31–40 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not implausible. How many modern "ailments" are simply the result of not doing what our bodies were adapted to.
This is why I bought a squatty potty and make sure to walk for an hour most days. Physical evolution does not keep up so well with modern society's pace of change and understandings therein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-sightedness It is described here in the top section
Tentative evidence indicates that the risk of near-sightedness can be decreased by having young children spend more time outside.[4][7] So that's a very, very much weaker claim "time outside may affect ..." and acknowledges the role of genetics and other factors. Of those 2 references I looked at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5599950/ I declare I have no expertise in the field but also didn't find the…
Any explanation of myopia must explain why it is far more prevalent now. Genetics does not explain that.
There are whole companies dedicated to selling this, Google red light therapy and you'll find a few. Novothor is the gold standard for athletes at $100k/pop. I myself jerry-rigged my own comparable unit and bath in it everyday- I haven't noticed eyesight benefits but I'm convinced I feel healthier and stronger as a result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tentative evidence indicates that the risk of near-sightedness can be decreased by having young children spend more time outside.[4][7] So that's a very, very much weaker claim "time outside may affect ..." and acknowledges the role of genetics and other factors. Of those 2 references I looked at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5599950/ I declare I have no expertise in the field but also didn't find the…
When I last looked into it, it seemed they were much more sure. Perhaps Wikipedia editors wanted refs that were more tempered. Any explanation of myopia must explain why it is far more prevalent now. Genetics does not explain that.
(Now we've had the relevant part of the conversation will you please humour me as I whinge like a 3 y.o. about how much it s&%ts me on some of the days I can't see straight? Good. Thanks. As you were...)
Questions: (a) Does this study sound plausible? (b) Would staring at the correct red color on a monitor work? Or would that not work since monitor colors are generated by mixing R, G, and B pixels and therefore not a pure wavelength? (c) Would it be reasonable methodology to test one eye to see if it improves over the other eye?
(b) unlikely, monitors work by essentially filtering out undesired colors from white light. I don't believe that >650nm light is within the color gammut of monitors. That's quite a long wavelength and close to infrared. To give you an indication, the Helium Neon lasers which used to be very common in schools etc for laser demonstrations have a wavelength of 632nm. Even if the monitor could display this, the brightness would likely not be strong enough.
(c) Could be, but it might be quite annoying to do.
Related links: https://www.bulletproof.com/sleep/sleep-hacks/light-hacking-...
He talks about the red light idea there and the crazy laser idea I'm remembering I think was "low-level light therapy." Appears to be based on science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355185/pdf/nih...
Questions: (a) Does this study sound plausible? (b) Would staring at the correct red color on a monitor work? Or would that not work since monitor colors are generated by mixing R, G, and B pixels and therefore not a pure wavelength? (c) Would it be reasonable methodology to test one eye to see if it improves over the other eye?
Another question: (d) How much does the precise wavelength matter? The study used 670nm but also mentions the range 650-1000nm. Lots of red-light gadgets are available on Amazon but how do you verify the wavelength? I was thinking of an optical spectrum analyzer[1] but at $28,000 they are shockingly expensive. Even with raw LEDs bought from a reliable electronics distributor like Digi-Key, it would be nice to be able…
You can use a OSA, but yes they are expensive. Spectrometers are typically cheaper, but still expensive (you could go to a university optics group and ask them if they could measure it for you). That said if you buy from a reputable source you should get the right wavelength.
If you are trying this out be careful with the brightness.
Questions: (a) Does this study sound plausible? (b) Would staring at the correct red color on a monitor work? Or would that not work since monitor colors are generated by mixing R, G, and B pixels and therefore not a pure wavelength? (c) Would it be reasonable methodology to test one eye to see if it improves over the other eye?
Another question: (d) How much does the precise wavelength matter? The study used 670nm but also mentions the range 650-1000nm. Lots of red-light gadgets are available on Amazon but how do you verify the wavelength? I was thinking of an optical spectrum analyzer[1] but at $28,000 they are shockingly expensive. Even with raw LEDs bought from a reliable electronics distributor like Digi-Key, it would be nice to be able…
Questions: (a) Does this study sound plausible? (b) Would staring at the correct red color on a monitor work? Or would that not work since monitor colors are generated by mixing R, G, and B pixels and therefore not a pure wavelength? (c) Would it be reasonable methodology to test one eye to see if it improves over the other eye?
Another question: (d) How much does the precise wavelength matter? The study used 670nm but also mentions the range 650-1000nm. Lots of red-light gadgets are available on Amazon but how do you verify the wavelength? I was thinking of an optical spectrum analyzer[1] but at $28,000 they are shockingly expensive. Even with raw LEDs bought from a reliable electronics distributor like Digi-Key, it would be nice to be able…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another question: (d) How much does the precise wavelength matter? The study used 670nm but also mentions the range 650-1000nm. Lots of red-light gadgets are available on Amazon but how do you verify the wavelength? I was thinking of an optical spectrum analyzer[1] but at $28,000 they are shockingly expensive. Even with raw LEDs bought from a reliable electronics distributor like Digi-Key, it would be nice to be able…
Shouldn't it be quite cheap to determine the frequency using a prism, using the angle of refraction? I think you should be able to use known missing frequencies in sunlight to calibrate your set up. Back in a minute going for duckduckgo