This is confusing to me, would love if someone helped elucidate the details. My previous understanding was that bluelight is harmful because bluelight visually interferes with the body's circadian rhythm by leading the body to believe it's still daytime when it may not be.
This article says that "any bluelight is bad", is that incorrect? I don't understand, isn't bluelight measured as light on the 450nm range of the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas visual sunlight ranges from 400-700nm? So, is the thesis that light at 450nm from the sun is only emitted when the sun is highest in the sky, for a few hours a day, whereas bluelight from screens is ever present—causing the circadian rhythm to go out of whack (?).
The article also states that blue light on any part of the body may cause mitochondrial damage. I wonder if the most proactive biohackers would be inclined to wear long-sleeves at non-peak hours to counter this problem. [0]
Maybe this is why Dave Asprey is seen always wearing his blue light blocking glasses, even during daylight hours.
I am also not so inclined to dismiss this data because it only addresses fruit flies. It seems natural to believe that the closer we get to following the circadian cycles we evolved alongside with, the more likely our bodies are to behave optimally. Sure, we may be more resilient to these types of stressors than fruit flies, but, we already know that obeying circadian cycles is a key component to achieving better health, and the work of this paper just seems to push that idea a bit further than we may have originally been lead to believe. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to guess about how these factors could affect us.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02934-5