning. Use of light-emitting devices immediately before bedtime also increases alertness at that time, which may lead users to delay bedtime at home. Overall, we found that the use of portable light-emitting devices immediately before bedtime has biological effects that may perpetuate sleep deficiency and disrupt circadian rhythms, both of which can have adverse impacts on performance, health, and safety.

1) The definition of "immediately before bedtime" has been set at 4 hours before bedtime. That's absurd. When they perform scientific studies on the effects of eating before bedtime do you believe they make people eat for 4 continuous hours with only a 15 minute bio break?

2) They didn't find that portable light-emitting devices caused the biological effects. They only tested one device (iPad).

3) They only tested one extreme use case and extrapolated it to indicate all use cases. They might as well have bashed people over the heads with iPads and concluded that use of iPads can cause severe head trauma or even death.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

They measured that it took on average ten minutes longer to fall asleep, and that the melatonin cycle was disrupted, and so on. I don't need to list them because we've all read about it. Quibbles about "discomfort level" and brightness and so on can be dealt with in future studies.

A factor of 33 to 70 times brighter by 6 different illuminance measures is not a quibble.

The light levels should have been approximately matched, either by brightening the background or dimming the tablets.

Significance
The use of light-emitting electronic devices for reading, com-
munication, and entertainment has greatly increased recently.
We found that the use of these devices before bedtime pro-
longs the time it takes to fall asleep, delays the circadian clock,
suppresses levels of the sleep-promoting hormone melatonin,
reduces the amount and delays the timing of REM sleep, and
reduces alertness the following morning. Use of light-emitting
devices immediately before bedtime also increases alertness
at that time, which may lead users to delay bedtime at home.
Overall, we found that the use of portable light-emitting
devices immediately before bedtime has biological effects that
may perpetuate sleep deficiency and disrupt circadian rhythms,
both of which can have adverse impacts on performance, health,
and safety.

They did not find anything they claimed to find. The best they can claim is that use of light emitting readers berfore bedtime [B}might[/B] result in the above. There is a big difference between does and might. A factor of well over 30 increase in brightness hopelessly muddles drawing even a tentative conclusion. They could have matched the photopic lux and still have over 39% brighter melanopic lux. Which still leaves the possibility of recommending that the application or system have a "night mode" setting rather than recommending no reading with light emitting readers.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

The study specified light emitting devices. The researchers didn't write the headline, and the person who wrote the article probably didn't either. Don't make the mistake of damning them for the actions of a headline-writer.

I did not lump the overstating of the researchers with the overstating of the BBC article and I did not single out the article author. I did criticize the BBC.

I am sure there have been plenty of studies on the impact of headlines on what readers (as a whole) take away from an article, and I doubt that it has been shown to be negligible.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And do you know how expensive 2 500 watt light bulbs are to run? very expensive. Not worth the cost.

I don't know where you live, but where I live I pay a little bit under 11.7 cents per KWhr including tax and fees. So it costs 11.7 cents per hour to run those two 500 Watt bulbs. Or less than $15 per month to run them for 4 hours each day. Granted, it is a lot of juice when my whole household total only used 420 KWhr last month ( about 14 KWhr per day).

You change those 500 watt bulbs out for an array of fluorescent lights, mini-fluorescent lights (=old kind of energy saving bulbs) or led-lights (=new kind of even better energy saving bulbs) and it becomes very cheap to run (other than equipment cost).

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I think DuckieTigger means in their claims, not in actual fact.

Yes. In the study the iPads look really bad for reading. As much hype that this study got in multiple retellings (sometimes saying that iPads are bad for sleep, sometimes that any backlit device is bad for sleep) you ought to think that some tablet user, especially iPad users, are too scared to use it before bed now.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Barcey

1) The definition of "immediately before bedtime" has been set at 4 hours before bedtime. That's absurd. When they perform scientific studies on the effects of eating before bedtime do you believe they make people eat for 4 continuous hours with only a 15 minute bio break?

2) They didn't find that portable light-emitting devices caused the biological effects. They only tested one device (iPad).

3) They only tested one extreme use case and extrapolated it to indicate all use cases. They might as well have bashed people over the heads with iPads and concluded that use of iPads can cause severe head trauma or even death.

These are some of the quibbles I was talking about. They got a result in a special case. Now it's time to expand the trials.

I don't think you could get funding for the study of bashing people over the head with ipads.-)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Barty

I don't think most people know how to turn down the brightness or think about doing it.

Seriously.

I've set up tablets and phones for several friends and a year later I found they have not changed a single thing. They might have downloaded an app they really need and that's it. The lock screen, the wall papers, the icons and their locations, have stayed exactly the same. I don't know if they don't know how to change it or they just don't care.

I don't know a single person who reads books on their tablet/phone that doesn't quickly learn to dim the light for bedtime reading. So my experience is the complete opposite. I suspect reality is somewhere in the middle.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

A factor of 33 to 70 times brighter by 6 different illuminance measures is not a quibble.

The light levels should have been approximately matched, either by brightening the background or dimming the tablets.

They did not find anything they claimed to find. The best they can claim is that use of light emitting readers berfore bedtime [B}might[/B] result in the above. There is a big difference between does and might.

This is what I mean. Quibbles about the parameters of this experiment. They ran the tests they wanted to run. They got a result. They can change the parameters in subsequent experiments. Or someone else can. There are certainly enough people who think they could do it better.-)

[DuckieTigger]

Well, the article and study did have a good effect on me that I am very thankful for. It appears that too much blue light at bedtime or before is bad for sleep. I have checked my settings on my prefered ereader in bed - a PW1. Used to read at about light level 10 in bed. Turned it down to 0 (the lowest setting) and it works quite well there. It was still bright after a while and on the blueish side. Switched to phone (Note4 oled) with Kindle app - and that even turned down in night mode (white text on black) could have been darker. Further research from me revealed a very nasty effect of oled - and that is screen burn-in. It is beautiful, yes, especially since black is really black, but it is inferior to lcd with the comeback of burn-in.

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.